Ayn Rand

[gretchen]

I read today that her previously unpublished novel Ideal is going to be published next July.
http://m.wsj.com/articles/BL-SEB-85274

It's about an actress who after being accused of murder seeks the help of her most devoted fans. Doesn't sound like something I would want to read, but given the resurgence in her popularity in recent years, it's sure to be a big deal.

I first heard of AR in the 80s when I was living with my dad. I never read any of her books; they seemed too long and didn't resonate with me for whatever reason. Everything about the books seemed ridiculous- the titles, covers, and overall vibration, which struck me as false. Also, the crowd I ran with was anti-Randian; that might also have had something to do with it.

Here is a 2 minute bio in case you've never heard of her
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pjaHeALTPgE

In recent years it seems like her books have once again become relevant. Politicians, especially Republicans, and celebrities seem to like them. Reading around online, people refer to her books as "life changing", and the say they're their favorite.

I could probably read Atlas Shrugged if I wanted to. But I probably won't. I found this 10 minute rundown of what it's about
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C-E7YQyYHZw

It's worth noting as the video states that AR's books are the inspiration for LaVeyan Satanism. Just an interesting fact; even Anton LaVey himself said this.

I'm wondering if Peat has read her books, or if any of you have? Is Objectivism a real philosophy? Me, my peat food list and supplements? No charcoal for you (unless I voluntarily give you some)? As the "hero" of my own story and an "important" person, I am making the world a better place by being selfish and raising my pulses and temps? It's my Cytomel, and my glucose filled brain?

If you're a Randian objectivist or have a handle on her philosophies, feel free to chime in.

 

[Philomath]

I think Dr. Peat would concur with her opinion on religion/mysticism. Since Rand deplores a controlling government, I believe Dr. Peat may agree with some of her ideas there too.
Having read Atlas Shrugged, I can see why many Republicans (Tea Party types) love it and why democrats hate it. I don't believe all republicans love Ayn Rand outright since she is patently anti-religion.
I do think it's interesting that her book, written nearly 60 years ago, is very prescient in many ways.
If you don't want to read the book you can watch the three part movie!

 

[arinryan]

Ayn Rand loved going against the grain. That's why she titled one of her books "The Virtue Of Selfishness". She knew that would rankle people, she wanted them to be rankled. I guess that might be one thing in common with Ray Peat, who also seems to enjoy countering what is generally accepted as true.

Maybe they also share a devotion to logic and rationality. I don't know if Ray Peat is explicitly devoted to rationality-- Ayn Rand definitely is. RP is careful to back up his ideas with evidence, which I have a huge respect for. He never expects you to just believe something he says without evidence. Ayn Rand is this way too, although a lot of people try to call Objectivism a "cult" built on her personality. But, don't just accept and believe what other people say about it...she would say, decide for yourself, nobody else can do your thinking for you!
(I am definitely one whose life was changed when I read her books, sophomore year of college, I still love her 20 years later.)

 

[mt_dreams]

There's more literature on paper than one can read in a lifetime. By the size of her following, it looks like many have benefited by reading her material, but imo one can do better reading other great works than to waste time reading 1000+ pages of her atlas shrugged.

Although she has some good observations, they do not outweigh the negative.

I don't believe her vibration is anywhere near Ray's, as her ideals only benefit people of power (or are trying to attain it) where Ray is more after helping the common human.

from a physiological standpoint, selfishness is a big part of her equation. Making decisions based on what will benefit one directly, rather than what will benefit all species (or in her case, all classes or races) is what got us kicked out of the garden in the first place. I'm not speaking in terms of religion from the bible (also something her book is considered by many), rather the fact man has decided to play God by deciding what shall live and prosper, and what shall die. If you believe the world can only be a dog eat dog kind of world, then maybe her work will be of some use for you to prosper while other life suffers. If you believe we can still turn around our current frameworks of life, then I would skip her material.

 

[SaltGirl]

Ayn Rand was an objectivist and never really managed to answer important questions about how a police force, Firefighters, and other common social tools would work in her "ideal" society. This is why an objectivist society will never be a reality.

She is of course the poster person for the libertarian movements due to her zealous attitude about individualistic freedom(which tends to be very neo-Darwinistic to the extremes) mostly when it comes to private property and monetary gain(ie. it tends to be a very greedy ideology).

