“There are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think”

Shortly after I finished my medical degree, I pursued a master’s degree in finance. The 2008 market crash was pretty terrible for Ireland – and I was curious to find out get out of the medical bubble and learn about the world. After 5 years of medicine, everyone who wasn’t a doctor seemed well-rounded, but one of the most well-rounded wonderful friends I made during that masters suggested that I read Principles by Ray Dalio back in the day.

Dalio is the founder of (probably) the most successful hedge fund. Unlike all those 10-steps-to-success type books by various billionaires, Principles lacks the motivational element and has lots of cold rational logic. I found it to be a fascinating read.

You will find lots of free pdf copies of Principles online. The paid (expanded) version is a recent development. The book was in open access for years. The fact that it’s free is one of the things that made it different to books written by the likes of Richard Branson. I wonder what Dalio is up to with the paid version. The capitalist in him must be rebelling against giving out free stuff, I guess…

More recently, Dalio mentioned that reading Ayn Rand would be key to understanding the mindset of Trump era economics and politics. I poked around a few articles about Rand and was surprised to find that her philosophy was rejected by critics and academics. I’d never heard of these words in the same sentence. What does it mean to reject a philosophy? Turning to a family member beside me with this naive question, I received a less than naive answer: it is a situation where a philosophy isn’t politically expedient. Oh dear.

Nevertheless, her thoughts reminded me of Nietzsche. I don’t think he spoke about economics very much, but if he had, I am sure he would have said exactly what Rand had to say.

So I started with Atlas Shrugged.

Ayn Rand philosophy reviewed Atlas Shrugged

Is Atlas Shrugged a pleasant read?

Just like Brave New World, Atlas Shrugged a philosophical book dressed up as a novel. For the more analytical among us, it’s definitely a stimulating read. The characters are a little flat and improbable, but that’s just the nature of these type of works. A few cringy sex scenes. A touch of naive feminism.

Rand writes in impossibly long sentences and can seem excessively intellectual-for-the-sake-of-being-intellectual. Over 1,000 pages of that can get tiring.

Is Atlas Shrugged a worthwhile read?

The book addresses some issues we face today in the West in a way that nobody would ever dare in this day and age. We can barely take a breath without getting a licence, insurance and paying tax on it. We’re not actually free to speak our mind out here, even though we pride ourselves on it. There has been a lot of violence in US universities against right wing groups citing social justice as a legitimate justification.

In such a world, Rand’s writing is a breath of fresh air – but not for long. The discerning reader soon realises that Rand painted an impossible utopia, just like the communists she so hates, and that she is simply wrong in many of her sweeping statements.

What’s Atlas Shrugged about?

It’s about a (slightly) dystopian United States with a touch of sci fi. Prepare for a lot of talk about railways, oil, steel and trains. A government nationalises the major corporations in a fever of extorting socialism. You can hazard a guess where she got her inspiration.

Who is Ayn Rand?

She was an atheist woman of Russian Jewish bourgeoisie origins. As a 20 year old, she left the USSR and settled in the US. Interestingly, she became an atheist before it was cool strongly recommended by the Soviets. Her father was a businessman. He was stripped of his fortune during the Revolution of 1917. Legend has it that the first book she purchased in the US was Thus spoke Zarathustra. 

Incidentally, it is thought that she is an INTJ, so our ENTP crowd are likely to like her style.

Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand objectivism philosophy explained

What did Ayn Rand believe?

1. Rand believed that religion and socialism are evil

Rand isn’t just against religion, she believes that socialists are basically Religion 2.0.

Both [religion and socialism] demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter—the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit—the destruction of his mind.

Neither religion nor socialism welcome questioning:

The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question… Both kinds demand that you invalidate your own consciousness and surrender yourself into their power.

2. Rand rejected true world theories

Although Rand herself said “The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle”, this is more or less straight out of Nietzsche:

[Religion and socialism] claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it ‘another dimension,’ which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it ‘the future,’ which consists of denying the present.


3. Rand thought that reality and perception are completely separate

Shakespeare said that nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. Rand begs to differ:

They want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness—they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated.

A savage is a being who has not grasped that A is A and that reality is real. 

