Ayn Randian Subjective Objectivism

ayn-rand One thing I will make clear: I can not stand Ayn Rand or her cultist worshippers. Anyone who bases their beliefs and viewpoints of the world out of Ayn Rand’s pseudo-philosophy automatically has it all wrong. People continuously call her a philosopher yet she didn’t write about the world as it is, she wrote about the world as she believes it should be. Her set of beliefs are called Objectivism yet her entire world is subjective—and people who have learned from her live in a world of pure subjectivism.

Sam Anderson has an incredible piece about Ayn Rand, Mrs. Logic, that is a must read. The entire piece is a magnificent explanation of how Rand’s entire personal world view is a falsification. It’s not so much a hit piece as it is a revelation of the woman (Alissa Rosenbaum) who is behind the fake name of Ayn Rand. From the article:

Anne Heller’s new biography, Ayn Rand and the World She Made, allows us to poke our heads, for the first time, into the Russian-American’s overheated philosophical subbasement. After reading the details of Rand’s early life, I find it hard to think of Objectivism as very objective at all—it looks more like a rational program retrofitted to a lifelong temperament, a fantasy world created to cancel the nightmare of a terrifying childhood. This is the comedy, the tragedy, and the power of Rand: She built a glorious imaginary empire on that nuclear-grade temperament, then devoted every ounce of her will and intelligence to proving it was all pure reason.

This is the problem with Randian philosophy if you want to call it that. Randians make a statement that they favor and believe should be true and then walk it backwards to attempt to justify it. This is an attempt at creating reality instead of accepting it. Sadly, Republicans have learned to master it.

From a New York Times magazine article on faith in the Bush administration, Ron Suskind writes:

The [Bush] aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." … "That’s not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

As a David Badash commenter noted (and where I came to read the above quote):

These conservative Republicans are creating their own reality, and it doesn’t matter that it’s factually true or not, so long as they continue believing that it is true.

This is basically the same thing that Ayn Rand did in her philosophical bullshit novels. She, and those politicians who do business in the crafting of lies, shape a false reality and push it, making it a reality. There are many forces trying to make Rand’s make belief, science fiction fantasy a reality and it’s not a very pretty one.

To further put the nail in the coffin keeping Ayn Rand’s black soul from escaping, from Sam Anderson’s piece:

Alissa Rosenbaum left Russia on the brink of her 21st birthday. As the train pulled away she shouted to her family: “By the time I return, I’ll be famous.” She never made it back. She arrived in New York, wept at the glory of its skyline, and changed her name. “No one helped me,” Rand would later write, “nor did I think it was anyone’s duty to help me.” In fact, her family and American friends helped her quite a lot. She moved in with, and borrowed money from, relatives in Chicago, one of whom owned a theater where she watched hundreds of movies for free. Eventually she moved to Hollywood, ran into Cecil B. DeMille in a parking lot, and somehow, despite her broken English, got a job reading scripts. Success arrived slowly but steadily after that: her first play, her first novel, her philosophy, her cult. Today, her books sell over half a million copies a year.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Ayn Randian Subjective Objectivism

  1. Pingback: Fake News and Outright Lies

  2. Pingback: Freedom’s Just Another Word…

  3. uhm, you do realize that Ayn Rand didn't actually create those beliefs, right? She simply gathered the thinking of right-minded people and gave those ideas a cohesive voice.

  4. I'm going to be labeled an antisemite for saying this: Her's was a Jewish cult (her behavior indicates that she was somewhat of an antisemite) and this is the unspoken reason that many conseravtives of the day abhorred her and her so-called philosophy. There is speculation that she changed her name so not to be noted as a Jew. She claimed she did it to protect her family, but she comportment suggests she didn't seem to care that much about them. I knew Branden and Peikoff; the former was her first “intellectual heir.” He wasn't even a proficient psychotherapist. He was a liar and an egomaniac. He can't apologize enough these days. Peikoff was her other “intellectual heir.” He, too, is a mental midget, and has been accused of fraud and theft by the Library of Congress.

  5. I wouldn't doubt Anne Heller would have mentioned any antisemitism surrounding Rand — I haven't read the book yet, though I intend to. I haven't bothered to look too deeply into her heirs, though knowing as much as I do about her, I wouldn't doubt she'd get involved with swindlers and mental midgets.

  6. I wouldn't dare say Rand had much of a genuine thought in her head. Any assertion that could be made as to her belief system being her own, of her own making, would probably come from her own claim that her beliefs are not of another's, but out of her own mind. She made that claim often, though the best known instance was during an interview by Mike Wallace in 1959.

  7. It's difficult to see anything in this piece than biliousness. You think all philosophers have written about the world as it is? (Or that Rand had a “fake” name versus a pen name?)

  8. Both this article and the article you link to fail to address any of the claims of objectivism. You may think that by destroying Ayn Rand the person you can invalidate objectivism, but all you succeed in doing is displaying your hate. Objectivism's validity does not depend on the ability of one person to live in accordance with it.

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

%d bloggers like this: