6 ms·
It is odd to me that people care one iota about Ayn Rand the person. She was a novelist and philosopher, and so the best way to approach her is to read her wor
by grandalf 16y ago
It is odd to me that people care one iota about Ayn Rand the person. She was a novelist and philosopher, and so the best way to approach her is to read her works and think about them, not to try to read ancient and unreliable dish about her personal life.
Anyone who is fascinated by the sort of gossip that these biographers found (such as the idea that Frank was a wuss who didn't want to move to NY or that Rand was addicted to speed) would probably strongly prefer People magazine to any of Rand's works. Fortunately for them, many such magazines exist.
There is an odd tone of satisfaction in many reviews of Rand biographies... as if the writer feels somehow more empowered to critique Rand's ideas after learning about some personal foible or other than he/she did after reading (or attempting to read) one of her books.
- DenisM 16y agoGreat minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, mediocre minds discuss people.
- jamesbritt 16y ago"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, mediocre minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt.
- DenisM 16y agoAre you aware of the irony of what you just did?
- jamesbritt 16y agoYou do realize this can go on forever. :)
- DenisM 16y agoYes, that was not lost on me. I am however appalled at how many people chose to discuss attribution of the quote when the very quote itself instructs them not to. Reminds me of murderous zealots killing in the name of their merciful god; not in their savagery of course, but in the blinding irony of the situation.
- BrandonM 16y agoAre you aware that by not citing the author of a quote, you are denying her the title of "Great mind discussing an idea" and instead claiming it for yourself?
- grandalf 16y agoor... just sharing the idea and not muddling it up by involving the people aspect (who said it)
- DenisM 16y agoApparently that was too much to expect. Isn't it sad?
- pg 16y agoI think we can safely assume he's not trying to claim credit for such a commonly quoted passage. Incidentally, was Eleanor Roosevelt really the first to say this? None of the online attributions include a source.
- _delirium 16y agoWell, her circle was pretty influential, so I think it's interesting from a sociological and political perspective. I'm not that interested in the who-Rand-slept-with aspects, but things like "Rand had a close inner circle that Alan Greenspan was once part of" are interesting/useful to know.
- grandalf 16y agoThat is somewhat interesting in terms of the intellectual history... Nathanial Brandon: his writings most resemble modern psychology, and Rand was opposed to making her ideas sound like psychobabble... hence her use of "selfishness" rather than the looser (though more descriptive) "self-actualization". Greenspan: One simply cannot thrive in politics by discussing the morality of capitalism (other than by criticizing it). Greenspan omitted any mention of Rand from his most recent book, and all we have is an essay he wrote. Meanwhile he officially ate crow after the financial meltdown by making some remarks critical of capitalism. It would indeed be interesting to listen to tapes of their debates, but short of that I think it would be fairly difficult to learn much, since Greenspan himself is mum.
- JangoSteve 16y agoI consider my own interest to be a healthy curiosity about a person who had such an impact on my life. It's enough for me to read this article, but I don't think I'll ever read either full-blown biography.
- fexl 16y agoSure, but this particular article is far better than the trash you describe. It acknowledges some good ideas, notably "the delight that a human being ought to feel at watching another member of our species doing things superbly well." Recall the scene in Atlas Shrugged where Hugh Akston "heroically" prepares an excellent hamburger. :) Another good idea: "It's a world of cooperation and mutual benefit through the pursuit of self-interest, enabling satisfying lives not only for the Hank Reardens of the world but for factory workers." She opposed coercion, writing that "in a free society, all government financing would be voluntary." At the time she considered that an ideal whose time had not yet come, but I would argue with her, probably until 3:00 in the morning, that after 46 years it's high time we moved in that direction. We would have other disagreements as well. She thought that monopolies of force were needed to avoid anarchic carnage, but unfortunately anarchic carnage was precisely what force monopolies themselves delivered throughout the 20th century. Of course Ayn Rand had her annoying traits, habits, and foibles, but I've read "The Letters of Ayn Rand" and seen plenty of endearing personal qualities as well. But she hated collectivism with a vitriolic passion, having seen its murderous effect on the people of her native Russia.
- grandalf 16y agoThose are good points. I don't think those were pointed out in the essay, however. I advocate reading her writings and learning from them.
- fexl 16y agoWell, the first two points are direct quotes from the essay, but I did add a few more points from other sources. To those who cannot stomach Ayn Rand, allow me to summarize the high points which I have adopted for myself: 1. I can deal with reality effectively through the use of reason and conceptual thought. 2. I should interact with other people only on a voluntary basis, without initiating force or aggression against them. 3. I should seek my own health, wealth, happiness, and fulfillment. My success depends not only on my own productive abilities, but also my ability to engage with other people in mutually beneficial ways.
- lolcraft 16y agoIt is odd to me that people care one iota about Ayn Rand the person. I'm not convinced that the ethics of any philosopher, a matter of praxis by definition, should be considered strictly apart from the values which that philosopher really acted by (as this article portrays). Not following your own ethics seems as dishonest as openly proclaiming "do what I say, not what I do", as dishonest as an evolutionary biologist advocating creationism in their free time. Because of this, IMO the article does not incur in ad hominem for presenting Rand's life.
- grandalf 16y agoWould you expect Beethoven to be able to pick up a violin and deliver a top notch rendition of one of his concertos for violin?
- wazoox 16y agoThat was actually the case, so the example is particularly wrong. That doesn't change the fact that living by your own teaching is the basic of a true philosopher (See Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Kierkegaard...). Rand was a wingnut, not a philosopher.
- grandalf 16y agoTrolling aside, how would one of the others live by their philosophy? What evidence do you have that they did other than hero worship?
- wazoox 16y agoPlato spend decades trying to create the real "Philosopher king" with Dionysius I, then Dion, last Dionysius II); Descartes spent his life in science made possible by his philosophy; Kant life is known well enough and is a good story to know (he was late for his daily walk once in his life, because he has heard of the french Revolution) and so his Kierkegaard (the story of the love of his life is interesting enough to be the subject of many books).
- Estragon 16y agoAs the review said, she regarded her life as an expression of her philosophy. If her life was a mess as a direct result of her philosophy (and the matter with Branden certainly counts as one such mess) that is highly relevant to assessing her philosophy as a way of living.
- barmstrong 16y agoMy thoughts on the whole article: "nobody is perfect". If you have a good idea, and try your best at it (and don't get all the way there), it doesn't make it any less of a good idea. We all need an ideal to strive for.
- scott_s 16y agoI read "Ayn Rand and the World She Made." I found it fascinating. I don't like her philosophy, but she's a fascinating person. She was extraordinarily driven, worked damned hard, and eventually succeeded by even her own standards. Part of the fascination for me is finding out: what were her motivations? What drives a person to work like this? And, since I personally don't like her philosophy and find her self-described followers unsettling, what lead to that? I don't disagree with some of her basic premises (the importance of rationality), but I disagree with where she often ends up. Why is that? I got an answer from the book. I think this is different from wanting to read People magazine, but maybe you disagree.
- grandalf 16y agoInteresting. I'd be curious to hear more about how/whether your take on her ideas was altered after reading the bio.