The fact that we can perceive things that aren’t what they initially seem doesn’t take away from the separation of reality and perception:

The day when he grasps that the reflection he sees in a mirror is not a delusion, that it is real, but it is not himself, that the mirage he sees in a desert is not a delusion, that the air and the light rays that cause it are real, but it is not a city, it is a city’s reflection—the day when he grasps that he is not a passive recipient of the sensations of any given moment, that his senses do not provide him with automatic knowledge in separate snatches independent of context, but only with the material of knowledge, which his mind must learn to integrate—the day when he grasps that his senses cannot deceive him, that physical objects cannot act without causes, that his organs of perception are physical and have no volition, no power to invent or to distort, that the evidence they give him is an absolute, but his mind must learn to understand it, his mind must discover the nature, the causes, the full context of his sensory material, his mind must identify things that he perceives—that is the day of his birth as a thinker and scientist. (Note that this is all one sentence!)

4. Rand postulated that a contradiction is the marker of a mistake

A touch of Aristotle:

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Emotion that isn’t congruent with thought indicated an unresolved conflict:

An emotion that clashes with your reason, an emotion that you cannot explain or control, is only the carcass of that stale thinking which you forbade your mind to revise.

5. Rand believed that refusing to think is a crime

Much as I disagree with Rand on many points, I do agree with this:

There are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think. 

To varying extents, we are all guilty of this – and our parents are, of making us trust authority over our own judgement:

A mystic is a man who surrendered his mind at its first encounter with the minds of others. Somewhere in the distant reaches of his childhood, when his own understanding of reality clashed with the assertions of others, with their arbitrary orders and contradictory demands, he gave in to so craven a fear of dependence that he renounced his rational faculty.

If you’ve given up on thinking, emotion is all that’s left:

From then on, afraid to think, he is left at the mercy of unidentified feelings. His feelings become his only guide, his only remnant of personal identity, he clings to them with ferocious possessiveness—and whatever thinking he does is devoted to the struggle of hiding from himself that the nature of his feelings is terror.

It’s not possible to be rational while only being rational about certain things:

Whenever you committed the evil of refusing to think and to see, of exempting from the absolute of reality some one small wish of yours, whenever you chose to say: Let me withdraw from the judgment of reason the cookies I stole, or the existence of God, let me have my one irrational whim and I will be a man of reason about all else—that was the act of subverting your consciousness, the act of corrupting your mind.

Resorting to mysticism means an inability to convince:

Every dictator is a mystic, and every mystic is a potential dictator… A mystic craves obedience from men, not their agreement.

If anyone wonders what it would be like to be Antichrist, just post the below on Instagram:

To a savage, the world is a place of unintelligible miracles where anything is possible to inanimate matter and nothing is possible to him.

6. Religion is a racket according to Rand

I went to an uber-Catholic school at one point. I recall my teacher telling me with great conviction that Jesus died for us. This thing we hear all the time is actually quite a confusing statement, so I asked why he had to die for us. The teacher proceeded to explain the concept of the original sin – and all I was thinking of, sure what have I to do with that? If forgiveness is more or less the ultimate virtue in Christianity, how come God is still holding Adam and Eve’s mischief against us? Rand seems to be of the same opinion:

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin. A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral.

Here is her summary of how religion rose to power:

For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket—by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners.

7. Universal basic income has no place in a Randian world

Rand is pointing out the Ponzi scheme in UBI:

They proclaim that every man born is entitled to exist without labor and, the laws of reality to the contrary notwithstanding, is entitled to receive his ‘minimum sustenance’—his food, his clothes, his shelter—with no effort on his part, as his due and his birthright. To receive it—from whom? Blank-out.

8. Decisions: make them or die, says Rand

Rand advocates extreme responsibility. It one of the main virtues to her. A person who doesn’t take responsibility doesn’t deserve to live:

Calmly and impersonally, she [the main character], who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness.

9. Trade is the ultimate human relationship

There is a lot of worshipping of the dollar in the book. Rand says that trade is great because it is consensual and it creates value for both parties:

Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss—the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery—that you must offer them values, not wounds—that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods.

Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade—with reason, not force, as their final arbiter—it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability—and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. 

But what about love, I hear you ask? Her views on love are all about self-interest. Ultimately, love is a deal people make.

The Randian Ubermensch:

  • unconditionally loves life
  • has infinite belief in himself
  • is driven by intellect and self-interest
  • doesn’t wallow in weakness
  • takes responsibility for absolutely everything that happens to him
  • does not sacrifice and takes the oath: “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine.”

ayn rand objectivism is wrong

Holes in Rand’s philosophy

1. Rand doesn’t address the issue of chance

Rand says:

As there can be no causeless wealth, so there can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. 

