Who and what is Ayn Rand
If you were not familiar with Ayn Rand before Paul Ryan joined the ticket, undoubtedly knowing some of you who are research oriented are well acquainted with her by now. Although I had become informed regarding her philosophy prior to the selection of Paul Ryan, I am amazed by the affiliation and respect she has garnered from various members of the Republican Party. Notably, other than Paul Ryan, both Ron and Rand Paul, (who is not named after her) state they admire her work and philosophy.
And just what is that philosophy? According to William Buckley, and others, Rand, deplored charity and advocated selfishness. I suggest you watch videos, five and six located at the following link. Save the link and as time permits, return and listen to all of the videos and you will now have a better understanding of the direction the Republican Party is heading. It’s a direction predicated upon elitism and rule by a privileged few. We need to fight these people to our last breath and ensure the Democratic base turns out en masse.
Here we have culled several sources from the Internet describing Ayn RAND, her beliefs, philosophy and writings. Although Paul Ryan curtly dismisses Rand or any serious past affiliation with her, the public record is littered with substantial evidence of his high regard for her philosophy. In fact, he noted on numerous occasions that her work in philosophy guided his life. This is scary, considering he is currently a vice presidential candidate and was influenced by the beliefs of an individual that many referred to as evil and sociopathic.
Please excuse the lack of formal references or authorship identity as sources were not always cited with identification. Where possible, we have included links.
Was Ayn Rand evil?
By Michael Prescott
Years ago I was involved in Objectivism, the movement that grew out of the writings of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. In an essay called “Shrugging Off Ayn Rand,” I discussed how the philosophy didn’t work for me and why I eventually moved on.
Lately, though, I’ve been looking at Ayn Rand from a different – and even more unflattering – perspective. I just read The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout, a nonfiction book that argues that sociopaths of a predominantly nonviolent type are more prevalent than we realize. And, by coincidence (or is it synchronicity?), I happened to look up the out-of-print book Therapist by Ellen Plasil on Amazon.com . Therapist tells the story of an Objectivist psychotherapist, Lonnie Leonard, who was highly regarded by leaders of Rand’s movement in the 1970s – but who was secretly mistreating his female patients, abusing them emotionally and sexually. One of the reader comments on the Amazon page was left by Scott Ryan, author of Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality. Ryan remarks:
And the fact that the morally corrupt Leonard was able to pass for so long as “one of them” says something crucially important about the movement’s standards and purposes: namely, that it is awfully hard to tell a devout Objectivist from a narcissistic, manipulative sociopath. I wonder why. (Hint: it was hard to tell Rand from one too.)
Acerbic though this comment is, it got me thinking. Was Ayn Rand “a narcissistic, manipulative sociopath” – or at least a borderline case?
Well, consider the portrait of Rand drawn by two biographies – Nathaniel Branden’s My Years with Ayn Rand and Barbara Branden’s The Passion of Ayn Rand – and by Jeff Walker’s The Ayn Rand Cult. These are, admittedly, hostile sources, but in the absence of any biography by Rand’s admirers, they are the only ones we have.
Anyone judging by these books would have to say that Rand was narcissistic in the extreme. She lacked empathy. She could be intensely charming (charm and charisma are common features of sociopathy) but was also prone to outbursts of rage and frustration.
She exploited young, emotionally vulnerable people and frequently sabotaged their self-image with her vindictive cruelty. She claimed to love her husband but carried on an affair with a younger man right in front of him, a situation that drove her husband to alcoholism.
She was a hypochondriac. She showed signs of paranoia. She had an addictive personality, smoked two packs of cigarettes daily, and gobbled handfuls of diet pills (amphetamines).
She despised “average” people, whom she regarded as ugly and stupid and irrational, while viewing herself in exalted terms as the greatest writer in history and the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.