However, from what I've read from and about Ray Peat I'd probably categorize him in one of the "socialist" philosophies. I'd even go so far to say that he might have many things in common with Social Anarchism, which one could argue is a libertarian derivative off socialism.

From wikipedia:

"Social anarchism (sometimes referred to as socialist anarchism[1]) is generally considered to be the branch of anarchism which sees individual freedom as being dependent upon mutual aid.[2] Social anarchist thought generally emphasizes community and social equality.[2]"

For the record I despise Ayn Rand and her philosophy due to how it promotes separateness and greed(something that is an actual problem in modern society). I am not even ashamed of admitting it.

I actually enjoy Robert Anton Wilson's description of his meeting with her.

“The first new dogmatism I embraced after rejecting the Marxist BS (belief system) was Ayn Rand’s philosophy (not yet called Objectivism in those days.) _The Fountainhead_ had exactly the appeal for me that it has retained, decade after decade, with alienated adolescents of all ages. (The average youthful reader of _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ decides he is the Superman, and the average youthful Randroid decides she is an Alienated Super Genius.) LIke most Randroids, I went around for a few years mindlessly parroting all the the Rand dogma and imagining I was an ‘individualist.’

“Some years later, after becoming a published writer, I actually was invited to meet Ayn Rand once. (I was ‘summoned to the Presence,’ as Arlen said.) I confessed my doubts about certain Rand dogmas and was Cast Out Into the Darkness forever to wail and gnash my teeth in the Realm of Thud. It was weird. I thought the Trots and Catholic priests were dogmatic, but Ayn Rand made both groups look like models of tolerance by comparison.

“I thought she was a clinical paranoid. It was nearly 30 years later that I found out Rand was merely on Speed all the time, which creates an effect so much like paranoia that even trained clinicians cannot always tell the difference, and some even claim there is no difference.”

 

[lindsay]

I read a few of her philosophy books some years back and one of her novels - although I never was motivated enough to read atlas shrugged when I could spend that time on an equally long Tolstoy novel.

The best one I've read (which apparently somewhat biographical) is We the Living. Definitely an interesting read, as you will better be able to understand where she's coming from.

 

[burtlancast]

Going by this short segment, she seemed to be a person who always spoke her mind ( good attribute) but had (obvious) flaws in her judgment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

 

[Such_Saturation]

I'm wondering if Peat has read her books, or if any of you have? Is Objectivism a real philosophy? Me, my peat food list and supplements? No charcoal for you (unless I voluntarily give you some)? As the "hero" of my own story and an "important" person, I am making the world a better place by being selfish and raising my pulses and temps?

LOL! It is featured in the Wall Street Journal, for god's sake.

 

[gummybear]

http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/20/ayn ... are-queen/



Her real name is Alisa Rosenbaum btw.

 

[natedawggh]

I'm a democrat and I LOVE Ayn Rand! Conservatives who like her books can't have actually read them, because she sacrifices everything they find holy—religion, big business, fidelity. But then again it wouldn't be the first time they took any big book and picked the cherries they liked.

AND—no one mentions this enough—it's F*ing science fiction!

Atlas Shrugged is a great (long) read, with great characters and a very intriguing plot with just enough science fiction to keep it elevated.

People make too big a deal out of her idea of Objectivism. It works great in her literature, where her characters are bound by the world she crafted. In real life it's not very plausible, and those who claim it are usually throwing shade for their baser instincts.

 

[Philomath]

If you've read her book The Fountainhead, I think you'd find some interesting similarities between the protagonist Howard Roarke and W.F. Koch, the cancer cure Doctor Ray refers to.
Who is John Galt? Why Doctor Peat of course. And Galt's Gulch is the RayPeatForum.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Here is a bit from someone who lives on six-thousand dollars a year: http://www.scribd.com/doc/235166266/On- ... Philosophy

 

[narouz]

http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/20/ayn-rand-was-a-secret-welfare-queen/



Her real name is Alisa Rosenbaum btw.

And, gummy, her name would be a clue pointing us toward what exactly...?

 

[rdmayo21]

I am an Objectivist. I swear, I have never in my life seen a philosophy as misinterpreted and misrepresented as Objectivism.

