My Response To A Friends Message Questioning Rand's Validity

[Ehre]

An older friend of mine who doesn't agree with my Objectivist views sent me an e-mail with quotes from a website that contains writing's trying to tear apart Rand's philosophy. I read everything the website had to offer and put some effort into writing back to my friend attempting to prove the website wrong. I know I am not perfect, and my knowledge of Objectivism is in no way perfect either; but the website really proved nothing wrong to me about Objectivism. The hard part is correctly proving the anti-Objectivist essay,written by Cathy Young, wrong. I am writing on this form because reading into all of this, and writing my friend, has been a productive experience for me. I would now like to copy the writing's here and open it up to comments and advice. Is there something I should have said that I didn't? Did I say things that were incorect from an Objectivists' point of view? Did I say something about Objectivism or Ayn Rand that is incorrect?

It can only help to double check.

Original e-mail from friend:

[i cut out sentences that did not pertain to our Rand conversation at all, just personal chat]I found an interesting article on Ayn Rand, that confirms my suspicions as to why you would be drawn to her philosophy. Beyond that, the writer makes this observation:

"In its pure form, Rand’s philosophy would work very well indeed if human beings were never helpless and dependent through no fault of their own. Thus, it’s hardly surprising that so many people become infatuated with Objectivism as teenagers and “grow out of it” later, when concerns of family, children, and old age—their own and their families’—make that fantasy seem more and more impossible."

As well:

"Rand herself was a creature of paradox. She was a prophet of freedom and individualism who tolerated no disobedience or independent thought in her acolytes, a rationalist who refused to debate her views. She was an atheist whose worship of Man led her to see the human mind as a godlike entity, impervious to the failings of the body or to environmental influences. (Nathaniel Branden reports that she even disliked the idea of evolution.) She was a strong woman who created independent heroines yet saw sexual submission as the essence of femininity and argued that no healthy woman would want to be president of the United States because it would put her above all men."

http://www.reason.com/0503/fe.cy.ayn.shtml

My reply:

[i cut out sentences that did not pertain to our Rand conversation at all, just personal chat]What are your suspicions as to why I am drawn to Ayn Rand's philosophy? You said Cathy Young's essay confirmed them, but when it comes to the understanding of Objectivism, Cathy Young isn't on a level of understanding to confirm anything.

Thank you for the link. I enjoyed reading her essay, along with the other articles I found on the webpage. I agree with very little of what they say, but I like seeing respected views on the opposite side of what I believe. So far, it has only strengthened my confidence in Objectivism.

"In its pure form, Rand’s philosophy would work very well indeed if human beings were never helpless and dependent through no fault of their own. Thus, it’s hardly surprising that so many people become infatuated with Objectivism as teenagers and “grow out of it” later, when concerns of family, children, and old age—their own and their families’—make that fantasy seem more and more impossible."

I noticed you bolded that sentence since it seems to pertain to me. Perhaps teenagers are attracted to the general ideas of Objectivism, but I am attracted to every aspect of it. While understanding Objectivism as a whole (at least all I have learned so far), I have already reached a place where it makes sense and even helps when making decisions dealing with family, children, and old age; what you can learn from it to better yourself and your life is endless. Unfortunately very few people understand. An example of one of these people is Cathy Young, who makes this evident in the first sentence of your provided quote:

"In its pure form, Rand’s philosophy would work very well indeed if human beings were never helpless and dependent through no fault of their own."

Young is saying this because of Rand's emphasis on selfishness: One should never sacrifice or be forced to sacrifice; one should hold their own happiness as their highest goal; one shouldn’t give away the fruit of their labor. What Young doesn't quite grasp, is that this in no way says you can't help others; you can't accept help from others; people can't be dependent on others at no fault of their own; or people can't be helpless at no fault of their own. To sacrifice is to give without getting anything in return. But, if you value helping people in need that can't get by on their own, you are in return achieving happiness in attaining that which you value, and following the guidelines of Objectivism; you are, in essence, making a trade, not giving with nothing in return. Much of Objectivism is helping you form your own values based on objectivist virtues and your surroundings; someone that lives in Tokyo will probably have different values then someone in California. But, all humans follow and can agree on the same morals. Morals and values are different: Morals consist of rules to live by that every human of any faith and belief can agree on (as long as they aren’t “evil”). A simple example of this: Taking a life for no reason or beneficial outcome is wrong.

