
The Fountainhead and it's effect on our head - CSenn
https://medium.com/p/ad30c49b1cfb
======
lucio
Every example of "Ayn Rand philosophy" you present it's exactly the opposite
of what it should be.

"for the greater good"? "stealing is ok"? These are the arguments of the
_villains_ in Ayn Rand novels.

"selfishness" (as defined by Rand) means to preserve what you value most and
do not sacrifice a higher value for a lesser value.

~~~
CSenn
"Stealing is ok" was just an example of how a rational truth can be flawed, it
had nothing to do with Ayn Rand's teachings. My impression from Ayn Rand's
teachings was that the best possible society was created when people acted in
self interest, this is what I mean by the "greater good". In the novel the
politicians always spoke about the greater good, but her argument was they
were not doing it right, and actually destroying society. The purpose of the
essay was about some people's interpretation of her ideas more then the ideas
themselves, which is why I believe they have received such a cult following.

~~~
spikels
How is the reader supposed understand all this unless you actually say it in
your essay. Instead you present a distorted caracature of ideas you clearly
don't understand.

Let me ask you this: if people don't act in their own self-interst, how should
they act? And more importantly how should they express their many desires if
not through their actions?

~~~
CSenn
The point is I am not making an argument one way or the other. I am simply
expressing how I have seen her views interpreted. Some people use her
teachings as a foundation for how they make decisions, they have rationalized
it is proper to act purely in self interest, and some of those times it is
damn cold. And many extremely intelligent scholars have argued for many years
about her teachings, writing is a way for me to traverse my mind to come to
deeper understandings.

------
dmfdmf
This article is such a collection of misrepresentations and misunderstandings
of Rand's philosophy that it comes across as a caricature. If Rand's
philosophy was as obviously stupid as this guy portrays it then I doubt it
would still be popular 30 years after her death. The only error that I will
address is that Rand presented her ideas in her fiction. She did do this, of
course, but these were necessarily a _consequences_ of her complete
philosophic system which she fully explained in numerous non-fiction works.
I'd recommend starting with The Virtue of Selfishness to see for you self.

~~~
CSenn
Ok that's fair, one question though because this was what I got out of the
book. Do you believe the main big picture purpose of Ayn Rand's philosophy was
to create the best possible society? I definitely may have over simplified her
idea of selfishness, however the article was more about popular culture's
interpretation of it, and maybe making a caricature of it is quite common.

~~~
dmfdmf
> Do you believe the main big picture purpose of Ayn Rand's philosophy was to
> create the best possible society?

No, that was just a consequence of her primary goal. She actually said she had
no deep interest in politics other than to define a rational base for
capitalism so she (and those like her) could be left alone to create. That was
the basis for the title of her novel that free individuals are the
fountainhead of all the values we enjoy. Her primary stated goal was to
present the ideal man in her novels. In order to do that she discovered that
she had to define her own philosophy of Objectivism. A complete philosophy
doesn't start with politics or society but more basic questions such as the
nature of existence, consciousness, knowledge, reason and ethics which all
have to be defined to intelligently discuss politics (the highest level).

In reading your article and replies to others I see that the goal in your
article wasn't to explain or discuss Objectivism so much but to explain the
_cultural phenomenon_ of Ayn Rand's popularity. My recommendation would be to
read some of her non-fiction works like the one I recommended on selfishness.
BTW, she qualified her advocacy of selfishness as acting on ones _rational_
self interest, not emotional indulgence as you implied. (This is a common
misrepresentation of her view). Also, she thought that emotions were important
and essential to the human experience but they are not primaries nor means to
knowledge. If you are interested in what Rand was all about you should also
read her books __Philosophy Who Needs It __and __Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
__.

~~~
CSenn
Ok well it makes sense that she chose to start at the highest level and work
her way down. And yes I was speaking about culture.

She was absolutely brilliant, probably somewhere up there in the top thinkers
in history. But building a functional society is obviously exceptionally
difficult, and the highest level arguments seem to me more of a thought game
for academics then a practical solution to a pressing and absolutely real
societal problem. I guess the reason I wrote the article is because at times
misenterpretation of complex ideas can be dangerous. Maybe similar to how
Germany's propaganda misinterpreted the teachings of Nietzsche.

And thanks for your input, it's helpful

------
spikels
I think you got it backwards: people act in their self-interest resulting
(surprisingly to some) in many of them getting what they desire. This is not a
theory but a description of reality.

