Help
Sign In
ayn rand
November 2009 
Playboy Magazine's 1964 Interview with Novelist Ayn Rand
Posted on Jan 27th, 2009
by 
Naumadd
Naumadd
I am not one of those who believes Ayn Rand was infallible, however, for a very long time, I have maintained the position that she was and still is perhaps modern history's greatest thinker. I concur with just about all of her thinking and find her positions and ideas repeatedly confirmed by events and in numerous practical applications today.
Whether you agree or disagree with much of what Ayn has to say on any or most topics, one thing is for certain, the need for such a deliberately conscious examination of the issues she addressed repeatedly in her thinking, writing and art is greater today than ever before.
I, for one, believe the ideas of Ayn Rand point to the one best path out of the global dilemmas we all face and the greatest assurance of a hopeful future for the generations to come. If, as a Gaia member, you truly desire a better world, my suggestion is to start with a reading of the many accessible works of Ayn Rand, "Anthem", her shortest novella, is my favorite among them all.
A lexicon of her works, my constant companion for many years now, is available online free at:
The above mentioned interview can be read here:
Access: PublicTagged with: objectivism, ayn rand, reason, rationality, life, enlightenment, philosophy, playboy magazine, naumadd
this makes the second mention of ayn rand i’ve seen today. interesting, ricky, in that i mostly agree with what you write, but of all modern philosophers, ayn rand would be one i most disagree with. very interesting paradox. must look into this a bit more…. :-)
Hi Boogie,
Well, as I said in the first sentence, I would never make the claim Ayn Rand was infallible. Indeed, there are quite a few places in her thinking where I disagree with her and they turn out to be mostly places where she let prejudices of the culture at the time slip into what was otherwise a very rational philosophy.
In any event, I happen to like her novella “Anthem” the most among all her writings. It’s very short and readable withing a couple of hours, depending on your reading speed. Her books of essays are great - “Philosophy, Who Needs It?”, “The Romantic Manifesto” and “For the New Intellectual” among others. I also keep Harry Binswanger’s “The Ayn Rand Lexicon” close at hand if I can whenever I have a question on a particular issue and can’t clarify in my own mind how to approach it. As I said, her positions on some issues can sometimes be prejudiced and inconsistent with some of her other views but, if nothing else, reading what she has to say helps to lead me in a direction of clarity, even if that final position is in disagreement with her conclusions.
Still, I hold to what I said before - I find her perhaps the greatest thinker of the last few centuries in that she breaks away of many traditional assumptions and at least attempted to create a complete philosophy. I’m continually impressed by her lack of fear in tackling issues large and small and the relative consistency in her conclusions. I don’t know if you read the interview but it’s one of many times when she had the opportunity to summarize her philosophy in one sitting. Of course, interviews or dialogues of that sort are always shorter than they could have been to do justice to the one being interviewed.
I’ll try to answer whatever questions you might have about this or that and perhaps can point out places where I do in fact disagree with her conclusions and give you my best reasons why.
I almost forgot - in answer to your mentioning of the “paradox” - the easiest and what I believe correct answer is this: although I admire Ayn Rand greatly, I’m NOT Ayn Rand, i.e., I am much more than simply my understanding and application of her thinking. Whatever it is you admire in my views is a product of who I am in total far more than it is a product of my admiration of Ayn Rand or of her views specifically and in isolation. There’s only really a paradox if I claimed to agree with all she thought and practiced and yet, in truth, thought and practiced something quite differently. I make no such claim. On that subject though, people I find paradoxical are the devout Jew, Christian or Muslim or of some other religion who claims their utter devotion to the principles of those religions and yet think and practice in very contradictory ways to those principles.
The paradoxes we see in others have to do with, one, the fact they speak one thing to be politically correct and yet genuinely believe and practice another and, two, our own assumptions regarding who they are … and who we are ourselves.
i was thinking of the paradox as being in me, not in you… hahahah
i’ll go read some of that, and if i feel moved to do so, will come back here to talk with you about it.
i’ll admit i haven’t seen anything of hers beyond what they made me read in college as a philosophy major, and i found it… well, i found it to be almost directly opposite and upside down from my way of thinking. that’s not to say i’m rightside up, i’m most certainly not. and it was quite some time ago. i’ll go give it a look. like i said, another friend said something about her yesterday, and i do not believe in coincidence. :-)
well here you have it. it’s her original premise that rankles.
PLAYBOY: What are the basic premises of Objectivism? Where does it begin?
RAND: It begins with the axiom that
existence exists, which means that an objective reality exists
independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver’s emotions, feelings,
wishes, hopes or fears. Objectivism holds that reason is man’s only
means of perceiving reality and his only guide to action. By reason, I
mean the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided
by man’s senses.
i would have to call myself a subjectivist (for lack of a better term). to believe in an objective reality requires a leap of faith (which i make, we all do, in order to function in this reality). but the only things i can ever know for certain are my subjective thoughts, feelings, and perceptions.
without agreement on the first premise, all arguments are invalid forms of logic, ie, not rational. if we could (everyone) universally agree on anything about that “objective” reality, then we can discuss it rationally. but we don’t. we can’t. everyone perceives this objective world, subjectively, from different perspectives. we can choose to believe those perceptions are of the same objective world, and act accordingly, but we have no way of knowing without a doubt that to be true.
the objectification of subjective thoughts, feelings, and perceptions is very common to those who seek to control and manipulate others. who am i to say what is real or true for anyone else? all i know is what i perceive to be real and true for me, and that “truth” is constantly changing, as i learn new things and my perspective changes, so how could i make the claim that anything i believe is subjectively true for me must be objectively true for you, or anyone else?
getting deeper into the article. i simply do not see reason in her arguments. i see rhetoric aimed to persuade someone to her point of view (haha her subjective perspective, which, as she already stated, she claims to be objectively true universally), which is entertaining, but not anything i can agree with.
:-)
I came back after printing out the interview this evening and reading it. While I see her influence, I will agree that you transfer your insight into writing uniquely your own. I can see in her philosophical outlook a trace remnant of Russian lack of sentiment, which is inescapable to a certain extent, perhaps because we are, in ways we might not even directly perceive, influences of our past. This is neither a criticism nor praise of her philosophy, because she does approach her idea with conviction and a good amount of rationale as she perceives it to be. I can certainly see why she likes Victor Hugo.
I tend to agree with her on ideal v. non-ideal and religion can and does fall into the mire of the dogmatic, fundamental and irrational. It has been many, many years since I have read “Atlas Shrugged” and admittedly at a time when I probably could not absorb it as well as I should now if I read it again. What strikes me the highest is her conviction, and when she says she is “willing to live for [objectivism]”, I have to admire that. I think you are correct in the assessment that she writes from her own time and experience. It would, indeed, be interesting to know what she would think in these present times; what she might say if the interview were conducted today.
Where I completely fall away is her idea on artists and writers in the contemporary sense, though I do agree with the Romantic Movement of it being the duty of artists and writers to question and propose ideas and critical thinking. And perhaps I fall away in the question of the metaphysical, which I think is a valid human experience when observed under a critical light. I don’t see metaphysics as irrational, although I can see how it may be carried to that degree and sometimes is under many a New Ageism.
Thank you for sharing the link. I was glad to read it.
Blessings~