"Rand herself was a creature of paradox. She was a prophet of freedom and individualism who tolerated no disobedience or independent thought in her acolytes"

I just started getting into how Objectivism is based on individualism. Young is completely wrong in claiming that Rand does not tolerate independent thought in her acolytes. The point of Objectivism is thinking as an individual with the Objectivist guidelines as a foundation to build off of. Rand didn't tolerate disobedience or thought that contradicted her philosophy from her acolytes. If someone claiming to be a believer in what she says didn't agree with her philosophy completely, then it would be a lie to call them an Objectivist. I feel that same way about democrats and republicans: I can't call myself either one because I don't agree with every point each side stands for, I just support Republicans 90% of the time, and tend to not be able to stand democrats.

"[she was] a rationalist who refused to debate her views"

Ayn Rand didn't want to waste her time persuading people to believe what she believed. If someone doesn't have an interest in her philosophy without coaxing, then she wasn't going to waste her efforts. She was focusing on what she wanted: Enlightening rational people who had a thirst for using reason to attain happiness. I, myself, am different from her: I love talking about it with others because it helps me clarify certain points and hear other people’s points. This is an example of Objectivism’s individualistic views. Objectivism doesn’t teach people solid rules to live by, like religions; it gives you solid ground’s to use reason to attain your own rules to live by. That’s why objectivists are so different from each other even while completely following her philosophy, yet they are all good people who work to achieve their goals in life and, in turn, further their happiness. There is much in her life I don’t agree with, and there is much in my life that she wouldn’t agree with. Again, that’s all because of individualism.

"She was an atheist whose worship of Man led her to see the human mind as a godlike entity, impervious to the failings of the body or to environmental influences"

Wow, this woman is speaking out of her ass at this point. Rand didn't see the mind as a "godlike entity"! She saw the minds capabilities, it's power, AND it's limits. A “godlike entity” has no limits. She saw how much humans have been able to construct out of reality, and its endless capabilities within reality. She explicitly touches upon how environmental influences along with many other influences can result in different values. Saying she saw the human mind as a "godlike" entity that is impervious to the failings of the body, and to environmental influences is as crazy as saying there’s a man who flies around in a sled giving children presents every year . . . No, it’s actually more crazy, because there is proof against Young’s statements to Rand’s philosophy, when there isn’t any substantial proof against Santa (sounds a lot like reason vs. faith)

"Nathaniel Branden reports that she even disliked the idea of evolution"

I don't know about that report by Branden, but Rand doesn't give any indication of that in her philosophy, that I know of. Perhaps that comment stemmed from her values or personal opinion on things not fully understood? Plus, from what I have heard about Nathaniel Branden, he doesn’t seem like the most reliable source of information about Ayn Rand.

"She was a strong woman who created independent heroines yet saw sexual submission as the essence of femininity and argued that no healthy woman would want to be president of the United States because it would put her above all men."

Rand DID understand the difference in woman and men, naturally. Men are stronger and more helpful in some parts of life, while woman in others. She also observed woman’s natural feelings of submission when things became sexual. I have not heard her deny a woman’s right to be above men in anything other then sexual submission. I have no idea where Young got that; it must have either been easily misinterpreted out of context, or not a direct quote.

Here is an actual quote I found from the link you gave me.

