Why are there no old Randians?

Its easy to sell your soul to an ideology when you have few responsibilities. Then your kid is diagnosed with learning disabilities, your mom develops dementia, and your brother loses his job, and all of a sudden the ideology (whatever it may be) fails you.

I've always wished that we could put all the Randies in a colony far off somewhere, where they could play out their heroic self-interest without afflicting the rest of us.

How much attention should ever be paid to someone like Rand who gives every appearance of being profoundly screwed up, both through her writings and the evidence of her life? She may have made a few interesting observations about life, but so do folks with bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia and a variety of other mental and emotional disorders.

I mean, when you strip away the intellectual veneer, is there anything more to Rand's philosophy than saying "The way you think and feel about yourself and the world at the most narcissistic point of adolescence, is the way you should always think and feel"?

Mike

Alan Greenspan's system before it made him sit back and watch as our economy imploded.

You'll need to connect the dots better than that before you can connect Rand to the current economic fiasco TTT. Greenspan sold out to conventional money pump economics years ago....I'm sure Rand wouldn't have approved.

A is A.

I have to say that this doesn't match my experience of Randians at all -- the devotees I've met have been middle-aged and older white men with a nasty misogynist streak -- either single, multiply divorced, or unhappily married. I can think of one friend who is fond of her and is under 30 -- and that's mostly because he doesn't actually understand what he's read.

Like the totalitarians she opposed, Rand demanded cult-like total conformity with her entire belief system, and sought to turn Judeo-Christian morality on its head. While Rand's work has an energizing effect on people, it also has a negative effect on people's personalities, making them unpleasant, intense, rude, and generally unsmiling. Unfortunately one finds these qualities among many libertarians, a large number of whom seem to have had some history of reading Rand. There's even a facebook group called "Reading Ayn Rand Turned Me Into An A**hole for a Month."

We Jews are interesting -- when people leave the fold they often channel a messianic impulse into a new belief system that succeeds in converting a lot of people but results in utter disaster (Marx, many cult leaders, Milton Friedman, etc.)

I can relate to this; I read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, and The Virtue of Selfishness (in that order) between 8th and 10th grade, and it made perfect sense to this 13-15 year old, except for her total rejection of Christianity, which is why I ultimately moved on. I realized that Rand herself wouldn't acknowledge the legitimacy of a "Christian Objectivist," so why bother signing on to her manifesto when it could have very easily been me at the business end of Dagny Taggart's gun? After the fog cleared, I realized throughout her books, she justified rape and murder in the name of her "enlightened self-interest," and I also realized that any point of substance she made in the 1,083 pages of Shrugged was made just as strongly in the ~120 pages of Anthem, only without all the self-important puffery and speechifying of the "characters" (how long is Galt's on-air monologue, again? I sometimes wonder if right-wing talk radio wasn't eerily prefigured there).

What disturbed me even more later was encountering Christians who seemed to take what she said uncritically, and who simply disregarded her loathing of Christianity -- "laissez-faire cafeteria capitalists," we might call them.

Now, at 32, I mostly pity her.

That said, here in a very, very blue college town, the only Randians one finds are over 70.

Richard

The only interesting question about Ayn Rand is, Which does she suck at more: writing, philosophizing, or influencing economists?

Ayn is a Hebrew form of Ann (Samuel's mother was Hannah you may recall) meaning "favored grace" -- lets not get too flippant in our deprecating humor shall we? A stumbling block for many persecuted persons is their habituated coping mechanisms based in an unnatural solitude, and ascribe it as a meritorious connatural second nature of virtues/morals. Ms Rand's warped philosophy of objectivism was surely a rebellion against the dehumanizing tyranny of collectivism (which her family of origin experienced in turn of the century St Petersburg, Leningrad, now St Peterburg again).