She was concerned with no one’s needs or wants or suffering except her own. She was able to claim in print that no one had ever helped her, when in fact she had benefited for years from the charity and goodwill of relatives and business associates and friends. She alienated nearly all her friends and allies by the end of her life, and died nearly alone.
She literally drove people crazy; ex-Objectivist Edith Efron once remarked that if you spent any time with Rand, you had to ask yourself if you were insane, or if she was (quoted in Walker). She was a megalomaniac. She was probably manic-depressive. She created heroic fictional characters who are deeply repressed, incapable of normal human interaction, and typically angry or disgusted with the world.
This is hardly a person who should be seen as the epitome of rationality and benevolence – yet this is how her followers do see her. In my Objectivist years I once hesitantly suggested to a fellow Objectivist that there might be a few character flaws to be found in Rand, only to be met with a blank stare and the appalled question, “Character flaws – in Ayn Rand?!” In Objectivist dogma it is always other people who were at fault in their dealings with “Miss Rand” (as they like to call her). Somehow it was always those irrational others who abused, deceived, and hurt Ayn Rand, and her rages and bitterness were entirely justified, entirely rational. How could they not be? Rand was the personification of reason, so by definition whatever she thought, felt, or did just had to be rational – Q.E.D.
When I look at the portrait of Ayn Rand drawn by a variety of people who knew her best, I see a person who is certainly larger and more theatrical than the run-of-the-mill sociopaths in Martha Stout’s book, different from them in degree – but not very different in kind.
And I wonder how a movement founded by a woman with such serious disorders could ever have been seen as a way to personal happiness or to a better world.
posted by Michael Prescott at Monday, March 21, 2005
Years ago I was involved in Objectivism, the movement that grew out of the writings of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. In an essay called “Shrugging Off Ayn Rand,” I discussed how the philosophy didn’t work for me and why I eventually moved on.
Lately, though, I’ve been looking at Ayn Rand from a different – and even more unflattering – perspective. I just read The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout, a nonfiction book that argues that sociopaths of a predominantly nonviolent type are more prevalent than we realize. And, by coincidence (or is it synchronicity?), I happened to look up the out-of-print book Therapist by Ellen Plasil on Amazon.com . Therapist tells the story of an Objectivist psychotherapist, Lonnie Leonard, who was highly regarded by leaders of Rand’s movement in the 1970s – but who was secretly mistreating his female patients, abusing them emotionally and sexually. One of the reader comments on the Amazon page was left by Scott Ryan, author of Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality. Ryan remarks:
And the fact that the morally corrupt Leonard was able to pass for so long as “one of them” says something crucially important about the movement’s standards and purposes: namely, that it is awfully hard to tell a devout Objectivist from a narcissistic, manipulative sociopath. I wonder why. (Hint: it was hard to tell Rand from one too.)
Acerbic though this comment is, it got me thinking. Was Ayn Rand “a narcissistic, manipulative sociopath” – or at least a borderline case?
Well, consider the portrait of Rand drawn by two biographies – Nathaniel Branden’s My Years with Ayn Rand and Barbara Branden’s The Passion of Ayn Rand – and by Jeff Walker’s The Ayn Rand Cult. These are, admittedly, hostile sources, but in the absence of any biography by Rand’s admirers, they are the only ones we have.
Anyone judging by these books would have to say that Rand was narcissistic in the extreme. She lacked empathy. She could be intensely charming (charm and charisma are common features of sociopathy) but was also prone to outbursts of rage and frustration.
She exploited young, emotionally vulnerable people and frequently sabotaged their self-image with her vindictive cruelty. She claimed to love her husband but carried on an affair with a younger man right in front of him, a situation that drove her husband to alcoholism.
She was a hypochondriac. She showed signs of paranoia. She had an addictive personality, smoked two packs of cigarettes daily, and gobbled handfuls of diet pills (amphetamines).
She despised “average” people, whom she regarded as ugly and stupid and irrational, while viewing herself in exalted terms as the greatest writer in history and the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.
