The One Argument Ayn Rand Couldn’t Win
William James once argued that every philosophic system sets out to conceal, first of all, the philosopher’s own temperament: that pre-rational bundle of preferences that urges him to hop on whatever logic-train seems to be already heading in his general direction. This creates, as James put it, “a certain insincerity in our philosophic discussions: the potentest of all our premises is never mentioned … What the system pretends to be is a picture of the great universe of God. What it is—and oh so flagrantly!—is the revelation of how intensely odd the personal flavor of some fellow creature is.”
After reading the details of Rand’s early life, I find it hard to think of Objectivism as very objective at all—it looks more like a rational program retrofitted to a lifelong temperament, a fantasy world created to cancel the nightmare of a terrifying childhood. This is the comedy, the tragedy, and the power of Rand: She built a glorious imaginary empire on that nuclear-grade temperament, then devoted every ounce of her will and intelligence to proving it was all pure reason.Although I disagree with Objectivism as a reasonable way to live, Atlas Shrugged is one of the most important books I’ve ever read. For me, it brought into sharp relief the brand of Skinnerian behaviorism that colors the way I see the world.
I would legitimately love to have a long discussion with a Randian Objectivist. Any takers?
FUCK YES. although we seem to have the same opinion so it would benefit to have a counterpoint.
