Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    Evidently, not everyone lionizes this person...

    add entry 27969::OBJECTIVISM

    If you want to  know more about her and what she has to say, read
    her works.  The Fountainhead is a good place to start.  "Capitalism,
    the New Ideal", a collection of essays is another and then "Atlas
    Shrugged" will pretty much su it up.  She has many other writings
    including a play but this will get you started.  The heros in her
    fictional works are without regard to gender as are the villians.
    She has a view of life that has not achieved universal acceptance
    since she dares to point out that while we may be equal under law,
    we are not equal in ability.  She believed that people who get things
    done, have and use their ability, deserve to be rewarded accordingly.
    She believed that self interest is the only rational way to live.
    
    Read her works.  You may not agree, but they are fascinating.
    
    Mike

    "Atlas Shrugged" is one of my all time favorite books.  It is probably
    the first book I ever read as a teenager that had a strong, career
    oriented heroine - someone I could truly admire.  I think that is why I
    liked it so much then. I re-read it only a year ago to get a
    quasi-adult perspective on the book.  I got much more out of it
    politically and still loved the heroine.  The book pretty much promotes
    self responsibility and acheivment - it is pretty refreshing, eye
    opening and politically stimulating even though you may disagree
    with her views.
    
    Suzanne

    re: .4
    
    Oh, so she's an author?  I had the impression from the other notes
    that she was a politician of some sort.  Are her ideas so complex
    that you can't summarize them here for us ignoramuses who haven't
    heard of her?  (I have a vague memory of the title "Atlas
    Shrugged" but that's it.) 
    
    What time frame are we talking about here?  Sixties?  Is she
    still alive?  

    What has self-reliance and unequal abilities got to do with
    "Objectivism," whatever that is?  
    
    --bonnie

    Ayn Rand wrote "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" as well as
    (I think) "The Virtue of Selfishness"
    
    I'd say she wrote in the late-50's/early-60's time frame - Iremember
    reading her stuff in high school and college.
    
    Her novels *seem* feminist because often she has a "strong" female
    lead character. Unfortunately, this character very often portrays
    a woman who is strong by taking on the mantle of the patriarchy,
    and is still very much a "man's woman".
    
    Ms. Rand was (is?) a strong woman herself, but I don't think she
    would ever describe herself as "feminist", and in fact I believe
    was (is?) very much against the women's movement. Very intelligent
    lady. I found her books almost impossible to put down - and from
    my perspective now, I find them scary. There are often elements
    of physical/psychological abuse and/or "games" if you will, all
    through them.
    
    --DE
    

    Not only is there a whole conference devoted to Objectivism, but there
    is a long discussion (like 280 replys) in note 87 in DSSDEV::PHILOSOPHY
    on Ayn Rand and her philosophy as well as several notes on Objectivism.
    
    While some of it's pretty heavy going, I found it interesting to learn
    what Objectivism is. I disagree quite strongly with it, but I'm not
    knowledgable enough in it, to state exactly what Ayn Rand stands for. 
    
    Tamzen 

    Ayn Rand was a philosopher.  Her works were rooted in her own
    experiences fleeing from socialism in Eastern Europe (Dana?  Was
    it the USSR?).  She wrote several novels, which must be described
    as 'romantic' in that her characters were larger than life.  She
    defined the philosophy known as "Objectivism", which holds that
    reality is real, and objectively knowable.  Her essays analyze
    historical political relationships as the struggle for control between
    "The men of the mind" [sic] and those who allow others to rule them;
    those who refuse to be dominated and those who seek to manipulate.
    She also discussed "The Nature of Altruism", "The Virtue of
    Selfishness", art, religion, economics, ethics, and reality.
    
    My favorite title in her works is the essay "Attila and The Witch
    Doctor", about the two archetypes of political rulers; Attila, the
    "strong man" who seeks to rule by brute force over others, and The 
    Witch Doctor, who seeks to rule by clouding the reason and playing 
    upon fear of the unknown.  These are personified throughout history
    by military and religious leaders who have manipulated their peoples.
    
