Not me! God, no. But Cathy Young has a piece in The Boston Globe defending Rand's philosophy, sort of. Her argument basically boils down to this: If you pretend that Ayn Rand's ideas weren't as repellant as they actually are, then her philosophy is defensible. For example:
Was Rand’s individualism too radical? Yes. Her hostility to the idea of any moral obligation to others led her to argue that, while helping a friend in need is fine, doing so at the expense of something it hurts you to give up is “immoral.” In her fiction, even private charity as a vocation is despised; so, mostly, is family. Rand made little allowance for the fact that some people cannot help themselves through no fault of theirs, or that much individual achievement is enabled by support networks.
Yet great insights can come from flawed thinkers. Rand’s anti-altruism tirades often turn their target into a straw man, but she is right that the knee-jerk habit of treating altruistic goals as noble has aided evil — for instance, blinding well-meaning Westerners to communism’s monstrosity. When pundits alarmed by Rand-style individualism scoff at the “myth” of individual autonomy, we should remember that this “myth” gave us freedom and human rights, and unleashed creative energies that raised humanity’s welfare to once-unthinkable levels. Rand’s work offers a powerful defense of freedom’s moral foundation — and a perceptive analysis of the kinship between “progressive” and “traditionalist” anti-freedom ideologies.
Got it: So Rand made overblown arguments and attacked strawmen, but if you treat her arguments as though they weren't overblown, interpret them in such a way that they don't say what they actually say, and pretend that her strawman arguments were valid, then she's got a point ... of ... some ... kind.
After all, it's not like there were any more reasonable figures, using better arguments and more careful analysis making a more moderate defense of liberal society, individual autonomy, and creativity during the same period, right?
Young concludes thusly:
Rand is best viewed as a brilliant maverick. But there are reasons this woman attracted hordes of followers, influenced many others, and impressed smart people from journalist Mike Wallace to philosopher John Hospers. Those who treat Rand as a liberal bogeyman will forever be blindsided by her appeal.
On the contrary, I suspect that Rand's liberal detractors understand her appeal quite well: She appeals to the inner 15-year old boy in each of us (at least each of us males), who want what we want now, and don't want to be told what to do by anybody. I can truly understand the appeal, and as a 15-year old boy, had my own torrid love affair with Ayn Rand (or at least, her philosophy). But like most 15-year old boys of a philosophical bent, I grew out of it, and found better and deeper resources for my philosophical reflections.
But there will always be a subset of 15-year boys who never quite get over their love for Rand. That's OK, unless that is you become a 42-year old man who is running for Vice President. Then it might be a problem.
Comments