In other New York Times gold this weekend (we know, #1 and #3 on the New York Times top-10, but both stories are especially cringe-worthy), the paper is gearing up for the 50th anniversary of the publishing of Atlas Shrugged. Guess what? There are some business people who think Atlas Shrugged qualifies as a real book, or something more than popular fiction.
Could an article for once stick a fork in Rand? A lot of books are popular. We’re sorry, but if Atlas Shrugged (or objectivism) is serious philosophy, then The Da Vinci Code is serious theology.
There’s no shame into admitting you read Atlas Shrugged in high school and got a bit of an over-ambitious upper-middle-class hard-on for your world conquering prospects. But it’s a phase you grow out of. Then again, some people still dress as elves (we live for LARP), some have a copy of Atlas Shrugged in their corner offices. A few years later and most people who grew up in bubbles (suburbanites) can laugh while admitting that they skipped the insufferable 200 page John Galt speech (in the same way you can laugh at how you thought your “Rage Against the Machine” albums were capturing your upper-middle-class teen angst).
It certainly takes that very misplaced “Big Hitter” hubris to find Rand’s work a viable replacement for Cialis, and it glorifies the denial of any real social responsibility or civic duty, so it’s no surprise that Rand’s work is popular in the corporate sector (also it takes an incredibly high I-banking analyst threshold for pain to suffer through the aforementioned speech).
There’s no shame in admitting a past affection. A lot of people got Nietzsche wrong (batty people in coffee shops, the Nazis), but it amazes us that people still find “inspiration” in Rand’s silly one-dimensional characters. Scratch that, they don’t. A few rich people, some people in neocon think tanks and Alan Greenspan (pictured, and yes, that pretty much sums up the Wall Street Journal editorial page) don’t constitute much of a consensus, despite the efforts of institutes devoted to spread Rand’s work and act eerily mystical about the batty trainwreck of an individual that was Ayn herself.
Ayn Rand’s Literature of Capitalism [New York Times]
Posted by Some guy , Sep 17, 2007 12:40PM
Dang Keith! I must admit, I thought Atlas Shrugged was wicked boring, but you really have a way with words when complaining about litterature. Everyone's a critic, right?
Posted by Jim Rogers , Sep 17, 2007 12:43PM
Greenspan and Objectivism
Greenspan was initially a Keynesian and logical positivist, but was converted to Objectivism by Rand. During the 1950s and '60s Greenspan was a proponent of her philosophy, writing articles for Objectivist newsletters and contributed several essays for Rand's 1966 book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal including an essay supporting the gold standard.[7] During the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the members of Ayn Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. Although Greenspan continues to advocate laissez-faire capitalism,[8] some Objectivists find his support for a gold standard somewhat of an irony given the Federal Reserve's role in America's fiat money system and endogenous inflation. He has come under criticism by Harry Binswanger,[9] who believes that working for the Federal Reserve is an abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles.
When Greenspan was sworn in as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in 1974, Ayn Rand attended the ceremony. Greenspan attended Rand's funeral in 1982.
Posted by , Sep 17, 2007 12:46PM
Greenspan is one of the crazies.
Posted by Some guy , Sep 17, 2007 12:50PM
...and from what I have heard Greenspan and Rand had a most torrid love affair...
Posted by oldjeezer , Sep 17, 2007 12:53PM
How dare you. Next you'll be peeing on a picture of Jose, uh ..... Juan, ..... Jesus, whatever his name is.
Posted by , Sep 17, 2007 12:56PM
hilarious post
Posted by To The Hilt , Sep 17, 2007 1:09PM
I actually just finished the speech last night. It took me 6 weeks to read.
(the speech, not the book)
One page is better than tylenol PM.
Posted by fish or cut rates , Sep 17, 2007 1:15PM
Greenspan will do anything for pussy. He probably never read the book. Rand "converts" him to objectivism....and then Andrea Mitchell made him bitch slap the Republicans in his new book.
Posted by The Understander , Sep 17, 2007 2:02PM
Karl Rove in a brown shirt, marching at night with a torch.
Thank God some real people in the 1940s stood up to objectivists and nihilists or I'd be typing this in German and there would be a serious, worldwide shortage of Jews.
Posted by , Sep 17, 2007 2:17PM
i just want to know where bess is
Posted by Anon , Sep 17, 2007 2:17PM
You guys are all commies.
Posted by Ben , Sep 17, 2007 2:21PM
it glorifies the denial of any real social responsibility or civic duty, so it’s no surprise that Rand’s work is popular in the corporate sector (also it takes an incredibly high I-banking analyst threshold for pain to suffer through the aforementioned speech).
you mean compulsory social responsibility and civic duty, right?
Posted by dd , Sep 17, 2007 2:23PM
Funny how we rarely , if ever , heard any criticism about "the Maestro" when he was in office , but the last two years have seen every blogger and critic in the world take shots at him...... where were they then ???
so easy being a Monday-morning quarterback
Posted by dd , Sep 17, 2007 2:24PM
so easy being a Monday-morning quarterback
Posted by Erm , Sep 17, 2007 2:26PM
What is one's metric for "serious philosophy," Mr. Hahn?
