This essay rests on the false assumtions that Rand said her philosophy was "inspired" by Aristotle's (she never said that --and it wasn't) and that she thought her primary connection with Aristotle was in ethics (it wasn't, and she certainly didn't think that). So, even if, for the sake of argument, the essay correctly notes differences between Rand and Aristotle vis-a-vis self-love, self-interest, and friendship, it would show only that the two philosophers diverge in important ways in ethics (something Rand was well aware of) -- it would not show that she was mistaken about Aristotle. Lastly, and I find this surprising, the essay actually tells its readers nothing at all about -- and shows no knowledge of -- what Rand thought her fundamental connection to Aristotle's philosophy was, though Rand was clear about this. If you're interested, I've written briefly about your essay here: https://newideal.aynrand.org/why-massimo-pigliucci-gets-ayn-rand-wrong
Aaron, with all due respect, I stand by what I wrote, which people can check because it's sourced. Frankly, it's a bit too easy to insist, as Rand's defenders *always* do, that "so and so doesn't understand her." Plenty of us do understand her, and we think that her philosophy is, to use a non-technical term, crap. Pernicious crap, to be precise.
People who are interested can easily form an estimate of your essay if they read it, then read what I (and Rand) wrote. But calling the article "sourced" is a stretch.
From your essay: "As she wrote: "The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. . . . There is no future for the world except through a rebirth of the Aristotelian approach to philosophy.” (Review of J. H. Randall’s Aristotle, The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1963, 18)."
This mashes together (apparently unknowingly) a statement from Rand (from the appendix to Atlas Shrugged, “About the Author”) with a statement (after an ellipsis) by a different author, Leonard Peikoff (from his book The Ominous Parallels), and then wrongly attributes both quotes to Rand’s “Review of J. H. Randall’s Aristotle.”
Randall’s piece is correctly attributed. But I guess some Objectivists disagree with you about the relationship between Rand and Aristotle. Take it up with him. And of course a Substack post is not a research paper. Then again writing a research paper on Rand would truly be a waste of my time. Sorry. I read her and her aficionados for years and I’m honestly still baffled by why such a despicable person, pushing such a despicable philosophy, is attractive to so many. Including at least one of my closest friends.
No, Massimo. You do NOT correctly cite Rand. And it's sad that you double down on your error without even double checking the primary sources (which you obviously haven't done). This is very easy for anyone to check who is concerned with accuracy. As you say, you think it would be a waste of your time to treat her seriously. And so, you don't. Which is why you present a cheap straw man. But, as you say, "Whatever." By the way, who are these Objectivists who allegedly disagree with me? You say "take it up with him" -- who is this gentleman you are referring to?
Aaron, I suggest we both dial things a couple of notch down if we are, as I assume, interested in a constructive discussion. So, I apologize for the tone of a couple of my previous comments, but please refrain from shouting (capitalizing words) or accusing me of intellectual dishonesty or malpractice, okay?
The objectivist I mention was the author of the article in The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1963, 18 which I cite in my essay. I have also heard plenty of times, over years, from several objectivists (including one of my close friends) that Aristotle was a primary source of inspiration for Rand's ethics.
You are, of course, free to disagree and to adduce your own sources and interpretations. But I guess you also disagree with the in-depth article by Jaideep A Prabhu (also mentioned and linked from my essay). I'd like to know on what grounds.
Finally, as I mentioned before, *every* time I or others criticize Rand her supporters fall back on accusations of straw man, on not having understood what she really said, and so on. If she is so prone to misunderstandings by otherwise intelligent and well read people, perhaps the problem lies with her, at least in part?
No one is shouting. The caps were for emphasis (the comment field doesn't allow italics or bold). I'll use asterisks around words where emphasis is intended.
In your essay, you have this passage: "As she wrote: “The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. … There is no future for the world except through a rebirth of the Aristotelian approach to philosophy.” (Review of J.H. Randall’s Aristotle, The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1963, 18)
The first line: "The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle" is by Rand; it comes from the 1957 appendix to Atlas Shrugged, called "About the Author" -- it's not from the Review of J.H. Randall's Aristotle, that appeared in the May 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter. The next line in your quoted material -- the line after the ellipsis (indicating that it's by the same author and from the same work) is actually by a different author, Leonard Peikoff, from his 1983 book, The Ominous Parallels. So, neither of the two lines quoted and attributed to Rand are from the "Review of J.H. Randall's Aristotle" published in The Objectivist Newsletter of May 1963, and only one of those quotes is even by Rand.
