Hilarious Mistake in NY Times Review of Ayn Rand Biography

[Brainster]

This has been pointed out by several blogs, but it's very revealing. The NY Times had Adam Kirsch (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html?hp), a writer for the center-left political mag the New Republic, review Ayn Rand and the World She Made. That Kirsch is not familiar with Rand's work or her philosophy is apparent in this passage. Rand wrote a long radio address by John Galt, the protagonist of the novel, and her editor, Bennett Cerf wanted to trim it down. Rand agreed to accept smaller royalties on the book rather than cut the speech. Kirsch comments:

That she agreed is a sign of the great contradiction that haunts her writing and especially her life. Politically, Rand was committed to the idea that capitalism is the best form of social organization invented or conceivable....

Yet while Rand took to wearing a dollar-sign pin to advertise her love of capitalism, Heller makes clear that the author had no real affection for dollars themselves. Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done. It is the act of an intellectual, of someone who believes that ideas matter more than lucre.

No kidding, he finds a contradiction in Rand taking less money than she might have made if she had compromised her principles. Of course, Rand's books (especially the Fountainhead) feature protagonists who will not sacrifice their principles for money, so there's no contradiction here.

[hgc]

His statement about Rand's "idea that capitalism is the best form of social organization...," betrays a very simplistic understanding of Randian thinking. He must think it's identical to his own notion of what pure capitalism is.

The New Republic has been circling the drain for over 10 years now. Just die already. The whole institution belongs in the publishing Purgatory occupied by Stephen Glass.

[Puppycow]

I once picked up a book by Rand in a bookstore and read a few pages to see if it was something that might interest me. I couldn't get past the awful prose so I decided to spend my money on something else.
I learned about Rand's philosophy not by reading her books by by encountering her nutty disciples on the internets and playing the game Bioshock.
Also former Rand follower Michael Shermer's description of her little cult (http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml) in Why People Believe Weird Things.

[gtc]

In Kirsch's world, the only reason a genuine capitalist would have for not selling their child into sex slavery would be that they could make more money from making a snuff film.

[pakeha]

Thanks for the linky, puppycow.
An interesting article and one which once again shows us, "Hell hath no fury..."

[David Wong]

His statement about Rand's "idea that capitalism is the best form of social organization...," betrays a very simplistic understanding of Randian thinking.

It's true. A deeper understanding reveals Rand to be much, much more insane than that.

[NewtonTrino]

So I've read a few of her books in the long ago past but I don't feel like that's given me a good framework to understand her philosophy. If I had to sum up what I know it would go something like "don't restrain society because this in turn restrains your best and brightest who can move things forward more than anyone else while earning their just reward" or something like that.

[Madalch]

In Kirsch's world, the only reason a genuine capitalist would have for not selling their child into sex slavery would be that they could make more money from making a snuff film.

I've read "Letters to the Editor" from people who seem to have that viewpoint. I think the one that comes to mind was a person who thought a university's funding should be cut on the grounds that they must have too much money already, since they turned down an offer from Coke/Pepsi to ban the sales of their competitor on campus.

[Skeptic]

No kidding, he finds a contradiction in Rand taking less money than she might have made if she had compromised her principles.

The contradiction is that if Rand were truly an egoist, as she claimed to be, she should have taken the money. According to Rand's philosophy, honesty, principles, etc. are all the result -- the rational outcome -- of pure economic self-interest. So if there is a conflict between getting more money and, say, lying, getting more money should win out.

You raise, however, an interesting point. Why are Rand's characters -- and, apparently, why was Rand herself -- such sticks-in-the-mud, such protestants, such principles-before-filthy-lucre tightwads? Why are they not piranhas?

The answer, Andrew Oldenquist, the Harvard philosopher, says, is that Rand is not an egoist. She only thinks she is. In reality, as well as in her fiction, she (and her characters) act according to blanket, categorical imperatives of right and wrong behavior without the slightest regard to their economic self-interest. She and they are as pure a Kantian as you'll find outside a philosophy department.

She then mistakenly wraps up her ethical principles with a philosophy -- egoism -- which she thinks, obviously mistakenly, that will result in people behaving according to such principles. But as -- to name two obvious examples -- Hobbes and Plato knew, this does not follow. Behaving in egoistic, self-interested ways tends to result in egoistic, self-interested behavior -- not in principled, upright behavior.

Ayn Rand tries to solve the ancient problem of "why be good?": why behave according to principles if being selfish is so much more lucrative? Plato's answer is to claim behaving according to principle will make one's soul better, which is so important anything else (worldly success included) pales by comparison. Hobbes' is that one needs a tyrant, to make selfish behavior less lucrative (due to fear of punishment) than unselfish one. Numerous religions use the threat of punishment or reward in a coming life for the same ends.

