Ayn Rand’s books are more or less both cold-hearted and poorly written. They are cold-hearted because they promote the idea that there is no such thing as true love for another human being – love, in its purest form (according to Rand), is the love of oneself. Her writing is also cold-hearted for its lack of sympathy for the miserable man in today’s society who knows not how to forge a meaningful existence. Objectivism, Rand’s philosophy, holds that there are objective principles that rule the universe and that the few people who understand and take advantage of these principles are, essentially, the masters of the world – and according to Objectivism they deserve their status. Rand’s books are poorly written in that characters often spew excessive monologues regarding the nature of their activities and why these activities are justified by the objective natural world. The books lack consistency, really. And you can pretty accurately predict the plot of any of her other books if you’ve read one.
In spite of all of this, reading Rand for the first time was refreshing. I started with The Fountainhead, one of her more celebrated pieces of fiction. I’ve only recently realized why I was able to finish it, and that’s what I’m really writing about. In positing the virtue of selfishness, Rand also affirms the beauty of the independent spirit and the reservoir of physical and mental strength that the human race has the ability to tap. It’s not often that you come across someone who espouses such ideas. As a part of the Christian community, in which I resided for many years, I was repeatedly told to use the strength that I could find in Jesus to do great things for his kingdom. And during my first semester of college, most of my courses had something to do with sociology. Generally speaking, these courses are concerned with finding the reasons behind why groups of people do what they do, and usually the results are a little disheartening. When studying sociology, one always seems to come to the conclusion that a person’s past completely determines his/her present. And to a great extent, that’s true. But in both my time as a Christian and my time at College Park, I felt bound to something, whether it was my past or an unseen protector who wouldn’t allow me to use my own strength. And Rand presented the exotic alternative: I take responsibility for realizing my full potential. I still appreciate the beauty of such a philosophy, even if it is self-centered and morose.
Feel free to comment!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That was beautifully written & I need to know what major you are! Cause if it's not English or something related to Literature, then that would be a tragedy! I've never read a Rand book but I've heard they're intriguing!
ReplyDeletep.s. I didn't put my name but this is Whitney!
ReplyDeleteHey this is Liz Cunningham.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your views on Rand. As much as I can't stand her views, I still love The Fountainhead. One of my favorite books. Maybe it's because it really is such a selfish way to look at things. Or maybe it's because it is so brutally honest. I'm not sure.
I enjoyed this entry. I'll be coming back in the future to read some more!
You read that shit?
ReplyDeleteSaid the girl who's never read it. I've just heard such bad reviews, and the books are so big...
Selfishness, though: as a Christian I always hated that Taurus is supposedly a self-centered sign. I don't know why, nobody ever explicitly told me that I was a piece of shit without Jesus. Maybe it has more to do with being socialized as a girl - for a girl, being called selfish is like being called worthless. But then, long story short, I got over it. I figure if we weren't inherently self-centered, our brains would be floating around in the air mingling with other brains. So there. XD
-need I say Rebecca
Ah, Ayn Rand. Transcendentalism on crack. It dost not please me. - Lindsey
ReplyDeleteInteresting stuff. If you are interested in Rand stuff, regardless of whether or not you particularly think it's well written you should read The Anthem. It's really short, and an interesting idea. Overall, she's kind of a dick in that she has complete belief that people are inherently selfish. However, like you, I think it's actually a great thing to think of people as being capable of individually achieving what they want without something outside doing it for them.
ReplyDelete-Jon
i'm not gunna lie, some of this goes over my head because words+me=not smart... but i have something related to this that i looked at today.
ReplyDeletein my social psychology class, we're learning about altruism. and yes, the results of studies have been disheartening on people's willingness to help others. beyond that, there are theories upon theories about altruism being all about benefitting oneself (reputation, they'll help you later on in some way, survival, pass on genes and many other selfish reasons) and only about "one way" that people help others without any self-concern and that's when they have empathy.
anyways, sorry if that sounds confusing...but it got me thinking in terms of my life. i find my self desiring to do what the Bible says in loving others and doing good deeds so that God may be glorified. although that is the goal, i catch myself finding that is not always the reason. sometimes, it's hard to have true empathy and then carry out an action with the sole purpose of glorifying God in helping another... selfish desires sort of creep up on me, which is why i need Jesus.
btw, be my blog friend! http://love4humanity.blogspot.com/
you have inspired me to finally make a new entry soon.
--Megan
I do think that Rand is right in a way. I've seen plenty of young children snatch away a toy from a playmate. To me, that says that we are born selfish and we have to be taught to share.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the motivation behind sharing is that it causes less fights and then everyone gets a chance to play with a toy, talk or have a piece of a candy. Basically, we are born selfish and remain selfish we just learn that being out-right selfish is wrong. So, the whole 'you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours' idea doesn't seem that far fetched to me.
I'll also, agree that being selfish can get you far in life. Not many people will like you but, you will get what you want. Does this mean I condone it? No.
And that's because I think that you limit your success by being selfish. Working with others allows humans to realize things that they wouldn't be able to do on their own. So, you can get ahead in this world by being selfish but, it puts a cap on what you could achieve.
