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 9.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
~ Aristotle
Ayn Rand's illogical attack on reasonable regulation was perhaps the first flaw I noticed in her philosophy. Saying that building codes violate your property rights is absurd.
---
I'm sorry, but this sentence appears to be self-contradictory. How can you refrain from asking your workers to do something that harms them if harming them isn't even possible?
Once again, I care nothing for politics and, if you continue focusing on politics the discussion will be over.
A person using the name Maphesdus, proclaimed the racism of the Republican party on a progressive website. I asked if this Maphesdus is the same person. Their writing is similar, if not the same. Their thoughts are rejections of the truth, focusing instead on politics, a poisonous distraction. If this Maphesdus is that Maphesdus I believe the intellectual distraction is intentional.
I might not belong here. People in The Gulch seem to assume intellectual honesty. I, on the other hand, find almost all people to be intellectually dishonest and arguing with or teaching them a waste of time. I believe Maphesdus is intentionally wasting your time.
You call me a rationalist, but I'm confused, as the tone of your comment indicates that you consider the term to be derogatory. Tell me, is there something wrong with being rational?
Without a compass or guide, I'm lost at sea.
As for Maphesdus, yes it's here to trash Ayn Rand, but you can't conclude it's here to "muddy waters". You have left out the possibility that its mind is so muddy itself that it can't tell the difference. It's analogous to the first rule of conspiracies: "never assume that bizarre falsehoods are due to conspiracy when they are easily explained by simple incompetence". There is a kind of rationalistic arbitrary word-play thinking promoted in academia that is so bad that those who adopt it in the name of a supposed superiority are unlikely to ever understand Ayn Rand and her reality-based thinking process even if they happen to like Atlas Shrugged for sense of life reasons still buried in a corner somewhere. (Robert Nozick was like that.) It is sometimes useful to see how easily their "arguments" are answered despite the assumed appearance of superior intellect by those promoting them, but it's important to not become distracted with the diversions and word plays leading down the rabbit hole.
You missed my point: Maphesdus is an intentional distraction. He or she isn't here to move the discussion forward. He or she means to muddy the intellectual waters. He or she admits to watching the movie, but either didn't read Atlas Shrugged or purposely misrepresents the book. Whichever, his or her purpose is deception, so he or she is wasting your time. He or she is very good at misrepresentation and distraction, which makes me wonder whether he or she is a paid shill.
I care nothing for politics, just the truth. Abraham Lincoln and hundreds of thousands of others died making real the words of the Declaration of Independence. Changing history to suit one's prejudices doesn't serve the truth.
That is not what I wrote and it is not true. Stop making things up. I wrote that "One does not have to be a BUSINESS OWNER to have 'real world experience' or the experience necessary for philosophy".
Maphesdus: "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."
Only a rationalist could think philosophy about such topics as "the meaning of life" can be done with "no prior experience" -- just like you think you can make pronouncements about Ayn Rand with little or no "prior experience" of bothering to understand what she wrote and did, because you are a rationalist. Philosophy, including such topics as "the meaning of life", is not divorced from experience in reality and does have practical application. Ayn Rand, unlike so many others, did not spin floating abstractions and then only later appeal to "experience" to apply her principles.
The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, The Ayn Rand Letter, NBI (run mostly by Branden), and other lecture series were not "fan clubs". There was no "club". If you bothered to look at what they were doing you would see that there were more than "occasional" other authors (not "coauthors") and that she did have to "worry about schedules" and ensure that everyone was doing his job. Stop making things up. Your trashing Ayn Rand with demeaning misrepresentations and mud-slinging from the ignorance of your imagination while pretending to be so knowledgeable about her is a farce.
"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"
You don't have to lecture us in the manner of analytical philosophy on the various uses of the word. The context is clear. We are talking about Ayn Rand's rejection of collectivism in politics, ethics and epistemology. She did not reject all kinds of group action or businesses with a "group identity" and, properly, did not call that "collectivism". She was a very clear writer and there is no excuse for your misrepresentation as you dance around with word games.
Maphesdus: "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..."
Syndicalism -- control of industry by 'workers' -- is one form of collectivism. Pretentious diversion on what you think Mises argued is besides the point. You misrepresented Ayn Rand.
Maphesdus: "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)."
That kind of collective action of people working as individuals in a group for a private business is not collectivism and is not what Ayn Rand was talking about, as everyone else can see by reading what she wrote.
Maphesdus: "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."
There is no "problem" with Ayn Rand's arguments against collectivism. All that is "ironic" is your own pretentious attempts to attack her with word games and equivocations. Ayn Rand was very clear what she was talking about.
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?
