TheAgitator.com
Peter Bagge on Ayn Rand
Monday, November 16th, 2009This pretty much sums up my own feelings about Ayn Rand.
30 Responses to “Peter Bagge on Ayn Rand”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
That cartoon reminds me of a pet peeve of mine that I’d like to air:
People who use the expression “don’t get” as a synonym for “don’t agree with” instead of a synonym of “don’t understand”.
If you read an argument and understand the argument, but don’t agree with it, it’s not appropriate to say, “I don’t get…[that argument].”
OK, pet peeve complaint over.
Peter Bagge is teh awesome!
And he prettywell sums up my feelings about Rand as well.
Fluffy,
I have a similar pet peeve: People who say “I don’t believe in” when they really mean “I disagree with”, as in, “I don’t believe in divorce.”
But yeah, that comic sums up my feelings on Ayn Rand, too. Atlas Shrugged contained a brilliant evisceration of communism, but you had to read through about 125,000 pages of dull, repetitive prose to get there.
Plus, I’ve met several Objectivists who come off as religious fundamentalists in that they see John Galt as a messiah and Galt’s Gulch as some paradise that they might get to visit one of these days.
Michael Shermer wrote a great article, The Unlikliest Cult in History about Ayn Rand and the Objectivists. It’s worth reading. Atheism, Ayn Rand and Other Heresies by George H. Smith is another good read; it comes from a pretty strong Libertarian viewpoint.
The one that bugs me is past tense “I/he/she went…” and present tense “I/he/she goes….” IYKWIM.
If you’re going, go. And stop talking about it. :p
DNA – Yeah that was one of my problems with Atlas Shrugged. For all of her self avowed atheism she used that “chosen people” myth pretty heavily. Even going so far as to include a messiah and a promised land.
Too many people get wrapped up in the character of a genius, as if genius must necessarily be devoid of any of the quirks that makes people human. I can despise someone and still be in awe of their abilities. As an engineer, I find that I can overlook huge personality defects if someone knows what they’re doing, professionally. It’s an attitude of taking the good and leaving the bad.
I have found that I can value the work of someone without feeling any need to idolize them (or even like them), but that’s just the opposite of what you see these days. Someone sees a movie they like, and suddenly they think the star walks on water. A song gets popular and soon a rock star is admired for his views on world affairs and everyone is stunned when he has problems like the rest of us. Presidential candidates commonly try to capitalize on that aspect of culture, by making themselves bigger than life and the country is inevitably disappointed after he’s elected and it turns out he’s not much different from the last president (even though this one can at least talk coherently).
I see Atlas Shrugged as an unmatched work of genius. I don’t have to worship Ayn Rand, or be blind to her eccentricities (or try to rationalize them). Do you still admire Thomas Jefferson’s love of liberty and equality even knowing he owned slaves?
LOL
“Mass Murderer Fashion acccessories”… too true!
I’m mostly tired of places like Hit & Run making a post on Ayn Rand almost every damn hour on the hour. That got old fast.
I always considered Franklin and Twain to be my favorite philosophers. I couldn’t make it through Atlas Shrugged, but my 14 year old daughter is in full-rand mode. She just completed Fountainhead and can’t stop jabbering about it. I love Ayn Rand for the positive impact she’s had on my daughter. I’m learning about objectivism and the importance of clearly defining selfishness and being selfless.
She was a quirky woman who was a big thinker and a big dreamer. What a life she lived!
“Do you still admire Thomas Jefferson’s love of liberty and equality even knowing he owned slaves?”
Thomas Jefferson’s prose was readable.
Rand’s is not.
@7: Amen, brother. I love H & R and I enjoy Rand’s writings. And I am, in fact, libertarian. But there are SO many other things out there to write about that constant hashing and re hashing and re re hashing of every single word that someone else has written about Rand in the last x number of days is wearing a bit thin. I’m hoping this is Radley’s one entry into the genre and that he’ll hold off on any more for a while.
