Was Ayn Rand a sociopath?

Posted by Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago to Entertainment
88 comments | Share | Flag

Many of Ayn Rand's critics accuse her of being a sociopath, a claim which they justify by pointing to an entry in her journal in which she talks about drawing inspiration from the American serial killer William Hickman. The critics then go on to claim that Ayn Rand worshiped Hickman, and that she adorned him with great praise, gushing over him and calling him an ideal man. However, Ayn Rand specifically said that William Hickman was a degenerate. She did not worship him. She simply said that Hickman suggested a certain idea to her, and it was that idea which she liked. Liking an idea that was inspired by a murderer does not mean one likes the murderer.

But isn't it despicable and evil to say that an admirable and noble idea can be inspired by something as horrible as murder? I would say no, not at all. Anyone with any creative talent whatsoever understands that inspiration is a chaotic, unexplainable, and uncontrollable force, and that sometimes it can come from the strangest, most unexpected places. Even something as brutal, inhumane, and downright evil as murder can be the potential jumping point from which a great idea is born.

And even if Ayn Rand did find something compelling in a murderer, she would certainly not be alone. American pop culture glorifies many fictional murderers, including (but certainly not limited to) characters such as Hannibal Lecter, Dexter Morgan, and John Kramer (a.k.a. Jigsaw). And if box office numbers are anything to go by, a significantly high percentage of Americans also find murderers to be compelling and interesting characters. Indeed, the fictional murderers I have listed here are all extremely likable characters, not in spite of their sadistic and bloodthirsty ways, but because of them.

But if we like these fictional characters even though they are murderers, we must ask ourselves why we like them, and what that says about us. Does liking them make us sociopaths? And if it is possible to find a fictional murderer compelling, is it really that much of a stretch to suggest that one might also find some compelling attribute in a real life murderer? It is certainly disturbing to think along these lines, but this is merely the logical conclusion one must reach if one stops to ponder the full implications of enjoying violent and bloody entertainment.

So does the fact that Ayn Rand found something compelling in a murderer prove she was a sociopath? If it does, then we must all be sociopaths as well, for we have all derived some guilty pleasure in watching the blood splatter across the silver screen.



All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by Ed75 12 years, 1 month ago
    When statists fear someone or their ideas, they automatically go into character assination mode since they cannot refute the ideas.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DragonLady 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks, k, good to know not everyone thinks that those of us who work for Uncle Sam are a bunch of psycho nut jobs (yes, I was allowed out of my cell under heavy guard to send this brief note). :-D
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    well, I am glad you agree. here's what you said:
    "Tortured souls make more interesting characters."
    I read too much in the "more" I guess :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Who ever said every single character should always be a tortured soul? I didn't say that. I simply said that tortured souls can be interesting characters. That doesn't mean I think every single character should always be a tortured soul.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by overmanwarrior 12 years, 1 month ago
    Again, this is a reach by Ayn Rand Critics who have no idea what they are talking about. If Ayn Rand thought seriel killers has the answers, John Galt wouldn't have taken such measures to a peaceful resolution. It says a lot about Ayn Rand that her so called terrorism is in letting the real parasites destroy themselves without their input. The fact is, nobody knows how to dispute Ayn Rand's Objectivism, so they can only throw stuff against the wall to see if it sticks. There is NO merit to their claims................at all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Wynand is not more interesting than Roark to me. I am compelled to witness Howard overcoming conflicts. Wynand just makes me feel fell bad that he can't get his reason on
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    don't necessarily agree with this. complexity and smarts and someone employing reason in conflicts is interesting and refreshing. does not require tortured soul. I mean, a few tortured souls are fine, but every single one? too cynical
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with the desensitizing. and dehumanizing. and why are ALL the heroes military/CIA/excops/prosecutors or someone else who works for the govt? can we pleeez have some more Hanks and Fransiscos in our TV shows and movies?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not a fan of gratuitous gore films either. I got really tired of CSI and that ilk too because they had gore for gores sake. They do serve a purpose however...they desensitize people to the violence and the gore. Remember. The movie is the message.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 1 month ago
    ok, NOT ME. I hate bloody gore movies. and have never seen Silence of the Lambs because it will creep me out and give me nightmares for months. I have always been intrigued by the reasons people say they enjoy silver screen blood sport. My son, for one LOVES the serial killer type movies (Saw) for example. I certainly do not deny anyone's choice to buy their movie ticket to whatever they wish, but I do ask, why are so many movies today fixated on violence and much of it gratuitous, at the expense of fully developed heroes that might not be tortured souls? I believe there is a big sector of movie watchers out there disappointed about that. but what do I know? sigh
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo