Edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Lexington Books
My brain hurts. It has been a while since I really had to think, but now that I have, I guess I have a few opinions about Miss Rand’s philosophy. I will add this disclaimer; this book is a compilation of interviews given by Ayn Rand and is not a full view of her philosophy. I have not read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, so my opinions are solely based on the views presented in Objectively Speaking.
Let me start with a few of the ideas that came up in these interviews that I agree with. First, there is the idea that “Congress should pass no law which contradicts other laws or which is unclear that no two Congressmen or private lawyers can agree what it means”. Politicians being politicians, and always worried about the next election, write laws in very vague language to please everyone, but in reality no one is happy. A) No one knows what they can and can’t do and B) the policies are open for interpretation and as such are exploited by political rivals to increase fear. If the laws were just written in clear language, using logic and reason as opposed to the prepackaged platform of a political party, the American people would no longer be held hostage by a government of non-action wasting everyone’s time and money. Speaking of wasting time, I also agree with Rand’s opinion on the filibuster. I believe in a healthy debate, but talking a bill to death for no reason other than sheer objection is blight on our democratic process. Again, debate is fine, debate is great, but following the debate there must be a vote, and that vote will be final. Now, you can either give a time limit to the debate or the members of Congress can stay there and listen until the debate is over. If it goes into a special session, it goes into special session, but there will be no overtime!! The filibuster is just a crazy concept and a total obstruction of justice.
I also agree on the importance of education and the quest for knowledge, where we differ is that in this country, this is a right and as such, I believe in public education. First, to debate the issue of Rand’s claim that public education instilling social conformity, I will agree. But, I also believe that education does not stop at school; it continues at home and other resources such as a library. This is where Rand’s concept of how man can pursue his own interest will really take off. For those truly interested in acquiring more knowledge, they will find a way to do it. I believe every American is given access to a basic education. True, some may not be into school or productive at school, but at the very least, they should learn how to read or write. They are given the basic tools to perform in life at whatever level they accept for themselves. Without that, we would be looking at a lot of ignorant people, and ignorance is not bliss Look at Afghanistan as an example; 70% of the population cannot read or write and you wonder why there is so much political and social upheaval in that part of the world.
And yes, I am a big supporter of social programs. I realize there are some issues in the system. There are many that abuse the system. I would like to see more rehabilitation programs required with acceptance of social assistance, but overall, I believe in helping by fellow Americans; better Americans, better America.
My biggest criticism of Ayn Rand’s philosophy is that it can only happen in a vacuum…a utopian vacuum. She makes assumptions about man that history has proven to be untrue. No better is this illustrated than the high esteem she holds the Founding Fathers. Yes, they laid the groundwork for what will be the best country ever, but may I remind Miss Rand (yes, I know she has passed on) that these men are hypocrites. They believe all men to be free, yet they owned slaves. The believed every man has the right to be represented, yet denied votes to women and blacks. They took away the rights of the Native Americans, and worst yet, they created the Electoral College! What was that about?
Rand dismissed the warning of scientists of the 1960’s about global warning, saying they had no evidence and that the lack a serious scientific method. Now, philosophy is part of the science of man or the Humanities, yet Objectivism has never been, and most likely will never be, tested using scientific method, not on the scale where we could definitely say it would work for the United States.
I am going to conclude here, because I could honestly “discuss, not debate” this until the cows come home. Now, as Ayn Rand admitted herself, she takes life too seriously. I, however, do not. I enjoy humor, I like to escape life from time to time; I guess I subscribe to the Billy Joel philosophy if you are straight A student, then you probably think too much. I do, however, believe I use reason with any philosophical question that arises in my life. Rand may consider me subjective, but, every situation is different and may not be answered with a blanket response.
I will say this, I do not believe in the two party system of the United States. It leaves little room for individual thought and representation. I admire people like Rand that think and provide people with new ideas that open up the discussion beyond just Democrat and Republican. So, if you are looking for food for thought, I highly recommend Objectively Speaking . Alright, I got to go switch gears and read Jonathan Ames.