Perhaps we can hope that at the pearly gates, St Peter put her (and Lenin) straight? Schopenhauer befell the same temptation, recognizing only a numinous goodness in music, and a recourse to eastern concepts of renunciation/nirvana, that all other striving was meaningless suffering. Their error is a too-narrow experience of goodness, similar to Michel Foucault's pursuit of pleasure as the defining trait of human transcendence. This sadly may not be of their own choosing - an experience of truely objective metaphysical truth may necessitate a gift of Divine revelation to help one relinquish mistaken second nature habits and explore the mystery of phenomenological personalism's elevation of the desire for truth above mere mind-body dichotomy - to a sythesis in the soul... an examination of conscience, a renunciation of self [ Thomism's "we can't not know -- synderesis is ineradicable and indefectible" but one can fool oneself mightily "Unfortunately, such false beliefs are not self-correcting, because they will seem to be confirmed by experience." see http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/ti04/budz.htm ]

In as far as Randians conceive of licit or valid government, they concede only to one's right to self-government, which certainly is incomplete for rights imply responsibility (the golden rule, one has a right to a responsible mother and father at minimum otherwise one's existence is in mortal jeopardy!) however if it were within our powers to perfect ourselves quickly, we would not need others to be responsible for training us in self-governing perfection. Christian humanists embrace that principle in the moral life, as Kierkegard recognised the aesthetic as the first sign of the proper order of created things - beauty as the path to goodness and truth.

Her Neitzschean-turn comes in a sense of a triumph of the will - the failure to concede a greater "object" than the aesthetic of the mere material world (to explore a pre-existing goodness in the order of things, and where (or who) that may be - the Logos). I see Ms Rand exhibiting traits of Asperger's Syndrome, where she was congenitally unable to empathize, but learnt to cope without needing to. She was devastated to learn of the inconstancy and infidelity of her young lover late in life, a compunction that may have unsettled much of her "settled" worldview, for she had no means to explain that such demons prowl the world in pursuit of the ruin of souls!

As we age we learn that we have lost that which is most precious, in the inconstancy we have exhibited to those things we hold in highest esteem (and He who is the source of all that is beautiful good and true). Our craven nature is not our highest nature, and perhaps too late we learn we cannot make amends, atonement is the work of the Lord and purgatory his merciful credit union, where we may avail ourselves in the afterlife of those graces we declined in this earthly life deposited by the prayers offered for our sake by those we left behind, the generations that God in his infinite wisdom caused to be conceived between lovers and raised by sinners. November is the month of All Souls, a great time to revisit certain epitaphs erected to modern man's fallen nature, and pray that the temporal consequences of our cumulative errors may not be counted against us...

In other words, Rand (and Libertarianism) stand opposed to emotional maturity.

It is wrong to conflate Rand and Libertarianism, Rand hated libertarianism and not all libertarians find her inspiring.

For the same reason there are no old Dungeons and Dragons players - eventually they find someone to date and what with the new experience of intimate human contact and socialization, their previous hobby sort of falls by the wayside.

Except, as Sharon noted above, when two hobbyists hook up and reinforce each other.

Above was me.

Isn't there some kind of saying about libertarianism being the ideal governing philosophy for a society of childless immortals?

In my first or second year of law school, around age 22-23, I was spouting off some Rand-like values and beliefs about acting in self-interest, survival of the fittest and all that nonsense. My room-mate gave me a copy of Atlas Shrugged to read over Christmas break.

I made it about halfway through and realized, in disgust, that I really DID NOT hold those beliefs at all. Quit reading it and never finished. I later tried again to read Atlas Shrugged but couldn't make it any farther the second time.

Any human with a conscience and a moral compass won't buy into the Randian philosophy.

I am SO much happier now, with very little to show for it, than I was at that time when all I was interested in was making lots of money.