"Rand believed, of course, that men and women should have equal rights. She had little sympathy for the traditional ideal of womanhood, in which the morality of self-sacrifice and service to others that she so detested was distilled and magnified. In a 1964 interview, she affirmed that women, like men, should build their lives around work: ‘What is proper for a man is proper for a woman....There is no particular work which is specifically feminine.’ Her novels reflect that: Kira Argounova in We the Living and Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged both choose "unfeminine" careers, engineering and railroad operations [and in some ways dominate in their particular fields]" (I added that background information for emphasis of my point)

I didn't find one eye-opening point against Objectivism in that whole website. It tends to be a hard philosophy to fully grasp at first, I fortunately had an upper hand when learning about it because it's pretty much exactly what I believed before hand; there were just a few rough edges I wasn’t able to work out and come to a conclusion over until I saw it all laid out in front of me in such simple terms. It may seem like a simple, common sense approach to understanding reality; but this is just the surface. This surface is what Young was writing to debunk. But, it’s a lot more complicated then it looks when really getting down deep and understanding the philosophy.

I hope I cleared a few things up for you, and I hope I didn't miss too much. It's a long message, but there are probably many more details I should be touching upon. This will do for now.

-Brando

[StarBuck]

What you have to understand is that those who hear about Objectivism and still disagree are practicing evasion . By subverting their own minds in this evasion they make it impossible to hear reason.

[dianahsieh]

I think that the major point to mention to your friend is that Cathy Young's discussion of Ayn Rand and Objectivism wholly based upon the biographies and other writings of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. And those biographies have been completely refuted by Jim Valliant's recent book _The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics_, with the Brandens demonstrated to be liars on a massive scale out to ruin Ayn Rand's reputation in order to save some semblance of their own.

I think that you should tell your friend to focus on Ayn Rand's ideas -- tell you why they are wrong -- rather than concoct strange stories about your motives based upon bad third-hand sources. If your friend isn't willing to do that, yet still wishes to complain about your interest in Objectivism, then he/she isn't much of a friend.

[hunterrose]

Is there something I should have said that I didn't? Did I say things that were incorect from an Objectivists' point of view? Did I say something about Objectivism or Ayn Rand that is incorrect?

Not that I saw, but IMO if your intent was to show the errors of Young's (and your friend's) argument, you might have replied more simply, I suppose. I haven't read the link as a whole, just the quotes.

The fact that "most people" grow out of being Objectivists is no more damning than that most people grow out of seeking to be millionaires, astronauts, grandmasters, Mr. Olympias, and Pulitzer prize winning novelists. Perhaps you might ask your friend how growing out of Objectivism is different from giving up on these other high standards.

And personal attacks against Rand, regardless of whether they are true or not, are indicative neither of Objectivism's practicality or consistency.

[Hal]

Theres no arguments presented in her essay, or at least no philosophically interesting ones. I wouldnt have bothered replying if I were you, but meh. No serious philosopher would argue from biographical details when discussing the work of Wittgenstein or Kripke, so theres no reason to dignify it in a discussion of Ayn Rand.

[Ehre]

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.

I completely agree with all that has been stated.

Unfortunately, I do tend to go much further then needed when explaining something (especially explaining something I'm passionate about); being my explanations length, and/or the points I touch upon. I am working on toning this down and coming up with more "sweet and simple" answers.

My friend's e-mail was not solid grounds for an argument, being mere quotes from a third-hand source that mostly attempted to bash Rand's personal life. Yet, he is my friend, and I wish to thoroughly explain any doubts he may be having about my beliefs based on unreliable sources of information like Young's essay.

What you have to understand is that those who hear about Objectivism and still disagree are practicing evasion . By subverting their own minds in this evasion they make it impossible to hear reason.

(StarBuck)

That seems to be completely true. I have yet to find or hear a clear, simple way of making "reason" seem as simply absolute to those who can't quite grasp it, as it is to me. I have friends who can't let go of faith even though I can tell, through their beliefs, that they are leaning much more towards reason; yet, no matter what I say, nothing can take that baby blanket of faith away from them. Evasion if not a healthy solution.

[mosespa]

The only error that I see in your statement is that you use the term "Objectivist" to describe people other than Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand once said that SHE is the only person who could be called an Objectivist as she is the one who described the parameters of the philosophy. Anyone else is simply a "student of Objectivism."

Other than that, your argument against Ms. Young's position seems sound.

[softwareNerd]

What you have to understand is that those who hear about Objectivism and still disagree are practicing evasion . By subverting their own minds in this evasion they make it impossible to hear reason.

