Some Thoughts on Ann Rand
Sep. 24th, 2008 07:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bonny_kateI very much admire Ann Rand's style of writing. It is clear, precise, and cleanly beautiful (with the occasional exception of a chapter or so of exposition of philosophy). But I quite disagree with the philosophy of her books. I specifically disagree with Atlas Shrugged for its treatment of the ordinary human, with The Fountainhead for its denial of small pleasures, and generally with her philosophy of the "virtue of selfishness."
The utopia presented in Atlas Shrugged is composed entirely of people who are geniuses, and supremely good at what they do. But there is no place for the ordinary person who runs the grocery store, and has no higher aspiration in life. Oh, certainly, the geniuses of her books may run a restaurant or do manual labor, but it is in revolt against the world because the world will not accept them. They have grand dreams and grand ideas of changing the world, and there really seems to be no place for the person who has no higher ambition than to check street plans or own a restaurant. Ordinary people let the world dissolve into anarchy, through a desire for socialism instead of capitalism. I do not think that socialism is a good idea; I don't think it works. I agree that people are entitled to their labor, as Locke argues. But that is a rabbit trail. To return to what I was saying, there seems to be no virtue in the common, ordinary person. It is the opposite of Chesterton's The Flying Inn, where the great evil is thwarted by the common, ordinary people of Britain who finally realize what is happening. One of the leaders is the military leader, but the other is the owner of an inn who has no particular ambition, only a desire to keep his inn. At the heart of Chesterton's England is the ordinary person, and that is what the revolution is founded on.
I disliked The Fountainhead for two reasons. First, it has such a strange model of an ideal relationship, founded on desire and passion, and selfishness. Each is with the other in order to fulfill their own desire, and seeks their own passion, rather than the self-sacrificing love of a good relationship. Further, the woman wants to be dominated and subjected. She takes no pleasure from kindness, but has a strange, masochistic pleasure in physical and mental pain of domination. It is, to be blunt, an abusive relationship. Sayers addresses this in one of her Peter Whimsey novels (I think it is Strong Poison, but I don't have the books in front of me). One of the female characters is a strong feminist, and is looking for someone who will dominate in a relationship. But Whimsey tells her that she is confused, and the man that she is looking for will respect her intelligence and look up to her as being superior in that way. Sayers gives this character the opportunity for a relationship founded on respect and love.
Second, I disliked The Fountainhead because there is no place for the pointless, small, happy joys and pleasures. Everyone acts in their self interest, for great passions or pleasures. I cannot see anyone dancing in the rain for no particular reason. All her heros act with a purpose, and it always for their own self interest. Everything should have a reason and a purpose. There is no place for people who wander aimlessly, or who jump in the fountain just because, not even because they feel like it. Happiness must always have a reason, be it mental, emotional, or physical (although I'm not sure her characters are ever happy, though they may pursue and experience pleasure and passions). Her characters are happy when they build a house and do it well, or they have pleasure in physical labor, both of which are pleasures, but they are never happy just because. Emotions are funny things. Feeling happy, or depressed, or lighthearted or any other emotion may not have a logical cause. I have been completely happy one day for no reason, for no discernable cause. Things that have no reason to make me feel happy or sad have affected me strongly. I have skipped down the street for no reason at all, and I have cried without knowing why. I think emotions are messy, irrational, fabulous things. I think it is good to feel, without necessarily having a cause for feeling.
Finally, I disagree with Ann Rand completely on the "virtue of selfishness". I don't think selfishness is a virtue at all, but a vice. I admire philanthropists, and people who do things for other people not because they are in some way inadequate, nor because they desire to feel approval, and often not even because it gives them pleasure, but because they love people. Saint Francis, trading his battered cloak to a beggar for a worse one, makes no sense in this philosophy. In fact, Saint Francis would be a great fool. There is no place for philanthropy, or charity. I do not think a world like that is worth living in.
The utopia presented in Atlas Shrugged is composed entirely of people who are geniuses, and supremely good at what they do. But there is no place for the ordinary person who runs the grocery store, and has no higher aspiration in life. Oh, certainly, the geniuses of her books may run a restaurant or do manual labor, but it is in revolt against the world because the world will not accept them. They have grand dreams and grand ideas of changing the world, and there really seems to be no place for the person who has no higher ambition than to check street plans or own a restaurant. Ordinary people let the world dissolve into anarchy, through a desire for socialism instead of capitalism. I do not think that socialism is a good idea; I don't think it works. I agree that people are entitled to their labor, as Locke argues. But that is a rabbit trail. To return to what I was saying, there seems to be no virtue in the common, ordinary person. It is the opposite of Chesterton's The Flying Inn, where the great evil is thwarted by the common, ordinary people of Britain who finally realize what is happening. One of the leaders is the military leader, but the other is the owner of an inn who has no particular ambition, only a desire to keep his inn. At the heart of Chesterton's England is the ordinary person, and that is what the revolution is founded on.
I disliked The Fountainhead for two reasons. First, it has such a strange model of an ideal relationship, founded on desire and passion, and selfishness. Each is with the other in order to fulfill their own desire, and seeks their own passion, rather than the self-sacrificing love of a good relationship. Further, the woman wants to be dominated and subjected. She takes no pleasure from kindness, but has a strange, masochistic pleasure in physical and mental pain of domination. It is, to be blunt, an abusive relationship. Sayers addresses this in one of her Peter Whimsey novels (I think it is Strong Poison, but I don't have the books in front of me). One of the female characters is a strong feminist, and is looking for someone who will dominate in a relationship. But Whimsey tells her that she is confused, and the man that she is looking for will respect her intelligence and look up to her as being superior in that way. Sayers gives this character the opportunity for a relationship founded on respect and love.
Second, I disliked The Fountainhead because there is no place for the pointless, small, happy joys and pleasures. Everyone acts in their self interest, for great passions or pleasures. I cannot see anyone dancing in the rain for no particular reason. All her heros act with a purpose, and it always for their own self interest. Everything should have a reason and a purpose. There is no place for people who wander aimlessly, or who jump in the fountain just because, not even because they feel like it. Happiness must always have a reason, be it mental, emotional, or physical (although I'm not sure her characters are ever happy, though they may pursue and experience pleasure and passions). Her characters are happy when they build a house and do it well, or they have pleasure in physical labor, both of which are pleasures, but they are never happy just because. Emotions are funny things. Feeling happy, or depressed, or lighthearted or any other emotion may not have a logical cause. I have been completely happy one day for no reason, for no discernable cause. Things that have no reason to make me feel happy or sad have affected me strongly. I have skipped down the street for no reason at all, and I have cried without knowing why. I think emotions are messy, irrational, fabulous things. I think it is good to feel, without necessarily having a cause for feeling.
Finally, I disagree with Ann Rand completely on the "virtue of selfishness". I don't think selfishness is a virtue at all, but a vice. I admire philanthropists, and people who do things for other people not because they are in some way inadequate, nor because they desire to feel approval, and often not even because it gives them pleasure, but because they love people. Saint Francis, trading his battered cloak to a beggar for a worse one, makes no sense in this philosophy. In fact, Saint Francis would be a great fool. There is no place for philanthropy, or charity. I do not think a world like that is worth living in.