I must, once again, correct some notions about the players of Dungeons & Dragons. I'm 35, married, have a 3-year-old son, and I play D&D regularly. Most of the people I play with are in similar situations. While many people did stop playing Dungeons & Dragons after its fadish burst of mainstream popularity in the mid-1980's, I think D&D's retention rate is reasonably high. I bet proportionally more people stop playing soccer when they "grow up" than stop playing Dungeons & Dragons. My role-playing hobby continued merrily through my first kiss, my first girlfriend, my wedding, the birth of my son, and numerous other markers of social maturity. And none of the people involved in those milestones were gamers. D&D it isn't something I do because I don't have other options. Of course, the way I play D&D now is different than when I played when I was 8, just as the books I read are different now. But Dungeons & Dragons was rich enough to "bring with me" into maturity.

From the discussion here, it seems that Randian philosophy has a harder time surviving the transition to full adulthood, because unlike D&D, it seems incompatible with the feeling of compassion and a sense of responsibility towards others. But perhaps there are some things there worth carrying forward; I don't know her work well enough to say.

Shorter version: Please don't use Dungeons & Dragons as shorthand for social ineptitude or something that all mature people ought to throw aside.

It is wrong to conflate Rand and Libertarianism, Rand hated libertarianism and not all libertarians find her inspiring.

Which I note is not a denial of the point....

Allen: "I have to say that this doesn't match my experience of Randians at all -- the devotees I've met have been middle-aged and older white men with a nasty misogynist streak -- either single, multiply divorced, or unhappily married. I can think of one friend who is fond of her and is under 30 -- and that's mostly because he doesn't actually understand what he's read."

Larry: "Once you have children you realize why there are no children in Rand's novels. If her philosophy was to be universally adopted it would mean the end of the human race within a generation."

I read Rand's Atlas Shrugged at 17, in my senior year of high school, for my literature class. I found her repulsive from the get-go. My teacher, a married childless guy in his 40s (and somewhat notorious for going after his female students) was a big fan. So much for young vs. old.

Somebody above mentioned how the sex scenes are laughable. This is true. What makes them double-cringeworthy is the fact that they are cheesy romance-novel eroticized rape scenes; the acts themselves take less than two minutes (if memory serves) and glorify male sexual aggression of the more destructive sort. Nobody ever got pregnant in "Atlas", though we are not treated to information about the characters' contraceptive practices or preferences.

I will never understand how anyone who has reached the age of reason and judgment can claim to be a fan of hers and still be received in respectable society. It should be more acceptable to fart in public.

forestwalker - so true and tenured, no less!

What are some differences between ol' Freddie Nietzsche and little Alissa Rosenbaum?
1) She tried to plagarize him - pure and simple, but she did not have the intellectual *gravitas* to fully understand the concept of the 'Ubermensch'; i.e. as a aristocracy based on the qualiites of warrior-strength and artistic-creativity. [Note that what she could not understand, she rejected with an attitude of undeserved superiority]
2) He was a philosopher, she a comic book writer.
3) He went bat-sh*t crazy as an adult, she was never sane.
4) Obviously he never claimed any affinity with Aristotle, especially the parts about the Golden Mean and the value of the goal of Harmony. She thought that 'Reason' was a single, "objective" path that lead to a singular destination.

Bottomline and punchline:
NO form of representative democracy could be based on either Nietzche or Rand.

Why are there no old Randians?

Simple. We read and get into her when we are young, then move on. Ayn Rand is a start point, not the sum all of libertarianism.

"It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand" by Jerome Tucille

ALTM,

No need to buy the back issue. I think this is to what you refer.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

There are lots of "old Randians" around, but not visible to you, and that is the point you silly beliefnet spiritualist. The term Randian is laughable really, and you will obviously never quite get the joke. Objectivism is for real and it is a sublime way to lead your life. The proof is in the pudding. I am there. You do not know that I am. And I could not care less whether you know it or not.