"hear about"? Wait a minute! There are many things people "hear about" and often hear only an incorrect summary, and dismiss without further research. That's hardly evasion.

[softwareNerd]

Having read the original email from your friend and your response, I agree with Diana's advice that "...you should tell your friend to focus on Ayn Rand's ideas -- tell you why they are wrong..." (emphasis mine)

You could explain the three main virtues of the Objectivist ethics to your friend and ask if he agrees or disagrees with those. That should be a useful discussion.

[Bold Standard]

I like giving detailed explanations to people so that I can better understand something, too. So I'll give you a little critique.

An older friend of mine who doesn't agree with my Objectivist views sent me an e-mail with quotes from a website that contains writing's trying to tear apart Rand's philosophy. I read everything the website had to offer and put some effort into writing back to my friend attempting to prove the website wrong. I know I am not perfect, and my knowledge of Objectivism is in no way perfect either; but the website really proved nothing wrong to me about Objectivism.

Well, I haven't read the whole website your friend linked to, but I read the quotes and I've read dozens of sites and even books like that, so hopefully that's enough. As to not being perfect, of course, I don't know you-- but don't sell yourself short! You don't have to be omniscient or omnipotent to be perfect. As long as you're honest, rational, independent, and always seeking to improve yourself, IMO you're perfect.

I found an interesting article on Ayn Rand, that confirms my suspicions as to why you would be drawn to her philosophy. Beyond that, the writer makes this observation:

Personally, in the context of the quotes here, I would have told your friend to blast off for this cowardly remark. This totally comes off as a patronizing insult. Bad form on your friend's part, I say.

"Rand herself was a creature of paradox. She was a prophet of freedom and individualism who tolerated no disobedience or independent thought in her acolytes, a rationalist who refused to debate her views. She was an atheist whose worship of Man led her to see the human mind as a godlike entity, impervious to the failings of the body or to environmental influences.

The funny thing is this whole paragraph is a paraphrase from the back of the movie, "The Passion of Ayn Rand," based on Barbara Branden's book. How lame.

(Nathaniel Branden reports that she even disliked the idea of evolution.)

Not that NB is a reliable source, but that's not even what he said. He said that she told him evolution was "only a theory." Which he thought was bizarre, but he also thought it was inexplicable that she didn't consider telepathy and telekenesis as possible. At any rate, that was in the 1960's. A lot of evidence has surfaced in favor of evolution since then (I would venture to go so far as to say "proving" it.) But I think AR's point was that it's not a philosophically essential point. It's just a scientific fact, if evolution were or weren't true, it wouldn't make a difference to philosophy. You can find the evolution remark at NB's website, I'm sure. I think there is a "search" option. I've seen that article on there before. Not that it's very important..

She was a strong woman who created independent heroines yet saw sexual submission as the essence of femininity and argued that no healthy woman would want to be president of the United States because it would put her above all men."

What is all of this supposed to imply? It's not even a paradox superficially.

Thank you for the link. I enjoyed reading her essay, along with the other articles I found on the webpage. I agree with very little of what they say, but I like seeing respected views on the opposite side of what I believe. So far, it has only strengthened my confidence in Objectivism.

Ha- respected! Yes, it's noble, when discussing an issue, to give your opponent every benefit of the doubt, assume his best intentions, and be generous in interpreting his arguments, etc; but this might be crossing a line. Who respects this heckler, Cathy Young? I've never heard of her. But anyway..

Unfortunately very few people understand.

Well, yeah, but don't fret. A few is all it takes.

An example of one of these people is Cathy Young, who makes this evident in the first sentence of your provided quote:

That was a good one.

Young is saying this because of Rand's emphasis on selfishness: One should never sacrifice or be forced to sacrifice; one should hold their own happiness as their highest goal; one shouldn’t give away the fruit of their labor. What Young doesn't quite grasp, is that this in no way says you can't help others; you can't accept help from others; people can't be dependent on others at no fault of their own; or people can't be helpless at no fault of their own. To sacrifice is to give without getting anything in return. But, if you value helping people in need that can't get by on their own, you are in return achieving happiness in attaining that which you value, and following the guidelines of Objectivism; you are, in essence, making a trade, not giving with nothing in return.