    A notesfile to discuss the philosophy exists, Dana referred to it
    earlier by its numeric address in .2. I think its TESLA8::Objectivism.
    Press KP7 or Select to add it to your notebook.
    
    The question posed by .0 is a good one, but its hard to start a
    discussion when so few recognize the name!
    
    DougO (bowing back out after some straight facts that seemed needed...)

    Her first novel _We_the_Living_ was written in 1936 and concerns
    the life of Kira the daughter of a White Russian family shortly
    after the revolution. Fictionalized autobiography, Rand escaped
    from the USSR in her teens. I've only just begun reading it.
    
    _The_Fountainhead_ was written, I think, in the late forties and
    concerns the career of an uncompromising architect, Howard Roark.
    It was made into a movie of the same name starring Gary Cooper as
    Roark.
    
    _Atlas_Shrugged_ was written in the fifties and crystallized the
    philosophy behind the earlier books.
    
    She died in 1982, I think. 
    
    She was opposed to "Women's Lib" mainly because she saw them demanding
    special privileges based solely on the fact of their sex. I think
    she was indeed a feminist in that she strongly believed that one
    should judge others solely on their ability and actions.
     
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    P.S. BTW, I am the moderator for TESLA8::OBJECTIVISM, you don't
         have to agree with the philosophy to be welcome, but be prepared
    	 to defend your views, as reason and logic are highly valued
    	 by objectivists.

    I read all of the Ayn Rand books back in college. While I personally
    don't agree with her philosphy I did find her an exciting author
    to read. ( I think the pages in "The Fountainhead" where the hero
    forcefully seducess the heroine were the most worn parts of the
    books that got passed from one young woman to another.)
    
    Bonnie

    Ayn Rand was born in 1905 in Petrograd (St. Petersburg-Leningrad-
    Stalingrad) She died in 1985. To simplify her philosophy I 
    would say that she stood for reason/individualism/capitalism
    and against mysticism/collectivism/altruism. 
    
    Her four novels were :
    
    We The Living -1937
    Anthem - 1940 (?)
    The Fountainhead - 1943
    Atlas Shrugged - 1957
    
    She wrote numerous essays on economics, ethics, epistemology
    and politics, a play (Night of January 16th) and several 
    short stories. 
    
    Dana

    re:.12
    
    ANTHEM was published in 1938.
    
    Even if you don't believe in Rand's philosophy (I don't), her
    books are recommended as very enlightening explications of
    Objectivist philosophy. "Getting to know the enemy" and all that.
    
    (No, I'm not interested in debating the pros and cons of
    Objectivism.)
    
    ANTHEM and ATLAS SHRUGGED are even dystopian science fiction. :-)
    
    --- jerry

    re: -.7
    
    Elements of physical/psychological abuse and/or games?  Maybe, but
    these were perpetrated by the various villians in the stories, not
    by the heros.  They are indeed scary when placed in the perspective
    of many of the prevailing political and moral attitudes of today.
    Indeed the heros of her works lived according to values that seem
    to be diametrically opposite to the values that are so prevalent
    today.                             
    
    Mike

    
    For those who have said that they disagree with Ayn Rands 
    philosophy, would you care to elaborate? What is it that you 
    disagree with and why?

    in re .14 I think the 'rape' scene in (I believe) The Fountainhead 
    bordered on physical abuse.

    in re .15 Hank, it has been many many years since I read her books.
    However, I am a Christian and I do recall that she was against many
    of the beliefs of my church. I would have to reread the books to
    be more precise.
    
    Bonnie

    re:.15
    
    Well, in my earlier reply, I said that I wasn't interested in
    debating the pros and cons of Objectivist philosophy. Besides,
    even if I was, this is not the place to do it; I'd go to the
    Objectivism or Philosophy notesfiles.
    
    If you want it in one simple compact sentence:
    
    	Her views are too black and white.
    
    --- jerry

    I agree that Ayn's views are to black and white. 
    
    But I feel in that there are lessons to be learned.  I think that
    'Anthem' sums up another famous saying.
    
