Ayn Rand and Aristotle
I wrote here a while back about how much I was enjoying the flurry of reviews and essays occasioned by the publication of two biographies of Ayn Rand. The Nation‘s June 7 issue has a late entry to this category, “Garbage and Gravitas,” by political science professor Corey Robin. I thought perhaps I’d had my fill of Rand by now, but Robin’s first few sentences sucked me in:
St. Petersburg in revolt gave us Vladimir Nabokov, Isaiah Berlin and Ayn Rand. The first was a novelist, the second a philosopher. The third was neither but thought she was both.
Robin’s take focuses on Rand’s philosophizing (or what passed for it), and the virtue ethicists among us may be interested in his discussion of Aristotle, whom Rand apparently claimed as a forebear. “It’s not clear how much of Aristotle’s work Rand actually read: when she wasn’t quoting Galt, she had a habit of attributing to the Greek philosopher statements and ideas that don’t appear in any of his writings.” Robin explains briefly how morality works for Aristotle, and goes on to explore how Rand applied “a superficial Aristotelian gloss” to objectivism (which Robin says is more closely related to “the drill march of fascism”).
I was intrigued by Robin’s conclusion, both in its vision of “the task of the left” and its explanation of how Rand’s approach differs:
Since the nineteenth century, it has been the task of the left to hold up to liberal civilization a mirror of its highest values and to say, “You do not look like this.” You claim to believe in the rights of man, but it is only the rights of property you uphold. You claim to stand for freedom, but it is only the freedom of the strong to dominate the weak. If you wish to live up to your principles, you must give way to their demiurge. Allow the dispossessed to assume power, and the ideal will be made real, the metaphor will be made material.
Rand believed that this meeting of heaven and earth could be arranged by other means. Rather than remake the world in the image of paradise, she looked for paradise in an image of the world. Political transformation wasn’t necessary. Transubstantiation was enough. Say a few words, wave your hands and the ideal is real, the metaphor material.
“Rather than remake the world in the image of paradise, she looked for paradise in an image of the world.”
In writing a feature/review about women’s dystopian novels recently, I re-discovered Ayn Rand’s novella “Anthem,” written in 1937, that might bear this idea out.
In the far, far future in which the book is set (which more than a little resembles that of Zamyatin’s “We”), her hero uncovers a former golden age of mankind in which individualism, innovation, and freedom from being forced to care for others in a totalitarian socialist society.
The past to which the hero of “Anthem” hearkens back, of course, never existed; it is Rand’s vision of what the hero of “Anthem” will build.
Charles Murray reviews two new biographies of Rand at the Claremont Institute site:
Who is Ayn Rand?
A review of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, by Jennifer Burns
and Ayn Rand and the World She Made, by Anne C. Heller
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1708/article_detail.asp
What a fake! I still don’t understand her wide-spread appeal. I read The Fountainhead when it came out and thought it was just a sleazy novel about a control freak. Her two main novels still sell over 100,000 copies per year — she’s an underground writer in plain view. That’s a major influence. Did/does she have something to do with the Tea Partiers? The boomers? The hippies? Is she a reason mainline churches are losing members? Or what? Hmmm.
P. S. I don’t think Robin’s understanding of Aristotle is any great shakes either.
When I think about it, Rand’s understanding of Aristotle is precisely the same as a Catholic seminarian’s as taught in his philosophy classes. The Law of Non-Contradiction is the wisdom of the Virtuous Pagans. The Truth is the Truth! ‘Moderns’ and liberals will try to tell you that 2 + 2 = 5, so beware anything written after 1225!
Who knows, maybe Rand really did know some Aristotle. Aristotle was an aristocrat and his Ethics reflect that to any reader who’s not looking for the secrets of the universe which confirm the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
I stay away from philosophy because I’m not that bright, but Ann (as always) makes interesting observations.
Reading Rand, Heinlein and “Lord of the Rings” and other fantasy literature was part of reading experience of my mid-Boomer generation. I noticed that my girlfriends tended to find Rand preachy, boring and overly idealistic. But I had a fair number of boyfriends who were seduced by Rand, at least for awhile. One is now in the state house, and his voting record indicates he may still be partially in thrall, but we don’t talk anymore.
John Galt quotes were flung around fairly often at the Tea Party rally here in our little village last summer. Moreover, there’s an Ayn Rand Society (hard to find a paperback book without copious advertising of the society in it) that continues to keep her ideas afloat.
Rand’s outlook gives people permission to reject any notion that they have a social responsibility to help anyone else; they may CHOOSE to help others because it gives them pleasure–she didn’t believe in altruism–but unfettered personal achievement was her Prime Directive.
I recall she said on a talk show that she could not look upon scenes of nature with any sense that it was beautiful. I quote from memory, “When I see a forest on a mountain, I see only chaos. That’s what nature is. A road cutting through the forest is beautiful,” presumeably because it imposes order and human endeavor on the chaos of nature.
And maybe the Gulf is only beautiful when there’s a sheen of oil floating on it, too, testimony to human industrial achievement.
I always thought Rand was a very selfish and pompous type.
Interesting observations, Jean. Hmmm. I wonder whether more of those Rand readers are men than women. My friends didn’t read her at all. And who’d want Roark/ The ultimate sexist.
(You not bright? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!! Off with your excuses, girl.)
I understand, somewhat, the opposition Ayn Rand musters concerning her lightening-rod style (and even more-so with her devotees) but isn’t she just the right-wing equivalent of Noam Chomsky?
And concerning the remaking of the earth and paradise in this world, I found her eerily close to Chesterton’s “We are still in Paradise, only our eyes have changed.” Which might not fit traditional concepts of original sin but last time I checked the garden hasn’t been located between the Tigris and Euphrates yet.
Adam, I don’t think that’s a bad analogy (Rand/Chomsky), though Chomsky has more academic creds, for whatever you think those might be worth.
Your comparison of Rand/Chesterton is interesting, though I find it superficial. Rand was an atheist who believed that men could make a perfect world if the altruists and do-gooders would leave them alone.
I think Rand’s atheism is the key to understanding her philosophy. If Man is the measure of all things, then the only relevant question is, which man (feminists: please don’t be offended – it is just that I find the woman/man configuration awkward and clunky in literature and discourse). Her observations about nature representing chaos certainly flows directly from her atheism.
Bob, no offense taken. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there. And in Rand “man” is probably the right noun because most of her female characters do very little but wait around for the alpha male to show up.
I’ve always respected intellectual consistency, even when (or especially when) I disagree with it. Maybe that is why I liked Nietzsche because I could respect him for carrying his opinions to their logical conclusion. Maybe that is also why I respected Theodore Kaczynski (though Alston Chase) though I disagree with his founding principles.
At any rate I can respect logical systems so much more than what Etienne Gilson complained about concerning modern liberal democracy succumbing to Nazism and Communism because it was unable to present a consistent and coherent alternative.
Adam –
One of the recent biographies notes that Rand was a Hollywood phenomenon, and I think it’s true that her novels read more like movie proposals, just the way Ann Rice’s books do. They present vivid image that are rather easily translated to the screen. But the characters and dialogue are simplistic so even though she and Rice aim at profundity, they do not suceed. But Rand’s images seem to express vividly the world-view that individualism and power are the ultimate values, so she has had an influence way beyond her insights, such as they might be. (She did appreciate creativity.) Again, images are substituted for rational thought, and real evidence, abstractions and reasoning are ignored. We need all four. plus the creativity she touts.