A few weeks ago, I reviewed Jennifer Burns’ important new biography of Ayn Rand. I have now had a chance to read the other recent Rand Biography, Anne Heller’s Ayn Rand and the World She Made.
Heller’s book is very good and gives a thorough account of Rand’s life. On the whole, I found it somewhat less interesting than Burns’ account. Burns is a political historian and focuses primarily on Rand’s political thought and her impact on libertarianism and other pro-free market political forces. By contrast, Heller focuses much more on Rand the person. For example, Burns has extensive discussions of Rand’s conflicts and disagreements with other leading libertarian thinkers of the period, such as Hayek and Friedman. One of these two isn’t even mentioned by Heller, and the other is only noted in passing.
That said, Heller’s book does have a wealth of fascinating material for those readers whose primary interest is in Ayn Rand as such, rather than her connection to broader political or intellectual movements. The overall picture of Rand is not always a flattering one. As in Burns’ book, she comes off as obnoxious and intolerant of opposing views, and often mistreating her friends, family members and supporters. It is telling that Rand ended up breaking ties with nearly all her friends and Objectivist movement allies, often over petty disputes. From both Heller and Burns, I get the impression that Rand did not read widely in the works of other political thinkers, even libertarian ones (Ludwig von Mises excepted). That is a shame, since her own writings could have been improved by greater engagement with the work of others.
At the same time, there is much to admire about Rand as well, including her willingness to challenge the dominant statist conventional wisdom of the day, and the determination and dedication that enabled her to rise from penniless immigrant to bestselling author and influential political thinker. Even in her personal relations with members of her movement, the intolerance and dogmatism that drove people away was to some extent balanced by an intelligence and charisma that led many brilliant people to join her circle; people like Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan, John Hospers, and Martin Anderson. Despite her many flaws, Ayn Rand was an inspirational figure, in ways captured by co-blogger David Bernstein. Hopefully, today’s free market advocates can learn from Rand’s successes without repeating her mistakes.
UPDATE: Josh Blackman has an interesting interview with Heller here.
ChrisTS says:
I heard Heller on NPR the other day and discovered something I had not know about Rand: that she was an amphetamine ‘user’ (daily) for many years. Heller thinks this aggravated Rand’s volatility and stubborness (my terms).
December 30, 2009, 4:49 pmMark N. says:
It apparently used to be common and legal to use it as a casual stimulant, like coffee. Benzedrine in particular was only made prescription-required in 1959, and has a long list of famous users, especially among intellectual and political figures. Not that this negates it having a negative effect on her personality, but it’s a less surprising revelation than it might be if a famous intellectual today were a regular user of amphetamines.
December 30, 2009, 5:28 pmC.T. says:
Ilya:
I had the same reaction as you. I was impressed by Burns’ scholarship and her understanding of the various strands of conservative thought. With Heller’s book, what struck me was how-and this may not be the right word-tragic it all was, how such an immense talent as Rand could be so personally repulsive. I guess what was surprising to me was how disappointed Rand was by the reaction to Atlas Shrugged and the overwhelming sense of failure she felt, which must have contributed to her nastiness. Subsequent events have vindicated her, but did she ever get over the deforming influence of the critics? Who knows.
December 30, 2009, 5:43 pmlgm says:
By most “Judeo-Christian” standards, Rand was a bad person. Her personal life left much do be desired. Her “philosophy” was a sort of amorality. It valued personal gain above all else. Ordinary Americans may share some of her beliefs the same way ordinary Italians were pleased that Mussolini made the trains run on time.
A society based on Rand ideas would degenerate quickly into dictatorship of the rich. Concentrated economic power would lead to concentrated political power. Marx was right about this.
Randians, starting with Rand herself, have a tendency to take their personal views and tastes as universal truths. The Randian publication at my college, for example, used to say that Chopin was the best possible composer. Star Trek was the best TV show. Not the one the writer like best, but objectively the best.
December 30, 2009, 5:58 pmDilan Esper says:
I don’t think much of Rand or her philosophy, but I have to admit she is a fascinating character for biographers. If she didn’t exist, a great novelist would have had a hard time inventing her.