But I already made this point above and in my article. Not sure why you keep insisting that it's an accurate citation. Jaideep A Prabhu makes the same error (attributing the Peikoff quote to Rand) in his essay, though he doesn't offer a citation for either quote.
You write: "The objectivist I mention was the author of the article in The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1963, 18 which I cite in my essay."
The "objectivist" who wrote that review was *Ayn Rand.* (That's worth knowing.) So, you don't actually "cite" the review of Randall's Aristotle, you simply wrote the words, "(Review of J.H. Randall’s Aristotle, The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1963, 18)" after two quotations that don't even come from that Review. That doesn't count as citation.
You say: "I have also heard plenty of times, over years, from several objectivists (including one of my close friends) that Aristotle was a primary source of inspiration for Rand's ethics." Okay, so say that upfront. That's a matter of objectivity. Just say 'I'm basing my claim that Aristotle was a primary source of inspiration for Rand's ethics on some things I've heard people say over the years, not on anything Rand said or wrote.' That would make it clear. Because nowhere in your essay (or in the longer essay you cite) gives any indication at all that she held this view. It's merely asserted.
You write: "But I guess you also disagree with the in-depth article by Jaideep A Prabhu (also mentioned and linked from my essay). I'd like to know on what grounds."
The grounds are that his article makes the same mistake your essay makes, or perhaps the other way around--you replicate his mistake. He writes: "I see little or no justification for Rand’s claim to Aristotelianism as the root of her rational egoism or of her objectivism." (What claim? Where? There is no such claim, and none is cited.) But, on the basis of that baseless assertion, one can then say, as you and Prabhu do, 'look at the differences between Rand and Aristotle re rational egoism, self-love and friendship!' See what a fool Rand was to think her philosophy or her rational egoism was based on Aristotle's views.
But it's a straw man. Why? Because Rand never stated that her philosophy (let alone her rational egoism) was "inspired" by Aristotle's, or that she thought he held that same view she did. But you (and Prabhu) need those false premises to make the arguments of your essays (and your portraits of Rand as clueless) to work. As someone who knows her work, this kind of thing just gets tedious.
You say: "Finally, as I mentioned before, *every* time I or others criticize Rand her supporters fall back on accusations of straw man, on not having understood what she really said, and so on."
But you've just constructed a straw man, cited her out of context (omitting material that's crucial to understanding her view), misquoted her, and attributed to her views she doesn't hold. What do you expect?
I find it amusing that you just don’t understand or worse are not willing to understand Objectivism.
Rands whole Philosophy is not based completely on Aristotle and she never said it is.
I will not comment on the whole article but on the point of selfishness/ egoisms.
You never really explain why egoism is bad you just state that “modern philosophers” think so and that a philosophy based on it is bad and you want to throw her books in the ocean.
First lets debunk the myth that Objectivists are not social.
The fact that we base our life on our rational self-interest means that we have a lot of social connections because these make us very happy. (Like you said, humans evolve to be social, which is reality, so the objectivists recognise this and act accordingly).
And it is a fact that every long term social interaction should be a trade (win-win) or else is immoral.
What this means in practice is that human relations are balanced so that both get value from one another.( Giving my friend money could be in myself interest when my money is less important for me than my friend)
Altruism, so the sacrifice of a higher value for a lower one, means that social interactions are not equal. An example would be that you and your friend are both completely broke and you sell your flat just to help him out. Meanwhile, you loose your home become homeless and life a miserable life.
So you sacrificed a higher value (your happiness) for a lower value your (friends happiness) and exactly this is what Rand rejects.
Most people don’t have the right understanding of selfishness. A person who steals, hurts people and exploits others is not selfish. On the contrary it it selfless in a destructive form. This person will never get happy will have no friends maybe a little bit of money but he will be full of guilt and probably land in jail. In no way is he serving his rational self-interest so he can’t be selfish.