She was concerned with no one’s needs or wants or suffering except her own. She was able to claim in print that no one had ever helped her, when in fact she had benefited for years from the charity and goodwill of relatives and business associates and friends. She alienated nearly all her friends and allies by the end of her life, and died nearly alone.
She literally drove people crazy; ex-Objectivist Edith Efron once remarked that if you spent any time with Rand, you had to ask yourself if you were insane, or if she was (quoted in Walker). She was a megalomaniac. She was probably manic-depressive. She created heroic fictional characters who are deeply repressed, incapable of normal human interaction, and typically angry or disgusted with the world.
This is hardly a person who should be seen as the epitome of rationality and benevolence – yet this is how her followers do see her. In my Objectivist years I once hesitantly suggested to a fellow Objectivist that there might be a few character flaws to be found in Rand, only to be met with a blank stare and the appalled question, “Character flaws – in Ayn Rand?!” In Objectivist dogma it is always other people who were at fault in their dealings with “Miss Rand” (as they like to call her). Somehow it was always those irrational others who abused, deceived, and hurt Ayn Rand, and her rages and bitterness were entirely justified, entirely rational. How could they not be? Rand was the personification of reason, so by definition whatever she thought, felt, or did just had to be rational – Q.E.D.
When I look at the portrait of Ayn Rand drawn by a variety of people who knew her best, I see a person who is certainly larger and more theatrical than the run-of-the-mill sociopaths in Martha Stout’s book, different from them in degree – but not very different in kind.
And I wonder how a movement founded by a woman with such serious disorders could ever have been seen as a way to personal happiness or to a better world.
posted by Michael Prescott at Monday, March 21, 2005
August 11, 2012
Paul Ryan And Ayn Rand
— by Dave Johnson
Paul Ryan, speaking to the Atlas Society in 2005,
I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff. We start with Atlas Shrugged. People tell me I need to start with The Fountainhead then go to Atlas Shrugged [laughter]. There’s a big debate about that. We go to Fountainhead, but then we move on, and we require Mises and Hayek as well.
But the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.
(Note – in Randian language “collectivism” — community, society, recognition of the interdependence of people (“we built that”) — means democracy, or “gang rule” as Ayn Rand words it. Ayn Rand: “Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights” “Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom . . .”)
In almost every fight we are involved in here, on Capitol Hill, whether it’s an amendment vote that I’ll take later on this afternoon, or a big piece of policy we’re putting through our Ways and Means Committee, it is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict: individualism vs. collectivism.
…
And so when you take a look at where we are today, ah, some would say we’re on offense, some would say we’re on defense, I’d say it’s a little bit of both. And when you look at the twentieth-century experiment with collectivism—that Ayn Rand, more than anybody else, did such a good job of articulating the pitfalls of statism and collectivism—you can’t find another thinker or writer who did a better job of describing and laying out the moral case for capitalism than Ayn Rand.
(Note – here Ryan complains of “statism” another Randian cult term, as well as “collectivism” – community and democracy. Rand says “statism” – government and its laws and taxes – is “the political expression of altruism.” She says it is a “monstrously evil theory” to allow democracy, or “gang rule” to have the power – law – to make people do things or as she calls it, “the power of brute force.” This is the idea behind the right’s slogan “taxes are theft” and the general right-wing complaint that all taxes and government are forms of “socialism.”)
It’s so important that we go back to our roots to look at Ayn Rand’s vision, her writings, to see what our girding, under-grounding [sic] principles are. I always go back to, you know, Francisco d’Anconia’s speech (at Bill Taggart’s wedding) on money when I think about monetary policy. And then I go to the 64-page John Galt speech, you know, on the radio at the end, and go back to a lot of other things that she did, to try and make sure that I can check my premises so that I know that what I’m believing and doing and advancing are square with the key principles of individualism…
(Note – Francisco d’Anconia’s speech, money is the true measure of achievement, proof of nobility. “Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men.”) …
Is this an easy fight? Absolutely not…But if we’re going to actually win this we need to make sure that we’re solid on premises, that our principles are well-defended, and if want to go and articulately defend these principles and what they mean to our society, what they mean for the trends that we set internationally, we have to go back to Ayn Rand. Because there is no better place to find the moral case for capitalism and individualism than through Ayn Rand’s writings and works.
