How I discovered Ayn Rand and Objectivism – My personal story
Posted by Maphesdus 11 years ago to Philosophy
It's difficult to say for certain when I was first introduced to Ayn Rand. For the longest time, “Atlas Shrugged” had always been one of those famous literary works, like “To Kill a Mockingbird” or “Catcher in the Rye,” which I knew were considered classics, but which I had never read and didn't know much about. Ayn Rand's magnum opus was among these, and it sort floated around in my subconscious, just below the level of awareness; existing, but in a state which was incorporeal and insubstantial.
One day, I was watching an episode of South Park titled “Chickenlover,” in which the character Officer Barbrady reveals that he is illiterate, but subsequently learns to read, and then reads “Atlas Shrugged” and decides never to read again because of it. This little cameo nudged “Atlas Shrugged” into my consciousness a bit more, and made me decide that perhaps maybe I wanted to possibly read it someday. I didn't know what the story was even about, but if it was getting made fun of on South Park, it had to be kind of a big deal, right? So I made a mental goal to eventually read “Atlas Shrugged” at some unspecified point in the indeterminate future. Then I went about my regular life as usual and soon forgot about it.
In 2009, I took a summer-sales job selling home security systems door-to-door. The company was sending sales-reps out of state, so I got to visit a part of the country I had never been to before. On the way there, during a layover between flights (tickets paid for by the company), I decided to browse the used book store at the airport. On one shelf there happened to be an old hardcover copy of “Atlas Shurgged.” I eagerly picked it up and read the brief synopsis on the back cover, which gave me a glimpse into a world on the brink of economic collapse. It sounded intriguing, and so I began flipping through the pages. Being somewhat impatient, I flipped towards the back of the book to see what state the world would end up in. Had the characters in the book solved the economic problems of their society? Had things fallen apart completely? What did their world look like? By pure chance, I happened to land on what turned out to be one of the most memorable exchanges of dialogue in the entire book:
––––––––––––––––––––––
“Okay, I'll tell you. You want me to be Economic Dictator?”
“Yes!”
“And you'll obey any order I give?”
“Implicitly!”
“Then start by abolishing all income taxes.”
“Oh no!” screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. “We couldn't do that! That's . . . that's not the field of production. That's the field of distribution. How would we pay government employees?"
“Fire your government employees.”
“Oh, no! That's politics! That's not economics! You can't interfere with politics! You can't have everything!”
––––––––––––––––––––––
So... this was a novel about politics and economics? I smiled. This was in May of 2009, and the country was still feeling the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, so the story felt absolutely relevant to the current times. Unfortunately, I was flat broke, and didn't want to spend what little cash I had on a book, even if it did look like it would be a really good one. Looking at my watch, I realized my next plane was going to be departing soon, and I had only about ten minutes or so to get to the terminal. So I put “Atlas Shrugged” back on the shelf and walked out of the bookstore. It would be another three years before I finally picked it up again.
I spent that summer involved in what I had initially thought was going to be just another job to pay the bills, but which, looking back, I now realize taught me some very important life lessons. It was the first sales job I had ever had, and it gave me a totally new perspective on salesmen, business, and money. I admit I didn't do particularly well at the job, as I've always been an extremely shy and introverted person, and had a habit of being a bit submissive (when you're a salesman, these are not good personality traits to have).
Of course I wasn't the only one who was struggling. Many of the other sales reps also found they had significant difficulty in persuading people to buy our product. Taking note of our struggles, our team leader (who had done extremely well with sales in summers past) introduced us to a book which he said would help us overcome our weaknesses. That book was called “The Psychology of Selling,” by Brian Tracy. I didn't know it yet, but this book was going to have a profound impact on my life and my perspective on business and money. It was the first time in my life that I had ever read any self-help book, or any book that dealt directly with the issues of money, sales, and business. It was amazing. Although I admit my skills as a salesman didn't improve much, Brian Tracy's book started me on a journey of financial discovery, a quest to discover the inner workings of business, finance, and eventually, economics.