I never said that Rand's *whole* philosophy is based on Aristotle. Only that she was inspired by him, which is what she herself said. My point is that she, demonstrably, did not understand Aristotle. Because she was really bad at philosophy.
I never explain why egoism is bad because this essay is not meant as a full debunk of Rand's philosophy, only on the part that is inspired by Aristotle.
But I'd like to know if you have children, and if you've ever sacrificed anything for them. If yes, then you are not an egoist. If not, then I pity your children.
"it is a fact every long term social interaction should be a trade (win-win) or else is immoral." That is entirely under dispute, it is not at all "a fact."
"you sacrificed a higher value (your happiness) for a lower value your (friends happiness)." Again, not a fact, but a rather peculiar value judgment, which you are taken for granted, not defended.
It's a good thing that this post is subscribers only, or the comments would already be brigaded by Rand disciples. They're like moths to a flame. It's why the Modern Library readers' poll suggests that 4 of the 10 best novels in the English language are all by Ayn Rand.
Heinlein was a big influence on me as a young man, I encountered his books while in the US Navy, going through technical school. My libertarianism was based on freedom of thought and association, not radical self interest, and my conservatism was based upon reading foundational books of western civilization and American history. Fortunately, Karl Popper’s “The Open Society and its enemies” inoculated me against Ayn Rand’s influence
I've long seen Rand as superficial and even careless in her thinking, but I'm glad to have Massimo and Aristotle to clarify how and what about her writing shows this to be so. And I've no doubt of the truth of thinking that the good life needs to have as "a key ingredient" as "friendship." Thanks, Massimo.
Well put, Massimo. It’s not every day that I get a warm glow from reading an essay, but I think that has been my experience here. Frankly, her acolytes (e.g. Milton Friedman) have done so much ill to so many imho, that you are entirely correct to deprecate her work. I myself anathematise it.
Objectivism, the idea that Americans aren't quite selfish enough yet, dressed up as a philosophical system.
I think one of the saddest parts of Objectivism is the glorification of the trader. The ancients had the sage, we have the merchant who, as Trevanian says in the old and dated book Shimbumi "sucks up his living through buying and selling things he does not create, who collects power and wealth out of proportion to his discrimination, and who is responsible for all that is kitsch, for all that is change without progress..."
It seems to me that you have substituted Stoic views for Aristotelian views here:
"what, exactly, is good for ourselves? Virtue, of course! So “what is best” does not mean, as commonly understood, external things such as wealth, fame, pleasure, and so forth. "
That's not Aristotle's view. He viewed wealth, fame, health, and so forth as outright goods. Virtue is not the only good for Aristotle.
Doug, I don't think I substituted the Stoics for Aristotle. Of course for the latter external goods are true goods while for the former they just have "value" (a distinction that Cicero thought was simply a word play). But for Aristotle virtue is still the most important good. The other ones are nothing if virtue is not present. Which is enough to counter Rand's claim that her "philosophy" was inspired by Aristotle.
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism was an influence on Anton LaVey’s “Satanic Bible”. And on the Prosperity Gospel of modern American Evangelical Christianity. Atlas Shrugged is the lens through which they read the KJV Bible; both books are considered formative texts to give to the young. Rand has as much legitimate claim to Aristotle as Jordan Peterson has to the Stoics- none
I think it says something for a society when "The Imitation of Christ" has been replaced by "Atlas Shrugged" as a formative texts for the young. And what it says is nothing good.
Growing up in the 80s and 90s I repeatedly witnessed adults around me going through this cycle: Evangelical Christianity -> Prosperity Gospel -> Amway -> Ayn Rand. Like clockwork. And every single day, they were glued to the radio and tuned in to Rush Limbaugh.
She did hate religion. That's another thing I've always found puzzling about the connection between Objectivism and fundamentalist American Christianity: do these people just don't know about Rand's views on religion? Do they not care? How does the resulting cognitive dissonance allowed them to sleep at night??
I know these people; I cannot speak authoritatively, only anecdotally from my experience. They start with what they want to be true, and then find authority in these books to bolster their claims. The Prosperity Gospel has it's root in the 19th century Great Awakenings, which read the Christian Old Testament as prophecy, this is part of the American belief in Manifest Destiny. By this I mean that the American's of European descent were God's promised people, and the events in the Old Testament can be read as a road map for the expansion of settlers across North America. Native American (First Peoples) where like the people of Canaan, they were to be conquered because God promised them North America. This I suspect is the root of American Anti-Semitic fervor: The favor of God was lost when Jesus was crucified and the Jewish people were cursed. This is what I have distilled from what I have heard all of my life, and this is what I have rejected.
We are drifting far afield from the topic at hand, but I just wanted to explain how they sleep at night. God wants them to be rich and powerful, and by Them I mean a certain kind of people like the individuals who believe this. Not people who they believe God has cursed. Other people, outsiders, are here to be exploited in this view.
Bob, interesting! Yes, that makes sense to me. There is still the issue of the cognitive dissonance for a Christian follower of the vehemently atheist Rand.
Most American Christians have not received the kind of theological training in youth that you probably did in your youth. Instead of theological training, many Americans were raised in a Charismatic Christianity that emphasized strong emotions instead of reason as a guide to truth. Christianity is whatever they feel in their hearts it is. And “who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men?”
Until we learn otherwise to examine our beliefs and feelings, we are not rational about our beliefs, but rather rationalizing about them. This is especially dangerous because these beliefs may include a narrative of being chosen by God, and being oppressed by Satan’s followers. I have had many conversations with seemingly good and compassionate Christians who hold bad and cruel beliefs. They don’t see the contradiction at all.
This essay rests on the false assumtions that Rand said her philosophy was "inspired" by Aristotle's (she never said that --and it wasn't) and that she thought her primary connection with Aristotle was in ethics (it wasn't, and she certainly didn't think that). So, even if, for the sake of argument, the essay correctly notes differences between Rand and Aristotle vis-a-vis self-love, self-interest, and friendship, it would show only that the two philosophers diverge in important ways in ethics (something Rand was well aware of) -- it would not show that she was mistaken about Aristotle. Lastly, and I find this surprising, the essay actually tells its readers nothing at all about -- and shows no knowledge of -- what Rand thought her fundamental connection to Aristotle's philosophy was, though Rand was clear about this. If you're interested, I've written briefly about your essay here: https://newideal.aynrand.org/why-massimo-pigliucci-gets-ayn-rand-wrong
Aaron, with all due respect, I stand by what I wrote, which people can check because it's sourced. Frankly, it's a bit too easy to insist, as Rand's defenders *always* do, that "so and so doesn't understand her." Plenty of us do understand her, and we think that her philosophy is, to use a non-technical term, crap. Pernicious crap, to be precise.
People who are interested can easily form an estimate of your essay if they read it, then read what I (and Rand) wrote. But calling the article "sourced" is a stretch.
From your essay: "As she wrote: "The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. . . . There is no future for the world except through a rebirth of the Aristotelian approach to philosophy.” (Review of J. H. Randall’s Aristotle, The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1963, 18)."
This mashes together (apparently unknowingly) a statement from Rand (from the appendix to Atlas Shrugged, “About the Author”) with a statement (after an ellipsis) by a different author, Leonard Peikoff (from his book The Ominous Parallels), and then wrongly attributes both quotes to Rand’s “Review of J. H. Randall’s Aristotle.”
Randall’s piece is correctly attributed. But I guess some Objectivists disagree with you about the relationship between Rand and Aristotle. Take it up with him. And of course a Substack post is not a research paper. Then again writing a research paper on Rand would truly be a waste of my time. Sorry. I read her and her aficionados for years and I’m honestly still baffled by why such a despicable person, pushing such a despicable philosophy, is attractive to so many. Including at least one of my closest friends.
No, Massimo. You do NOT correctly cite Rand. And it's sad that you double down on your error without even double checking the primary sources (which you obviously haven't done). This is very easy for anyone to check who is concerned with accuracy. As you say, you think it would be a waste of your time to treat her seriously. And so, you don't. Which is why you present a cheap straw man. But, as you say, "Whatever." By the way, who are these Objectivists who allegedly disagree with me? You say "take it up with him" -- who is this gentleman you are referring to?