First of all, although the philosophy was officially founded by Ayn Rand, it does not mean that anyone who calls himself/herself an Objectivist must automatically accept everything Rand ever wrote or said as gospel. In fact, doing so would rule you out as an Objectivist from the outset, since you would be going against Objectivism's fundamentals. So, the term "Randian objectivist" is a complete contradiction.

The most effective way in analyzing any philosophy is by its fundamentals, on which the rest of the philosophy depends. Here are Objectivism's fundamentals:

1. Existence exists as an objective absolute, independent of ALL forms of consciousness.

2. Reason, i.e. that faculty which identifies and integrates the information provided by man's senses, is man's basic tool of survival and his only means of knowledge.

3. Man's own life is his highest value, because it is the source of all of his other values (a dead man cannot value). Because man's mind is his basic means of survival, his life should be an end itself, neither sacrificing his life to others nor sacrificing others' lives to himself.

Personally, I can understand why some people wouldn't be fans of the way Rand carried herself. However, her philosophical fundamentals are bulletproof. It's not a surprise to see that most people either attack straw mans or attack Rand personally instead of refuting the fundamentals of Objectivism.

P.S. Avoid the Atlas Shrugged movies. They are complete crap.

 

[Spokey]

Ayn Rand was an objectivist and never really managed to answer important questions about how a police force, Firefighters, and other common social tools would work in her "ideal" society. This is why an objectivist society will never be a reality.

She is of course the poster person for the libertarian movements due to her zealous attitude about individualistic freedom(which tends to be very neo-Darwinistic to the extremes) mostly when it comes to private property and monetary gain(ie. it tends to be a very greedy ideology).

However, from what I've read from and about Ray Peat I'd probably categorize him in one of the "socialist" philosophies. I'd even go so far to say that he might have many things in common with Social Anarchism, which one could argue is a libertarian derivative off socialism.

From wikipedia:

"Social anarchism (sometimes referred to as socialist anarchism[1]) is generally considered to be the branch of anarchism which sees individual freedom as being dependent upon mutual aid.[2] Social anarchist thought generally emphasizes community and social equality.[2]"

For the record I despise Ayn Rand and her philosophy due to how it promotes separateness and greed(something that is an actual problem in modern society). I am not even ashamed of admitting it.

I actually enjoy Robert Anton Wilson's description of his meeting with her.

“The first new dogmatism I embraced after rejecting the Marxist BS (belief system) was Ayn Rand’s philosophy (not yet called Objectivism in those days.) _The Fountainhead_ had exactly the appeal for me that it has retained, decade after decade, with alienated adolescents of all ages. (The average youthful reader of _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ decides he is the Superman, and the average youthful Randroid decides she is an Alienated Super Genius.) LIke most Randroids, I went around for a few years mindlessly parroting all the the Rand dogma and imagining I was an ‘individualist.’

“Some years later, after becoming a published writer, I actually was invited to meet Ayn Rand once. (I was ‘summoned to the Presence,’ as Arlen said.) I confessed my doubts about certain Rand dogmas and was Cast Out Into the Darkness forever to wail and gnash my teeth in the Realm of Thud. It was weird. I thought the Trots and Catholic priests were dogmatic, but Ayn Rand made both groups look like models of tolerance by comparison.

“I thought she was a clinical paranoid. It was nearly 30 years later that I found out Rand was merely on Speed all the time, which creates an effect so much like paranoia that even trained clinicians cannot always tell the difference, and some even claim there is no difference.”

Nice post. I'm not exactly a fan either.

 

[BingDing]

I am an Objectivist. I swear, I have never in my life seen a philosophy as misinterpreted and misrepresented as Objectivism.

First of all, although the philosophy was officially founded by Ayn Rand, it does not mean that anyone who calls himself/herself an Objectivist must automatically accept everything Rand ever wrote or said as gospel. In fact, doing so would rule you out as an Objectivist from the outset, since you would be going against Objectivism's fundamentals. So, the term "Randian objectivist" is a complete contradiction.

The most effective way in analyzing any philosophy is by its fundamentals, on which the rest of the philosophy depends. Here are Objectivism's fundamentals:

1. Existence exists as an objective absolute, independent of ALL forms of consciousness.

2. Reason, i.e. that faculty which identifies and integrates the information provided by man's senses, is man's basic tool of survival and his only means of knowledge.