There are all of these things in real life. Not for good reason, but they do exists. This is the main reason her philosophy isn’t useful: Rand doesn’t address the issue of chance.

Very often people who succeed overdefine their successes (and failures). It’s almost like survivor’s guilt: “I made it because I tried. If you haven’t made it, it’s because you didn’t try hard enough.” We all know that that’s not how things are in reality. In the long term, yes, Fortune favours the bold – or so I tell myself.

Most of the main characters appear to have inherited their fortune. John Galt, the real hero of the story, the inventor of the marvellous engine, didn’t. He wouldn’t have risen to the top by inventing an engine in real life. His invention would have been coopted by the owner of the huge corporation he worked for. He would probably get a gift voucher at the Christmas party. Where is the guy who invented the internet now? “It wasn’t one person.” True. But it wasn’t one person who made computers, smartphones, Facebook or whatever – yet we can put a name to these things because someone managed to make it into their own business.

Ayn Rand opposes that horrible Soviet-like “Equalisation of Opportunity” act in her novel, but this is why her philosophy has done little to address the downsides of socialism: she doesn’t address their main concern – that chance plays a large part in one’s life.

2. Rand looks for patterns where there aren’t any

A closely related point is that Rand believes that everything can be made into science.

The links you strive to drown are causal connections. The enemy you seek to defeat is the law of causality: it permits you no miracles.

Causality is a very ambitious concept to manoeuvre with. During my study of statistics I understood that causality is all smoke and mirrors. All we have are some intuitive concepts of what causes what. There is no real way to prove causality.

Looking for patterns in randomness has always been a hobby of the human race. Rain is caused by the generous sacrifices to the goddess of agriculture in the previous years. Investment returns are caused by prior results. A successful career follows from great interview performance. No. They aren’t. Some things are just random. Rand didn’t understand that.

3. Rand rejects the idea that there are things outside of our control

…it cannot be done to you without your consent. If you permit it to be done, you deserve it.

Here is more of Rand’s blame-the-victim philosophy. In certain contexts, the above is true, but it’s not quite as black and white as Rand makes out. What if your parents are addicted to drugs and you are addicted now too. Did you deserve it? Were you wrong to trust the people who gave you life and basically were your life for a long time?

This is how people get to be neurotic in the modern world: beating themselves up for not being able to control things… that they cannot possibly control. Rand rejects the idea that there are things outside of our control.

4. Rand confuses useful assumptions and absolutes

‘We know that we know nothing,’ they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge—’There are no absolutes,’ they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute—’You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,’ they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

Socrates got a beating there. To my mind, Rand is overambitious. A reasonable human being will operate on her assumptions, but they will not take them to be the only possibility.

5. Rand forgets the darker side of trade

To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will.

What about selling heroin, Ayn?

And, Ayn, if you don’t hire me to be your security guard, I will break your windows.

It’s not just the Church that blackmails people.

6. Rand believes we live in a meritocracy of irreplaceable minds

In Atlas Shrugged, the brightest, most industrious people escape into a hidden world one by one as their creations get nationalised. This leads to a failed state; everything comes to a stand-still. Would this happen in reality?

This assumes that we live in a meritocracy. I believe in the power of genetics more than most people, but not everyone who inherits their parent’s empire is going to be as good as them. Rand acknowledges this fact in her character Jim Taggart, but seems to imply that the best will still rise to the top.

I don’t think that the world would be quite so helpless without its aristocracy. Every significant change of power in history has led to the destruction of the previous regime’s nobility. They just kept going anyway though: new nobility found its feet pretty quickly. When Atlas gets tired, he just adjusts his grip.

7. Rand states that happiness is the purpose of life

What a nice and simple formula. Only it is as foggy as dividing by zero. What does it mean to be happy, Ayn?

ayn rand nietzsche philosophy

What is my verdict on Rand’s philosophy?

I do agree that reality exists without our consciousness (this is the central idea of objectivism).

I admire her love of life, reality, intellect and industrious creation of value.

I think she simplified the complex and destroyed her credibility.

Her work is more of an ideology with defined values than a philosophy that helps to understand the word.