In fact, I’m ready to go look in Google reader to see if I can filter out articles in the RSS feed by keyword, that’s how over it I’ve gotten.
I like John Galt more than Ayn Rand. And, I’m all for having a smoke first thing after being tortured.
People really fail to see Atlas Shrugged for what it is. Although Rand would hate to hear anyone say this, A.S. is very Biblical in that it is trying to fully explain a philosophy much like the Bible or any other religious work does. The Bible is a hard read. The ending is kind of a bummer. But no one bitches about the Bible not having explosions or boobs or a it’s serious lack of character devolopement. That’s because the Bible was never meant to be “To Kill A Mocking Bird” or “Great Expectations.” Neither was Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead.
They’re the VCR manuals of Objectivism. If you’re pissed off because your VCR manual is a shitty read while taking a dump, then the problem is with you even considering that it was written to be a pleasurable read in the first place. Although I’ve had dumps where I could easily finish the first 1/3 of Atlas Shrugged.
I think it’s worth pointing out at this juncture that the “liberals love Che Guevara and Mao because teenagers at WHO protests wear those stupid T-shirts” thing is a total canard, just utter nonsense. I’m sure if you search the internet for a moderate amount of time, you can find some ridiculous apologist screed out there talking about how Cuba is such a great country with its great prisons and non-existent economy, but that’s more a reflection of the diversity of views available on the internet than of some mainstream liberal love of violent revolution in the name of Communism. I have never heard of any mainstream liberal on television, radio, or in print discussing his or her love of Che Guevara, and certainly not of Mao Zedong; it’s widely accepted among thinking people of all ideologies that those two were both, as Eddie Izzard famously put it vis a vis Adolf Hitler, “mass-murdering f–kheads.” Claiming that your average left-leaning person is an advocate of violent revolution just because a smattering of those people exist is no different than claiming that all conservatives want to murder doctors because a smattering of those people exist.
If the claim that most lefties are really Stalinists at heart (as opposed, I guess, to the torture-endorsing, security-obsessed American right-wing?) could be backed up with data (poll question: what do you think about those stupid Che T-shirts?), or simply more than the most bare-bones anecdotal evidence, that would be one thing. But just repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. For an emotional reference point, think about how annoyed you are when some idiot on TV claims that “libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot.” See my point?
what fluffy said.
Dismissal in lieu of engagement remains a favorite tactic of the randroids. If you look at the same set of data and reach a different conclusion, their response is that you’re not rational.
They actually believe that two rational minds must reach the same conclusions.
Ayn Rand was not perfect, but she understood communism in a way few can. It is an disease best avoided. I can’t beleive the little punk that runs this site talks as if he could compare to the great Rand.
I feel ya JP, but the comic strip was about stereotypes associated with ideologies. Hence, devoted Randian says “you need to read the book again”, standard response from those types. You know, THOSE PEOPLE.
So I think the Che shirt is appropriate for the message this comic is trying to get accross, especially when you consider that the Rand haters are not your mainstream liberals as you described above. I’m not going be assaulted by a Kucinich voter for reading The Fountainhead, but more likely by a dude in a Che shirt.
She never once advocated using physical force to imposer her ideas on anyone …
Except for that part where one heroes rapes that woman …
I forget which book this was in but it was one of her big doorstops.
Why was the libertarian haunted by the ghost of Ayn Rand?
Because he checked out Atlas Shrugged at the public library.
I think I’ve said that here before but it describes my feelings about her perfectly. :)
This comic, and many of these comments, are exactly what I’d expect from libertarians. While I’ve long thought Rand was too harsh on libertarians as they might be welcome allies, after seeing things like recent comments on communism, many of which had to be made by libertarian visitors to this site, I’ve started to change my mind. I’ve started to accept that while many libertarian individuals have many of the right ideas, the term “libertarian” is indeed simply too broad and all-inclusive to have a firm definition, and that’s basically the problem (note, I’m not summing up Rand’s philosophical arguments here, though again I’m increasingly finding them to be valid, for the above reason).