Following that summer, I started to develop a keen interest in money matters, and I began to actively seek out other self-help books on the subject. Over the next couple of years, I delved into various books like “Rich Dad, Poor Dad,” by Robert Kiyosaki, “Super Rich,” by Russell Simmons, “Think and Grow Rich,” and “The Law of Success,” both by Napoleon Hill, and “How to Win Friends & Influence People,” by Dale Carnegie, along with several others. Combined, these books taught me to think about business and money in a totally new light. They taught me that rather than slaving away for a paycheck at some mindless dead-end job where I would have little control over my own life, I could choose a different path – I could choose freedom. These books taught me that personal success, economic prosperity, and true financial independence were simply a matter of having the proper mindset, of understanding how to create and build real value. I still had not yet read “Atlas Shrugged,” but these other books had established in me a value system based on the principles of independence, personal responsibility, humility, productivity, and financial freedom. I was beginning to think like an entrepreneur.
[CONTINUED IN COMMENTS]
One day, I was watching an episode of South Park titled “Chickenlover,” in which the character Officer Barbrady reveals that he is illiterate, but subsequently learns to read, and then reads “Atlas Shrugged” and decides never to read again because of it. This little cameo nudged “Atlas Shrugged” into my consciousness a bit more, and made me decide that perhaps maybe I wanted to possibly read it someday. I didn't know what the story was even about, but if it was getting made fun of on South Park, it had to be kind of a big deal, right? So I made a mental goal to eventually read “Atlas Shrugged” at some unspecified point in the indeterminate future. Then I went about my regular life as usual and soon forgot about it.
In 2009, I took a summer-sales job selling home security systems door-to-door. The company was sending sales-reps out of state, so I got to visit a part of the country I had never been to before. On the way there, during a layover between flights (tickets paid for by the company), I decided to browse the used book store at the airport. On one shelf there happened to be an old hardcover copy of “Atlas Shurgged.” I eagerly picked it up and read the brief synopsis on the back cover, which gave me a glimpse into a world on the brink of economic collapse. It sounded intriguing, and so I began flipping through the pages. Being somewhat impatient, I flipped towards the back of the book to see what state the world would end up in. Had the characters in the book solved the economic problems of their society? Had things fallen apart completely? What did their world look like? By pure chance, I happened to land on what turned out to be one of the most memorable exchanges of dialogue in the entire book:
––––––––––––––––––––––
“Okay, I'll tell you. You want me to be Economic Dictator?”
“Yes!”
“And you'll obey any order I give?”
“Implicitly!”
“Then start by abolishing all income taxes.”
“Oh no!” screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. “We couldn't do that! That's . . . that's not the field of production. That's the field of distribution. How would we pay government employees?"
“Fire your government employees.”
“Oh, no! That's politics! That's not economics! You can't interfere with politics! You can't have everything!”
––––––––––––––––––––––
So... this was a novel about politics and economics? I smiled. This was in May of 2009, and the country was still feeling the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, so the story felt absolutely relevant to the current times. Unfortunately, I was flat broke, and didn't want to spend what little cash I had on a book, even if it did look like it would be a really good one. Looking at my watch, I realized my next plane was going to be departing soon, and I had only about ten minutes or so to get to the terminal. So I put “Atlas Shrugged” back on the shelf and walked out of the bookstore. It would be another three years before I finally picked it up again.
I spent that summer involved in what I had initially thought was going to be just another job to pay the bills, but which, looking back, I now realize taught me some very important life lessons. It was the first sales job I had ever had, and it gave me a totally new perspective on salesmen, business, and money. I admit I didn't do particularly well at the job, as I've always been an extremely shy and introverted person, and had a habit of being a bit submissive (when you're a salesman, these are not good personality traits to have).
Of course I wasn't the only one who was struggling. Many of the other sales reps also found they had significant difficulty in persuading people to buy our product. Taking note of our struggles, our team leader (who had done extremely well with sales in summers past) introduced us to a book which he said would help us overcome our weaknesses. That book was called “The Psychology of Selling,” by Brian Tracy. I didn't know it yet, but this book was going to have a profound impact on my life and my perspective on business and money. It was the first time in my life that I had ever read any self-help book, or any book that dealt directly with the issues of money, sales, and business. It was amazing. Although I admit my skills as a salesman didn't improve much, Brian Tracy's book started me on a journey of financial discovery, a quest to discover the inner workings of business, finance, and eventually, economics.
Following that summer, I started to develop a keen interest in money matters, and I began to actively seek out other self-help books on the subject. Over the next couple of years, I delved into various books like “Rich Dad, Poor Dad,” by Robert Kiyosaki, “Super Rich,” by Russell Simmons, “Think and Grow Rich,” and “The Law of Success,” both by Napoleon Hill, and “How to Win Friends & Influence People,” by Dale Carnegie, along with several others. Combined, these books taught me to think about business and money in a totally new light. They taught me that rather than slaving away for a paycheck at some mindless dead-end job where I would have little control over my own life, I could choose a different path – I could choose freedom. These books taught me that personal success, economic prosperity, and true financial independence were simply a matter of having the proper mindset, of understanding how to create and build real value. I still had not yet read “Atlas Shrugged,” but these other books had established in me a value system based on the principles of independence, personal responsibility, humility, productivity, and financial freedom. I was beginning to think like an entrepreneur.
[CONTINUED IN COMMENTS]
Previous comments... You are currently on page 10.
Your sentence, "However, beware of your book choices. Google the authors, find out what their agenda is, and where they really stand." is the best advice for people. I would add that should also be done for any author, radio and TV personality and authors of newspaper and magazine articles.
Just like the authors of the books that Maphesdus mentioned that were critical of Ayn Rand had an agenda to piggy back on Ayn Rand's philosophy, many other authors will attack well known personalities in order to profit.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
I will never accept business advice from anyone that has never met a payroll. That of course eliminates almost every business and economics professor at any business school.
On the other hand, blindly accepting criticism by one author commenting on another authors meaning is just as dangerous.
Above everything else, Atlas Shrugged is a love story between people and a love story about their relationship with their businesses.
It deals with many of the aspects of our government under Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and most of all under President Obama. With the exception of Carter, neither of the other two presidents ever met a payroll, so there is distinct proof of how little they know about business or economics. President Carter had many flaws of his own, but did run a family business so he had at least a basic understanding of the difficulties involved.
You need also to remember that Ayn Rand was incorporating her philosophy into a love story and was not writing a manual on how to start a business, but she understood much more about the subject than our present administration.
A philosopher is not always 100% correct in her or his beliefs, those beliefs must be taken in total context and it requires occasional benefit of the doubt. In the end the final judgment on what the author means is up to your own understanding. It is clear from your post that upon seeing the movies and reading the book, you thought that she made sense. Then you wrote about other books you read and all of a sudden found fault with Ayn rand's books. It seems that you tend to always conclude the last piece you read to be correct.
Trust your own judgment.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Good point, but Ramsey is usually talking to people without financial discipline and the only way to keep them from charging more is to eliminate the ability to do so.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
You wrote, "...but political opposition to the Civil Rights Act was a deal breaker for me." Has it occurred to you that there is a great difference between being against civil rights and being against the Civil Rights Act? To understand ayn rand it requires to read her works in total and in context. I frankly have never come across a statement by Ayn Rand that would cause me to think of her as a racist. My personal definition of a racist is someone who hates an individual for his race alone. I would prefer to think as all of us being a member of the human race. within that human race I also reserve the right to choose among the people based on their conduct. I dislike a rude white man as much as a rude black man or Asian. It's always a question of conduct of an individual that determines whether I choose to associate with him or not.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
An accurate analysis of what racism really is and how it is often confused with other choices. Of course it is entirely likely that such confusion is on purpose.
I have been following your ongoing debate with Maph, and find myself mostly in agreement with you. However your last comment regarding building codes infringing on your property rights seem to be a misunderstanding of the obligations of government under the Constitution.
Government does have a responsibility to assure the safety and well being of the citizens. A clearly defined building code based on engineering standards and experience in building clearly falls under that responsibility.
Furthermore, although I'm not a fan of zoning laws, they are often necessary and under the Constitutions Tenth Amendment states that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Therefore the states do have the right of legislating building and zoning codes.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Ultimately, all I'm saying is that reductionism and holism are both vitally important, and that totally relying on either one to the complete exclusion of the other causes conceptual blindness, and inhibits one's ability to understand the behavior of the system in question.
As a side note, I find it rather amusing that you would say individualism is not reductionism, but accept that collectivism is holism. Why equate one but not the other? What's the difference?
From Merriam Webster:
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
col·lec·tiv·ism – noun:
a political or economic system in which the government owns businesses, land, etc.
1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also: a system marked by such control
2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
The first or primary definition – government ownership of businesses – is what's known as syndicalism, which is the inevitable result of trying to implement communist/socialist theories. Communism itself is actually impossible to achieve, and any attempts to do so are guaranteed to result in syndicalism (this point is established by Ludwig von Mises in his book "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis").