Aaron, I suggest we both dial things a couple of notch down if we are, as I assume, interested in a constructive discussion. So, I apologize for the tone of a couple of my previous comments, but please refrain from shouting (capitalizing words) or accusing me of intellectual dishonesty or malpractice, okay?
The objectivist I mention was the author of the article in The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1963, 18 which I cite in my essay. I have also heard plenty of times, over years, from several objectivists (including one of my close friends) that Aristotle was a primary source of inspiration for Rand's ethics.
You are, of course, free to disagree and to adduce your own sources and interpretations. But I guess you also disagree with the in-depth article by Jaideep A Prabhu (also mentioned and linked from my essay). I'd like to know on what grounds.
Finally, as I mentioned before, *every* time I or others criticize Rand her supporters fall back on accusations of straw man, on not having understood what she really said, and so on. If she is so prone to misunderstandings by otherwise intelligent and well read people, perhaps the problem lies with her, at least in part?
No one is shouting. The caps were for emphasis (the comment field doesn't allow italics or bold). I'll use asterisks around words where emphasis is intended.
In your essay, you have this passage: "As she wrote: “The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. … There is no future for the world except through a rebirth of the Aristotelian approach to philosophy.” (Review of J.H. Randall’s Aristotle, The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1963, 18)
The first line: "The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle" is by Rand; it comes from the 1957 appendix to Atlas Shrugged, called "About the Author" -- it's not from the Review of J.H. Randall's Aristotle, that appeared in the May 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter. The next line in your quoted material -- the line after the ellipsis (indicating that it's by the same author and from the same work) is actually by a different author, Leonard Peikoff, from his 1983 book, The Ominous Parallels. So, neither of the two lines quoted and attributed to Rand are from the "Review of J.H. Randall's Aristotle" published in The Objectivist Newsletter of May 1963, and only one of those quotes is even by Rand.
But I already made this point above and in my article. Not sure why you keep insisting that it's an accurate citation. Jaideep A Prabhu makes the same error (attributing the Peikoff quote to Rand) in his essay, though he doesn't offer a citation for either quote.
You write: "The objectivist I mention was the author of the article in The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1963, 18 which I cite in my essay."
The "objectivist" who wrote that review was *Ayn Rand.* (That's worth knowing.) So, you don't actually "cite" the review of Randall's Aristotle, you simply wrote the words, "(Review of J.H. Randall’s Aristotle, The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1963, 18)" after two quotations that don't even come from that Review. That doesn't count as citation.
You say: "I have also heard plenty of times, over years, from several objectivists (including one of my close friends) that Aristotle was a primary source of inspiration for Rand's ethics." Okay, so say that upfront. That's a matter of objectivity. Just say 'I'm basing my claim that Aristotle was a primary source of inspiration for Rand's ethics on some things I've heard people say over the years, not on anything Rand said or wrote.' That would make it clear. Because nowhere in your essay (or in the longer essay you cite) gives any indication at all that she held this view. It's merely asserted.
You write: "But I guess you also disagree with the in-depth article by Jaideep A Prabhu (also mentioned and linked from my essay). I'd like to know on what grounds."
The grounds are that his article makes the same mistake your essay makes, or perhaps the other way around--you replicate his mistake. He writes: "I see little or no justification for Rand’s claim to Aristotelianism as the root of her rational egoism or of her objectivism." (What claim? Where? There is no such claim, and none is cited.) But, on the basis of that baseless assertion, one can then say, as you and Prabhu do, 'look at the differences between Rand and Aristotle re rational egoism, self-love and friendship!' See what a fool Rand was to think her philosophy or her rational egoism was based on Aristotle's views.
But it's a straw man. Why? Because Rand never stated that her philosophy (let alone her rational egoism) was "inspired" by Aristotle's, or that she thought he held that same view she did. But you (and Prabhu) need those false premises to make the arguments of your essays (and your portraits of Rand as clueless) to work. As someone who knows her work, this kind of thing just gets tedious.
You say: "Finally, as I mentioned before, *every* time I or others criticize Rand her supporters fall back on accusations of straw man, on not having understood what she really said, and so on."
But you've just constructed a straw man, cited her out of context (omitting material that's crucial to understanding her view), misquoted her, and attributed to her views she doesn't hold. What do you expect?
I find it amusing that you just don’t understand or worse are not willing to understand Objectivism.
