That strange "Ayn Rand phase"

I first heard of Ayn Rand when I was a sophomore or junior in high school. The school librarian, a mild-mannered former music teacher, recommended Atlas Shrugged. I found it to be dreadfully boring; I gave up after about a hundred pages (roughly 3% of the book's length) and returned to reading Chaim Potok, Kenneth Roberts, T.S. Eliot, and Robert Ludlum (yes, Ludlum's books are also long and poorly written. But never boring!). Rand's books are also creepy—lengthy, bloodless hyper-capitalist fantasies that exult in individualism to the point that narcissism is nearly redefined. Which may or may not explain why Rand's novels continue to be very popular. The Wikipedia entry for Rand states:

The column "Book Notes" of the New York Times, reported in 1991 that in a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club, when asked what the most influential book in their lives was, Rand's Atlas Shrugged was the second most popular choice. The most popular choice was the Bible.

The fifth book on that list, btw, was The Lord of the Rings; The Book of Mormon placed ninth. All of this to mention a recent piece, "Adolescent females love Ayn Rand – wonder why?", by Amy Benfer for InCharacter.org, which discusses the popularity of Rand's novels among many young women, 25 years after the novelist's death:

Few authors inspire the kind of life-changing devotion, blind hatred, or contemptuous dismissal so frequently achieved by Ayn Rand, the founder of “Objectivism” and author of the novels Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, the non-fiction book The Virtue of Selfishness, and nine others. Despite nearly unanimous critical disdain, her books became best-sellers; the combined sales of her work continue to top 500,000 copies every year – more than Philip Roth, way more than, say, Zora Neale Hurston. Objectivism, as dramatized in Rand’s novels and meticulously set out in her non-fiction, glorifies the self-reliant individual (as opposed to the collective), prizes rational thought, and dismisses organized religion of any sort. Politically, it bears some resemblance to libertarianism, though Rand herself dismissed members of that party as “hippies of the right” who “substitute anarchism for reason.” Next to her casket was a six-foot-tall floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign.

It’s easy enough to explain Rand’s appeal to those who adore capitalism, abhor government intervention, and prize individual liberty above all. But the particularly fascinating thing about Rand is that many young women, like Gottlieb, revere the book as teenagers and later come to loathe – or at least laugh at – the novels as adults. In the 2003 movie Lost In Translation, Charlotte, played by Scarlett Johansson, says that every girl goes through a “horse phase” and a “photography phase, where, you know, you take dumb pictures of your feet.” For a certain kind of American girl, the “Ayn Rand phase” is another rite of passage.

Why? Benfer confesses that she went through a brief Rand phase at the age of fifteen, then writes:

Smart teenagers of either gender are no doubt thrilled by Roark’s anarchistic brilliance. Most of Rand’s knowledge of philosophy, novel-writing, and the English language was self-taught, and throughout her work she glorifies the autodidactic impulse. Roark’s buildings, writes Rand, “were as the first houses built by the first man born, who had never heard of buildings before him…. [I]t was as if the buildings had sprung from the earth and from some living force, complete, unalterably right.” There’s a sweet, almost romantic appeal to the idea that everything one needs to know can be found inside oneself. To be an architect, you don’t need to go to the Yale School of Architecture (or to the Stanton Institute, in Roark’s case). All you need to do, young man, is look inside yourself and build the buildings that emanate from your very core!

In Architects of the Culture of Death (which describes Rand as a "will worshipper"), Donald De Marco explains that Rand's philosophy of objectivism, which centers exlusively on the individual, is appealing because it is both selfish and simple:

No philospher ever proposed a more simple and straightforward view of life than theone Rand urged upon us. Man=Man; Existence=Existence; only individuals are real; all forms of altruism are inherently evil. There are no nuances or paradoxes. There is no wisdom. There is no depth. Complex issues divide reality into simple dichotomies. There are individualism and altruism, and nothing in between.

Come to think of it, that explains why I found Rand to be so boring: she manages to misrepresent reality at nearly ever turn and to create "heroes" who are about as interesting as wet cardboard. Meanwhile, Chaim Potok wrote fine novels about the challenge of a (mostly) young people struggling with what it means to be Jewish; Kenneth Roberts, in his novels about the Revolutionary War, brought to light layers of history and character I'd never heard about in history classes; T.S. Eliot traversed the often dim line between faith and despair. And Robert Ludlum? Perhaps I'll save that for another post.

Read an interview with Dr. Benjamin Wiker and Dr. Donald De Marco, authors of Architects of the Culture of Death. The table of contents for that book can be read here.

Comments

[Rick]

Well said, Carl she certainly "she manages to misrepresent reality at nearly ever turn.."

I had to read her Ethics of Emergencies in college, she argued that if it is not in one's vested self-interest to save the life of a drowning child, one is not morally obligated to do so. This gave me a certain disdain for her thought. I had a Logic prof who was agnostic and very liberal in his politics, on a few occasions he would even voice hostility towards her thought based upon such ideas.

For Rand, “selfishness” is a virtue because ethics is really about one’s own self-interests. She thinks that since selfishness is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value which is happiness. From this, she rejects altruism and the idea that self-sacrifice is a moral ideal. She obviously draws from the British Empiricists who argued that “selfishness” is the self-evident principle of all human action.

This is a true misrepresentation of virtue and happiness. Rand’s view is in stark contrast to the classical idea of eudaimonia, which means human happiness as the ultimate motive for all human actions. But, is eudaimonia a form of selfishness? No, the selfish person does everything for his own benefit, the altruist does things to benefit others. Common sense tells us that altruism is not selfishness. Were all those policemen and firemen who went into those building on 9/11 selfish? Of course not! They risked their lives because altruism is required in their jobs. If humanity was as selfish as Rand claims, we probably would have destroyed ourselves a long time ago.

I have heard that Alan Greenspan was a devotee of Rand, does this say anything about the relation between selfishness and capitalism?

[John Michael Keba]

"Come to think of it, that explains why I found Rand to be so boring: she manages to misrepresent reality at nearly ever turn and to create "heroes" who are about as interesting as wet cardboard."

And yet I have a friend who discovered Rand at 43, after 20 years as an ER nurse and quality control administrator at her hospital; she is now one of its V.P.'s. She found Rand's objectivism a breathe of fresh air and an antidote to the muddled reasoning that made her managerial life so frustrating. Fortunately, she's now reading Maritain's "The Range of Reason." It's never too late.

And let us not forget that Alan Greenspan went through his "Ayn Rand phase," and wrote at least two pieces ("Gold and Economic Freedom," 1966 and "The Assault on Integrity," 1963) for Rand's Objectivist Newsletter. He had another paper published by the Nathaniel Brandon Institute in 1962, "Antitrust." He began his 20 plus year association with Rand in 1950, at the age of 24, when he also obtained his M.A. in Economics from NYU.

I guess he didn't have any perspicacious teenagers in his life to set him straight.

[John Michael Keba]

"Common sense tells us that altruism is not selfishness. Were all those policemen and firemen who went into those building on 9/11 selfish? Of course not!"

It is not at all that simple, Rick. Many policemen and firemen are such because of family history; others simply need the job. Once a member of the "regiment," personal honor plays a role: no one wants to be branded a coward, and that motivation is a selfish one. There is also the adrenaline rush that is associated with high-risk professions: it is addictive. And finally there is simply the training: you do your job automatically and professionally, and altruism has little to do with it.

There is commonsense, and there is professional sense, and the role of altruism in either is tempered by a rational assessment of the situation.

No one had any idea that the towers were going to collapse like that; indeed, it was unimaginable. Ask yourself this, would a reponsible, "objective" fire captain send his entire company *into* a building he knew would collapse before they could carry our their mission?

[Rich Leonardi]

During law school, I too had an Ayn Rand phase, and as much I've "moved on," there are some qualities about her thinking that are praiseworthy.

Not only did she introduce me to Aristotle (and thus ultimately St. Thomas) -- something eight years of Catholic high school and university study did not do -- she was a scathing critic of Immanuel Kant and his philosophical descendants. Ignatius Press's own Charles Rice quotes her reaction to the student riots of the 1960s in his 50 Questions on the Natural Law:

Mankind could not expect to remain unscathed after decades of exposure to the radiation of intellectual fission-debris, such as: "Reason is impotent to know things as they are -- reality is unknowable -- certainly is impossible -- knowledge is mere probability -- truth is that which works -- mind is a superstition - logic is a social convention -- ethics is a matter of subjective commitment to an arbitrary postulate" -- and the consequent mutations are those contorted young creatures who scream, in chronic terror, that they know nothing and want to rule everything.

If [a] dramatist were writing a movie, he could justifiably entitle it "Mario Savio, Son of Immanuel Kant."

With rare and academically neglected exceptions, the philosophical "mainstream" that seeps into every classroom, subject and brain in today's universities, is: epistemological agnosticism, avowed irrationalism, ethical subjectivism. Our age is witnessing the ultimate climax, the cashing-in on a long process of destruction, at the end of the road laid out by Kant.

Ever since Kant divorced reason from reality, his intellecutal descendants have been diligently widening the breach. In the name of reason, Pragmatism established a range-of-the-moment view as an enlightened perspective on life, context-dropping as a rule of epistemology, expediency as a principle of morality, and collective subjectivism as a substitute for metaphysics. Logical Positivism carried it further and, in the name of reason, elevated the immemorial psycho-epistemology system -- by proclaiming that knowledge consists of linguistic manipulations. ... As a result, a student came out of a modern university with following sediment left in his brain by his four to eight years of study: existence is an uncharted, unknowable jungle, fear and uncertainty are man's permanent state, skepticism is the mark of maturity, cynicism is the mark of realism and, above all, the hallmark of an intellectual is the denial of the intellect.

So two cheers for Ayn Rand; she brought me closer to an understanding of Truth and sanity than a stack of bishops' conference pastoral letters ever could.

[Rick]

John Michael, I tend to let my emotions get the better of my reason when it comes to Rand. I agree that there can be a part of many jobs that have certain deterministic factors (family, adrenaline addiction) or selfish factors as you state. And, the proper use of virtue must enter in with each situation. So, anyone acting for reason other than the good of others, would probably have selfish (often subconscious) intentions.

But, on Rand's view, all acts of altruism are selfish in nature. This is just contrary to common sense. How many people make sacrifices in their lives for sake of the benevolence of others? Virtue can be a learned response, a habit, albeit proceeding from rational choice. How many went into those buildings to save the live of others just because it was the right thing to do? How many people went down there to help afterwards because it was the right thing to do? I think we should not oversimplify it either. With any human action, altruism being one of them, a myriad of factors enter in. But, when one makes the rational choice to act for the benefit of others, that by definition would appear to be an altruistic act. From the news accounts, it would seem that altruism, not selfishness, was present in many of the heroes of 9-11.

[John Michael Keba]

Rick, I am not defending Rand's overall philosophy, though like Rich Leonardi it was her Aristotelian realism that eventually lead me to St. Thomas. I simply found the notion that Rand's philosophy is fit only for adolescent dalliance (unless one is sensitive and smart enough to see through it) to be preposterous, and contrary to fact.

As for the heroes of 9/11 - that day did not make them heroes. The first time any of them sat up in the middle of the night, after attending the funeral of a comrade fallen in a mundane house fire or a street shooting, wondering "why am I doing this?" and reported to work in the morning, was when both heroism and altruism played a role. On 9/11 they did their jobs.

"The Vatican is not the city room of a third-rate Marxist tabloid. It is an institution geared to a perspective of centuries, to scholarship and timeless philosophical deliberation." - Ayn Rand

[Tom]

I have only one thing to say: Hurrah Kenneth Roberts!

[Carl Olson]

I have only one thing to say: Hurrah Kenneth Roberts!

Yessir! A few nights ago I read his essay on writing a novel. It is hilarious. I learned more about the Revolutionary War from reading his novels than from any history classes. His research, from what I can tell, was intensely exact.

[Rick]

John Michael, I think we could argue Rand's "Aristotelean realism". Granted from an ontological perspective she is attempting, to use term borrowed from MacIntyre, a metaphysical biology to ground her thought (we could debate, based on MacIntyre, if it truly Aristotelean in nature). Let us grant for the moment it is. But, her ethics are basically Utilitarian in nature, basing good and evil on pleasure and pain. Aristotle says the all things by nature act for an end/good, selfish is vice, etc. Rand's Objectivism comes from a tradition dating back to Machiavelli that humans are selfish by nature. This unprovable, and in fact falsifiable starting point of her ethics, flows through Empiricism, Utilitarianism and is makes its modern appearance in her work and in Evolutionary Psychology. Frankly, I don't see how selfishness can be a virtue and such a philosophy is incompatible with justice.

Based on our discussion of 9-11, which you tend to take out of the context of my argument, my point was simply that Rand would hold any act of altruism, done before, during or after 9-11 to be selfish in nature. I am saying that if there were acts of altruism done that day, if there was just one, and we at least know this to be the case, Rand is wrong.

Heroism and altruism are performed in every particular act that meet those requirements. I don't know how someone is a hero/altruist some days but only doing their jobs on 9/11.

I will ask you: What would Rand say of acts of altruism done in any case? Does she not think that altruism is basically a chimera for selfishness?

[Rich Leonardi]

Rand's leading disciple these days is David Kelley of the Objectivist Center. Here is his discussion of Rand and altruism:

After that burst of human progress, why did collectivism return in the twentieth century-and return in such grotesque and bloody forms as Nazism and communism? Because, Rand argues, people were unwilling to abandon the morality of altruism. Altruism is the third element in the cultural syndrome that Rand saw as the enemy of human well-being. What she means by altruism is not generosity, or kindness, or benevolence, which we often have occasion to extend to others in the course of pursuing our own goals. Altruism is the principle that the needs of others always take precedence over our own.

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only moral justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value.

The principle of altruism pushes people toward mysticism, for the simple reason that the principle makes no sense. There is no rational ground for asserting that sacrificing yourself in order to serve others is morally superior to pursuing your own (long-term, rational) self-interest. Altruism ultimately depends on non-rational "rationales," on mysticism in some form, whether it be the command of God, or the arbitrary postulate that one must act for the greatest good of the greatest number, or Immanuel Kant's theory of duties demanded by a "noumenal" self, or any number of other claims that have to be taken on faith.

The moral code of altruism also pushes a society toward collectivism. If self-sacrifice is an ideal-if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action-why not force people to act accordingly?

This is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, where people were compelled to serve the German Volk, and in the Soviet Union, where several generations lived in misery and oppression as a sacrifice to a future workers' paradise. In the United States, the impact of altruism is blunted by the spirit of individualism and by a political system based on individual rights; nevertheless, appeals to sacrifice and service are the primary cultural cause for the growth of government, especially the welfare state.

More here.

[cranky]

When I was in college some guy kept writing, "John Gault is coming" on empty classroom chalkboards. I thought him strange.

I ran his reference to ground when I found "Atlas Shrugged" in the library. After reading about Gault for the better part of the afternoon, I closed the book, re-shelved it and backed away slowly. This weird stuff was a waste of my time. At least that was my thinking at 19 or 20.

Ayn Rand was weird alright, though probably not as weird as the guy who kept writing about Gault on the campus chalkboards. She did have money, more than I did, so she was doing something right.

Then I found out that Christmas that my father hadstarted reading Rand. He thought she made sense and recommended her to me. I smiled and thanked him and walked away.

Maybe that's as good as explanation as any of how Dad and didn't understand each other all that well during those years. We both kept up appearances, pretending to be close until he died, and I realized how insensitive I'd been trying to carve out my individual path. A little less individualism and a little more altruism on my part wouldn't have hurt. Dad and I would have both been happier.

[cranky]

Oh, I wonder if Ms Rand could see the funny part of the joke, or did it have to be explained to her?

[Rick]

Thanks for posting this, I think you proved my case.

1. In the first paragraph, he basically blames the problems of the 20th c. on altruism, calling altruism "the enemy of human well being." Again, this is a false notion of altruism based on a false anthropology that humans are selfish. I would argue that human well being depends on altruism. He also states, "Altruism is the principle that the needs of others always take precedence over our own," Again, patently false. Christian anthropology does not put the good of others over me, it respects my good and the good of the others. It does not put the good of the state over that of individuals, the common good is the good of individuals. Here, he and Rand are creating a false dichotomy. I cannot intentionally starve myself to feed others. She mistakes the intention of altruism, it is not to denigrate oneself for the benefit of other. If what she is stating is true, then an soldier who gives his life to save others is somehow lowering himself by saving the life of others. What?

2. The second paragraph states, "The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only moral justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value." How could any Christian take this seriously? Based on this logic, God would have had to create out of necessity for the service of others. Created in the image and likeness of God, every individual has in inherent dignity whether he is altruistic or not. Humans are good by nature, evil lies in our choices. They really confuse self-sacrifice and charity. I think they reduce self-sacrifice to some perverted form of eros.
As Christians, we are called to love one another.

3. "The principle of altruism pushes people toward mysticism, for the simple reason that the principle makes no sense..." Altruism as a form of charity makes perfect sense. The greatest of the Christian virtues is charity, we are told to lay down our lives for our friends, to love one another as Christ loves. This is not some esoteric mysticism, but fulfills who we are as human beings. Christian charity begins with God, if I help others it is by God's grace and my free will. The more I grow in God's grace and avoid sin, the more I am able to love. Without love, what are human beings. Rand's views make even human love a selfish act.
4. She tries to conflate virtue ethics to a Kantian Imperative, I don't see how these 2 systems can equate with one another, one is teleological the other is deontological (Kant).
5. Unless I am reading this wrong, they are claiming such systems as Christianity push people toward Communism or Fascism. Funny, Alasdair MacIntyre argues the opposite. He state that Marxism and Capitalism tend to reduce man to mere instruments of the state and he argues for a teleological ethics, compatible with Catholic Christianity, that does not do this. Essentially, are they stating that we all assume a herd mentality, and based on altruism we denigrate humans?

I am not sure if this stuff is even fit for adolescent dalliance!

[les]

What I find fascinating is the teen-age girl Rand phase, and their love of her characters. James Dean syndrome perhaps?

Perhaps it is a parallel to the self-destruct impulse that many young women seem to have when they seek out the "bad-boy" of their circle, or better yet in a dangerous circle beyond their own.

I suppose if its all confined to reading a book and day-dreams its better than acting it out.

Rand for teen-age girls. Quite astonishing. Who'd have thought?

[John Michael Keba]

Rick, sorry I disappeared last night: I spent yesterday evening digging the snow and ice out of my elderly neighbor's drive, not because of some overwhelming altruistic impulse, but because I would have felt miserable if he keeled over with a heart attack doing it himself as I watched. I was tired. :-)

We can argue whether or not Rand is an Aristotelian realist, but we will not. As I said, I did not comment to defend Rand. I commented because most of the people I know who find Rand appealing are engineers, scientists, mathematicians and other hard professionals (the man who convinced my aforementioned friend to read her is a surgeon), and the whole teenage phase angle of the piece is silly, even if true. And in the case of the Benfer quote, somewhat dishonest:

"To be an architect, you don’t need to go to the Yale School of Architecture (or to the Stanton Institute, in Roark’s case). All you need to do, young man, is look inside yourself and build the buildings that emanate from your very core!"

Anyone who has read "The Fountainhead" learned in the first few pages that Roark excelled at the engineering aspects of the field and was expelled for "artistic" reasons. When there are a myriad of legitimate reasons to criticize Rand, why make one up?

Did I say the piece was silly? Actually, it is absurd to seek to dismiss Rand as a phase in adolescent girls, AND THEN provide a link to a discussion by philosophy and theology professor's about how she is one of the primary architects of the culture of death. Who'd a thunk teeanage girls had so much clout.

And, Rick, if you want to believe that policeman and fireman risk "their lives because altruism is required in their jobs," well may God bless you. But I submit you are being just as naively black and white as Rand. Not all public servants are motivated by altruism. Some policemen would even qualify as controlled sociopaths.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

[Carl Olson]

Actually, it is absurd to seek to dismiss Rand as a phase in adolescent girls, AND THEN provide a link to a discussion by philosophy and theology professor's about how she is one of the primary architects of the culture of death. Who'd a thunk teeanage girls had so much clout.

I'm not certain who this comment is meant for, but my post was not dismissive of Rand's influence, but was actually noting her continued influence, not just among girls, but among numerous college and university students, as well as others. Her influence should be taken seriously, even if I found her writing to be dull and uninviting. Frankly, I didn't engage much with her philosophy; I simply found her novel unattractive.

[Brian John Schuettler]

I have only one thing to say: Hurrah Kenneth Roberts!

Kenneth Roberts rules! When a history teacher wants to make the French and Indian War or the American Revolutionary era interesting he should assign Roberts as must reading. There would be a lot more people walking around who know and like history.

PS Ayn Rand sucks...Believe me, not only Atlas shrugged...I'd rather be reading Michael O'Brien.

[Rick]

JM, to continually quote someone out of the context of their argument is somewhat disingenuous. My argument regarding police/fireman simple was to point out that virtue and altruism are often required in such lines of work and that these acts as altruistic are not selfish in nature, nothing more or less.

I never said all public servants were motivated by altruism. As far as your your sociological/psychological profile of altruism within policemen/firemen, I am presuming you have a qualified degree to render such an analysis. If one follows your method, we could ask why do you tend to render such hostile comments toward public servants? The argument only dealt with the nature of altruism in such jobs against Rand's views, you seem to carry an emotive element far beyond the nature of the central argument. Every occupation has flawed individuals, there could be a few "bloggers" that are controlled sociopaths as well!

If you want to discuss Rand's views, fine, but at this point the self-serving hyperbole is getting a little old! Some good critiques of her views and their influence have been shown by the article and the posts. Let's engage the issue on a intellectual level and not a purely emotive one. I think Karl is right, ideas have consequences and influence others. Behind every work of fiction lies a philosophy. What would the world be like if we all followed Ayn Rand's Objectivism? Can Christianity and Rand's views coexist? And, if we base ethics on her view of selfishness, isn't the logical conclusion moral relativism? If you could answer any of these questions, or the one's I previously posted, then please do so. If not, then will move on.

[Rick]

The last part should read "I will move on."

Brian, loved the PS!I laughed so hard my wife heard me in the other room.

[Brian John Schuettler]

The "spirit of Ayn Rand" certainly brings the best out in people, doesn't it? Ayn Rand was an atheist and the bogus philosophy of Objectivism premised upon human pride has been around since Satan first made his appearance. If you want to talk about something interesting in the area of philosophy why not discuss Christian existentialism or Edith Stein's work in phenomenology.

Ayn Rand is dead...let the dead bury the dead.

[Brian John Schuettler]

Glad you got a laugh, Rick :-)

[Carl Olson]

why not discuss Christian existentialism

Interesting you say this; I've been reading bits and pieces of a book, Existentialism and Thomism (1960), edited by Joseph C. Mihalich. On a more popular level, I always enjoy reading Walker Percy, who acknowledged his debt to both existential philophers and to Thomism.

[Tom]

Seems like Rand can be a gateway drug to more serious (and therefore more dangerous) forms of nihilism.

[Tom]

Seems like Rand can be a gateway drug to more serious (and therefore more dangerous) forms of nihilism.

[Rick]

WOW, are these some great ideas! I would love a discussion of Percy and Existentialism and/or Christian Existentialism! One of my classes is about to read the Moviegoer, another is supposed to read Lancelot for their term project. How about paralleling the Moviegoer or other Percy's novels with Augustine's Confessions as a response to nihilism and relativism?

[Brian John Schuettler]

Interesting you say this; I've been reading bits and pieces of a book, Existentialism and Thomism (1960), edited by Joseph C. Mihalich.

That sounds very interesting...are you enjoying it? In all honesty, I don't normally think of existentialism and aristotelian metaphysics together but it sounds fascinating. Many people associate existentialism with people like Sartre or Camus but don't necessarily think of Kierkegaard or Augustine.

[Carl Olson]

Did you ever see my article, "Traveling With Walker Percy"? It's nothing deep, but it does touch on Percy's reading in existentialism.

[John Michael Keba]

"No, the selfish person does everything for his own benefit, the altruist does things to benefit others. Common sense tells us that altruism is not selfishness. Were all those policemen and firemen who went into those building on 9/11 selfish? Of course not! They risked their lives because altruism is required in their jobs."

I did not take you out of context, Rick, and I have no hostility toward public servants - apparently, you have decided to ignore my comments about confronting heroism and altruism alone in the night. I simply wanted to point out that your original comments reflected a naive glamorization of the professions. As for my suggestion that some portion of policemen could care less about the society they protect, you can choose to suggest that unless I am a psychologist I cannot make that observation, or you can go to the university library and read some studies on the root causes of police brutality. Or you can have a lot of cop friends - and Marine friends, and a nephew you are quite proud of whose is a sniper with the 1st Cav., as well as have personal knowledge of what is required to be violent for pay. Not all knowledge of human behavior and motivations requires a string of letters behind the name; sometimes, Rick, sometimes you can learn about people by actually knowing them in person. But again, instead of resorting to ad hominem innuendo, go to the library and do some research.

"I never said all public servants were motivated by altruism." No, you said, "altruism is required in their jobs." No, it is not, and I wanted to point that out. And guess what, it seems I have, for now your position is "virtue and altruism are *often* required in such lines of work." And I only had to suffer the insinuation that I am a sociopath to affect such a little change in your authorative opinion. Whew. I'm beat, and I haven't even been shovelling snow.

And for the third time, I did not enter into this to debate Rand's philosphy. And fortunately, it seems no one else wants to do that either.

[Brian John Schuettler]

"And I only had to suffer the insinuation that I am a sociopath to affect such a little change in your authorative opinion."

No, John, Rick has been analyzing my comments over the past few weeks and has astutely identified me as a sociopath. "Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others." Good catch, Rick!

PS Paybacks are hell!

[Rick]

JM, the word sociopath was simply a play on the way you used it in reference to public servants, meaning it could be extended to anyone. It was not a reference to you. And, if you feel that I took you out of context or referred to you as a sociopath, I am sorry and please accept my apology.

No one likes to be taken out of context, and I do feel as if you did that, that is the argument which is all the premises and conclusion. I was not trying to glamorize any profession, only show that Rand's view would render any hero of 9/11 a selfish person. Basically, in the last post I was simply following your method of argumentation. As you took a small portion of my argument and drew conclusions from it, I did the same.

My whole purpose of defining the nature of altruism was only to show the folly of Rand's philosophy and that if taken to its conclusion it has dangerous consequences.

Brian, I am not sure of the direction of your quote. Since Friday is the day of mercy, if I have offended you in my posts, I am sorry!

[Rick]

JM, the word sociopath was simply a play on the way you used it in reference to public servants, meaning it could be extended to anyone. It was not a reference to you. And, if you feel that I took you out of context or referred to you as a sociopath, I am sorry and please accept my apology.

No one likes to be taken out of context, and I do feel as if you did that, that is the argument which is all the premises and conclusion. I was not trying to glamorize any profession, only show that Rand's view would render any hero of 9/11 a selfish person. Basically, in the last post I was simply following your method of argumentation. As you took a small portion of my argument and drew conclusions from it, I did the same.

My whole purpose of defining the nature of altruism was only to show the folly of Rand's philosophy and that if taken to its conclusion it has dangerous consequences.

Brian, I am not sure of the direction of your quote. Since Friday is the day of mercy, if I have offended you in my posts, I am sorry!

[Rick]

Carl et al., If you are interested here is a link to a lecture I attended that is now in written form, does a good job of showing Augustine's influence on Percy. The article is entitled Cave, Cinema and the Church: Augustine of Hippo and Walker Percy

http://heritage.villanova.edu/vu/focus/salectures/as_1994.pdf

[Patricia Gonzalez]

I just thank God that I never went through an Ayn Rand phase -- her fiction sounds repellent and creepy, indeed. Glad I stuck with Sir Walter Scott, Thackeray & Co.

[Patricia Gonzalez]

I just thank God that I never went through an Ayn Rand phase -- her fiction sounds repellent and creepy, indeed. Glad I stuck with Sir Walter Scott, Thackeray & Co. "Ivanhoe" was a lot more fun than "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" seem to be.

[Patricia Gonzalez]

Sorry for the double post!

[John Michael Keba]

Rick, I do not and have not had a problem with your objection to Rand's notions about selfishness and altruism; they are quite standard. I do not defend Rand. I simply found the piece's easy dismissal of her as misrepresenting "reality at nearly every turn" as offensively simplistic, and not at all congruent with the influence she has had on the people I know and have known who deal almost exclusively with reality - frequently very harsh realities. Your opening comment wasn’t even posted when I decided to post my own objections, and I was quite taken aback when the page refreshed to reveal your enthusiastic approval of that very notion. Perhaps I let that color my subsequent responses.

But I thought your evocation of 9/11 unnecessarily emotive, to use your word, and still maintain that your original flat-out assertion that "altruism is required" for the professions of fireman and policeman stands alone outside the context of the statements that precede it. Obviously, you disagree, but it was to that assertion that I objected. If I missed any change in your position in our subsequent exchanges, I apologize.

But just to be clear, I really meant that some policemen quite literally are clinical sociopaths who are circumstantially on the right side of the law, and you can find the research that backs this up, or at least proposes it, if you care to. Certainly there are policemen and firemen who are filled with altruistic motives upon embarking on their career, but most are simply professionals doing their job. And all hopefully develop a professional detachment that keeps them sane and functioning in the face of recurrent tragedy.

And some just like what they do, and are only incidentally aware that their actions might be construed as heroic and altruistic. You can believe this or not.

Now, I think I will leave this all behind me, and go lurk on the Byzantine Forum to see how the debate/revolt over the revised Divine Liturgy is raging, as that effects me personally. Selfish, I know, but that shouldn’t surprise you.

Slava Isusu Christu! Slava na v’iki!

[Rick]

John, Thank you for the response. I did try to clarify my position, maybe I should have done so with more clarity.

Perhaps I should have added that from the perspective of virtue ethics, in a certain sense altruism as a moral obligation is required by all. If one knows that something is good, then one is morally obligated to do so. At times, we are required to put the common good over our own good. I guess it depends of how we view law. If humans are basically selfish, then the law becomes a pragmatic means of governance. But, if the law, as in Natural Law, is for human flourishing, then it seems that altruism is required, whether we know it or not. And, since I believe that such a law is written on our hearts, altruism as a form of charity seems to be a part of the natural moral order. I believe this to be part actual grace operating in our lives, so when people do courageous/just acts for others, well this is humans cooperating with God's grace which is part of our nature as good. This does not mean that this is always the case, but it is rather ironic that even the most evil person could possibly be capable of altruism.

Here is how I think Rand misses "reality nearly at every turn", and I should have put this in. In Philosophy, one's anthropology flows from both metaphysics and epistemology. If "humans are selfish by nature" is the starting point for her anthropology, this is a conclusion derived from her metaphysics and epistemology. Thus, it must say something about those two, the former which grounds reality. And if the conclusion of those two is false, and the proposition "man is by nature selfish", she begins her ethics with a flawed first premise which render that entire system weakened. It is such a philosophy that underlies her fiction, and most who read it do not see through it. This does not mean that parts of it are not good, but its overall picture can tend to push one toward selfishness. I have seen the influence of Nietzsche on people, and there is some good, but often it winds up in moral indifference, as I think Rand's views do as well. Both views may offer some initial help but could hurt one spiritually by partially losing the ability to distinguish between good and evil. As we are led to good, this is sign of God operating in our lives, but I worry about our morally indifferent world.

I don't doubt that some police are sociopaths, I suppose that every field has their fair share. I have some strange behavior from some students who work as medical professionals, well, I would be leery about recommending anyone to that hospital for care.

I do not dispute that some do things for altruistic purposes. With any human action, a myriad of factors are involved. I do like your statement that their are some that are not aware of their altruism, it is part of the job. The beauty of the latter view fits into altruism, many people just do their jobs because it is their job, they give selflessly to help others as part of moral goodness. If we are called to be saints, I think in same way we are called to be altruistic as well. I think the same can be said of many parents who love their children. No one is perfect, yet we often make selfless choices because it the morally right thing to do. If we know what is good, and if we know we should act for it at the expense of personal distaste, I think such altruistic scenarios are played many times in the drama of human life.

God's Peace my friend!

[SylviaMB]

For the first time ever, I set my flying fingers to compose a comment in a blog. I read the post and all the comments and absolutely felt compelled to let you all know that you are totally missing the boat on why so many adolescent females go through an Ayn Rand phase.

I guess I’m not surprised that no one here has hit the nail on the head because you’re all, well, men – with the exception of Patricia who admits she has never even read Rand, so she can’t speak from experience. Plus you’re way too gone on analysis of social and political theories to grasp the elemental mind of a teenage female.

Now, I never went to college and never took any courses in psychology or philosphy, but I can speak with some knowledge on this one tiny, narrow little subject because – as I can now reveal to you -- I was a teenage girl who absolutely loved Ayn Rand’s novels and consequently read every single thing I could get my hands on about her or by her.

Here’s the key to the adolescent female mind in relation to Ayn Rand novels. Ayn Rand doesn’t just glorify the self-reliant individual, she glorifies the self-reliant MAN. The kind of man that a teenage girl could sigh over and admire and dream about and then spend days and weeks and months wishing that she could become a woman lucky enough to find such a man and share that intensity and commitment and depth of feeling.

“A certain kind of American girl” spends a considerable amount of her teenage years looking for and sorting through male types – weighing, judging, testing, sorting -- looking for the type that will be husband material, the type that she can love for life. Searching fiction/fantasy novels for male types before a young girl has had experience in sorting through the real world of men around her seems to me a very common right of passage that is the real reason that the numbers are so high for teenage female fans of Rand’s novels.

Any Rand’s portrayal of male heroes in her novels is a magnet to the romantic fantasy life of a teenage girl. The male characters are strong, physically strong, and decisive, dedicated, loyal, and willing to stand against the world for what they believe. Leaders, creators, capable of creating with their own hands. All things a young girl hopes will be a part of her future.

Really, I just don’t believe teenage girls are actually seriously considering Rand’s political, social, or cultural concepts. I can tell you that as a teen I was wildly in love with Roark and wanted to read anything by Rand so that I could get more of the same. I was profoundly disappointed, of course, when I read Virtues of Selfishness and her other books and found that the ideas in them didn’t match what I was taught growing up (Catholic family/schools) and also didn’t match what I saw in the real world.

As an adult I never revisited any of her writings, and so my memory of the characters and stories is still colored by my teenage yearnings. Others may say that her ideas about society influence them in some degree; but I can tell you quite frankly that Rand’s novels did have a profound influence on my life in exactly the way I have described to you.

Influenced by her portrayal of a self-reliant man, a “true individual”, I sorted through types and made my decision on what kind of man I wanted to consider as husband material. Second only to my own father, I can cite Ayn Rand’s novels as the source for my decision to never even date let alone seriously consider as husband material a man who could not demonstrate to me physical strength, moral courage, ability to create with his own hands, and fierce individualism -- someone to whom I could submit as my head and husband and who would tirelessly work for, build, and protect his family. (Of course, faith and love of God was a prerequisite, but since I’m relating this Ayn Rand’s characters, I set that off in its own category for the moment.)

I kept my goal in front of me, and I found my Roark -- my husband of 27 years. No one in the whole world sees the connection between my darling husband and Roark – except me – and that was my long and lovingly-held secret. Until now.

[John Michael Keba]

Rick, I wasn't going to respond anymore to this thread, but thank you for the further clarification: I think I can see were I am at fault in missing the source of our conflict. I've saved the entire page, and will read through it all again, for it seems clear enough that either I have to modify my thoughts about the nature of the "altruistic act," or I must offer more considered criticsm of yours.

I imagine this thread will be dead by the time I get around to it (unless it continues in the Percy vein), but I will get back to you one way or another.

Sylvia, I will thank you for your post in the other thread.

[Brian John Schuettler]

Brian, I am not sure of the direction of your quote. Since Friday is the day of mercy, if I have offended you in my posts, I am sorry!

Rick, my comment was nothing more than a poor attempt at humor...it was so silly that it never even occurred to me that you would take it seriously. :-) Brian

[cranky]

Tom,

I keep hearing your comment about gateway drug to nihilism running through my head. I can't figure out whether it's because you're right, because I agree, or both. So, there is a chance I'll be able to label us both wise when I figure this all out.

I hope that's not too altruistic.

Best to you,

Cranky

[Heel]

http://invitibattesimo.codroot.info/ inviti battesimo
http://schemiscialliuncinetto.codroot.info/ schemi scialli uncinetto
http://tribali.codroot.info/ tribali
http://emuleadunanzadascaricaregratis.codroot.info/ emule adunanza da scaricare gratis
http://temisonyericssonk618i.codroot.info/ temi sony ericsson k618i
http://principessesirenetesticanzoni.codroot.info/ principesse sirene testi canzoni
http://troiemarocchine.codroot.info/ troie marocchine
http://mammeincesto.codroot.info/ mamme incesto
http://culifamosi.codroot.info/ culi famosi
http://melitacasalinga.codroot.info/ melita casalinga

[Heel]

http://invitibattesimo.codroot.info/ inviti battesimo
http://schemiscialliuncinetto.codroot.info/ schemi scialli uncinetto
http://tribali.codroot.info/ tribali
http://emuleadunanzadascaricaregratis.codroot.info/ emule adunanza da scaricare gratis
http://temisonyericssonk618i.codroot.info/ temi sony ericsson k618i
http://principessesirenetesticanzoni.codroot.info/ principesse sirene testi canzoni
http://troiemarocchine.codroot.info/ troie marocchine
http://mammeincesto.codroot.info/ mamme incesto
http://culifamosi.codroot.info/ culi famosi
http://melitacasalinga.codroot.info/ melita casalinga