Hi Clark,
You seem to know a lot about Rand for someone who was never formally exposed
to her writings in school.
> As a religious skeptic, I have no problem with Ayn Rand >being an
atheist. I don't believe human beings have to have >a spiritual life in
order to be complete.
I think I may have been the one who brought up her atheism, but I did not
mean to imply that being an atheist means that someone is not "complete." I
only meant that by eliminating the factor of many who believe in a higher
power from her precepts, she may be coming up short. Whether one believes
or not is not the point. The fact is that many on this earth do believe in
some higher power (as unscientific as that may be) whether it be God,
Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, Jesus, Don Juan or whomever. If she convienently
leaves that fact out of her precepts, or if her philosophy cannot encompass
it, then it seems to me that she comes up a bit short for not being truly
"universal."
> Many scholars question whether Rand had any real ideas of >her own. She
would like to have been considered a >philosopher, but she is not accepted
as one >by philosophical academics. Her ideas were mostly culled >from
Nietzsche and the only thing new about these ideas >was her re-naming them.
I truly don't know what the academics think, but is it possible that Rand
was so "new" and still current back when we were learning about her that she
may have not yet had the time to be considered in a longer perspective like
Nietzsche or some of the other 19th century philosophers that were standard
fare for us in college?
> My undergraduate degree is in English Literature, and Ayn >Rand was never
taught at either UCLA or Boston University >where I went to school. None of
my friends who are English >professors have ever taken and would not give a
class that >included the novels of Ayn Rand. As an author, she is just >not
taken that seriously.
Hmmm, the fact that those two schools did not pay attention to her is not
proof to me that she was not to be taken seriously. I went to a high school
that has ranked in the top 10 of the U.S. for 38 years and they certainly
found her worthy of study. My university was less illustrious than BU and
UCLA but they also incorporated her into the standard curriculum. Maybe
there was a prejudice against her in some academic circles because she was
annoyingly embraced by the pro-capitalist sector or was seemingly
"politically incorrect" in a literal sense?
> In Ayn Rand's case, from all acounts, her personal life was >a disaster,
and very often, the lives of those around her were >also made disastrous.
Well, now, isn't that true of a lot of the greats?
> She was the head of a cult with the typical dynamic of any >cult: she
enjoyed the sexual favors of a number of young, >male acolytes and
excommunicated anyone who defied her >or questioned the principles of
Objectivism. Her ruthless >self-promotion, lust for power and unmitigated
greed were >her complete undoing and all of her personal relationships >were
hopelessly troubled.
Wow, where did you learn this? I'm not challenging you - just am curious.
I've heard that there is a sort of Rand cult following that is pretty weird,
but I always thought it stemmed from others who hung around her and are
trying to hang onto some vicarious power from having known her. Sounds like
some losers to me.
> She turned on the psychologist Nathaniel Brandon after he >left her and
continued to battle him for years afterwards as >the ultimate woman scorned.
Brandon wrote about it in a >fascinating book which excoriates his former
mentor. Also >interesting is a book called THE CULT OF AYN RAND
> which any serious Rand devotee should read to see what >the actual results
of "objectivism" are as practiced by its >originator.
I thought Brandon was the one carrying on her torch - the Chief Cultist, so
to speak, but I may be wrong. Woman scorned? So what else is new? ;-)
> The most dangerous idea that Rand promotes is the one >that some of us are
superior to the rest of the humans -- >we're just waiting for John Galt to
gather us up with all the >other homo superiors. This is an appealing idea
for people >who have been marginalized, or feel as if they are, which is
>why Ayn Rand has such a strong homosexual following.
Her implication that some people are superior is what ultimately turns me
off. But I am not following how this would lead people who feel
marginalized to embrace her.
> Frank Lloyd Wright was an undeniable genius, but he had >his own cult and
his own behavior was shamelessly amoral. >End result was a life wrought
with sensational tragedies. It >reminds me of Joni talking about how all
her artistic heroes, >Picasso and Miles Davis among them, were monsters.
But there are also moral people who also live lives wrought with sensational
tragedies. Maybe the core problem is that when people let themselves become
a cult figure, the complications set in.
> In the case of Ayn Rand, you see someone
> who lives out the philosophy she espouses and the result is >disastrous
both for herself, the people around her, the >people she names in the HUAC
hearings. She was the >ultimate narcissist who treated all others as
objects
> for her own manipulation. Imagine what kind of f*cked up >world we would
have if everybody behaved the same way.
I think she may have had some good ideas but no mortal could ever live the
pure objectivist life in reality. It's too bad she could not have learned
from her own human complications and tragedies and perhaps further evolved
her philosophy in a more realistic way.
> All service may be self-serving, all actions for others are >done for
ourselves, but there is total selfishness and there >is moral, considerate
selfishness which recognizes that all >of us are embedded in the same social
context, and that our >interactions should be mutually fulfilling and >never
exploitive. Someone else on this list >already said >something which is so
true: the world need as much love >and compassion as we can all muster.
Maybe she was too much head and not enough heart.
Kakki