 

50 Comments Add yours

  1. Robert says:

    A well-written analysis on Rand’s philosophy and a good read.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Martina, this is a fantastic review. Just what I needed this morning, here in a motel in Bozeman, Montana. Bozeman exists whether I perceive it or not :).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Haha, I’ve no idea what it’s like, but Google tells me the weather is good!

      Like

      1. Steve Ruis says:

        M,
        Check back in winter!
        Steve

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Anony Mole says:

      Home of the sweetpea festival… Bozeman — same latitude as Portland, Montreal, Lyon, and the northern most tip of Japan. Drink Bozone beer!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I’m partial to Moose Drool beer, produced in Missoula, but I’ll try some Bozone 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Oh all these cool American things we don’t have here! So jealous!

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Steve Ruis says:

    So, you eventually found out why her “philosophy” was rejected by a wide swath of people: it is incomplete, incoherent, and … etc. I tend to agree with her on religion, but on nothing else. All of those in her camp now seem to think of government as some sort of evil spiritual entity (Guvmint! here in the U.S.) rather than our collective efforts. The government of the US is the collective effort of all of us in the US. The government of California is the collective effort of all Californians. Representation is spotty to say the least, but that’s the gist of it.

    The Randians have no problem with a socialistic military, but exotll the virtue of individualism beyond any reasonable bounds. We have evidence now for what we have always known: that teamwork is very powerful. We now know that thinking is positively affected by group efforts. We blather on incessantly about teamwork in sports teams, business teams (The Toyota Way, etc.), but political teams? (Socialism, socialism, socialism!)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks Steve – I guess things work a little differently in Europe, so it’s good to hear what it feels like in the US.

      That’s a great point about the military. I guess they would argue that it’s a person’s choice to go into the military and they are serving their self-interest by doing it… which of course doesn’t describe the situation fully!

      Like

  4. Anony Mole says:

    Is there a Cliffnotes version of Atlas Shagged? Is this it? Thanks, it helped, seeing how I could never drag myself through its entirety.

    I would amend that quote about evil and thinking to: “The most evil of thoughts is the refusal to think.” (I, and I’ll be most of us, can think some pretty ugly thoughts. Hey, the Eloi looked pretty darn happy in my book.)

    Neil Degrasse Tyson has a great youtube video on the concepts of the division of rational thought and mysticism. He takes us from the “savage miracle” through various periods of enlightenment which shifted the fulcrum beneath religion and knowledge over to where it would take a real live frickin’ miracle (grin) to tip the balance at this point.

    No random in Rand? That made me laugh.

    Money? Money is evil. Where there is money there is deceit. Where there is a lot of money there is greed and depravity. Where there is all the money there is corruption and oppression. Trade is one thing. And money is a necessary evil to facilitate trade. A better money is wampum. (read Debt, the first 5000 years).

    Another fine read doc. Thanks for your efforts.

    Like

    1. I guess this is it. I don’t know if you noticed, but you typed Atlas Shagged – not Atlas Shrugged. I am still giggling at that.

      Ooh, I am intrigued by your recommendation – I will look into that book for sure!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Anony Mole says:

        Atlas Shagged — you think that was a typo?

        Liked by 1 person

  5. JT Twissel says:

    I’ve never been able to get into any of Ayn Rand’s book. Thanks for this synopsis.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I found her writing more tolerable than people warned me! And it’s quite refreshing though ultimately not very rewarding. Thanks for stopping by JT

      Like

  6. Anne J. says:

    I actually have an Ayn Rand book: The virtue of selfishness. Many people do not agree with me but I agree with her idea. It’s a tough read (I guess it’s the extremely long sentences and words I need to google) and that’s why I still have not finished reading this small book… more than 10 years later.
    You’re right, it’s not philosophy but ideology… I think. 🙂

    Like

    1. Thanks Anne! It’s hard to go against the group think and like her ideas, so fair dues on that alone! I certainly think there is something very refreshing about her writing and – unlike many – I actually enjoyed her over-intellectualised style!

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Dr Martina Feyzrakhmanova wrote, ” What is my verdict on Rand’s philosophy?
    I do agree that reality exists without our consciousness (this is the central idea of objectivism).”

    I admire Ayn Rand and have learned much from her. I also agree that reality exists without our consciousness. But there is a crucial point here. Rand failed to understand Kant and denounced him vehemently. Rand thinks that reality is composed of objects as humans (including human science) cognize it. Where as Kant said that objects as humans cognize do not exist . Kant said that these are mere appearances and not reality and reality is that which humans cognize as these objects.

