|
|
The
Literary Shelf
Looking
at Rand, Differently
 For a non-scholastic philosopher, Ayn Rand holds a strong case for
libertarian rights, yes. However, academic philosophy looks at her work as
not worthy of notice because her views are encapsulated in novels and
articles — not learned expositions — in which philosophical discussion is
compounded by cultural annotations and political ‘sponsorship.’ What’s
more, Rand’s writing is ‘sculpted’ embellishment, aimed at the mass book
market — not critical readership.
The reason? Simple. Complex. Paradoxical. Rand often left her reader to
judge the psychological and social fabric of her principles and their
alternatives, including a rational self-interest in ethics, lenient
capitalism, and objectivism. She sure invited ‘conflict,’ thanks to her
clear contempt for whosoever disagreed with her libertarian rights,
ethical egoism, or the promotion of a person’s rational interests, and
rights. Besides, she also rationalized a generative pattern of an
integrated register of virtues — from rationality, productiveness, pride,
and independence to integrity, honesty, and justice.
Rand also argued that consciousness was the basic means of human survival.
In her own words: “It does not mean a momentary or merely physical
survival. It does not mean the momentary physical survival of a mindless
brute, waiting for another brute to crush his skull. It does not mean the
momentary physical survival of a crawling aggregate of muscles who is
willing to accept any terms, obey any thug, and surrender any values for
the sake of what is known as ‘survival at any price,’ which may or may not
last a week or a year.”
While it is true that without productive work, our race would ‘kick the
bucket,’ it does not necessarily mean that every human being must engage
in productive work in order to survive. If ‘man’ — as Rand refers to the
human species — chooses to live, rational ethics will tell him what
principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not
choose to live, nature will take its course. More so, because questioning
of the choice to live need not be presented directly by another person.
Rand’s ‘philosophy’ is quite unacceptable, because it depends at crucial
points upon grounds that are either uncertain or artificial. As Rand often
used the expression that “every living human being is an end in himself” —
a denial that the proper, or moral, purpose of anyone’s life is to be
subordinated to “the ends, or the welfare of others.” If so, it is simply
an abridged interpretation of egoism — from which, of course, it clearly
follows that one must not let go oneself to others.
That’s not all. Though the egoist never, in fact, finds it to be in Rand’s
interests to engage in rights-violating behavior, she never really
respected anyone’s rights. To value someone’s rights is to look upon
something about that person — such as his welfare, or freedom — as having
an independent claim to one’s esteem. In other words, one ought to break
off from being self-centered, or stop estimating the range of permitted
actions exclusively in terms of self-interest.
Rand did indicative work, all right. But, her ambition far exceeded her
achievement. Besides, her endeavors to corroborate egoism have not been
patently successful. More importantly, she has also not effectively
defended the universal truth of her Harmony Thesis — to [re]unite her
essence of egoism-libertarian rights, where selfishness is distinctly
celebrated as a virtue, and not a nasty idea. Got it? Go figure!
–
Rajgopal Nidamboor
January 12, 2003
Image of Ayn Rand from
Ayn
Rand Institute
Top
| The
Literary Shelf
|
|
