Hannah Arendt, Ayn Rand – Part II
Closer exploration of Ayn Rand's concepts.
In case you missed Part I and want to catch up, here’s the link.
The deeper I look into Ayn Rand, the more I am shocked by the influence of her pseudo-scientific, pseudo-philosophical message. I believe there are two reasons why people would be attracted to her writings: it appeals to anybody who is by nature excessively focussed on oneself, such as a narcissist. And it would speak to young people, in part because they’re impressed by its seemingly high intellectual level of reasoning (“Rand sounds so smart, so I must be smart if I follow her”), and in part because of her often provocative style (“Conventional? Moi?”). Maybe this explains why her two main novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, keep growing in popularity. The Confessions of a recovering Objectivist, a Guardian article, gives some background and shows the cult-like nature of the movement.
First of all, let’s be clear: Ayn Rand is a narcissist, as are many of the ultra rich and/or powerful people, the libertarians and rightwing politicians, who admit to admire her work: Alan Greenspan. Ronald Reagan. Ron Paul. Rand Paul. Paul Ryan. Clarence Thomas. Donald Trump. So are some of the tech titans, venture capitalists, and co-founders of Silicon Valley mega-corporations: Steve Jobs. Peter Thiel. Elon Musk. The list could go on and on; there are many more people who are inspired by Rand’s convictions of free enterprise, unregulated markets and ethos of rational egoism which are interwoven in her novels.
This is how Lexi Freiman, author of the novel The Book of Ayn, characterizes the literary value of Ayn Rand’s work:
“...her books are so irredeemably ideological. They are vehicles for her ideology, and they’re not well-written. So to me, when I see an Ayn Rand book on someone’s shelf, it’s not just an ideological thing, it’s an aesthetic thing. I think, “Oh, this person doesn’t know a good book… Ayn’s writing is so belabored. It’s relentless and exhausting. It’s under-edited. It’s didactic.”1
And yet, copies of her novels sell like never before. Her doctrine of the single-minded pursuit of one’s personal vision, no matter what the impact might be, has permeated the U.S. Government, with the result that 17 million people will lose healthcare, food assistance for low-income families will be slashed, and so much more—all to give trillions of dollars in tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. Measures that Ayn Rand would enthusiastically support, I’m sure.
I first came across Ayn Rand over twenty years ago, when a friend showed me one of her essays. She wrote that doing something good is actually a selfish deed, because it makes you feel good. Which is true; when you, for example, catch a spider in a paper cup and take her outside, it makes you feel good when you see her scramble off, doesn’t it. So, does this mean there’s no moral value in what you do, because it’s selfish, end of story? But look again. There’s a BIG logical fallacy in Rand’s statement. Some other people feel good stepping on the spider and killing it. And there are even some who like to torture the poor creature, because it makes them feel good. Clearly, one “selfish feel-good” is also good for the spider, while the other is not. The person who rescues the spider doesn’t only think about themselves, but the well-being of another creature is important for them.
One could argue that everybody is simply born with some concern for others, or the lack of it. Which would mean that one either is a “good” person or not. There’s no merrit, no room for improvement. Since this is obviously rubbish, it makes a big difference whether a person’s intention is to simply “feel” good, or to “become” good – to become a better human being. Because we’re not separate entities, because we’re connected to all these other beings, and we feel their pain.
Somebody who displays high levels of narcissistic behavior won’t be able to see this. Rand’s ideology celebrates raw selfishness and declares that altruism turns human beings into “sacrificial animals”. If this sounds batshit crazy, let me give you some quotes so you can see for yourself:
“By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the concept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men. It has indoctrinated men with the idea that to value another human being is an act of selflessness, thus implying that a man can have no personal interest in others—that to value another means to sacrifice oneself—that any love, respect or admiration a man may feel for others is not and cannot be a source of his own enjoyment, but is a threat to his existence, a sacrificial blank check signed over to his loved ones.”
The Virtue of Selfishness. 43
“Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.”
The Virtue of Selfishness. 95
“Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society. Today, the conflict has reached its ultimate climax; the choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and man's happiness on earth—or the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces.”
For the New Intellectual. 54.
I found these quotes at the Ayn Rand Lexicon, a useful database with an extensive index. I looked up several key words, and so far, I haven’t found anything I’d agree with. Take Free Market, for example: no mention of lobbyists, or of a few companies gaining the major market share in their industries so they’re near-monopolies. And I certainly don’t agree with this quote:
“...the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.”
And then, from these lofty heights, the goods will trickle down to us, the common riff-raff – or not.
Next, I looked at Beauty. Again, I completely disagree with her definition which is based on physical characteristics. A face with small eyes and a long nose is NOT beautiful, even when it has a beautiful mouth, she claims. I would say that beauty is a concept, an idea or thought, not an objective, physical reality. There’s a German proverb: “One person’s owl is another person’s nightingale”, or “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” – Rand rejects this as subjectivism. Her understanding of what is real is diametrically opposite to mine.
In a way, Ayn Rand is the epitome for the mis-understanding which puts each human ego at the center of the universe, smack in the middle, distinct and discretely separate from everything else. When, in fact, we should strive to expand and grow into the more-than-human world.
Doesn’t it feel as if David Abrams who introduced the term in his 1996 book The Spell of the Sensuous is entreating us to avoid anything that remotely reminds us of Ayn Rand?
“Whenever we focus so exclusively upon ourselves, training our attention day after day upon the specialness of our species, then we are no longer enacting the very trait that most exemplifies our humanity. We really display our uniquely human beauty when we cease focusing our gaze upon it, and allow our attention to move outward, toward the other shapes of sensitivity and sentience with whom we compose this many-voiced biosphere. Whenever we become intensely engaged by other styles and shapes of life, when we drop away our concern for ourselves and begin to celebrate and praise other beings and elements that exceed our exclusively human concerns, then—paradoxically—we most realize and epitomize our humanity.”2
Oh dear. I’ll have to write a Part III, dedicated to Hannah Arendt exclusively.