December 30, 2009, 6:52 pmbyomtov says:
I heard Heller on NPR the other day and discovered something I had not know about Rand: that she was an amphetamine ‘user’ (daily) for many years.
One thing that has always amazed me is the recreational use of amphetamines. When I was an undergraduate, many years ago, I took one once or twice to “pull an all-nighter.” I always felt like crap both during and afterwards. Talk about misery. Why some people consider that feeling enjoyable is beyond me.
December 30, 2009, 7:10 pmAnatid says:
What amazed me most was Rand’s approach to relationships, specifically polyamory. She genuinely seemed to believe that reason and logic could overcome mankind’s innate tendency towards jealousy. Look how well that turned out for her.
December 30, 2009, 7:31 pmA. Zarkov says:
The mathematician Paul Erdős also used amphetamines. He was able to work productively into his 80s proving theorems. Yep he was a nut, but number theory does that to some people. By the standards of the field, he was close to normal.
December 30, 2009, 7:39 pmChrisTS says:
Mark N, Byomtov, Zarkov:
My father ended up in ..ach, a famous Boston asylum for the rich .. at the end of law school because he got fried on dexedrine.
I did know it was not considered ‘bad’ in those days. I had just never heard that Rand was a user.
December 30, 2009, 7:43 pmChrisTS says:
lgm:
Thanks for putting philosophy in scare quotes. Rand was a very, very poor ‘philosopher,’ not least because she did not bother to study the history of [,even, western] Philosophy. And, not least because she had such a closed mind.
December 30, 2009, 7:46 pmAllan Walstad says:
If anything, it works the other way, as the old Soviet Union demonstrated.
Well, if Marx is going to be brought up here, it’s worth pointing our that at least Rand earned her own way, unlike Marx who mooched off his capitalist buddy Engels even while purporting to trash capitalism.
December 30, 2009, 7:59 pmOperationCounterstrike says:
Do any of the biographies explain why she was such a bad writer?
She wrote like someone with no hands trying to do ophthalmic surgery.
December 30, 2009, 8:28 pmC.T. says:
Well, Burns wasn’t overly concerned with her writing (because literary quality wasn’t the focus of Burns’ book) and I might be crazy for saying this but I think Heller admired the writing, though she didn’t so explicitly.
Me, I think its dreadfully bad. And I think the reason is that the novels simply try to do too much. Its an awful lot to ask of a novel that it contain a philosophy replete with the whole Aristotelian pantheon (Metaphysics, epistomology, ethics, politcs, etc), plus a plot and a storyline that includes nothing less than the destruction of the political and economic order. Is little wonder that the writing suffers as a result.
December 30, 2009, 8:45 pmChrisTS says:
C.T.:
In the interview I heard, Heller seemed very reluctant to comment on Rand’s abilities as a writer. She also dodged a question as to whether she ‘liked’ Rand, having studied her so thoroughly. I think she found Rand interesting.
December 30, 2009, 8:51 pmC.T. says:
yeah, ChrisTS, I’ll buy that. I think that’s probably closer to the truth.
December 30, 2009, 8:58 pmChrisTS says:
Hmm. C.T.’s comment has helped me to recall more of the interview.
Heller said that Rand’s characters were signatories for ideas, rather than people. Heller thinks that explains some of the problems in Rand’s writing.
I think that makes some sense. On the other hand, I don’t see how this explains the astonishingly turgid character of her prose. Ideas can be excitingly portrayed, after all.
December 30, 2009, 9:01 pmC.T. says:
That reminds me: I’ve got a copy of Atlas Shrugged out in the truck. Think I’ll have some Jim Beam and thumb through it for old times’ sake.
Granted it seems a little silly now, but there was a time. . .
December 30, 2009, 9:05 pmStormy Dragon says:
Shouldn’t this be “readers whose primary interest is Ayn Rand qua Ayn Rand”?
December 30, 2009, 9:36 pmChrisTS says:
I’m trying to decide how much of it/which parts of it to assign for a seminar on utopianism. I’m thinking of just saying “read the speech,’ because I cannot bear rereading it all to pick selections. (And, no, I would never require them to read the whole thing.)