    "The more you ask of your government, the more they can expect of
    you."

    Much can be learned from Ayn Rand's philosophy.  It can be inspirating
    - making you as an individual strive for more.  Her heros and heroines
    are admirable.
    
    The only problem I had was that her characters in Atlas Shrugged fell
    in two categories. The first set of characters were super-humans,
    powerful, self-reliant, intelligent, the do-ers of society.  They
    expected from others what they expected from themselves - to give
    everything their all.  They never expected something for nothing -
    everything had to be worked for, earned for or paid for.
    
    The others were 'give-me-more' dribbling fools who wanted everything
    given to them on a silver platter.  Government intervention, distribute
    everything evenly, take away from those self-reliant types and give
    more to those dribbling fools.  These characters were pitiful and
    ingnorant.
                                                                               
    Much of her scenerio rings true. However there were no elderly, no
    children, no handi-capped - how did they care for themselves?  How
    do they fit in these two categories?  This is never addressed in
    Atlas Shrugged.
    
    I can't say I'm an expert on Ayn Rand - I have only read Atlas Shrugged
    which is an excellent book.  However I agree with the others who
    have said her views are too black and white.  I would rather travel
    the middle of the road - a happy medium.  
    
    Hope this helps a little about understanding her views and ideas - I
    may be totally off (please feel free to correct me) but this is how I
    interpreted her book. 
              

There are two parts of Rand's philosophy.  One has been talked about here;
about the supremacy of the individual, etc.  The other part is meta-philosophy;
about how one comes up with a personal philosophy in the first place.

Her main point in this area is that our reasoning faculty must be the basis
for determining what we do, and not emotion, faith, etc.  Certain things
*are* true, other things *are* false, and pretending it ain't so can be fatal.
Literally fatal.

    I have read both "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Virtue of Selfishness".
    On the whole, I liked those books, though I did not automatically
    agree with the author's theories.
    
    One thing stands out for me, and it's Ayn Rand's opinion that reality
    exists and that we can grasp it. It may seem, and is, very basic,
    but in the world as it is today and I can't help but feel that we
    need to take a look at REALITY.
    
    Regards,   Joana
    
    
    PS: Suzanne, what you said is true, I hadn't really noticed it before.
    	However there is one person (only one!) who is neither a hero
    	or a worm, and it's Eddie Willers (Dagny's childhood friend).
    	

    
    	I read one Ayn Rand book after another while in college -- couldn't
    	get enough!  I would like to re-read them now that I have spent
    	some time in the "real world".  One thing I remember, though:
     	even though there were strong women characters -- the women
    	characters were _NEVER_ as strong as the men, and they always
    	sought the approval of those stronger men!
    
    	re her philosophy:  I remember arguing most of one night with
    	a fellow who was a member of the East Winds commune about how
    	he could POSSIBLY put up with those commune members who didn't
    	carry their fair share.  At that time, I wanted life to be black
    	and white.  Now I know it is not.
    
    	I sometimes flash on _Atlas Shrugged_ when I read of the state
    	of our society.  That is, the railroads are failing and there
    	no longer seem to be any leaders of worth.  Is it time to head
    	for the hills of Colorado?

    	Sharon

    re .22 I didn't see Dominique Francon (The Fountainhead) or
    Dagny Taggart (Atlas Shrugged) as looking for *stronger* men
    than themselves. Rather, they were so strong that they had
    a hard time finding *equals*.

    Dana

    
    re .23 - I can see your point, but neither John Galt nor Howard
    	     Roark were female.  The heroine's were strong characters,
	     it was Roark who gave the infamous courtroom speech, and
    	     one never hears the expression "Who is Dagny Taggart?",
    	     but rather "Who is John Galt?"
    
    	     I would love to meet Dominique or Dagny these days . .
    
    	     Sharon    

I'm reading "The Foutainhead"...

The main characters seem so unreal...  aren't there any '''normal''' characters
in this book?  They all seem to be so disconnected from any notion of humanity. 