The part about the past determining the rest of one's life is something that I wrote about in one of my recent Notes on Facebook.
In the note I talked about wanting permanence but, then after some thought I realized that I wasn't looking for permanence. I was looking for thing that I had lost, or never had, in the past.
I want to make Baton Rouge my home which is something I don't really have because A) I moved around a lot and B)my parents are divorced. There are a few other things that go with making Baton Rouge my home and I realized that achieving these things meant a lot to me. Now, wanting a home town isn't so unusual and neither is something like hoping I'll find my soul mate soon. In fact, I would say it's pretty typical. However, I was letting this desire become my prerogative. As much as I want those things I probably won't have any of them till my Senior year if not later. The thought that I would go nearly 4 more years without 'permanence' hit me hard.
But why? Why does it bother me so much? I'm 18? Why would I want those things so badly and want them right now?
Well, it's because I'm trying to make up for something. Trying to fill in that hole. Now, this is something I read about in a book on Freud...the title was along the lines of 'Freud for the 21st century' or something like that...and it basically went over the validity of his ideas. Now, we all know he had some far-fetched ideas but, one of the things he talked about was that humans constantly try to replay events over and over in an attempt to fix them. A woman who keeps dating the same kind of man is trying to recreate the same situation in hopes that she will 'fix' it.
This makes sense to me. Freud takes it a step further and says something about her having issues with her father. This could be true but, that doesn't mean it's why she does the same thing over and over again.
Now, not every one repeats events like the woman in my example does. I think a lot of couples do it when they have the same argument over and over again. Some arguments will be had over and over again but, lets face it if you don't solve it at some point then you can never move on. I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where I'm still arguing about the same thing I did last year. In fact, I've dealt with people who want to rehash the same old crap all the time and this has led me to flat out not talk to them or ignore them when they get on the subject. Oddly enough, I'm just not the type of person who likes to argue all the time. I enjoy small debates and I do have strong opinions but, I often get tired of talking about them. This really showed when I was in English class and had to debate the meaning of a text. After the first few times I realized that when it comes to analyzing text, every single person has a different opinion and it usually is valid. Because it's an interpretation! It's no way precise.
And that is what psychology and sociology are; imprecise. There are a million reasons why people do things the way they do. There are several different reasons why I want 'permanence'. (And i'm sorry this is so long.)
Of course, Rand is right but, she is equally wrong as well. There is no one answer for why people do what they do. That's something psychologists realized a while back. In the same way that one can't just dismiss one interpretation of a text, one cannot dismiss one explanation for human behavior.
Which ties back into the idea that we need to work together because it's only when you combine ideas that you can get any real idea of the true meaning behind a piece of text or the reason behind a person's actions.
WHEW DONE!
--Brittany N. Pritchard
Do you recommend I read a Rand book, and if so which one?
ReplyDeleteAlright couple of comments -
ReplyDeleteYup, I'm an English major.
I've read The Fountainhead, Anthem, and Atlas Shrugged, all by Rand.
I am not touching the psych/socy altruism stuff right now lol.
And would I recommend you read a book by Rand? Maybe - you'll need some patience to deal with the sometimes derivative writing style and a moderate interest in philosophy, but there's a fair chance you find her refreshing. I'd recommend The Fountainhead, simply because Anthem feels a like a stripped down 1984 with objectivist themes and Atlas Shrugged becomes nearly unbearable once you've figured out all the plot twists before they happen. And because I like Howard Roark, the hero, of sorts, of The Fountainhead.
I am in the middle of "Atlas Shrugged". A little past actually. It's such a long book I am loving it. Even the monologues.
ReplyDeleteI think people get tired of reading those monologues because people don't usually talk like Rand's characters. however, I admire all of her character's because of their strength.
I am sooo mad that you read the books before I did, but at the same time I am happy someone else has read her books. It seems like every person I meet who knows of her has an opinion, but has never read anything by her.
At least, you have read her books so we know that you're not just saying a whole bunch of recycled BS.
What I like thus far in Ayn Rand's books is her self-determinist kind of view. Don't let others slow you down, kind of thing. However, I don't think she promotes selfishness.
I think she speaks more of working hard and earning what you want. Never taking more, never stealing, because that isn't something you earned. At least, that is what I think her opinion is based on Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart.
Think about it, if everyone did the best they could and never expected anything that wasn't theirs, it would solve a lot of the world's problems.
As far as love, I don't think she is saying you can't love unselfishly. Rearden when he first sees Dagny falls in love with her instantly. Once he learns who she is he just wants her more. This is Rand demonstrating that you should love a person for who he or she is. For her or his virtues. Never demand anything more and never expect sacrifice.
That is how I read it. To me that makes it beautiful.
And hell, clearly there are times when it might be ok to sacrifice. As when Rearden signs over the rights to his metal to save Dagny's reputation. But he doesn't do it because she asks....he does it because he loves her.
lol....and this actually ties in really well with a recent book on virtues that I read that says, or at least as i take it to mean, morals are the guidelines for how to act when you don't love somebody.
-Brittany