One of the problems with the social media — or advantages, if you will — is it gives a lot of people who would otherwise be silenced by chance, circumstance, or design the opportunity to sound off on whatever subject floats their respective boats. Recently, we came across a YouTube production by a vlogger who specializes in advice to readers. The subject was the worst books she had ever read.
A Randroid
Since the vlogger expressed trepidation at word of her dislikes spreading beyond her presumably loyal viewership, we’ll respect her wishes and not link to the video or mention her name or channel. We would not want to be responsible for hordes of rabid Randroids to descend on her and assert their individuality by destroying hers.
Why Randroids, as we are fondly and, in all fun, referring to fans of Ayn Rand? Can’t you take a joke? Because the vlogger singled out Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957) as two of the worst books, etc. Because of Rand’s objectivist philosophy? Well, in part, but more because — in her opinion — they are poorly written and (worse) boring. Evidently, for someone recommending books for others to read as well as those warning them off, boring is a far worse crime than even poor writing or bad philosophy.
She has a point. After all, if you are reading for entertainment, you can get a great deal of it (if you have a certain twisted mindset) by reading the novella The Eye of Argon by Jim Theis, which he also illustrated, or Naked Came the Stranger by “Penelope Ashe” (Mike McGrady and 23 others as a literary hoax — and copies are now collectors’ items). As for Rand’s objectivism, for which she also expressed loathing . . .
Because we are incredibly lazy and don’t want to read Rand’s books or investigate her philosophy, we asked ChatGPT to summarize Ayn Rand’s objectivism in 500 words. This is what we got, unedited. Raw. Naked. Er . . . objective . . .
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is a philosophical system centered on the idea that reality exists independently of human consciousness and that people should live according to reason, rational self-interest, and individual freedom. Rand developed the philosophy most fully in her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and in nonfiction works such as The Virtue of Selfishness.
At the heart of Objectivism is metaphysics: reality is objective and does not depend on what people believe or wish were true. Rand summarized this with the principle that “existence exists.” Human beings cannot change reality simply through faith, emotion, or desire. Because reality is objective, people need a reliable way to understand it.
That leads to Objectivism’s epistemology, which holds that reason is humanity’s primary means of gaining knowledge. People perceive reality through their senses and use logic to form and test concepts. Rand rejected skepticism, mysticism, and the idea that emotions or religious revelation can provide knowledge independently of reason.
Objectivist ethics argues that the proper moral purpose of human life is one’s own rational happiness. Rand strongly defended “selfishness,” but she used the term to mean rational concern for one’s own long-term well-being rather than impulsive greed or exploitation. A person should pursue productive work, maintain integrity, think independently, and build relationships that genuinely benefit both parties. Sacrificing oneself for others is not considered inherently virtuous.
In politics, Objectivism advocates individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism. Rand regarded the individual as morally sovereign and argued that people have rights to life, liberty, and property. The government’s legitimate role is therefore limited primarily to protecting individuals from physical force, fraud, and coercion. She opposed collectivist systems such as communism and socialism, which she believed subordinate individuals to groups or the state.
Objectivism also places great importance on individualism. Rand admired people who think independently and create value rather than conforming to social expectations. Her fictional heroes, such as Howard Roark in The Fountainhead and John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, embody this ideal. They refuse to surrender their judgment and creative abilities to demands for conformity or self-sacrifice.
Finally, Rand regarded art as an important expression of human values. She believed art should present an idealized vision of life and show people what human beings could and should be.
In short, Objectivism argues that reality is objective, reason is humanity’s means of knowing it, rational self-interest is the basis of morality, individual rights are fundamental, and capitalism is the political-economic system most consistent with those principles. Its supporters see it as a defense of human independence and flourishing; its critics argue that its emphasis on rational self-interest and limited government underestimates the importance of social obligations, inequality, and collective action.
In the opinion of this writer, objectivism is simply individualism writ large. It is, if you’ll pardon the term, simply an Aristotelian “heresy.” Heresy literally means “picking out” and then exaggerating.
Aristotle
According to Aristotle, reality exists independently of human existence and seeking truth and happiness (the same thing) involves conforming oneself to reality: the definition of truth.
So far, so good. Rand, however, leaves out a key point Aristotle made: human persons are both individual (which Rand admitted) and social (which Rand omitted). This is a possibly unique combination called Aristotle called “political.”
Human persons therefore seek truth and become happy not as isolated individuals, but as members of society. Politics consists of maximizing individual happiness without infringing on that of other persons or harming the social environment — the common good. This is key because the common good is the vast network of institutions (social habits) within which human persons as political animals pursue truth and happiness.
Objectivism therefore violates the first law or principle of social justice, that the common good must remain inviolate. Why? Because the common good is the ordinary means by which human persons become more fully human and therefore happy. To damage it or subvert it for an individual good, regardless how good it may be in the individual order, is socially unjust and therefore wrong.
#30#
