How I discovered Ayn Rand and Objectivism – My personal story

Posted by Maphesdus 11 years ago to Philosophy
308 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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]


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 8.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    One must understand the individual before one can understand the group. Okay, that's fine, I have no problem with that statement. But it doesn't contradict or refute anything I've said.

    As for the history behind the slogans, what slogans are you talking about? I'm not repeating any slogans, as far as I'm aware.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Which history should I read? Depending on the historian who wrote the book in question, the interpretation of the events could change dramatically. If you want me to arrive at the same conclusion as you, you'll need to do more than simply say "go read some history." Give me the name of a specific author or textbook, and then we'll talk.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I've noticed ewv has a habit of making vague statements and expecting people to automatically understand what he's thinking.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    When I asked for an example, I meant the name of a specific case. You know, something that I can check and verify for accuracy?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It isn't "cryptic". It answers what you wrote. You misrepresented what I wrote in terms of "strawman" and "more concrete or more material" then complain that you don't understand simple explanations dismissed as "buzz words". This isn't the place for the basic education you need. You are very confused and limited in your understanding while pretending to have a superior knowledge and intellect. That is still giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are honest and not deliberately playing a manipulative game, although they are not mutually exclusive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "posses shared or similar characteristics."

    Beyond being human, I share virtually no characteristics similar to my co-workers.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcEOsGvT...

    Your question regarding Wal-mart is fallacious. Check your premises.

    Which is more profitable? Define "profitable"? Having a larger profit *margin*, or having a larger total income?

    Wal-mart today consists of thousands of semi-autonomous stores. More than anything it resembles the U.S. in its structure.

    In my store, there's a minor battle going on.
    Teamwork between a racehorse and a mule achieves nothing. Teamwork alone accomplishes nothing, just as physical effort without the mind accomplishes nothing.
    Wal-mart is loaded with all kinds of "teamwork" rah-rah BS, it papers the walls of the rear hallways. I don't know if the proles who work there buy into it or not; as near as I can tell, they're largely ignored, recognized as meaningless.

    The reality of Wal-mart is that the effectiveness of any given store rely more on the effort and creativity of a small cadre of individuals, while the majority of the labor force are like oxen hitched to a grindstone, mindlessly treading the same path day after day.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It distinguishes between an example commonly used to give credibility to "holism" and the actual role of "holism" to promote invalid collectivism.

    How the concept of a group of individuals logically depends on first knowing what the individuals are has been explained to you several times. Knowledge of individuals in a group is not obtained from "reductionism" starting with the group.

    If you still don't understand that then you should look up the history behind the slogans you keep repeating in the name of some kind of superior knowledge (and learn something about Ayn Rand in particular), rather than toss around vague claims about "reductionism and holism" as "vitally important" in a supposed defense of collectivism.

    Dismissing the responses to you as unintelligible to you with no "coherent ideas or concepts" is a statement of your own limitations, not your presumed superiority. Further details here would be lost on you.




    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You have been given full paragraphs. You didn't "misinterpret" my statement, you misrepresented it as the opposite.

    Philosophical rationalism, in contrast to philosophical empiricism, does not mean being rational. It is exemplified by Descartes trying to derive reality from inside his head vs Hume trying to understand reality with his anti-conceptual emphasis on percepts. These are classic archetypes of well known trends in the history of philosophy. Modern academic rationalism manipulating ideas divorced from reality through a series of equivocations and context dropping is rampant. The people you have been reading who practically make a 'career' out of attacking Ayn Rand and who you have been relying on rather understanding first hand what she wrote are examples.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by hattrup 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Spot on.
    Given the Feds are giving special treatment to a heterosexual pair (sorry, only 2!!), it is hard not to support other types of pairs - or for that matter more that just 2.
    So no special treatment, or special treatment for all.
    Of course logic and fairness will fly in the face of government legislated morality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, you are lost. The way you make assertions about an alleged "club" without knowing what you are talking about you don't seem to care. You were supposed find out before making pronouncements about it. I just gave you a list to look at.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, the lawsuits by fat people that they are discriminated against by airlines, every lawsuit based on statistical profiling of race or sex in the workplace (usually against objective evidence),the lawsuits by fat people that they are discriminated against at work, the baker forced to bake for a the gay couple

    The go on and on and on
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    No, these people are the leaders of the environmentalism. They have duped the public into thinking they are about cute animals and the outdoors. Environmentalism is a anti-human religion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Again, read some history. While the war on drugs certainly accelerated the effects, it was school bussing that started it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    If they are not slaves, they are free to leave, thus you cannot harm them.

    You can ask them to do whatever you want - but it would be immoral to ask them to do something that would cause them harm or cause harm to others, personal harm.

    No contradiction.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You really don't think that moving everyone into government housing projects and rewarding the birth of a child, with the father away from the home, with more money, furniture allowance, appliances, etc. didn't have something to do with it?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The black family structure was destroyed by the war on drugs, not the Civil Rights Act.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    What. And you think you do?

    The most corrupt, evil action ever taken in this country against the black race was the granting of special rights through the civil rights laws and teaching them that they were victims. Race relations throughout most of the country were in better shape prior to those laws and actions than after. They've destroyed the black family structure and any degree of pride in self and accomplishment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think there's any difference between listening to an audio book and reading the book in print. It's literally the exact same material. The only difference is the format. Does the fact that the information is presented to me through my sense of hearing rather than my sense of sight somehow make the information less valid?

    And my stated sources are closet totalitarians and communists? What proof is there of that? Can you provide evidence to support such an accusation?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think of her as racist, either. I simply recognize that she didn't understand racism well enough to know what was actually necessary to effectively counteract it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Wanderer 11 years ago
    Maphesdus;

    I'm fairly new to The Gulch, so don't know much about anyone here but, after trying to read the long thread of sincerely written comments below I am led to ask: so...you've still not actually read Atlas Shrugged?

    Beyond that question (because I must have missed, somewhere in this long thread, your statement that you have actually read the book. Listening to a book on tape while riding your bike through traffic doesn't count.) the thought that sticks in my mind is: what a waste of time! Dozens of well intentioned people composing sincere arguments inclined toward persuading you of the truths of Ayn Rand, all the while you carefully twist and misrepresent those truths, arguing instead (very carefully from behind your curtain (Arlecchino) for totalitarianism and the slavery of communism, rather than personal freedom and capitalism. Your stated sources are closet totalitarians and communists.

    Though truth does not depend on the teller, I'm moved to ask, are you the same person who, on the website "forwardprogressives.com" condemned Republicans as racists? The person who wrote off the party of Lincoln, freedom, and equality could not have any regard for Ayn Rand or the individual.

    I find it remarkable and sad that so many on this site spend time and mental energy responding to you. Life is short and not to be wasted on foolishness.

    I don't know if you're doing this on your own, or if you're a paid shill but, no matter, shill you are.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo