Ayn Rand's use of language

[Marty McFly]

As far as I remember, Rand never made a big deal about the stupidity of the masses, so to speak. In fact, it is interesting that when Objectivists from ARI come to speak at colleges, there are often some budding socialists who are sceptical on the grounds that Objectivism might work if people were bright and could look out for their self-interest, but since the masses are mostly sheep, they need intelligent government telling them what to do.

really? I always thought they are worried about power. they claim it's power of the individual that turns communism into a monsterous thing. that if people would all agree, and not be selfish, it would work. suddenly people are too stupid to think of their own self interest?!

The "masses" simply means "the majority of people". In actual fact, the bulk of people are not stupid in an IQ sense. However, when it comes to the way they approach Philosophy they mostly accept what they get from their culture, first from their parents and then from their high-school and college experiences. As for things improving since 1940, I'm not sure what you mean.

I mean that no one is as worried about society as they were then. there is much more individualism in the world now. n ow individualism is applauded by society.

Since you don't say if you were laughing for joy at the wonder that such a cool book could be written, I'll leave that part without comment. As for the stories being exaggerated: would you say they're exaggerated in the sense that Harry Potter is an exaggerated story? If not, then in what sense do you think it is exaggerated? It isn't clear if you think the "stupidty of the masses" is the exaggerated part or if you think the heroism is exaggerated.

I was laughing at how scared the author seemed to be of what can happen in a completely socialist society. I was laughing, because when I argue with people against communism this is exactly what I have in mind when I think of it in a literal way. but it will never happen this way, of course! this is just and overactive horror story of this system. but obviously this is not what the communists want. Equality 4779! honestly!

[Marty McFly]

What is wrong with excessive desires beyond "need"? We don't need to get water from the tap, we can always dig it up like a poor villager in Africa but its thanks to men being rationally greedy that we get modern plumbing. When I explain my use of the words "greed", "selfishness", and "ego", three virtues that Objectivism holds, I have to use rational as an adjective to explain it to people who have not really studied Objectivism. Rand did this as well, if you notice in a lot of interviews, take the Donahue ones for example she always has to do the common "By that, I mean" and then backtrack and say "Rational Egoism", etc... The reason why she or any other rational person in the world doesn't say "Rational Greed, Ego, Selfishness,etc..." is because you shouldn't have to. Rationality is not and shouldn't be an exception, it should be the default when it comes to the definition. So if I say, "that is greedy" you should assume I'm referring to some being rationally greedy, not irrationally greedy.

What is "irrational greed"? Irrational Greed is the second definition you presented, "excessive desire (mostly of material things) that one does not need or deserve." This is irrational because you aren't respecting the concept of truth and justice. If you set out to get something (an end) without any honest means to do so than you are making it right for any other man to do so, then you find yourself in an abyss of hypocrisy and abstracts because you aren't following the concept of truth and justice. For an example, killing your best friend to get a job that he is next in line for and you are right behind him. You aren't following a concept of ones metaphysical right to live freely, thus denying your right to live freely because you are contributing to the idea of this concept being impeded upon.

I think alot of the comments so far are pretty dead on but I think one of the keypoints to make clear is Rand's use of language. Some of the most important and beautiful words such as the Ego, Selfish, and Greed have such a huge stigma due to altruistic ideas that is must be made clear in a rational way.

This is one of the best, most informative posts I've read. would you mind if I copy/paste some of it to another forum where people are defending communism by using words like "greed" "selfishness" and "the rich don't deserve to be rich" etc.?

[softwareNerd]

I mean that no one is as worried about society as they were then. there is much more individualism in the world now. Now individualism is applauded by society.

This may be true if one uses a head-count, but a good metaphor would be "unstable equilibrium", and things can still go either way, as the forces of altruistic politics rear their heads again, in the form of Christian politics and Islamic politics. The secularist intellectuals haven't bought individualism either, and have their own suicidal prescriptions.

I was laughing at how scared the author seemed to be of what can happen in a completely socialist society. I was laughing, because when I argue with people against communism this is exactly what I have in mind when I think of it in a literal way. but it will never happen this way, of course!

I assume that you're aware of the realities of the Soviet Gulag and that you have seen the way people were treated in Nazi concentration camps. So, it can happen much worse than Anthem. Or, are you saying that those types of things are history and will never be repeated, in terms of the extent their evil?

[IdeaSave]

I think that the nature of Romantic art is not being taken into account by those who think Ayn Rand's novels "exaggerate". The purpose of such art is not to show what life is actually like - it is to show how life can and ought to be. That is best done by taking the basic principles inherent in the theme, and showing where they lead. This applies to true and false principles alike.

For instance, "Anthem" shows where the false principle of selflessness/altruism leads, and then shows where the true principle of egoism leads. Similar things can be said about principles in her other novels, e.g., integrity/hypocrisy in "The Fountainhead" and the independent mind as the source of all human values in "Atlas".

Ayn Rand didn't exaggerate things, she made them _clear_.

Mark Peters

[Dargormudshark]

This is one of the best, most informative posts I've read. would you mind if I copy/paste some of it to another forum where people are defending communism by using words like "greed" "selfishness" and "the rich don't deserve to be rich" etc.?

No, I don't mind

[Febod]

Doesn't work that way, I don't do the research to back up your claims for you. Produce or retract.

Very serious, and I can't believe you would even question it. Since you take it to be a "fact", you then should provide the proof that Rand considered the masses stupid and easy to sway, if you are going to echo the accusation. Objectivism is the philosophy that takes existence, and its nature, to be primary -- we don't arrive at an arbitrary conclusion based on emotion and then ignore whether the conclusion corresponds in some twisted way to reality. The fundamental motto in argumentation is "Put up or shut up". So put up.

I'm curious, do you both find my statement irritable because i was making an unsubstantiated claim? Becuase really, if we were to cite all of our harmless, interpretive claims, it'd be a huge headache. Or is it because I suggested that Rand had moods, which may imply she wasn't rational, which would be an attack on her character? And did you even read my latest post on this thread?

And don't worry, if you don't want to answer, that's fine. I come to this forum to relax, not demand satisfaction.

[DavidOdden]

I'm curious, do you both find my statement irritable because i was making an unsubstantiated claim? Becuase really, if we were to cite all of our harmless, interpretive claims, it'd be a huge headache. Or is it because I suggested that Rand had moods, which may imply she wasn't rational, which would be an attack on her character? And did you even read my latest post on this thread?

If you're supporting the accusation, then I would be as irritated at you, although at this point I think I'd be more irritated at you for your knowing evasions. Ultimately, the point is that I think you probably didn't read AS or if you did, you just didn't understand it. BTW I did read your last post on this thread, which was the one I replied to. If either of you two would like try to factually support the obvious misinterpretation of Rand's words about "The Masses", this would be cleared up instantly. One honest way out of this would be for you to simply look at what she said and understand the context where those passages occurred, and say "Oops, I guess I totally misunderstood" or maybe even "Oops, I gues I didn't actually read that part and I was taking the other guy's word for it". If you really think there is evidence to show that Rand thought that The Masses are stupid, you should bring that evidence out. Otherwise, I think some kind of public admission of your error is in order.

[Marty McFly]

Are you aware that Ayn Rand was born in Czarist Russia, and lived there/escaped during the reign of Stalin [edit: that is, during the Communist period]? If you ever study what life is like in brutal dictatorships like Russia was at the time, you might be surprised how much like Anthem real life can be (and has been, and is, in some parts of the world). But more than that--Anthem serves a different literary purpose. The society portreyed in Anthem is the type of society that many people today and throughout history actually consider to be the ideal society. If you don't believe me (and are interested), try reading Plato's Republic, or Thomas More's Utopia, or even Marx and Engels' The Communist Manifesto for that matter. Every social principle and law at work in the society portrayed in Anthem can be found in one of those three books--even down to the thing about the mating rituals! So Ayn Rand's book works to show what such a society would really be like, and what it would mean for the people who actually matter (the heroes in the book).

I didn't know that! I mean, I've read the Manifesto, because I knew Ayn Rand was from Russia. I agreed with everything Marx said, except that he thought it was a problem; I think it's life; this is how life ought to be like.