Rands whole Philosophy is not based completely on Aristotle and she never said it is.
I will not comment on the whole article but on the point of selfishness/ egoisms.
You never really explain why egoism is bad you just state that “modern philosophers” think so and that a philosophy based on it is bad and you want to throw her books in the ocean.
First lets debunk the myth that Objectivists are not social.
The fact that we base our life on our rational self-interest means that we have a lot of social connections because these make us very happy. (Like you said, humans evolve to be social, which is reality, so the objectivists recognise this and act accordingly).
And it is a fact that every long term social interaction should be a trade (win-win) or else is immoral.
What this means in practice is that human relations are balanced so that both get value from one another.( Giving my friend money could be in myself interest when my money is less important for me than my friend)
Altruism, so the sacrifice of a higher value for a lower one, means that social interactions are not equal. An example would be that you and your friend are both completely broke and you sell your flat just to help him out. Meanwhile, you loose your home become homeless and life a miserable life.
So you sacrificed a higher value (your happiness) for a lower value your (friends happiness) and exactly this is what Rand rejects.
Most people don’t have the right understanding of selfishness. A person who steals, hurts people and exploits others is not selfish. On the contrary it it selfless in a destructive form. This person will never get happy will have no friends maybe a little bit of money but he will be full of guilt and probably land in jail. In no way is he serving his rational self-interest so he can’t be selfish.
Glad to amuse you.
I never said that Rand's *whole* philosophy is based on Aristotle. Only that she was inspired by him, which is what she herself said. My point is that she, demonstrably, did not understand Aristotle. Because she was really bad at philosophy.
I never explain why egoism is bad because this essay is not meant as a full debunk of Rand's philosophy, only on the part that is inspired by Aristotle.
But I'd like to know if you have children, and if you've ever sacrificed anything for them. If yes, then you are not an egoist. If not, then I pity your children.
"it is a fact every long term social interaction should be a trade (win-win) or else is immoral." That is entirely under dispute, it is not at all "a fact."
"you sacrificed a higher value (your happiness) for a lower value your (friends happiness)." Again, not a fact, but a rather peculiar value judgment, which you are taken for granted, not defended.
What a brilliant and inspiring article sir ! Thank you so much, this is most helpful !
Thanks! And you are welcome!
It all goes back to what is 'good'. Socrates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkfvg1j1yg8
“That’s us, dude!”
It's a good thing that this post is subscribers only, or the comments would already be brigaded by Rand disciples. They're like moths to a flame. It's why the Modern Library readers' poll suggests that 4 of the 10 best novels in the English language are all by Ayn Rand.
https://www.librarything.com/bookaward/The+Modern+Library%27s+100+Best+Novels%3A+The+Reader%27s+List
It's unsurprising, and telling, that the next-best represented novelist in the top 10 of the readers' poll is L. Ron Hubbard.
John, yup, I made this particular post for subscribers only on purpose... What a fascinating poll!
Heinlein is also surprisingly prevalent unless you're already aware that the poll was deeply skewed by Randian Libertarians.
Heinlein was a big influence on me as a young man, I encountered his books while in the US Navy, going through technical school. My libertarianism was based on freedom of thought and association, not radical self interest, and my conservatism was based upon reading foundational books of western civilization and American history. Fortunately, Karl Popper’s “The Open Society and its enemies” inoculated me against Ayn Rand’s influence
Yup, Popper's book really is a must read!
I've long seen Rand as superficial and even careless in her thinking, but I'm glad to have Massimo and Aristotle to clarify how and what about her writing shows this to be so. And I've no doubt of the truth of thinking that the good life needs to have as "a key ingredient" as "friendship." Thanks, Massimo.
Well put, Massimo. It’s not every day that I get a warm glow from reading an essay, but I think that has been my experience here. Frankly, her acolytes (e.g. Milton Friedman) have done so much ill to so many imho, that you are entirely correct to deprecate her work. I myself anathematise it.
John, glad to hear about the warm glow!
Objectivism, the idea that Americans aren't quite selfish enough yet, dressed up as a philosophical system.