    Difficult to understand?

    Like

    1. I agree with you that Rand’s idea of our perception being the ultimate reality is probably too simple. I sometimes look at cats who look at their reflection in the mirror and seem to have zero awareness as to what they are looking at. I then wonder – in what ways am I like a cat looking at a mirror?

      Our perception probably alters our understanding of reality. For example, cognitive biases or colour blindness alter it. But Rand’s argument was that you cannot force reality by thinking things “should” be a certain way, which is what the socialists do – and what she fought against.

      I think you recently asked about hypnosis vs meditation. I honestly don’t know much about hypnosis. It’s appears to be getting into non-scientific, magical thinking territory and I don’t think I will get any sort of meaningful answer for you! Maybe it’s the real deal, but it’s just not something I know anything about, I am afraid. Do you?

      Like

  8. You said, “in what ways am I like a cat looking at a mirror? ”
    I admire you for saying that. It is arrogance and collective refusal to think which is the stumbling block.

    ” But Rand’s argument was that you cannot force reality by thinking things “should” be a certain way, which is what the socialists do – and what she fought against.”

    I agree with Rand here.

    “Our perception probably alters our understanding of reality. For example, cognitive biases or colour blindness alter it.”

    Why ” probably” ?

    About hypnosis: I am not an admirer of hypnosis, because there is an element of self-deception involved in it. The purpose of my question was to explore self-deception in meditation.

    Like

    1. What makes you think that there could be self deception in meditation?

      Like

  9. Sorry, I did not mean to offend you.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Oh dear, you didn’t at all! That’s just a question I have for you:) and no offence intended either!

      Like

  10. Humans deceive and lie to themselves in their thinking, beliefs and activities etc. and they are not aware that they are doing so. Meditating is a human activity and there is no reason to think that this activity is immune to self-deception somehow.

    Further, I have come across many people who are meditating and thought to be highly spiritual but are really deceiving themselves. Many forms of meditations are akin to self- hypnosis.

    But of course this does not mean that all meditations are having self-deceptions.

    Like

    1. I agree, that’s a totally legitimate way to think about anything. Frankly, I think of meditation as a reset from deception. It’s like you are halting all the biases and cognitive distortions because you are intensely focusing on what is – no BS, just what’s undeniably there. Of course there is deception there on a metaphysical level – “is your breath there if you are not perceiving it normally” and all that. Plus, you are kind of escaping reality when meditating because then you’re escaping the past and the present, and they are all part of reality. All the same, brushing your teeth doesn’t sterilise your mouth, but it is good enough to prevent cavities – and meditating probably doesn’t synchronise with Reality (whatever that is), but it prevents you from buying your own BS as much

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Good, thank you for the clarification. I myself think that meditation can be a very good thing.

    “is your breath there if you are not perceiving it”

    What is your own answer to this?

    Like

    1. My answer is that it is! What do you think?

      Like

  12. I think that whether the breath is there or not does not depend (contrary to Berkley and some Eastern religions) on whether you, I or all humanity perceive it or not.

    But there is a subtle point here. When someone thinks that he is perceiving something (let us say a table) , the table is only an appearance in the mind of that person and it does not exist independently of that person anywhere outside of him. What exists independently of that person is what that person is perceiving as a table.

    I know it would seem to be incredible to almost everybody.

    Do you understand?
    Your objections and criticism are welcome.

    Like

    1. I completely agree – I could never quite articulate what you said so well. So yeah, I would say there is a difference between reality and perception, but that doesn’t take away from reality.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. This was a great read. I preferred Fountainhead to Atlas Shrugged because like you said, the latter was philosophy woven around a story. While I disagree with many of her beliefs, I did enjoy reading her books and wish she had written more.

    Like

    1. Thanks Karen. In retrospect, think the fact that the characters were so one-dimensional made her points very clear. I think lots of people loved that. Clarity is a huge thing in writing, isn’t it?!

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Yes. I think most of her characters were so clearly black or white, that the lead characters were invariably idolized, since “real” people may never achieve that level of greatness (for lack of a better word.)