3. Man's own life is his highest value, because it is the source of all of his other values (a dead man cannot value). Because man's mind is his basic means of survival, his life should be an end itself, neither sacrificing his life to others nor sacrificing others' lives to himself.

Personally, I can understand why some people wouldn't be fans of the way Rand carried herself. However, her philosophical fundamentals are bulletproof. It's not a surprise to see that most people either attack straw mans or attack Rand personally instead of refuting the fundamentals of Objectivism.

P.S. Avoid the Atlas Shrugged movies. They are complete crap.

Good post, thanks. I've never read her but people have told me I'd like her philosophy. I suspect she never had problems with learned helplessness.

I especially like 1., which undercuts the Greek nonsense of being a shadow of an ideal man (and women don't even exist).

And "neither sacrificing his life to others nor sacrificing others' lives to himself". An alternative to the dominant/submissive or predator/prey models of life is an opportunity to be a free and whole human being.

 

[Such_Saturation]

 

[narouz]

Anyone unfortunate enough to have read my posts
will know that I have a very dim opinion of Libertarianism,
especially the variety expressed/practiced in today's US politics.

I can get pretty agitated about it,
but really I don't feel that arguing about it here on this forum
is the best investment of my limited energy.

The exception,
when I do sometimes feel a "call to action,"
is when I see posters explicitly or tacitly
linking Ray Peat to Libertarianism (or to the likes of Ayn Rand).
That sucks.

If you crave a politics of rampant Robber Baronism,
Ayn Rand is your heroine.

 

[DaveFoster]

Ayn Rand was an objectivist and never really managed to answer important questions about how a police force, Firefighters, and other common social tools would work in her "ideal" society. This is why an objectivist society will never be a reality.

Because without government, we could not have firefighters.

She is of course the poster person for the libertarian movements due to her zealous attitude about individualistic freedom(which tends to be very neo-Darwinistic to the extremes) mostly when it comes to private property and monetary gain(ie. it tends to be a very greedy ideology).

Greedy as in what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours? Certainly.

However, from what I've read from and about Ray Peat I'd probably categorize him in one of the "socialist" philosophies. I'd even go so far to say that he might have many things in common with Social Anarchism, which one could argue is a libertarian derivative off socialism.

Could be. Peat seems to value individual thought and experimentation, which seems to be anti-social in most contexts.

For the record I despise Ayn Rand and her philosophy due to how it promotes separateness and greed(something that is an actual problem in modern society). I am not even ashamed of admitting it.

Well, we certainly are separate in our interpretation of her work, so she's got at least one thing going for her.

I actually enjoy Robert Anton Wilson's description of his meeting with her.

“The first new dogmatism I embraced after rejecting the Marxist BS (belief system) was Ayn Rand’s philosophy (not yet called Objectivism in those days.) _The Fountainhead_ had exactly the appeal for me that it has retained, decade after decade, with alienated adolescents of all ages. (The average youthful reader of _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ decides he is the Superman, and the average youthful Randroid decides she is an Alienated Super Genius.) LIke most Randroids, I went around for a few years mindlessly parroting all the the Rand dogma and imagining I was an ‘individualist.’

I completely agree. We have this youthful fervor for individualism until society gradually erodes our will into a complacency.

“Some years later, after becoming a published writer, I actually was invited to meet Ayn Rand once. (I was ‘summoned to the Presence,’ as Arlen said.) I confessed my doubts about certain Rand dogmas and was Cast Out Into the Darkness forever to wail and gnash my teeth in the Realm of Thud. It was weird. I thought the Trots and Catholic priests were dogmatic, but Ayn Rand made both groups look like models of tolerance by comparison.

“I thought she was a clinical paranoid. It was nearly 30 years later that I found out Rand was merely on Speed all the time, which creates an effect so much like paranoia that even trained clinicians cannot always tell the difference, and some even claim there is no difference.”

If you crave a politics of rampant Robber Baronism,
Ayn Rand is your heroine.

Ironic, seeing as she was addicted to drugs. To address the myth of the robber barons, I recommend A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

 

[narouz]