Objectivist on the WSJ

[agrippa1]

James Taranto, who writes the Best of the Web column for The Wall Street Journal, often slips in references from Objectivist philosophy. Today he linked to the story about Farrah Fawcett and Ayn Rand (posted elsewhere on this site), and provides some comments about Rand as well as a link to the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Who Is John Galt, and What Is His Sign?

Did you know that the author of "Atlas Shrugged" was a fan of "Charlie's Angels"? We know this thanks to blogress Amy Wallace, who interviewed angel Farrah Fawcett a few months before Fawcett's death last week. It seems Ayn Rand contacted Fawcett in the 1970s, wanting her to play protagonist Dagny Taggart in a film version of "Atlas" (which still has yet to be produced).

As Fawcett explains, what attracted Rand to "Charlie's Angels" was the complete absence of character development:

The most shocking revelation, though, is this:

Who knew that Ayn Rand, scourge of mystics (of spirit and of muscle!), was superstitious about birthdays?

[softwareNerd]

While I haven't followed him closely, I get the impression that he is a conservative with religious leanings and is sympathetic to Rand... (as is Rush Limbaugh). Definitely not an Objectivist.

Edited June 29, 2009 by softwareNerd

[K-Mac]

I've seen a few people get hung up on the birthday thing. If anything, it was probably a joke or, as someone mentioned in the other thread, a humorous ice-breaker. I seriously doubt Rand thought they would be anything alike simply because they happened to be born on the same day of the month.

[softwareNerd]

I seriously doubt Rand thought they would be anything alike simply because they happened to be born on the same day of the month.

Yes. In fact, even that is a huge understatement.

It would contradict most of what we know about Rand's philosophy and render much of her writing meaningless if we assume Fawcett's interpretation to be true. So, we've got to conclude that Fawcett was jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

[Space Patroller]

Yes. In fact, even that is a huge understatement.

It would contradict most of what we know about Rand's philosophy and render much of her writing meaningless if we assume Fawcett's interpretation to be true. So, we've got to conclude that Fawcett was jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

Don't forget, Rand did give us D'Anconia.

But to get back on topic. For me. You isn't an Objectivist until you sez you is and even then....

To demonstrate the latter clause: For decades Avi Nelson has associated himslef very closely with O'ism, perhaps even claiming to be one. The facts are these: 19 years ago he supported religions convocation at a state college commencement in New England and said just about a year and change ago that he's an agnostic. Do tell!