I suspect that this right-wing complaint about “uncertainty” is a complaint about democracy. There is no corporate council completely in charge yet able to determine all policy, and democracy can still rear its ugly head and ask for minimum wages, health care, things like that, which means there is “uncertainty” about whether policies will all be completely corporate-centered, etc…
Posted by Dave Johnson at August 11, 2012 5:35
Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Religion (Part 2 of 4)
by Neil Parille
ATHEISM, RELIGION, AND MYSTICISM cont.
The Limited Value of Religion
In spite of Rand’s hostility toward religion, she did see limited value to religion. It does raise important questions about the nature of man and reality.
Religion was the primitive form of philosophy: it provided man with a comprehensive view of existence. Observe that the art of those primitive cultures was a concretization of their religion’s metaphysical and ethical abstractions. [Rand, RM, p. 20.]
Since religion is a primitive form of philosophy – an attempt to offer a comprehensive view of reality – many of its myths are distorted, dramatized allegories based on some element of truth, some actual, if profoundly elusive, aspect of man’s existence. [Rand, RM, p. 25.]
In her Playboy interview, in response to the question “[h]as religion . . ever offered anything constructive value to human life?” she answered bluntly: “Qua religion, no.” She went on to say that religion did attempt to give a “explain the universe” and even “may have good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very dangerous context . . . ” [Binswanger, ARL, p. 411.] Even here, Rand appears to limit the benefit of religion to certain specific instances.
Rand came closest to praising religion in her 1968 edition of The Fountainhead. [Binswanger, ARL, pp. 414-15.] She noted that because of cultural and historical factors, religion had a “monopoly” on certain concepts such as “morality,” “spirituality,” and “worship.” Religion had misdirected the positive emotions contained in and expressed by these terms. Secular philosophies such as pragmatism and logical positivism cannot engender such feelings in its followers in spite of their “humanistic” orientation. For this reason, some have found Rand a “religious” or even “mystical” writer. [Machan, AR, p. 91.]6
Mysticism – The Source of All Evil
Ayn Rand sees “altruism” as man’s central ethical failing. The foundation of “altruism” is “mysticism.” Mysticism takes on the central evil in Randian thought. As she states in her 1960 lecture, “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World”:
It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It is mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational, that has always been called upon to justify it-or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. [Rand, PWNI, p. 62.]
Rand defines “mysticism” as follows:
What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against, the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as “instinct,” “intuition,” “revelation,” or any form of “just knowing.”
Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.
Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality-other than the one in which we live-whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means. [Rand, PWNI, pp. 62-63.]
It is obvious from this statement that Rand has an exceedingly broad definition of mysticism. It is any purported source of knowledge that is “apart from” or “against” reason.
Rand’s definition of mysticism is non-traditional. Anglican theologian Alister McGrath defines mysticism as follows: “A multifaceted term, which can bear a variety of meanings. In its most important sense, the terms refer to the union with God which is seen as the ultimate goal of the Christian life. This union is not to be thought of in rational terms, but more in terms of a direct consciousness or experience of God.” [McGrath, CS, p. 187.] Mysticism should therefore be limited to a psychological or experiential description of a person’s relationship to the supernatural.
Traditionally, mysticism is seen as a branch or “type” of religion. For example, theologians discuss the “mystical” traditions within Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Within Christianity, certain strands of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy stress mysticism and mystical experience, and it is often associated with celibacy and extreme asceticism.