Concerning Rothbard and Rand, Rothbard wrote a satire on her, title "Mozart was a Red." The play is at http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html
and a rather crude video of it is at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5404826610265339909&hl=en#

BTW ... Ms. Dalmia is rather typical of those attracted - a young person who considers her traditions to be "tyrannical".

Alisia Rosenbaum despised everything Russian, to the point of nihlism. This truly is a pathetic existence.

I was a semi-Randian once. Then I turned 22 (or was it 25?) and outgrew it. It's really a cartoonish way of viewing the world, everyone self-interested, fully capable robots. Isn't it interesting that there are no children in Atlas Shrugged?

First of all, "Randian" and other similar smear words telegraph your fear and loathing embarrassingly in the clear. I suggest you desist. The correct word is "Objectivists." To put it into perspective, what if people began calling Christians (their preferred name) Jesusoids or Jesus Freaks? Have some respect.

The "outgrew it" cliche!

Every time I see it I know what is actually going on.
Ayn Rand electrifies the young, free optimistic mind. The encounter with a thinker who seeks no outside validation, who radiates the competence of her own soul, ignites an explosion of joy for the freedom and lightness of spirit incipient in all humans.

There comes a moment, however, when the coming-of-age soul must 'own' that freedom, must earn it simply by not betraying their own judgement and acumen, by demonstrating the courage to live life by their own and only their own sanction.

Many fall. They dare not risk. The refuge? Very often it is religion, where their soul is lent to them by God and they receive instruction from Him.

Those that do not betray their legacy of the free mind? Only some stay close to the work of Ayn Rand and specifically champion it. Many more simply carry on their lives, inoculated by the encounter.

John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
Celebrating 45 years as an Objectivist

This motivated me to dig up a blogpost I did in 2004, about an especially brilliant appreciation/critique/dissection of Ayn Rand by _National Review_ columnist Florence King. My post linked below excerpts King's essay at greater length, but here are a few choice quotes:

"Although she was born in Czarist Russia in 1905 and raised in St. Petersburg, Rand told her biographer Barbara Branden that she had never met with the slightest manifestation of anti-Semitism, nor heard any discussion of it at home."

"Ayn Rand's whole schtick was a gargantuan displacement of her never-admitted fear of anti-Semitism."

"Her philosophy based on individualism [and] reason... would, if universally adopted, bring about an immediate end to anti-Semitism, which is a product of the Gentile id. She spent her entire career as a novelist crusading against anti-Semitism while taking care not to write a word about Jews."

"Despite their overwhelming Gentileness, Randian heroes come off as metaphors for Jews because they are beset by irrational forces that try to bar them from the professions and use their virtues against them to bring about their destruction."

"In _Atlas Shrugged_, the Wyoming mountain sanctuary Galt's Gulch, into which the rational creators and captains of industry disappear and start their own community, is Ayn Rand's Israel. The [WASP] inhabitants are [Rand's] Chosen People, exiles who actually do what the Jews have always been accused of doing: running the world."

John Donahue writes:

"Ayn Rand electrifies the young, free optimistic mind. The encounter with a thinker who seeks no outside validation, who radiates the competence of her own soul, ignites an explosion of joy for the freedom and lightness of spirit incipient in all humans."

By the way, although I no longer term myself an "Objectivist," and I see certain shortcomings in Rand's philosophical system, I will always cherish my "Ayn Rand years" (from about 19-22) for the reasons you describe here -- I remember the "electrifying" sensation of epiphany that I had while reading and re-reading passages in Galt's speech, for example, and I still subscribe to the basic principles she espoused (at least the standing-on-one-foot version). And to this day I can't abide "second-handers"!

IIRC, there WERE some children in "Atlas Shrugged." I mean, they didn't actually appear or have any dialogue, but one of the residents of Galt's Gulch was a woman, a playwright I think, who said she was there so her children could grow up free and competent.

As an Objectivist and observer of the growth of Objectivism for 42 years I can testify that the growth of its influence has exceeded 1960's expectations for those who understand Rand's description of it as "for the new intellectual".

