Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. (NIV)
Ayn Rand did not believe her own philosophy. She was smarter than that.
Ayn Rand tied up a heavy, cumbersome load of bollocks and put it on her disciples’ shoulders.
She called it Atlas Shrugged. How’s that for a sense of humour? Wicked. I was wrong.
Some people mistake my own wit and wisdom for cryptic smart-assery. The same people mistake Rand’s cryptic smart-assery for good philosophy. I mistook Rand’s cryptic smart-assery for bad philosophy. But it is neither.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (NIV)
God so loved the world that He gave us the gift of Life. The gift that keeps on giving.
Ayn Rand so loved herself that she gave the world the gift of Objectivism. The gift that keeps on taking.
Men have a weapon against you. Reason. So you must be very sure to take it away from them. Cut the props from under it. But be careful. Don’t deny outright, you give your hand away. Don’t say reason is evil – though some have gone that far with astonishing success. Just say that reason is limited. That there’s something above it. What? You don’t have to be too clear about it either. The field is inexhaustible. “Instinct’ – ‘Feeling’ – ‘Revelation’ – ‘Divine Intuition’ – ‘Dialectic Materialism’. If you get caught at some crucial point and somebody tells you that your doctrine doesn’t make sense – you’re ready for him. You tell him there’s something above sense. That here he must not try to think, but to feel He must believe. Suspend reason and you play it deuces wild. Anything goes in any manner you wish whenever you need it. You’ve got him. Can you rule a thinking man? We don’t want any thinking men.
Rand didn’t want any thinking men. Philosophy. Who needs it? Rand didn’t want her disciples needing it or reading it, which is why, on the one hand, she disparaged philosophy and philosphers, especially modern ones, and on the other hand, she exalted herself to the heights of Aristotle and Aquinas. As predicted by the Law of Intended Consequences, Rand’s debased disciples don’t think, they proclaim.
Rand didn’t want any thinking men. She just wanted to be called ‘Rabbi’ by dumbfounded dipshits. She got what she wanted. Good and hard.
Objectivism is a Trojan Horse. Woe to those who allow it through the gates of their tiny minds. For Rand was, indeed, packing a snake. A talking one.
Objectivism. Who needs it? There is another gift. A gift beyond human reach. Ask, and it will be given to you. Seek, and you will find a hidden treasure, a pearl of great price. Why settle for the baubles of Ayn Rand’s orifice?
Your quote is her attempt to put words in other people’s mouths.
That’s not a very effective critique (though pointing out that she was putting words in other people’s mouths would be.)
Richard:
It is one thing to say ‘Objectivism. Who needs it?”
It is another thing to say ‘Rand. Who needs her?”
Rand did more than preach objectivism. She would probably deny this and say that even her fiction was a way of preaching objectivism.
Well ok, maybe she was always preaching objectivism. But that does not mean everything she said was essentially objectivist. I mean she might have said X, and X might follow from objectivism, and her purpose in saying X may have been to /advance/ objectivism, but this does not mean a rejection of objectivism means a rejection of X.
If you ask “Who needs Rand?” allow me to raise my hand. Of course I must qualify this. I don’t /need/ Rand. I don’t /need/ my wife. I don’t /need/ anybody but Jesus the Christ. So I interpret your question as “Who benefits from Rand?” Well, I benefited from Rand. I am not a cult follower of Rand. I am not a rabid denouncer of Rand. (Why she seem attract so many that are one or the other I don’t know. It is a curious thing. But in any case, I am neither.)
As you get to know be better you might come to the conclusion that reading Rand has somehow damaged me. Perhaps it has. (Who knows himself). But at the time of my writing this you /have/ known me for a /little/ while Richard. Do I /seem/ damaged to you?
Let us suppose that Ayn Rand is /dangerous/, and that people reading her are at /risk/ of being damaged. If this is so, and if there are no benefits to be had from reading her, then I agree that she best be avoided.
But here am /I/ with my claim that reading Rand has benefited /me/. What will you do with my claim? Will you ignore it? Will you refute it? Or will you explore the implications?
I see these as your only three options.
I am open to be persuaded that reading Ayn Rand can be /dangerous/. My existence should persuade you that reading Ayn Rand can be /helpful/. If you are not persuaded, I hope you will spend time to know me better.
Cheers.
Bryan Hann.