Not only does Rand utilize the term mysticism to describe all religions, but uses it to encompass theories that almost never fall within the common definition of religion. For example, she considers Marxism and racism to constitute forms of mysticism. Avowedly secular thinkers such as pragmatists and logical positivists are “neo-mystics.” [Rand, FWNI, p. 64.] It might be hard to find a non-Objectivist system of thought that Rand did not consider mysticism or at least “neo-mysticism.” Even Ludwig von Mises, a secular laissez-faire economist, was a “neo-mystic” who engaged in “whim-worship.” [Mayhew, ARM, p. 147.]7
Readers whose first introduction to philosophy or religion is through the writings of Rand might find it surprising the limited use of the concept mysticism that most religious thinkers make in their writings. As one example, the index to the current Catechism of the Catholic Church does not contain a single entry for mysticism. Conservative Protestant theologians tend to ignore mysticism. Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology contains no reference to mysticism. Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology contains one mention. Robert Reymond’s A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith contains several references, all of which are negative. Each of these works is over 1200 pages.
It should be noted that in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam there exists an “anti-mystical” traditions. Within Christianity, it is probably Calvinists (such as Robert Reymond) who are the most opposed to mysticism. This is in part a reaction to Roman Catholicism, but also rests on a belief that the Bible is inerrant and “perspicuous” (easily understood). Hence, according to Calvinists, Roman Catholic mysticism – with its stress of the union of God and the believer — discourages Christians from following the plain teaching of scripture. More significantly, in certain trends of mysticism, the union of God and the believer can approach pantheism, blurring the distinction between God and man.8
There are a few possibilities as to why Rand used mysticism in such an unusual way. First, it is possible that Rand was unaware of subtle use of the term within religion. Second, being dismissive of religion as a whole, it is unlikely that she saw much merit in distinguishing the various forms of religion. Third, Rand saw all religion – from the least rational to the most rational – to be ultimately irrational and therefore mystical. Mysticism is the “essence” of religion, notwithstanding the fact that some religions may be more congenial to a rational outlook. Finally, Rand was opposing not simply religion, but secular irrationalism as well; and, she considered both to be the denial of the primacy of existence and the law of identity. [Rand, PWNI, p. 24; Rand, ITOE, pp. 38-39.] Using a more neutral term such as “supernaturalism” would not accomplish her task of defending reason from its religious and secular enemies.9
In her definition of “mysticism” we see in Rand something similar to her uses of terms such as “altruism” and “selfishness.” By using terms in her own way, she brings out certain contrasts: selfishness is opposed to altruism; reason is opposed to mysticism. Through the use of such contrasts the reader is forced to confront the ambiguity of the “middle of the road” position. There is a parallel here to her use of the term “capitalism.” She refused to limit it to an economic system, but rather used it to denote a full-orbed political system. Her use of “romanticism” was highly idiosyncratic as well.
In light of the above, we can make a few observations about Rand’s understanding of mysticism. Her use of the term “mysticism” is somewhat freewheeling, particularly in her attempt to corral avowedly secular systems of thought (such as logical positivism and Marxism) within her definition. While an author is entitled to give specialized meaning common term, he has an obligation to let the reader know that the use is non-traditional. Also, Rand makes very little effort to understand the teachings of the various religions or their appeal. Perhaps Rand would argue that such an investigation isn’t necessary: all religions have an essential nature. While some religions may be more rational than others, they are all irrational to some extent. Catholics appeal to Scripture and Tradition, Protestants to Scripture alone, Moslems to the Koran, etc. However, Rand’s caricature goes beyond attempting to reach the “essence” of religion.10
The Psychologizing of Religious Believers
As we have seen, Rand viewed atheism and agnosticism in psychological terms. It is therefore not surprising that she sees “mystics” to be the products of virtually “sick” minds. In “Galt Speaks,” her denunciation of the psychology of religious believers is quite harsh:
A mystic is a man who surrendered his mind at its first encounter with the minds of others. Somewhere in the distant reaches of his childhood, when his own understanding of reality clashed with the assertions of others, with their arbitrary orders and contradictory demands, he gave in to so craven a fear that he renounced his rational faculty. . . . From then on, afraid to think, he is left at the mercy of unidentified feelings. His feelings become his only guide, his only remnant of personal identity, he clings to them with ferocious possessiveness-and whatever thinking he does is devoted to the struggle of hiding from himself that the nature of his feelings is terror. [Rand, FNI, pp. 160-61.]