Maybe Young doesn't quite grasp this point. Or maybe she just doesn't want you to grasp it. Hard to speculate about what exactly motivates people to write things like this.

Much of Objectivism is helping you form your own values based on objectivist virtues and your surroundings; someone that lives in Tokyo will probably have different values then someone in California. But, all humans follow and can agree on the same morals. Morals and values are different: Morals consist of rules to live by that every human of any faith and belief can agree on (as long as they aren’t “evil”). A simple example of this: Taking a life for no reason or beneficial outcome is wrong.

This is the most problematic part of your response, I think. First, it's true that values and morals are different.

But morals are not innate. All humans do not follow and agree on the same morals. Most people don't even follow and agree with their own morals! But everyone who does not practice a rational code of morality is, to that extent, "evil." A person is not necissarily "all good," or "all evil" --most people are the most precarious mixture of the two. A code of morality has to be arived at through deep, consistent, philosophical thought. It's not something "written in your heart" that you just have to accept-- it's something each individual's gotta earn. And in a sense, you must have some virtue in order to live, so that right there disproves the possibility of someone thoroughly evil. Everyone is virtuous to the extent that they live a life proper to a rational being, but only to that extent.

"[she was] a rationalist who refused to debate her views"

Ayn Rand didn't want to waste her time persuading people to believe what she believed. If someone doesn't have an interest in her philosophy without coaxing, then she wasn't going to waste her efforts. She was focusing on what she wanted: Enlightening rational people who had a thirst for using reason to attain happiness. I, myself, am different from her: I love talking about it with others because it helps me clarify certain points and hear other people’s points.

The reason AR didn't hold public debates, as I underderstand it, is that she recognized philosophical discussions don't opperate in a vacuum. A full answer to any one philosophical question would require a presentation of a full philosophical system. It's impracticable and impossible to do that in the context of a formal, timed debate.

But in her private life, AR certainly did debate her views. She was a brilliant polemicist in her writings, and her letters are filled with impassioned, lengthy discussions of her views with people she respected, who didn't always agree with her-- at least, not until she persuaded them.

This is an example of Objectivism’s individualistic views. Objectivism doesn’t teach people solid rules to live by, like religions; it gives you solid ground’s to use reason to attain your own rules to live by. That’s why objectivists are so different from each other even while completely following her philosophy, yet they are all good people who work to achieve their goals in life and, in turn, further their happiness.

I think what you mean is that Objectivism doesn't preach dogmas. But the ethical principles of Objectivism are as solid as the law of gravity. But that's in a different sense of the word. It's not a "thou shalt" or a "thou shalt not," it's more of a "If A, then B."

There is much in her life I don’t agree with, and there is much in my life that she wouldn’t agree with. Again, that’s all because of individualism.

You might want to study the difference between individualism and moral subjectivism a little better. You could be on the right track here, but it's a little confusing what you mean.

I didn't find one eye-opening point against Objectivism in that whole website.

Good luck finding any in the whole field of philosophy.

It tends to be a hard philosophy to fully grasp at first, I fortunately had an upper hand when learning about it because it's pretty much exactly what I believed before hand; there were just a few rough edges I wasn’t able to work out and come to a conclusion over until I saw it all laid out in front of me in such simple terms.

That's how it was with me, too.

It may seem like a simple, common sense approach to understanding reality; but this is just the surface. This surface is what Young was writing to debunk. But, it’s a lot more complicated then it looks when really getting down deep and understanding the philosophy.

It's not even the surface of Objectivism she's writing about. It's total hand-me-down oppinions of what someone pretended to think about Objectivism.

I hope I cleared a few things up for you, and I hope I didn't miss too much. It's a long message, but there are probably many more details I should be touching upon. This will do for now.

-Brando

Good job, I'd say. You mentioned most of the essential points. I also agree with what Diana said.