Philosophies are never mass movements, they are initially powered by the first group of intellectuals who apply them to their respective fields of endeavor. These influence and/or migrate themselves to being professors and teachers who enroll those who choose to be leaders, who in turn galvanize followers who spread to them as beliefs to the masses who will generate the platitudes and slogans that ultimately will appear scribbled on restroom walls a century or two later.

The intellects that "outgrow" new philosophies are the flotsam of academia who desperately cling to the philosophy that got them their jobs. Their numbers are compounded by those whose abdicate the full capacity of their minds to religion's crippling restrictions on independent thought.

Nowadays they reveal themselves first by their implicit claim that the validity of a philosophy's ideas can be refuted by the mere fact of their own rejections or by the ad hominems, insinuations, and connotation loaded adjectives of the subjectivists or the authoritarian edicts of the intrinsicists smuggled in as ideas to the contrary. With a singular irony, their own blind faith in authorities precludes them from grasping the difference between a certainty derived from reason and logic from the certainty of one who has abandoned his mind to faith. Unaware that unflinching intellectual independence is a primary virtue of the Objectivist ethics that disqualifies the cultish from claiming to be an Objectivist, those who are themselves blind followers call it a "cult". They cannot imagine anything else, and since when does truth have anything to do with it anyway?

Beware writing epitaphs of Objectivism. Technology has already drastically cut the timetable for Objectivism's expanding influence. Their only target audience — honest and independent minds — is the scarcest class of the population. A slow and steady pace is a given. People like the responders who outgrew her but nowhere exhibit any capacity to understand or refute her ideas will just continue to entertain each other with what they did not outgrow, their empty, childish slurs. In 1968 their type was telling Objectivists that in 10 years no one will have any idea who Ayn Rand is. I am confident they and their successors will keep that tradition alive and well on the sidelines of the history of philosophy.

There are old Randians. Glen Reynolds is just one.

I read the InstaPundit blog all the time and like what he says. Reynolds does not seem to be Randian. He strikes me more as a run of the mill moderate libertarian.

To see what all the fuss was about, I read "Atlas Shrugged" when I was about 35. Guess what? I liked it, especially the vitality and energy of the book, which was a cross between a romance novel (three lovers, come on!) and a religious or political tract. At the time, I thought Rand "had her point" and then went right off the deep end. But I did really like the portrait of the industrialist (the second lover).

A few years back, I also read "The Passion of Ayn Rand." And then "We the Living" and "The Fountainhead." I thought "The Fountainhead" was absolute dreck, and "We the Living" was Rand's best book, and genuine literature. It was about the real world, the one she actually grew up in - the Soviet Union in the years after the Russian Revolution. "The Fountainhead" was about a world she invented, which she did more convincely in "Atlas Shrugged."

I don't agree with much of her philosophy, but she was a fascinating, self-made lady, and later, the founder of a cult.

Bradley,

You may be correct that youth is callow.

That would apply to trashed, cynical, hateful youth or bored empty-headed youth or youth consumed by co-dependance (aberrant obsession with others) or the youth who has already abandoned this earth and is obsessed with "the next life."

And yes, upon early reading of Rand, you might include as "callow" the unrepeatable impact described by so many whose encounter makes them "radiate the competence of their own soul, igniting an explosion of joy for the freedom and lightness of spirit incipient in all humans."

The question is: what is the prognosis for the first group? If they are true to their beliefs, they will spend life in denial of -- or rejection of -- every piece of evidence that man is good and each human's life sufficient sanction for itself. The prognosis for the person of "electrified soul' from having brushed up against the vision of Ayn Rand? If they are true to that vision they will still see all the hatred, destruction, waste and enslavement performed by men -- in fact none better equipped -- but they will seek out, value and fight for the good on earth.

The above denial-response may help explain why the author of this piece cannot see any "old" Objectivists.

John Donohue