One of the first things I read on this site was Eliezer’s eloquent defense of his brother Yehuda’s life, against the conformist-imposed death caused by a lack of willingness to think, communicate, and question tradition. It’s interesting to read how Rand’s dogmatism likely sheltered her from the possibility of unbounded life, here:
http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/HowAynRandDidntGetFrozen.html
In my experience, most people are hide-bound conformists, in all but a very few areas of their lives. That this is also true of people like Rand is somewhat sad, but it confirms the rule, to which there are many exceptions. The universe is diverse, but social networks don’t work well unless there are shared ideas and values. The shortfalls of human intelligence keeps these ideas and values relatively narrow in definition, lest they not be isolated from discussion and debate.
To me, the behavior of the Rand Cult, especially as Rand herself approached old age, simply reveals an obvious implication of objectivism, as it “applies to” or “programs” objectivists: Objectivists don’t get old and die gracefully (nor should they, necessarily -death is bad). Their philosophy is a celebration of life, and as death approaches, they don’t handle it well. Death is a total failure of their system, and they don’t handle unavoidable failures well. (Not even well enough to look for a way of avoiding them, such as cryonics.)
They are enraged by their impending death, declining health, and despise rejection (especially due to their own self-recognized physical unattractiveness) above all other things. In many ways, this is understandable, but it does not a Romantic work of fiction make. (Hence Rand’s temporary “upgrade” to Nathaniel Branden, and the alleged part-time pathetic drunken misery of Frank O’Connor hinted at by Barbara Branden.)
I agree with this essay, but find a more cogent critique of objectivism is here: http://www.atlassociety.org/sites/default/files/The_Contested_Legacy_of_Ayn_Rand.pdf—I also notice Kelley himself linked to it below.
For anyone who enjoys this thread, I also highly recommend the work of a fellow libertarian, here: http://ariwatch.com/ARIvsRonPaul.htm
It’s also interesting that before she decided against it, Ayn Rand described her own politics as “libertarian,” http://ariwatch.com/AynRandsPoliticalLabel.htm
One of the first things I read on this site was Eliezer’s eloquent defense of his brother Yehuda’s life, against the conformist-imposed death caused by a lack of willingness to think, communicate, and question tradition. It’s interesting to read how Rand’s dogmatism likely sheltered her from the possibility of unbounded life, here: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/HowAynRandDidntGetFrozen.html
In my experience, most people are hide-bound conformists, in all but a very few areas of their lives. That this is also true of people like Rand is somewhat sad, but it confirms the rule, to which there are many exceptions. The universe is diverse, but social networks don’t work well unless there are shared ideas and values. The shortfalls of human intelligence keeps these ideas and values relatively narrow in definition, lest they not be isolated from discussion and debate.
To me, the behavior of the Rand Cult, especially as Rand herself approached old age, simply reveals an obvious implication of objectivism, as it “applies to” or “programs” objectivists: Objectivists don’t get old and die gracefully (nor should they, necessarily -death is bad). Their philosophy is a celebration of life, and as death approaches, they don’t handle it well. Death is a total failure of their system, and they don’t handle unavoidable failures well. (Not even well enough to look for a way of avoiding them, such as cryonics.)
They are enraged by their impending death, declining health, and despise rejection (especially due to their own self-recognized physical unattractiveness) above all other things. In many ways, this is understandable, but it does not a Romantic work of fiction make. (Hence Rand’s temporary “upgrade” to Nathaniel Branden, and the alleged part-time pathetic drunken misery of Frank O’Connor hinted at by Barbara Branden.)