[Marty McFly]

This may be true if one uses a head-count, but a good metaphor would be "unstable equilibrium", and things can still go either way, as the forces of altruistic politics rear their heads again, in the form of Christian politics and Islamic politics. The secularist intellectuals haven't bought individualism either, and have their own suicidal prescriptions.

I don't see that America is in any danger of that. The UN, however.........

I assume that you're aware of the realities of the Soviet Gulag and that you have seen the way people were treated in Nazi concentration camps. So, it can happen much worse than Anthem. Or, are you saying that those types of things are history and will never be repeated, in terms of the extent their evil?

No I was not aware that a socialist or communist society can stoop to such levels without the aid of fascist dictators.

[Febod]

If you're supporting the accusation, then I would be as irritated at you, although at this point I think I'd be more irritated at you for your knowing evasions. Ultimately, the point is that I think you probably didn't read AS or if you did, you just didn't understand it. BTW I did read your last post on this thread, which was the one I replied to. If either of you two would like try to factually support the obvious misinterpretation of Rand's words about "The Masses", this would be cleared up instantly. One honest way out of this would be for you to simply look at what she said and understand the context where those passages occurred, and say "Oops, I guess I totally misunderstood" or maybe even "Oops, I gues I didn't actually read that part and I was taking the other guy's word for it". If you really think there is evidence to show that Rand thought that The Masses are stupid, you should bring that evidence out. Otherwise, I think some kind of public admission of your error is in order.

I think this is the confusion: You are correct to say that in her novels, she does not give one hint of any such negativity, but I am not referring to her novels (and i'm not sure if marty was, that wasn't clear). I am referring to Rand as the person who, at times, did project a more malevolent sense of life, which would consequently influence her view of the masses. She openly admits this, and credits frank o'connor for raising her spirits:

"I always told [Frank] I could not have written without him. He denied it; he thought I would have broken through. Perhaps the only tribute I can pay him with my readers is to say that I know it is impossible to hold a benevolent universe view consistently, as I had to hold it to write what I've written, when the world around us was getting worse and going in the direction of Ellsworth Toohey... [Frank] gave me the benevolent universe i know about." Ayn Rand Answers pg. 231

This, along with the quotation from Bernstein's lecture, exposes the Rand within.

[DavidOdden]

I think this is the confusion: You are correct to say that in her novels, she does not give one hint of any such negativity, but I am not referring to her novels (and i'm not sure if marty was, that wasn't clear). I am referring to Rand as the person who, at times, did project a more malevolent sense of life, which would consequently influence her view of the masses.

You are really reaching with that quote -- twisting praise for her husband into a denunciation of the masses. What this exposes is that like every rational human, she was able to perceive the obvious fact that politics and culture were overall changing for the worst, and she wasn't indifferent or oblivious. What is your evidence that she herself privately held the attitude held by the evil Dr. Ferris?

Post the putative Bernstein quote.

[softwareNerd]

Febod, There's nothing in that quote about the masses. Why would that quote be any more about "masses" than about (say) "contemporary intellectuals"?

As for "the Rand within", let's put that to rest. What exactly are you saying: that Rand sometimes felt angry about the way things went, that she sometimes felt frustrated to the point of sadness at the state of the world? Is that all you're saying? Or are you saying something more than that? For instance, are you saying that this implies some type of irrationality? Or, are you saying that she let's this reflect in her formal writing? Or what?

I assume we can accept that the world contains good and bad. I assume we can also accept that, as Objectivists, we'd like to see things change much faster than they do. One only has to pick up a newspaper to find all sorts of really stupid things being done by people who are in positions where they ought to know better. It would be irrational not to feel a negative emotion, sometimes deeply negative emotions. Not to feel that way would imply either than one does not really value the good, or that one has managed to repress. Of course, one cannot let these negative emotions take over one's life. Nor ought one redirect the feelings inappropriately.

[Febod]

Febod, There's nothing in that quote about the masses. Why would that quote be any more about "masses" than about (say) "contemporary intellectuals"?

Your view of life, be it the malevolent or benevolent universe premise, or some degree in between, affects everthing about the universe, hence the word universe in their names. This includes the masses, the majority, or whatever name you give to that group of people with which you do not associate.

