| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Theodore Dalrymple on Ayn Rand |
| 2010-02-13 |
| Dalrymple is a pen name for Anthony Daniels (no relation to C-3PO), a British doctor who has chronicled the nightmarish results of people dependent on the dole. Here is one brief excerpt from the main article. Humanity, according to Rand, is divided into heroes, creators, and geniuses on the one hand, and weaklings, parasites, and the feeble-minded on the other. Needless to say, the latter outnumber the former by a very wide margin, but only the former are truly human in the full sense of the word. But let us leave aside for a moment the empirical justification for such a sharp division of mankind into two categories: it never seems to occur to Rand that her classification does not provide a very strong rationale for the limited government and free market that she claims so strongly to admire. On the contrary, it would seem to justify the reign of philosopher-kings, though she claims also to hate Plato passionately. |
| Posted by:mom |
| #6 Hey L. Ron is fuhshizzle the king! |
| Posted by: Marilyn Thrineper8949 2010-02-13 23:32 |
| #5 Sheis epic and will remain so. Right up there with L. Ron Hubbard. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-02-13 23:20 |
| #4 The author of the article seems like an empty windbag. The author tart words against Rand for being hardened and uppity, should take into account that "disclaiming against pride is not always a sign of humility" and that he probably never has never lived through some of the travails Rand did. Much like Machiavelli, Rand is both admired and despised, and thrown on the trash heap when convenient. She is epic and will remain so. |
| Posted by: Marilyn Thrineper8949 2010-02-13 22:16 |
| #3 ... altruism is a good thing so long as its truly voluntary .... It's been some years since I've read her but I never did manage to glean a prohibition on purely voluntary altruism from Rand. My recollection is that her characters typically noted that purely voluntary altruistic acts were just fine and dandy but [insert long diatribe here] whatever act was at hand was not purely altruistic but was rather being forced upon the actor. There's been an odd amount of criticism of Rand from both the left and right in recent months. She just seems to keep popping up which is rather odd if her ideas are as thoroughly flawed as her critics believe them to be. |
| Posted by: Injun Thraviting6891 2010-02-13 21:22 |
| #2 Most peoplr fall in love with the pristine and stark ideals of Rand in their youth. Then the real world hits, and they outgrow her hostile edges, and realize that helping your neighbor is sometimes needed, and that altruism is a good thing so long as its truly voluntary, and religion is not the enemy of reason. Eh, its been said before and far better. Rand is necessary, but not sufficient. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-02-13 19:38 |
| #1 This has been said before by others, but not in two sentences: America could take Rand out of Russia, but not Russia out of Rand. Her work properly belongs to the history of Russian, not American, literature—and nineteenth-century Russian literature at that. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-02-13 19:05 |