Ayn Rand: Institutionalising sociopathy

[bit_pattern]

Ayn Rand: Institutionalising Sociopathy

INSTITUTIONALIZING SOCIOPATHY

My opinions about Ayn Rand have been stated unambiguously. There is no silver lining to anything Rand, not her infantile “philosophy”, sub-Twilight writing skills, or legions of socially retarded acolytes who devote their “lives” to annoying the living shit out of the rest of the world and wondering what it would be like to talk to a woman. The great thing is that I don’t have to pretend differently. It is perfectly acceptable in the academic world to treat Rand’s Objectivism like the intellectually bankrupt farce it is. If I say Catholicism is a big pile of bullshit, I will get fired or at least seriously disciplined. If a student makes some Ron Paul argument about abolishing the Fed I am not allowed to laugh at him. But Ayn Rand? She is taken as seriously as astrology. If a student complained I think the people in the Dean’s office would hit him with pies.

Objectivism and creationism are two sides of one coin, which explains why no one is obligated to take either seriously in academia. Creationists seek academic validation for their childish beliefs and ignorance. “Intelligent Design” is a feeble attempt to dress up their stupidity as a science. Objectivists similarly seek validation from philosophy departments for their adolescent selfishness and malignant narcissism. Philosophers aren’t likely to consider “Being a self-absorbed, delusional prick” to be a coherent belief system on its own, so they call it an -ism in an effort to polish the turd. So far, no dice.

My intuition has always been that Rand herself was essentially a sociopath – not because it is a good, nasty pejorative but because I literally think she fit the characteristics of a sociopath. Her novels are thousand-page catalogs of warning signs. Rapes, murders, bombings, and mass killings of innocent nobodies, only to have the author reveal that they are not innocent at all. Every victim deserves it in Rand’s fiction and every protagonist is a borderline psychotic who is utterly incapable of feeling love or kindness toward anyone but himself. She exalts mass murderers, sexual deviants, egomaniacs, and flat-out assholes. Her books don’t feel like novels. They feel like the revenge fantasies of the 12 year old fat kid who everyone picks on and nobody befriends as he silently fumes in study hall, doodling violence in the margins of his notebook and hatching a plot to make everyone worship him or else.

Two new biographies of Rand have been released, Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns and Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller. Both are ably parsed in this outstanding review by Johann Hari. I cannot recommend it strongly enough. In short, the biographers provide all of the evidence I’d ever need to support the hypothesis that Rand was Ted Bundy with a bigger vocabulary and enough self control to avoid crossing the line into serial killer territory herself.

A Russian Jew from a broken home with an aristocratic mother, “Rand” fled the Bolshiveks (after developing a deep hatred for the way their ideology upset her world of servants and leisure) to Hollywood and set about creating a movement that diametrically opposed Communism. Selfishness was praised, kindness was derided, and vast swaths of humanity were written off as “lice” fit only for disgust and extermination. But the overarching irony to Rand’s entire silly career is how completely she embraced the worst excesses of Soviet Communism in developing her “Institute” and career as a philosopher and idol – authoritarianism, absolute prohibition of dissent, and a cult of personality that would embarrass Stalin, Hoxha, Kim, and Turkmenbashi. Because she was a shitty writer her novels were filled with characters who were ham-fisted stand ins for herself, characters who suffered the same basic contradiction and psychological disorder: overwhelming hatred for almost everyone on Earth coupled with a desperate, deep-seated psychological need to be liked. But Rand did not simply need to be liked. She needed to be worshiped in ways befitting the demigod she believed she was.

When she got addicted to uppers in her later life it is an interesting coincidence that both she and her insular cult of acolytes began resembling another great charlatan of the 20th Century – L. Ron Hubbard and his “movement.” The high priestess of spiritual and intellectual freedom surrounded herself with sycophants and worshipers from whom she tolerated not the slightest bit of dissent. Expressing any individuality in the world of the great individualist herself was forbidden. Most sociopaths and narcissists inevitably turn into a parody of themselves as the followers they worked so hard to brainwash wander away one by one. In Rand’s case she became a parody of what she claimed to despise, dying alone and unloved in her tiny cult where conformity and fanatical devotion to the Ideology were taken to levels that no Bolshivek could have imagined possible.