Rand states, when discussing innocent victims of war, that the people are responsible for the actions of their government: "... if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness [the majority] couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, as we are all paying for the sins of ours." Ayn Rand Answers, pg 94

So when the government declines, Rand does not simply point a finger at college professors, politicians, and pastors.

As for the rest of your post, i will disregard it since you have obviously disregarded mine.

[softwareNerd]

As for the rest of your post, i will disregard it since you have obviously disregarded mine.

I have no idea what you mean.

[hunterrose]

Is a man stupid (irrational?) if he reads The Fountainhead on weekends and the bible on weekdays?

no, this certainly does not qualify stupid. a man usually wants to learn all there is out there.

Granted. If Rand meant stupid qua low intelligence, then I suppose I'd object to the idea that the masses are stupid (but only lightly )

In terms of a Rand quote about the masses, stupid qua irrational makes more sense (even though such a usage of stupid probably isn't technically correct.) I would agree (with her?) that the masses are irrational, if not of low intelligence. For what it's worth.

I think [Rand's]stories are grossly exaggerated... I don't believe any of them can be true ( with the exception of "We the Living")

Leaving aside AS for the moment, what's grossly exaggerated about Fountainhead folks?

I was laughing at how scared [Rand] seemed to be of what can happen in a completely socialist society... it will never happen this way, of course! ... obviously this is not what the communists want.

I was not aware that a socialist or communist society can stoop to [Gulags/Holocausts] without the aid of fascist dictators.

This is becoming a meandering thread, but since this is interesting...

I compile what you say two ways

1. socialists who are against forcing socialism upon others (e.g. living on communes and not attempting to restrict the rights of others) will not (if sticking to their principles) commit atrocious acts of force
   
2. socialists who are for "minor" acts of force (e.g. minimum wage, progressive taxes) will not (if sticking to their principles) commit atrocious acts of force
   

I largely agree with the first, but I strongly disagree with the second.

If by "exaggerated", you mean that Rand/Objectivism says that all socialist claimers (i.e. even the ones against using force) are Stalins-in-waiting, I think that is an incorrect belief about Rand/Objectivism (even IF most Objectivist actually do feel that way.)

On the other hand, I don't think it is exaggerated to say that some Tooheys can/do exist, nor do I think it exaggerated to say that the "half Roarks-half Keatings" are dangerous, regardless of whether their threat is intentional or merely mistaken.

[Marty McFly]

What was exaggerated about the Fountainhead? Toohey, of course! Toohey can not exist! there CAN'T be a Toohey in the real world!!!

[Marty McFly]

still, if every word has a symbolised meaning, words like "selfish", "greed" and such are for a negative feeling, as "masses" was meant rather for the positive - she uses them as just the opposite. I understand the "throw it in their faces" thing, but it still sounds bad if you are arguing with a communist....

[softwareNerd]

What was exaggerated about the Fountainhead? Toohey, of course! Toohey can not exist! there CAN'T be a Toohey in the real world!!!

IdeaSave addressed this issue. There are various types of art. Ayn Rand's did not mean her art to be what she called "naturalistic". So, when she made a villain, she was not trying to inject a wee bit of good into him.

[Marty McFly]

I think that the nature of Romantic art is not being taken into account by those who think Ayn Rand's novels "exaggerate". The purpose of such art is not to show what life is actually like - it is to show how life can and ought to be. That is best done by taking the basic principles inherent in the theme, and showing where they lead. This applies to true and false principles alike.

For instance, "Anthem" shows where the false principle of selflessness/altruism leads, and then shows where the true principle of egoism leads. Similar things can be said about principles in her other novels, e.g., integrity/hypocrisy in "The Fountainhead" and the independent mind as the source of all human values in "Atlas".

Ayn Rand didn't exaggerate things, she made them _clear_.

Mark Peters

does that mean that even the caracters would not be realistic? because her "good guys" are very realistic.... there are many Roarks Reardens and d'Anconias in real life.

[hunterrose]

Toohey can not exist! there CAN'T be a Toohey in the real world!!!

But Roark can?

[Marty McFly]

But Roark can?