But the second definition – collective action or identity – can simply refer to any endeavor or activity in which a group of people work together to achieve a common goal or interest. This form of collectivism is very different from the first, and in fact is actually a fundamental aspect of capitalism. Barring independent freelancers, every company and corporation is really just a group of people collectively working together as a team to produce a single product (or multiple teams producing multiple products, as is often the case with larger companies).
The problem with many of Ayn Rand's arguments against collectivism is that she never clearly distinguished between these two different definitions of the term, and in fact she seemed to be totally unaware that there even was more than one definition. To compound the problem, some of her arguments are so broad sweeping and generalized that she actually attacks both definitions at once, thereby effectively condemning certain essential elements of capitalism in her attack on communism, which is rather ironic.
And Ayn Rand did not run a private business. What she had was a fan club. Although a club does certainly involve a group of people, it's not quite the same because no one except her was responsible for producing the product (i.e. her books). Sure, she had occasional co-authors, such as Nathaniel Brandon and Alan Greenspan, but she never had to coordinate or direct a team of people and ensure they were all doing their jobs properly, nor did she have to worry about deadlines or schedules. In short, she was effectively operating as an independent writer, as other people were not particularly necessary for the completion of the books.
Also, from what I understand, she actually delegated most of the managerial tasks of the club to Nathaniel Brandon (and then to other people after she cut ties with him), so she was never even really in charge of the club herself, which is important because it shows she never had to develop people management skills.
You say that real world experience isn't necessary prior to engaging in and writing about philosophy, and to a certain extent I suppose that's true. If you're simply theorizing about intangible ideas like the meaning of life, the nature of man's soul, and other metaphysical concepts, then no prior experience is necessary. However, when the philosophy in question diverts from such abstract ideas and starts to deal directly with political and economic theory, things which have practical application in the real world, then yes, real world experience actually does start to matter at that point.
Thank You, ewv, for the new word!!! -- j
That is not what she wrote or believed. Please stop misrepresenting Ayn Rand based on what you imagine she thought.
Maphesdus: "a big business owner operates on the principles of teamwork and organized collective action."
A private organization incorporating many individuals cooperating is not "collectivism", which is the politics and philosophy Ayn Rand rejected. Ayn Rand did not confuse large private organizations with "communism".
Maphesdus: "The fact that such men were advocating ideologies which conflicted with Ayn Rand's social theories tells me that her understanding of capitalism was, perhaps, a bit limited."
Your constant misrepresentations of Ayn Rand tell us that your understanding is worse than "a bit limited".
Maphesdus: "The fact that Ayn Rand never owned or operated her own business also tells me that her theories had no real world experience to support them, and therefore they should be viewed with heavy skepticism."
Ayn Rand did run private businesses connected with her writing, but that is besides the point. One does not have to be a business owner to have "real world experience" or the experience necessary for philosophy.
We still have a mixed system partly free and partly controlled, progressively becoming worse. As it becomes worse it does so non-uniformly, affecting different people in different circumstances to different degrees before reaching a full fledged tyranny across the board. People who are singled out and persecuted are getting the full works already.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––
"The day of combination is here to stay. Individualism has gone, never to return."
~ John D. Rockefeller
–––––––––––––––––––––––––
Ayn Rand seemed to believe that individualism equaled capitalism, and collectivism equaled communism. But from what I've read about business, that actually doesn't seem to be the case at all. When I read Robert Kiyosaki, essentially the message I got was that individualism is the battle cry of the small business owner and the independent freelancer, while a big business owner operates on the principles of teamwork and organized collective action. Several other authors have supported this view as well, and none of them were communists or socialists. They were all capitalists, and many were even highly successful businessmen. The fact that such men were advocating ideologies which conflicted with Ayn Rand's social theories tells me that her understanding of capitalism was, perhaps, a bit limited. The fact that Ayn Rand never owned or operated her own business also tells me that her theories had no real world experience to support them, and therefore they should be viewed with heavy skepticism. No theory can ever be regarded as reliable until it has first been tested in the real world and, through experimentation and observation, been proven to work. Trumpeting the supposed superiority of an untested and unproven theory was the same mistake that was made by Karl Marx when he laid out the details of communism.
Anyway, here's some reading material on the subject of big business:
The Economist – John D. Rockefeller Defended:
http://www.economist.com/node/160180
"Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr." by Ron Chernow:
http://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Ro...
"The Myth Of Leadership: Creating Leaderless Organizations," by Jeffrey S. Nielsen:
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Of-Leadership...
"The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century," by Thomas L. Friedman:
http://www.amazon.com/World-Flat-3-0-His...