I think one of the saddest parts of Objectivism is the glorification of the trader. The ancients had the sage, we have the merchant who, as Trevanian says in the old and dated book Shimbumi "sucks up his living through buying and selling things he does not create, who collects power and wealth out of proportion to his discrimination, and who is responsible for all that is kitsch, for all that is change without progress..."
It seems to me that you have substituted Stoic views for Aristotelian views here:
"what, exactly, is good for ourselves? Virtue, of course! So “what is best” does not mean, as commonly understood, external things such as wealth, fame, pleasure, and so forth. "
That's not Aristotle's view. He viewed wealth, fame, health, and so forth as outright goods. Virtue is not the only good for Aristotle.
Doug, I don't think I substituted the Stoics for Aristotle. Of course for the latter external goods are true goods while for the former they just have "value" (a distinction that Cicero thought was simply a word play). But for Aristotle virtue is still the most important good. The other ones are nothing if virtue is not present. Which is enough to counter Rand's claim that her "philosophy" was inspired by Aristotle.
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism was an influence on Anton LaVey’s “Satanic Bible”. And on the Prosperity Gospel of modern American Evangelical Christianity. Atlas Shrugged is the lens through which they read the KJV Bible; both books are considered formative texts to give to the young. Rand has as much legitimate claim to Aristotle as Jordan Peterson has to the Stoics- none
I think it says something for a society when "The Imitation of Christ" has been replaced by "Atlas Shrugged" as a formative texts for the young. And what it says is nothing good.
Yup!
Growing up in the 80s and 90s I repeatedly witnessed adults around me going through this cycle: Evangelical Christianity -> Prosperity Gospel -> Amway -> Ayn Rand. Like clockwork. And every single day, they were glued to the radio and tuned in to Rush Limbaugh.
What a cycle!
You are correct. Which probably explains why Atlas Shrugged is the second most sold book in the US, after the Bible... Oh, the irony.
It is not the second most sold book in the USA.
I remembering reading that it was, years ago. But you're right, it has probably been eclipsed by Harry Potter. As it should be.
Rand hated religion. I wonder what she would make of a religion based around Objectivism cloaked as Christianity?
She did hate religion. That's another thing I've always found puzzling about the connection between Objectivism and fundamentalist American Christianity: do these people just don't know about Rand's views on religion? Do they not care? How does the resulting cognitive dissonance allowed them to sleep at night??
I know these people; I cannot speak authoritatively, only anecdotally from my experience. They start with what they want to be true, and then find authority in these books to bolster their claims. The Prosperity Gospel has it's root in the 19th century Great Awakenings, which read the Christian Old Testament as prophecy, this is part of the American belief in Manifest Destiny. By this I mean that the American's of European descent were God's promised people, and the events in the Old Testament can be read as a road map for the expansion of settlers across North America. Native American (First Peoples) where like the people of Canaan, they were to be conquered because God promised them North America. This I suspect is the root of American Anti-Semitic fervor: The favor of God was lost when Jesus was crucified and the Jewish people were cursed. This is what I have distilled from what I have heard all of my life, and this is what I have rejected.
We are drifting far afield from the topic at hand, but I just wanted to explain how they sleep at night. God wants them to be rich and powerful, and by Them I mean a certain kind of people like the individuals who believe this. Not people who they believe God has cursed. Other people, outsiders, are here to be exploited in this view.
Bob, interesting! Yes, that makes sense to me. There is still the issue of the cognitive dissonance for a Christian follower of the vehemently atheist Rand.
Most American Christians have not received the kind of theological training in youth that you probably did in your youth. Instead of theological training, many Americans were raised in a Charismatic Christianity that emphasized strong emotions instead of reason as a guide to truth. Christianity is whatever they feel in their hearts it is. And “who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men?”
Until we learn otherwise to examine our beliefs and feelings, we are not rational about our beliefs, but rather rationalizing about them. This is especially dangerous because these beliefs may include a narrative of being chosen by God, and being oppressed by Satan’s followers. I have had many conversations with seemingly good and compassionate Christians who hold bad and cruel beliefs. They don’t see the contradiction at all.
To be fair, I haven't seen the three (!!) movies. My NYC libertarian friend mentioned in the essay did, and even he said they were horrible...
Morton, thanks for sharing. Wow, what an interesting path!
Glad to hear that!