Happy, absolutely. I know Michael Jordan was a basketball player of the highest order. Michael thought himself both a baseball player and a golfer, which he was not in comparison to what was the genius of his basketball talent. I do not go around sizing up Michael Jordan on his baseball talent which was fourth rate baseball if that. Ayn Rand may have thought herself a philospher, and honestly I do not have the background in philosophy to say that she was even fourth rate as a philosopher. I know that in my mind when I speak of Ayn Rand I focus on her genius as a novelist and keep her philosophical pronouncements far, far out of my view.
Well, the biggest criticism from everyone about Ayn Rand is that she was a miserable creature with stumped social skills, certainly little interpersonal insight. That also reflects in her writing somewhat. See www.personalitypage.com/relationships.html for some insight. And www.cognitiveprocesses.com
I cannot argue with you. To refute your argument, I would have to pretend that I know MORE about philosophy than I do literature, and that is a dishonest road that will not go down.
True, and every broken clock is right at least two times a day... When it comes down to it - nobody is perfect, that is why we have something called adaptation and evolution to help us along. Like I pointed out, I find the Objectivists more akin to cult-followers than anything else. Sometimes social outcasts that are drawn or lured to the works of Ayn Rand and then become obsessed with them. That is not her fault - but it is in these persons - just like some people become natural leaders and others health care workers etc... yet others, like Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer. The global war on ideas, like Rumsfeld called it in 2006 and James Burnham wrote about, has been lost by the US. Burnham called for the US to use all its influence with economics, culture and military to destroy its enemies. Hollywood has certainly not been lazy in fuelling anti-islamism and antieuropeanism... which is perhaps being forgiven some day. Containment like the Reagan period was rejected by the Neocon priesthood... About US super-sized consumerism: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XiTNXhIFVrw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XiTNXhIFVrw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> and <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4w9EksAo5hY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4w9EksAo5hY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Greenspan was an objectivist at one time. However, by the time he became Fed Chair he no longer applied the principles in a full and integrated way. It's not an accident that he had been shunned by objectivists for years. Besides, the ability to raise and lower interest rates and blab doublespeak to congress is hardly the main driver of our economic system -- little things like the legislature, SEC, executive branch, courts, tax code, overall strength of our entrepreneurs, quality of our business managers, have far greater impact.
OK, fair enough. Your reply is the mark of an honest person. It occurs to me that what you love about Ayn Rand's fiction may well be the philosophy itself, hidden under the thin veneer of the story. If, for example, Atlas Shrugged resonates with you, then her philosophy will as well.