What "system"? In engineering, "systems" are regarded conceptually as units in their own right without regard to their constituent parts when reference to those parts can be omitted, without denying them, provided that all the relevant attributes of the system are accounted for in relevant interactions. That is not what collectivists do in claiming collectives are prior to or more important than individuals. That ranges from Hegel's notion that we are all appendages of the "Absolute", to Marx's communism, to viros sacrificing people to "ecosystems", to any other kind of moral or political subjugation of individual people to state power or the collective. Individualism is not "reductionism". You know what individuals are before forming concepts of groups; you know what values are to individuals without regard to alleged "higher" values of the collective. Individuals are not known by reduction of groups somehow known prior to individuals.
I didn't say anything about the "material". The strawman is all yours. The fallacy of reifying abstractions can be invoked for any abstraction pertaining to any physical entity, any aspect of consciousness, or any attribute or action of anything. It neglects the hierarchy in which higher level abstractions depend on prior knowledge through lower level concepts. Plato's mystical forms were not claimed to be "material" either, but he used them, fallaciously, as if they had existence on their own, independent of the units referred to by the abstractions.
You have previously claimed that there is "nothing wrong with coming at the issue from the other direction and working down to the individual with the group as the starting point. Both approaches are valid."
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/6a...
That is not true and the fallacy has nothing to do with what is "material". You have to know what individuals are before you can form an abstraction of a group of them no matter what the individuals are. The concept of a group requires that there be a group of some number of _something_ and is meaningless without that. The concept of the individual logically precedes the concept of the group. The attempt to invert the hierarchy of logical dependency in forming concepts results in subjectivist thinking in floating abstractions disconnected from reality.
Maphesdus: "However, I do see your point. An individual person is comprised of physical matter, whereas a group is simply an abstract concept used to organize individuals who posses shared or similar characteristics. When I made the statement, 'saying that there is no such thing as groups is a denial of reality,' all I meant was that groups do in fact exist, not that they were material constructs or that they were more real than the individual. The one guilty of reifying that concept is you, not me (thanks for the new word, by the way)."
You still don't understand it. The act of observing and identifying your own fallacy is not a commission of the fallacy.
Ayn Rand did not deny that people don't form and act in groups, and that is not "all" you meant. You trashed her for rejecting collectivism. No one denies that there are groups of people. Promoting "holism" in politics and ethics is collectivist, which Ayn Rand rejected for good reason.
I disagree. If the government's job is to protect us from harm (safety) then prohibition (alcohol, drugs. FDA, ATF) makes sense, laws against gambling make sense, hell the NSA spying on all of us makes sense no matter how intrusive. The job of government is to protect our natural rights, not to keep us safe.
"Those who would trade a little safety for a little freedom, will get neither and deserve neither" roughly Ben Franklin
The 10th Amendment was about Natural Rights, not about the ability to trample natural rights. Zoning laws are unconstitutional, a violation of the common law rule of innocent until proven guilty, a violation of property rights, and a violation of your contractual rights.
I began searching everything I could find online - knowing the mainstream media would never give details of value. It was that research that netted the Alinsky connection, and more, like the Chicago gay lifestyle connection. I tried to get O'Reilly to take on the Alinsky issue, but he did not, until AFTER the election for President was over! Thus, the mainstream media kept much truth from the public. We are on our own when it comes to vetting writers, politicians, you name it.
Fred
Ron Paul said the Civil Rights Act did little to help change racial prejudice. In fact, he said it gave the government more control and did little to change what would ultimately end prejudice - the mind of the individual. In fact, for a hard core bigot, it might have made him more entrenched. It led to employment laws which made it harder for small business owners, especially immigrants, to staff their businesses. Many minorities have for years depended on the help of family to staff their start ups. In comes government and says they must hire other minorities, often less familiar with the job, and with less vested interest. No one wins.
I have several Black friends who hate affirmative action. They are people who want to make it on their on talents and drive, and they discourage their children from being part of it as well. They do not want to be grouped, and know it is about individuals.
As to group think, does anyone remember the good ole TQM (total quality management), which was set up as a group thinks project, but actually was to make employees THINK they were helping run the show. The roots for this now abandoned business school favorite can be found in the pages of Mao's little red book.
Then there is the cult/religion of group thinking environmentalism. The rank and file usually have little scientific education, rather they spout the talking points put out for their use. No common sense involved. The movement is about control, not saving the planet. Have you noticed that those who promote getting rid of millions to save the planet, also promote sending mosquito nets to Africa to save lives? Those who want to sell helpful vaccines, also claim it is the best way to wipe out whole populations.
You are reading, and that is fantastic. How about taking the AS book to bed and reading a bit each night, for yourself. You may find yourself reading and rereading certain passages, because they are so true to what we see in today's life. However, beware of your book choices. Google the authors, find out what their agenda is, and where they really stand. Of course, they want you to buy their book, so they can make money, but what are their qualifications?
Since you like environmentalism, may I suggest:
"UN Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy" by Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, a woman, who like Rand, knows communism firsthand.
Please, do not come back and tell me the UN is all Pooh bears.
Load more comments...