Thus will it be for everyone who subscribes to her sorry excuse for a belief system. But unlike The Master herself, the great unwashed masses of teabagging Objectivists truly will die alone and unable to delude themselves into thinking they commanded the army of acolytes they felt they deserved.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 12th, 2009 at 1:40 am and is filed under Rants. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Discuss

 

[capstone]

Discuss

Why should anybody? I'll bite though.

Ayn Rand is not to be trusted. Her, and people like Greenspan, were the philosophers for the Elite. The pithy slaves deciding their own fate and the like. Ayn was in with The Top, the high occultic priests of world affairs.

So, live like a satanist, die like a satanist, that's was some always say.

Wierd, have South Park going on currently and its the Chicken Fucker episode. And he just gave Barbrady an Ayn Rand book, synchronicity is odd sometimes.

 

[bit_pattern]

Satanists? Uh, OK then...

/backs slowly out of thread.

 

[jpgrdnr]

I've never read anything she wrote. Its kinda scary how long her stuff is. Though I usually think of the retort for literary criticism, of this sort, as:

"Go try to write a book."

Also: "Because she was a shitty writer," does not get the writer any brownie points. And might produce an F in grade school. It certainly doesn't garner any agreement in their argument.

This reminds me of my hatred for Jane Austen/Pride and Prejudice. Mere opinion.

 

[yougene]

Ayn Rand's books were to a large extent a response to the political climate created by academia at that time. This was during a moment in time where western academia was having a love affair with Communism and indirectly Stalin. These academics weren't aware of the mass genocide or the life experiences in the eastern block. Ayn Rand made them look like huge fools as the bigger picture emerged. As a result she gained many supporters and many enemies.

There's nothing wrong with Ayn Rand's philosophy other then it's extremely reductionist. As a complete guide to reality her work is disastrous. But as an exploration of rational individualism and free-market dynamics her work is fantastic.

 

[Jackal]

But as an exploration of rational individualism and free-market dynamics her work is fantastic.

^ That's true, I read The fountainhead last year. It seemed amazingly prescient at the time.

 

[Heuristic]

Rand's books are essentially lengthy allegories. The characters are walking symbols for various ideologies in her thought, and neither they nor the plots come close to capturing much in the way of truth about human existence. But given, as far as I know, the complete lack of any criminal activity in her life, I think it's a stretch to describe her as sociopathic.

People like reading her because of her celebration of the individual, and perhaps they thrill to the prospect of an individualist superman taking on "the system" that seems to conspire against them (you can see why adolescents in particular enjoy her). And that's fine. Of course, taken as a complete system, it falls well short of the mark. Its view of human nature is stunted and incomplete, and it radically fails to acknowledge and integrate the importance of social relations in human lives.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

it radically fails to acknowledge and integrate the importance of social relations in human lives.

That's my argument against libertarianism in general, both Randian and otherwise. Show me a hardcore libertarian, and I'll show you someone who is unusually self-sufficient, and has had the luxury of always being able to do everything on their own terms. And then, like most of us, such people tend to assume most other people do (or should) see things their way.

I rarely see radically individualist philosophies embraced by people who have a strong appreciation for the many, many other people, and institutions, that allowed them to get where they are today.

 

[azzazza !?]

i fail to percieve such a thing as 'an individual', personally. i mean, the very fact of language alone cracks us open to higher collective spirit(s). the individual is a rather strange product of such a collective spirit, i reckon.

 

[Jabberwocky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html?_r=1Rand’s particular intellectual contribution, the thing that makes her so popular and so American, is the way she managed to mass market elitism — to convince so many people, especially young people, that they could be geniuses without being in any concrete way distinguished. Or, rather, that they could distinguish themselves by the ardor of their commitment to Rand’s teaching. The very form of her novels makes the same point: they are as cartoonish and sexed-up as any best seller, yet they are constantly suggesting that the reader who appreciates them is one of the elect.