For instance, some libertarians acknowledge the need for some government, as in the Constitution (police/courts/military). Others say any level of government is inherently evil (or, a necessary evil). I am not sure there’s any definitive place that defines the exact/correct (if there is one) libertarian stance on the issue.
As far as Rand’s books go, I agree she’s not the most “literary” writer in some ways. But that is insignificant compared to not only her ideas, but her PLOTS. I mean, men of ability go on strike, and the effect of this on the world? Awesome! Architect blows up his own building rather than see it mutated into something without integrity? Awesome! Hell, just typing this makes me feel like playing “Grand Designs” off of Power Windows (Rush).
I agree that the person in the comic is missing the point (about modern architecture). Rand was basically saying that perhaps you prefer a certain period, but the architecture of that period looked that way because it has a certain integrity to the current level of technology (though, IIRC, she makes the case that most of the way through architecture’s history, this wasn’t really the case). So, you may not LIKE modern architecture as defined by the book, but you should at least APPRECIATE it – again, provided it’s done well and with integrity.
#20, the “rape” is obviously consensual. Yes, Rand had some strange (to me/many) ideas on sex, but as far as I know this was a fairly typical way of doing love scenes at that time (at least, this is what I’ve heard).
But yeah, if you read the book, it’s obvious that the episode is consensual, and I’m pretty sure Rand has explained this this very same way.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
– Kung Fu Monkey
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html
I recently finished re-reading “Atlas Shrugged” for the third time. The depth involved with the concepts and ideals her protaganists epitomized never ceases to impress me. Her prose is unique, thankfully, from many of the writers that are so idolized by the leftist intellectuals in this country. Her exposure of altruism and so-called compassionate statists is extremely commendable.
It appears to me that many of her critics are either unread or illiterate and may sense that her underpinning philosophy is a danger to their intellectual lethargy. The feral ad hominem attacks make that clear.
A cult? No way. The only major cult I see today is that of man-made climate changers. They’ve turned climatology into a major secular religion based, as with the Bible, on mythology coupled with federal grant-stained greed.
And to think only about 40 other novels sold more copies in 2009 than Atlas Shrugged. Not bad for a book that is unreadable.
Or did you really mean it was just too challenging for you in particular?
TimC:
So you think that anonymous comments to a single blog are a statistically valid sample from which to draw general conclusions about libertarians? You are aware the comments are open to anyone regardless of their beliefs?
What exactly is the problem with a broad, inclusive term that encompasses a variety of sub-beliefs? Is there only room in the world for dogmatic, sect-like belief systems that purge themselves of any internal dissension?
Perhaps someday we will be handed down some stone tablets, but for now libertarianism includes both anarchists and minarchists.
“Her prose is unique, thankfully…”
Amen, bro. I couldn’t agree more.
Uh-oh, I think you cast a “Summon Randroids” spell, Mr. Balko…
Dave @ #6: Yes. That whole “worship” snivel is a cheap strawman dodge, and I righteously sneer at morons who sink to it.
Mattocracy @ #13 — Pretty good. The very first comment on this post is grammatically goofy, but nonetheless comprehensible. I see the point. The thing is: it certainly is possible for someone who has understood something to be able to point to someone who manifestly hasn’t, and say so. The history of criticism of Rand is rife with commentors who never read a single word of her, and everybody knows it. That much we can dismiss, except perhaps for the admonishment attributed to Mark Twain concerning the relative travel speeds of lies and the truth. More to your point here is the cases of people who simply do not know how to read something like “Atlas”.
And they get snippy because they’re embarrassed when this is pointed out.
“tde4″ @ #14: you don’t know what you’re talking about. Sit down and shut the fuck up.
(tag)