Thank you for sharing your story.
There are many detractors who misinterpret both intentionally and unintentionally many of Rand's positions. You have mentioned several. The case: "Ames accused Ayn Rand of worshiping the 1920s serial killer William Hickman." is a prime example. There is a difference between admiration, interest in the psychology, how it might be useful and sanction of the actions this man chose to undertake. She did have appreciation for the notion that one should live for their own sake without obligation to others with one glaring caveat! One cannot initiate force and is obliged to allow others to live for their own sake also, if one is to expect reciprocity. This contradicts any sanction for the monstrous actions. Full context is essential. The notion that because she did not support civil rights because she did not support a particular law is also a distortion. An in depth analysis shows she found it to have poison pills contained within. That was her objection. These attacks are all common misunderstandings and foment consequent misrepresentations. One thing I would like to re-enforce that has been mentioned, is the contrary position to the notion that objectivism has as one of its objects to destroy equality as understood by our founding. This is unfounded. One must appreciate the difference between equality under the law (rights and opportunity) and equality in outcomes, material wealth, or natural abilities. The Founders were not fools they understood this as well as Rand.
Always stimulating. :)
Respectfully,
O.A.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited 'discrimination' on private property as well as in government action. It was openly discussed in such terms before it passed and is what Ayn Rand wrote about at the time. If you read and reread , several times her article denouncing racism and racist policy promoted in the name of a false "civil rights" as you report here that did, you should know that.
"Still under the influence of Ames' article, however, I was unsure if I wanted to give any of my money to the people behind such a work... I'm not one to base my opinion of anything solely on what someone else thinks... Before I was even halfway through the film, my prejudice against it had evaporated completely. Screw Mark Ames and his stupid article! Who the hell cared what Ayn Rand thought about William Hickman? This movie was amazing!..."
"I could forgive or overlook worshiping a serial killer, but political opposition to the Civil Rights Act was a deal breaker for me."
Ayn Rand never "worshiped" any "serial killer", and it makes absolutely no sense that "the people behind" a very expensive production of Atlas Shrugged would do so for such a motive or harbor any such "worshiping". Common sense alone should have told you at the outset to be more skeptical of these attacks.
The Ames myth in particular is based on a slimy, dishonest distortion of notes in Ayn Rand's personal journals kept for the purpose of ideas for future works of fiction, when she was very young, had just come to this country, and still didn't know English very well. She was interested in newspaper stories depicting a popular early reaction to Hickman without regard to actual "serial killing" or proof that he had done it. Her notes had nothing to do with endorsing, let alone "worshiping", serial killers. Yet detractors like Ames leap at the opportunity to misrepresent her.
If you are "not one to base my opinion of anything solely on what someone else thinks" then you should have spent more time understanding what Ayn Rand did think rather than dwelling on and repeating misrepresentations from fringe hacks who don't dare try to rebut her on her actual reasoning that they hate but can't refute.
She taught me to think - rationally and critically - to the point I did not necessarily agree with her on everything. What a wonderful gift!
There are numerous sub-themes to this posting. Some take umbrage to calling environmentalism evil. I remember when that word was not even part of the vocabulary. However, people were becoming aware of certain problems that needed solutions - correct solutions through Constitutional government, not the rampant unconstitutional federal nationalization of property and resources we ended up with. That is the evil lurking in what is called environmentalism - watermelon communism in raw form. It has long been shown that private property owners are the best stewards of the environment than flocks of unaccountable bureaucrats hiding behind alphabet soup agencies promulgating and enforcing "Administrative Law".
Oh, and one more subpoint to discuss. The American form of government as constructed by the Founders was not a democracy. It was a Constitutional Republic where certain governmental bodies had enumerated powers through the separation of powers - both horizontally and vertically - not just the simple tyranny of majority that a democracy is. Remember, when 3 wolves and one sheep vote on whats for dinner.........
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Was an individual who thought it would was right to challenge those who thought differently at the time.
He and others of like minded thought and heart wrote these words to create the greatest country mankind has known up this point. They knew the costs and proceeded anyway knowing full well their way was better for those that followed.
Atlas Shrugged, in story form, provokes the thoughts of those who desire a better life for themselves and those that chose to follow....
You can become whatever you want for whatever reasons you want, but if you had read and understood Ayn Rand you would know that she did not "turn away" legitimate "civil rights", let alone "inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You are misrepresenting her.
Load more comments...