Posted by Tom Augenthaler , Sep 17, 2007 2:37PM
Love the injection of lit. crit. Of the literary/movie characters out there I thought Gordon Gekko was the quintessential objectivist. Especially with lines like:
"Greed is good. Greed is right."
"If you need a friend, get a dog."
You get my drift.
Posted by Roget , Sep 17, 2007 3:15PM
Is there a difference between drivel and prattle?
Posted by Lee D , Sep 17, 2007 3:21PM
in college, discussions with the Uber-mensches in the Campus Objectivist club usually dried up once these rugged individuals admitted that what part of their tuition wasn't being paid for by student loans was being covered by mom and dad.
Posted by chris , Sep 17, 2007 3:35PM
Second best pic ever! (Right after the tiger PJs).
Posted by L'Emmerdeur , Sep 17, 2007 3:42PM
If you didn't learn your lesson from the feminazis in college, listen up:
You can learn nothing from an ugly chick.
Posted by Bulging Bracket , Sep 17, 2007 6:22PM
Student Loans? WTF?
Real people pay cash for their education. Family trustees and accountants would have had a heart attack if I'd asked for full tax returns and audited books to submit to school.
If you don't have the personal cash to pay, good schools will enable you to get a job during the summer that will more than cover all of your expenses -paid internships. You can also get commercial loans for school, rather than getting government tied loans. But there is nothing wrong with having your family pay for school.
Randroids are annoying, but at least they're not socialists, like Keith, apparently. Gecko was right - what else do you epect from an incompetent fool like Stone, he makes his supposed villain a clear eyed hero.
Posted by Reader, I married Myron Scholes , Sep 17, 2007 6:45PM
In response to Erm,
Serious philosophy should do a few things that Ayn Rand, as I understand it, fails to do:
1. Be willing to debate assumptions to make sure that they check reasonably well with facts about the world. It is at least possible that acts of altruism and fellow-feeling are not always manifestations of neuroses, or slavery to the cult of selflessness, or something like that...but Randians dismiss an assertion like that as just another example of neurosis, or the cult of selflessness, or whatever. (This is the same way that conspiracy theorists deal with counter-evidence...the presenter of the evidence is always in on the conspiracy or tainted by it in some way.)
2. Be willing to accept the fallout of one's theories. Randians (smart ones, at that) that I've talked to do not know how to deal with the fact that there are people (someone's family members, even!) who cannot fend for themselves. Severely disabled people do not fit into Rand's political society in a way that allows them to thrive. This might not be a problem for Randians, but they should at least admit that it is not a problem for them, rather than ignoring the issue, as they've done in conversations I've had with them.
3. Be interested in criticism and argument. Academic philosophy is often called 'a great conversation'--a conversation where reasoned dissent is not only tolerated, but encouraged. Randians on the other hand, don't seem to buck much disagreement, or seem interested in responding to the most respected theories of morality and politics in a reasoned, argumentative way that would sway anyone interested in that kind of thing.
Posted by Keith is a jackass , Sep 17, 2007 6:53PM
Hey, Keith,
First of all, you are a jackass.
Second of all, the fact that you don't understand a book doesn't mean that it's not serious philosophy.
Thirdly, in 2006, Cambridge University Press published the book "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist" by UT Austin Professor Tara Smith.
Hmm, let's see:
Cambridge University Press: 2nd most prestigious academic publisher in the world.
Keith Hahn: Some random dude who failed out in the finance world, now writes for a blog.
Who is the better arbiter of whether Objectivism is a serious philosophy?
Keith, stick to what you know, i.e. business analysis -- you know, like whether a website is being acquired for $500,000 per user or $500 per user. Oops! You're not too good at that either, are you!! Oh well....
Oh, and fourthly, you're a jackass.
Posted by The fake Ferris Bueller , Sep 17, 2007 7:45PM
-Ism's [and -Ists] in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism [or -ist], he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people [or take the E train to work everyday].
Posted by Calgary Schmooze , Sep 17, 2007 8:10PM
Does this mean that I should no longer listen to my 70's-era Rush albums?
Posted by GGMuze , Sep 18, 2007 10:19AM
It's too bad some of you are missing out based on your own dogmas.
Any use of the terms "Randian," "Randism," or "Randist," or a reference to a de-facto "cult" sanctioned and lead by Rand, shows a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Ironically, those statements come from people that claim Rand made "assumptions" unsupported by "facts about the world."
Posted by RM , Sep 18, 2007 2:43PM
"Civic duty"??? WTF are you talking about?
And BTW, unadulterated capitalism did not give rise to Nazism, national socialism did. I'm fairly certain that is the direct opposite of Rand. We all know that taking Atlas Shrugged literally is impractical, but at least get your facts straight.
And btw, I didn't come here to read The Huffington Post.
Posted by unnecessaryenema , Sep 20, 2007 10:23PM
You are all dumbasses who don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Oh, and that article wasn't obnoxious or self-righteous at all.