Rand glorifies self interest and posits that most every other motive is poison. She also criticized people not thinking for themselves but declared people who disagreed with her anathema on a regular basis and even instructed her followers to not read certain authors or have contact with certain expelled people.

"objectivism" seems to be one of those philosophies that requires you reject or subordinate all other philosophies. The objectivists I've conversed with seemed to regard all communication as a win/lose proposition. If a good friend suddenly became a zealous objectivist it would sadden me a great deal as it would likely mean that meaningful give and take and light philosophical conversations are over for a while.

MBA's and CEO's as supermen is imagery that does not agree with me in the least. Some are likely OK competent folk but the notion that successful entrepreneurs are to be worshipfully deferred to in every area of public policy is simultaneously ludicrous and frightening to me. I do think a lot of people are of that sort of Rand inspired mindset. I see CEO success cited as an absolute credential all the time. One of my problems there is that it is often noticed after a CEO has been gone a while that their years of prosperity as a CEO was attained by staying on a collision course which they personally averted by departing with all the loot they could carry before their policies reached their inevitable conclusion.

 

[yougene]

I rarely see radically individualist philosophies embraced by people who have a strong appreciation for the many, many other people, and institutions, that allowed them to get where they are today.

The ethical claim of Objectivism is that the pursuit of the individual translates into a greater good for all.
If approached from this angle Objectivism is an acknowledgement of the many.

It's important to keep in mind that Objectivism is a synthesis of Enlightenment era thought taken to an extreme.
I don't think we should dismiss the ideas of the rational self or the "invisible hand" of the market only because Ayn Rand wrote about it.

 

[azzazza !?]

to regard all communication as a win/lose proposition.

this.

 

[Delta-9-THC]

i fail to percieve such a thing as 'an individual', personally. i mean, the very fact of language alone cracks us open to higher collective spirit(s). the individual is a rather strange product of such a collective spirit, i reckon.

Sorry but, what they hell does "collective spirit" even mean?

I don't have an opinion on Rand as I have not read her works although I probably will eventually so I can weigh in on her ideas. That comment just kinda left me a bit perplexed.

 

[chairmanma084]

ayn rand just wanted to be raped...

 

[azzazza !?]

Sorry but, what they hell does "collective spirit" even mean?

oh i might have trouble finding the most correct english term or expression for it (not a native english speaker). what i meant is along the lines of 'the spirit of capitalism', 'the spirit of modernism', 'the spirit of harry potter' etc. languages themselves also have such a spirit, but its even more abstract and less defined as my examples here. perhaps they even are of the highest transcending level. i call it a 'collective' spirit because as an abstract concept, it may be viewed as an 'entity'. while composed of individual thoughts and manners of expressions; it does also have a transcending, abstract 'spirit' that works as a collective. the individuals influence the spirit and vice versa; yet this collective spirit is not one that is directly controlled by the individuals constituting it. it has a bit of a life of its own. furthermore, as a spirit, it is also in turn defined by other (contrasting) spirits; who are also a 'more' then the single individuals composing it.

edit: a zeitgeist, for example

 

[Heuristic]

The ethical claim of Objectivism is that the pursuit of the individual translates into a greater good for all.
If approached from this angle Objectivism is an acknowledgement of the many.

But I believe-and it's been a while, so I may be wrong-that an Objectivist would reject this as a justification. And that rejection is, for me, a major shortcoming of the philosophy as an ethical system.

It's important to keep in mind that Objectivism is a synthesis of Enlightenment era thought taken to an extreme.
I don't think we should dismiss the ideas of the rational self or the "invisible hand" of the market only because Ayn Rand wrote about it.

I wince at the association of Objectivism with Enlightenment thought (taken to the extreme to the degree that it is distorted, I suppose), but I fully agree that we shouldn't dismiss free markets or the importance of individual liberty simply because Rand wrote about it favorably.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

The ethical claim of Objectivism is that the pursuit of the individual translates into a greater good for all.
If approached from this angle Objectivism is an acknowledgement of the many.