This portrayal of religious believers (and for Rand, all religious believers are mystics) as mentally ill, if not insane, is somewhat shocking given that Atlas Shrugged was published in the 1950s, when everyone paid at least lip-service to religion.11 Although Rand is critical in her philosophical essays of religious believers, I am unaware of any attempt to support her portrayal of religious believers by empirical evidence.12 It should be noted that there are examples from Rand’s writings in which she presents a more balanced picture of religious believers. For example, she could not have said that “the majority of people are not haters of the good” [Schwartz, ROP, p. 149] if she believed that the majority of Americans (who after all profess some version of “mysticism”) were literal embodiments of all that she considered evil. She even considered using a “rational priest” as a character in Atlas Shrugged.
Rand’s stereotyped approach to religious believers falls within a larger tradition of historical and sociological writing. As Robert Nisbet points out, nineteenth century writers such as Karl Marx and Max Weber used “ideal types” to describe certain groups or classes of people. “No living, performing individual in any of these categories will be exactly like the description supplied by the sociologist for his ideal-type, but the relation will be nonetheless sufficiently close to give clarifying value to the ideal-type.” [Nisbet, SAF, p. 71.]
Nonetheless, Rand’s psychologizing of unbelievers is unfair. Few people are psychologically of one type or another. Most people are a mix a various factors. From Rand’s “either/or” perspective, it is difficult to understand how a religious believer could make contributions to science, yet such is obviously the case (consider Newton and Mendel). Rand’s private life presents a particularly vivid example of how many people are a mix of conflicting forces. More importantly, as David Kelley notes, one cannot imply that all irrationalist thinkers are motivated by an anti-conceptual or whim-worshipping mentality. [Kelley, TT, p. 59.]
6 Interestingly, there is a parallel between Rand and Bertrand Russell. Russell’s view of the effects of religion on culture is quite similar to Rand’s. Like Rand, he saw the emotion behind mysticism as positive. [Greenspan & Andersson, ROR, p. 104.]
7 Rand’s use of the term “mysticism” is not without precedent, however. William James pointed out in his classic The Varities of Religious Experience, that “[t]he words ‘mysticism’ and ‘mystical’ are often used as terms of mere reproach, to throw at any opinion which we regard as vague and vast and sentimental, and without a base in either facts or logic.” [James, VORE, p. 370.] James rejected this use. [Id., p. 371.]
8 Catholic philosopher Thomas Molnar quotes the mystic Meister Eckhart as follows: “If I am to know God directly, I must become completely He and He I; so that this He and this I become and are one I.” [Molnar, GKR, p. 34.] As Molnar states, the Islamic and Christian worlds both distinguish between “true” and “false” mysticism. [Id., p. 38.] The Spanish Inquisition persecuted extreme mystics in the sixteenth century. [Passmore, POM, pp. 191-93.]
9 As Objectivists stress, they are not such much anti-religion as pro reason.
10 The late George Walsh, an Objectivist philosopher, does not use the term mysticism in his The Role of Religion in History. This work is the only full-length treatment of religion from an Objectivist perspective.
11 President-elect Eisenhower allegedly stated in 1952 that “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” [Silk, SP, p. 40.] In her address to West Point graduates in 1974, “Philosophy: Who Needs It” Rand curiously omits any reference to religion or mysticism.
12 Similarly, later Randian essays contain considerable speculation about how the mind of young children and even animals operate, without any citation to psychological literature.