    Like

  15. anne leueen says:

    Very interesting to read this. My Father read this book but I was too young to engage him in a conversation about it and sadly he died before I was old enough to do so. So thank you for this breakdown of the book. I wonder where my Father would have stood on these issues?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Ah sorry to hear that. He must have been a very open minded man!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. anne leueen says:

        He was and so I often feel sad he did not live longer and we would have had marvellous discussions. However he has “reappeared” in my son who is a bright Young adult and an interesting person to share opinions and thoughts of the world of politics with.

        Like

      2. Ah that’s very sweet 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Very nice. I was blocking out a piece on Orwell and leftright and found one of the quotes I wanted in your essay. I also enjoyed the criticism of Ayn’s work, but it sidesteps the three salient points that summarize the bulk of her teaching–as set forth by Nathaniel Branden in “Judgment Day.” Still, it’s the most thoughtful “outside” critique I’ve yet seen.
    But the reason I’m writing is to inquire as to your blog platform. I want to follow it with either my WordPress or Blogger blog, but can’t decide which.

    Like

    1. Thanks, that’s a big compliment. This is based on WordPress 🙂 I follow you also!

      Like

  17. “No. They aren’t. Some things are just random. Rand didn’t understand that.”

    Are you saying there is no such thing as causality? Without that all of Science comes to shambles.

    Like

    1. Well, there are certainly philosophers that believe that there is no such thing.

      I think that that’s too much. If I drink wine, I get drunk and if I go to the gym, I get fitter – that’s pretty causal. I think though causality is very difficult to show and we should never trust it completely. I will never forget how doctors used to treat stomach ulcers with milk and rest, whereas they should have been treating the underlying bacterial infection. Causes may have their own causes.

      Perhaps N. Taleb will give you a better appreciation of randomness vs causality https://thinkingclearly.co/2017/07/12/randomness-as-seen-by-nassim-taleb/

      Thanks for stopping by

      Like

      1. Ah, forgive me, I see what your saying now. I agree; Causality is a very tricky thing to attribute to any given situation. I won’t deny that.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Nathaniel Branden summarized the gist of what Ayn Rand said:
    1. That man must choose his values and actions by reason;
    2. That the individual has a right to exist for his own sake,
    neither sacrificing self to others nor others to self; and
    3. That no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force, or impose ideas on others by physical force.
    –That’s it. All her critics ignore these three points and go after her taste in music or some rumor they heard about her, or zero in on any of her various mistakes. But actual professional philosophy profs at major universities have since the 1950s taught similar things with overlapping concepts. Tara Smith of UTexas was my professor, and one of the best teachers I ever had.
    Oh, and WordPress it is, thanks.

    Like

    1. Ah of course the above is all true, but it’s probably far less novel to a XXI century reader than it was to her lover! Your own take on the death worship aspect is fascinating.

      Like

      1. She posits happy life as the standard of value, therefore anti-life as non-value. She and Orwell arrived at similar conclusions bluntly stated. All I did was understand it. Anthem is a much better intro to her than Atlas (which she wrote during and after the Nuremberg trials). Mencken translated some Nietzche and wrote a summary of the man’s work. Ayn worshipped Mencken, not the madman. Also her ethical work in Atlas was in part a rebuttal of Mencken’s denial of the value (or validity) of values in the close of “Treatise on Right and Wrong”.

        Like

  19. A nice review, which I have to say I stumbled across rather than seeking out. I find some of Rand’s philosophy bleak and joyless, and she has a closed mind to a certain extent on some issues. This is rather ironic. The great Scottish distiller Thomas Dewar once said: ‘Minds are like parachutes; they only function when they’re open’. I am a biologist and a person of faith, and that is not a contradiction. The two provide complementary routes to truth. What I believe about existence is based purely on rational experience. Period. I am open to being an atheist, providing the evidence for that worldview trumps the evidence I have seen in life so far. At this point in time, that is not the case. But – and this is crucial – my mind is open.

    Like

    1. I agree, the whole argument science = no God is silly. What resonates with me in Rand’s words on religion is that organised religion can be quite exploitative of its followers, which is an observation that’s independent of faith per se. As for atheism, I think most of these people end up believing in scient-ism or progressive-ism, basically that some force is moving everything in the right direction, only they don’t call it God. Maybe they should. Very few people can sustain the level of ambiguity to genuinely not believe in anything like God.

      Like

  20. Yes, agree with your point on organised religion – and possibly particularly true of the Catholic Church of which I am not a part.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I imagine that’s who Rand aimed at primarily

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s