It's important to keep in mind that Objectivism is a synthesis of Enlightenment era thought taken to an extreme.
I don't think we should dismiss the ideas of the rational self or the "invisible hand" of the market only because Ayn Rand wrote about it.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. I definitely think Rand should be read and interpreted as a product of her time. She deserves mention in any thorough discussion of the beginning of the Cold War and the machine age.

Nor am I saying that individualism is crap. Though granted I approach it with a healthy skepticism, and don't for a minute think it's the answer to all of humanity's problems. (In a nutshell, its flipside is widespread loneliness and existential dread.)

I'm sure Ayn Rand felt she really was doing good for all by promoting rational self-interest. But the thing is, her ethical foundation -- if everyone acts selfishly, the good of all is served -- is kind of a truism. It can't be verified or falsified objectively, because the measure of its effectiveness is entirely in the mind of the holder of this principle, and not dependent in any way on the effects his/her actions have on other people. If I hold this principle firmly, then I can claim I did good no matter what happens to the lives of people I affect. Not only that, but I take away all basis for pointing fingers or demanding justice if someone does me wrong. After all, they were just acting out of rational self-interest. So Ayn Rand's morality is a sexed-up Law of the Jungle -- that is to say, no morality at all.

I see where she's coming from. She saw the blatant hypocrisy of leaders who made highly invasive laws purportedly for the good of the whole, but then broke the rules and exploited the citizenry as it suited them. "If the strong always do what they can and the weak always do what they must, then why must any of us hide behind an ideology that pretends otherwise?" she asks. As thought provoking a question as this it, it's is a copout, which doesn't take into account the many situation-dependent forms that human power and politics can take. And it's in no way a way forward for human civilization. It's like being fed up with the modern US healthcare system (understandably), and concluding that the answer is to make all hospitals and clinics overt members-only clubs.

 

[Roger&Me]

This reminds me of my hatred for Jane Austen/Pride and Prejudice. Mere opinion.

Pride and Prejudice is an unreadable stack of toilet paper. :D

 

[yougene]

But I believe-and it's been a while, so I may be wrong-that an Objectivist would reject this as a justification. And that rejection is, for me, a major shortcoming of the philosophy as an ethical system.

Maybe you're right, all these derivative movements( modernism, libertarianism, objectivism, etc... ) sort of blend for me.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. I definitely think Rand should be read and interpreted as a product of her time. She deserves mention in any thorough discussion of the beginning of the Cold War and the machine age.

That part wasn't directed specifically towards you. I should have added more lines.

But the thing is, her ethical foundation -- if everyone acts selfishly, the good of all is served

The idea is Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand".

In economics, the invisible hand, also known as the invisible hand of the market, the term economists use to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace,[1] is a metaphor first coined by the economist Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments. For Smith, the invisible hand was created by the conjunction of the forces of self-interest, competition, and supply and demand, which he noted as being capable of allocating resources in society.[2] This is the founding justification for the laissez-faire economic philosophy.[3]

Within the context of Adam Smith this represents some approximation of Good.

 

[Philoscybin]

Comparing Ayn Rand to a self-restrained Ted Bundy and her philosophy instilling sociopathy or narcissism is a bit over the top don't you think? Rand was right in many ways, taking a firm stance in defending and promoting individual rights, self pride, aesthetics, and the veneration of life, as well as pointing out the pathology within society. Sure, Rand was a bit over the top and cold being that she was an extremist radical, but she was a true pioneer and established a system of thought built under a solid foundation, covering all philosophical grounds (ontology, ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, and politics). Out of all the philosophers I have studied, Rand has been one of the more influential, however I definitely differ with her on many issues and am not in anyway a "Rand-roid". I'd say thinkers like Marx, Leary, McKenna, Castaneda, as well as many theistic thinkers like Ockham, Mohammed, Kant, and maybe even Dostoyevsky are just as, if not more, radical or even pathological.