Rand will have none of that. She simply denies that egoistic people will behave in selfish, immoral ways -- and that therefore there is no conflict to solve. The egoistic and moral are one. This is, technically, not contradictory, but only at the price of being ludicrous.

[gtc]

So the problem is that he is conflating capitalism with Rand's concept of egotism.

[Silly Green Monkey]

That radio address was 45 pages long! about ten pages in, I was so thoroughly bored that I went and counted!

[dudalb]

This has been pointed out by several blogs, but it's very revealing. The NY Times had Adam Kirsch (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html?hp), a writer for the center-left political mag the New Republic, review Ayn Rand and the World She Made. That Kirsch is not familiar with Rand's work or her philosophy is apparent in this passage. Rand wrote a long radio address by John Galt, the protagonist of the novel, and her editor, Bennett Cerf wanted to trim it down. Rand agreed to accept smaller royalties on the book rather than cut the speech. Kirsch comments:



No kidding, he finds a contradiction in Rand taking less money than she might have made if she had compromised her principles. Of course, Rand's books (especially the Fountainhead) feature protagonists who will not sacrifice their principles for money, so there's no contradiction here.

Talk about clueless.
I am strongly opposed to much of Rand's philosophy ( I think raising "Looking OUt for #1" to the highest moral law is a terrible idea) but least I have actually read the novels and have a pretty good grasp the principle of Objectism. The critic here is tottally unfamiliar with Rand Philosophy..which makes him a lousy critic of it.

[dudalb]

So the problem is that he is conflating capitalism with Rand's concept of egotism.

That's egoism.
Rand spends a great deal of time differentating between the two. A lot of it is horse puckey, and in the end as far a Rand's philosophy goes I think it is a classic case of a distinction without any real difference, but you are right that the critic does not know what he is talking about.
IMHO, Rand is a crappy spokesperson for Capitalism precisely because she rejects as immoral the defense that Capitalism,in the long run benefits society better then other systems. I don't want to get into a debate about the accuracy of that defense, but that Rand refuses to make it shows how scewed up she was .

[Madalch]

That's egoism.
Not ergotism?

[Brainster]

Talk about clueless.
I am strongly opposed to much of Rand's philosophy ( I think raising "Looking OUt for #1" to the highest moral law is a terrible idea) but least I have actually read the novels and have a pretty good grasp the principle of Objectism. The critic here is tottally unfamiliar with Rand Philosophy..which makes him a lousy critic of it.

Yep. Rand didn't really have a coherent philosophy; what she tried to come up with was a reaction to the philosophical underpinnings of communism. Her books are interesting and provocative but the practical arguments against communism ended up being more successful than the philosophical ones.

[Senex]

Someone asked me to read Atlas Shrugged and I read every word because I agreed I would. It reminded me of the time someone asked me to read A Prayer for Owen Meany. Both books cried out for editing yet were on the opposite ends of politics. Shrugged frustrated me when Gault had a 64 page rant that I got (understood) after a couple pages. Meany had multiple rants about the evils of the Vietnam War. I got that much earlier than the author gave me credtr for.

I offer these two books up as examples of authors who bullied their publisher to not edit when editing would have made a for a better book.

[kritter]

I read many summaries of Rand's work but I couldn't read and get past any of her books, too long and too slow.

[hgc]

I read many summaries of Rand's work but I couldn't read and get past any of her books, too long and too slow.


Try Anthem.

(I'm not actually recommending to anyone to read Rand. But, as long as someone wants to try, and could use a shorter slog... Personally, I haven't read it since 9th grade, so I only have a vague recollection of its contents.)

[the_eye]

My problem with Ayn Rand (besides the ******** philosophy, awful writing, her hypocritical racism and her movement's cult-like tendencies) was that she was that she essentially thought that the Female protagonist in her Rape scene in the Fountainhead, had it coming.

[Matthew Best]

Here's an article by someone who has a different problem with her than you.

http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-followers-are-scarier-than-the-manson-family-and-the-gruesome-story-of-the-serial-killer-who-stole-ayn-rands-heart/

[Chaos]

Not ergotism?

I think that tends to produce a different kind of crazy.

[ServiceSoon]

Someone asked me to read Atlas Shrugged and I read every word because I agreed I would. It reminded me of the time someone asked me to read A Prayer for Owen Meany. Both books cried out for editing yet were on the opposite ends of politics. Shrugged frustrated me when Gault had a 64 page rant that I got (understood) after a couple pages. Meany had multiple rants about the evils of the Vietnam War. I got that much earlier than the author gave me credtr for.

I offer these two books up as examples of authors who bullied their publisher to not edit when editing would have made a for a better book.I'm struggling to finish the book. I read it half way through and put in on a shelf for 6 months. I finally made the decision I need to finish it since I've come so far. I'm on the chapter before Galt rambles. I also want to finish it to find out what all the fuss is about. You take the good and leave the bad, like everything else in life.