I don't see any distinction between Roark's actions and Keeting's actions. It
seems like either one of them will stoop however low it takes to get what their
goal is.  The sole difference is that Roark does not use 'the system' and
refuses to compromise his ideal, but that doesn't seem to make him a more
ethical/moral person.  Keeting uses the system, and doesn't have to compromise
his 'ideal' ($$$$).

And Dominque, she's so warped...  devotes her life to doing the opposite of the
norm just for the hell of it, unable to be attracted to anyone, wants to be
'raped' by Roark, infinitely jealous.  Goes to great lengths to oppose Roark to
'forge' him, and in the same time goes back to Roark for more '''rape''', and
Roark just let's her do whatever.  The only reason I can see for Roark going
along with it is that she will eventually work through it.

Along with Toohey, these people are masters at double meanings, speaking in code
and meaning the opposite of what it seems they are talking about. 

This reminds me of "Terms of Endearment", which my comment of 'it was a movie
full of stupid people doing stupid and hurtfull things to each other, but it was
not a stupid movie'.  That made me think of how endearing love was, but in "The
Fountainhead"  I don't see any silver lining in the black cloud.

JMB 

    re .25 Keep reading

    I just finished struggling through a book called "For The New
    Intellectual", which is an Ayn Rand sampler. It has an introductory
    section which (allegedly) outlines rational objectivism, and bits
    from several novels, including John Galt's radio broadcast from
    "Atlas Shrugged".
    
    What a waste of time! In this book, she never goes beyond very simple
    explications of rational objectivism - trivial, I'd have to say.
    Instead, almost all the material which claims to be explaining R.O.
    is just chopping down contrary philosophies. I'm underwhelmed.
    
    What got me through the book was thinking that SOMEWHERE, in a book
    which is presumably intended to persuade me, she must provide a
    rationale for how certain moral decisions would turn out the same
    under R.O. as under more conventional philosophies (i.e., ones that
    don't regard altruism as the ultimate evil.)
    
    Nope. Almost nothing of that sort. So, what I'd like to know (there
    is SOME point to this note, other than just pftpfpfpt-ing Ayn Rand)
    is if any womannoters can take up Rand's defense. You don't have
    to be a believer, excuse me, one who is rationally convinced. Just
    tell me if there is some way that an rational objectivist can
    rationalize your basic Good Samaritan act.
    
    I have a pretty constrained circumstance in mind, designed to challenge
    the philosophy at a basic level. Let's say you (as the rational
    objectivist) are making your escape from a flood. You're not in any
    particular danger yourself. You come across an unconscious stranger,
    in a position where the rising water will soon drown him/her. All
    you'd have to do to save the stranger's life would be to move her/him
    a very short way to high ground. Do you do it? Why?
    
    If someone can point me to a note in another conference that discusses
    a similar question, that would be fine. Hope noone minds my asking
    here.

    Thanks,
    Chuck

    There is a looooong topic devote to this in DSSDEV::PHILOSOPHY.
    There is also a whole conference devoted to Objectivism at
    TESLA8::OBJECTIVISM.
    
    But, even though I've followed the discussions in both places, I
    have yet to hear an argument for Objectivism which made any sense
    to me. It all seems counter-intuitive and not logical.
    
    Tamzen

    re .27 there is nothing in Objectivism that precludes
    benevolence. What is held wrong is the premise that one would be
    morally obligated to save that stranger at the cost of your own
    life. That one must sacrifice one's own interest to the interest
    of others. 
    
    I find it distasteful to be told 'you *must* be charitable'.

    My understanding is that there is indeed no injunction AGAINST
    benevolence - and that there's also precisely ZERO encouragement
    of same. I think that leaves some little bit to be desired in the
    philosophy.
    
    I have a healthy reluctance to dive into any new conferences,
    especially where I'd tend toward guerilla noting, but this weekend
    I might psyche myself up to stir some you-know-what in OBJECTIVISM.
    Methinks that situations which appear at first glance to be morally
    neutral, if pursued a little deeper raise some problems for a
    philosophy which rejects the notion of compromise.
    
    Chuck