I've met Roarks, or close to it. Roark seems possible; he makes alot of sense I can deal with someone like that. but Toohey? I have never met someone who has a mind but uses it to be (and make others be) stupid! what a crappy, lonely life would that be?!

[Febod]

As for "the Rand within", let's put that to rest. What exactly are you saying: that Rand sometimes felt angry about the way things went, that she sometimes felt frustrated to the point of sadness at the state of the world? Is that all you're saying? Or are you saying something more than that? For instance, are you saying that this implies some type of irrationality? Or, are you saying that she let's this reflect in her formal writing? Or what?

Okay, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just didn't understand my previous posts... anyway, i think this is an important topic.

No, i'm am not implying any sort of irrationality on the part of Rand. Marty raised some suggestions against her sense of life (her view of 'the masses') and i so i aimed to dismiss them, via her moods, but nothing consequential, and nothing that should make a difference in how we view Rand as a person. If marty sensed any irrationality from Rand toward the masses, then it was his fault, not Rands. My aim was to dismiss his objections as superfluous.

I assume we can accept that the world contains good and bad. I assume we can also accept that, as Objectivists, we'd like to see things change much faster than they do. One only has to pick up a newspaper to find all sorts of really stupid things being done by people who are in positions where they ought to know better. It would be irrational not to feel a negative emotion, sometimes deeply negative emotions.

I disagree. And I will refer you to Ayn Rand Laughed in theThe Intellectual Activist, January 20002.

I don't feel like fishing for a quote right now, but if you don't have an issue on you, i'd be happy to provide you with evidence for my position (from Rand).

[Marty McFly]

Marty raised some suggestions against her sense of life (her view of 'the masses') and i so i aimed to dismiss them, via her moods, but nothing consequential, and nothing that should make a difference in how we view Rand as a person. If marty sensed any irrationality from Rand toward the masses, then it was his fault, not Rands. My aim was to dismiss his objections as superfluous.

I disagree. And I will refer you to Ayn Rand Laughed in theThe Intellectual Activist, January 20002.

I wasn't suggesting anything against "her sense of life" (whatever that means ) I was stating a fact: Ayn Rand uses the word "masses" with the wrong meaning.

here's a quote from "We the Living":

Kira asks Andrei, "Can you sacrifice the few? When those few are the best? Deny the best it's right to the top -- and you have no best left. What are the masses but millions of dull, shriveled, stagnant souls that have no thoughts of their own, who eat and sleep and chew helplessly the words others put into their brains?..."

Do you agree with this quote?

I don't.

The masses are actually people like Kira who want nothing but to live their quiet life. that's why communism won. that's why the bulshevicks won - because no one stopped them. everyone was just like Kira, an individual living it's own life. It's usually those individuals who don't get into politics. those individuals that make up the "masses".

[DavidOdden]

Do you agree with this quote?

I don't.

In fact, I don't have any reason to think that Rand does either, at least in the sense that you seem to be assuming (where "the masses" = people). If you want to understand Rand's view of "the masses", try reading her philosophical writings, for example (Ayn Rand Letter, 20): 'The innocence and common sense of the American people have wrecked the plans, the devious notions, the tricky strategies, the ideological traps borrowed by the intellectuals from the European statists, who devised them to fool and rule Europe's impotent masses. There have never been any "masses" in America: the poorest American is an individual and, subconsciously, an individualist.'

Try to grasp the significance of the statement that there have never been any "masses" in America, a country with 250 million people at the time (also grasp the significance of her use of scare quotes, something that came up elsewhere here in the past day).

[aequalsa]

What was exaggerated about the Fountainhead? Toohey, of course! Toohey can not exist! there CAN'T be a Toohey in the real world!!!

Really?

"Every young American should be taught the joy and duty of serving and should learn it at the moment when it will have the most enduring impact on the rest of their lives."

"..if you're asked in school, 'What does it mean to be a good citizen?,' I want the answer to be, well, to be a good citizen, you have to obey the law, you've got to go to work or be in school, you've got to pay your taxes and, oh, yes, you have to serve...."

-Bill Clinton

This was in support of mandatory volunteerism for highschool students. He went on later to say that students should consider themselves "citizen-servents", rather then just citizens. Ignore it if you wish, but people who want me(and you) to be their slave exist.