December 30, 2009, 9:39 pmDave Hardy says:
“I might be crazy for saying this but I think Heller admired the writing, though she didn’t so explicitly.
Me, I think its dreadfully bad. And I think the reason is that the novels simply try to do too much. Its an awful lot to ask of a novel that it contain a philosophy replete with the whole Aristotelian pantheon (Metaphysics, epistomology, ethics, politcs, etc), plus a plot and a storyline that includes nothing less than the destruction of the political and economic order.”
Not to mention the XXX rated sex scenes. A writer should only do so much at one time.
December 30, 2009, 9:47 pmJohn Donohue says:
Ayn Rand was sick at heart by the difficulty getting Atlas Shrugged published and the tepid initial sales. She was also devestated by the reviews from the literary establishment.
However, this was not because she needed personal approval, wealth or fame. It was because she was aware this book could save Western Civilization, or at least America. Her depression was caused by belief things had gotten so bad in the culture that she was too late.
Miss Rand erred. It was not a failure. It just took time.
December 30, 2009, 9:49 pmJohn Donohue says:
Ayn Rand was sick at heart by the difficulty getting Atlas Shrugged published and the tepid initial sales. She was also devastated by the reviews from the literary establishment.
However, this was not because she needed validation of her philosophy, personal approval, wealth or fame. It was because she was aware this book could save Western Civilization, or at least America. Her depression was caused by belief things had gotten so bad in the culture that she was too late.
Miss Rand erred. It was not a failure. It just took time.
December 30, 2009, 9:52 pmfishbane says:
Wow, she sounds like a tragic character in an aspirational, yet flawed, novel.
December 30, 2009, 9:58 pmIlya Somin says:
Her personal life left much do be desired. Her “philosophy” was a sort of amorality. It valued personal gain above all else.
Not true, at least not if personal gain is defined as material wealth. In fact, she believed that the highest good was living in accordance with reason and self-interest defined in accordance with rationality. She also, of course, believed that people have an absolute duty to respect the rights of others to life, liberty and property and that such rights could not be violated even if doing so would yield personal gain for the rights violator. There are many flaws in Rand’s philosophy, but valuing personal gain above all else wasn’t one of them.
December 31, 2009, 12:18 amDavid Nieporent says:
No.
Marx wasn’t right about much of anything, and in particular, that makes no sense; there wouldn’t be “political power” in a “society based on Rand ideas.” Nor is there any reason to believe there would be “concentrated economic power.”
December 31, 2009, 12:33 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Anne Heller’s Ayn Rand Biography -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ari Armstrong, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Anne Heller’s Ayn Rand Biography: A few weeks ago, I reviewed Jennifer Burns’ important new biography of Ayn Ra.. http://bit.ly/8xMutT [...]
December 31, 2009, 1:04 amlgm says:
Fair enough.
The Rand vision has a government that does little more than enforce contracts.
Of course there would be. Some people would do better than others. Without government anti-trust regulations, Microsoft would have become even more dominant than it is now. Every sector of the economy would be controlled by monopolists.
The point realized by Marx is that the Rand utopia is unstable (That’s a technical term meaning that small perturbations that inevitably arise grow until the system changes completely. A pencil balanced on its point is in unstable equilibruim.) Economic power would lead to political power.
I’m not a Marxist. The Marxian utopia is unstable too. But he was right about pure capitalism.
December 31, 2009, 8:45 amTwirip says:
Not surprising, since Rand was not a libertarian and in fact detested libertarians.
December 31, 2009, 10:33 amTwirip says:
David Nierporent:
I’m curious as to why you think this.
December 31, 2009, 10:36 amMark Field says:
Said by someone who obviously never read Marx. Marx was an extremely perceptive social critic, whose anti-slavery writings (among others) were both helpful in molding British opinion and true. He was also right about a great many other things. Your comment is too flip.
December 31, 2009, 11:15 amDonald Kilmer says:
You criticize Rand for two sins: (1) Closed mind, and (2) not really being a philosopher because she didn’t read other philosophers.
The closed mind critique doesn’t make historical sense. She was advocating capitalism during a time when socialism was all the rage. She championed strong female characters who were journalists and engineers during a time when women were expected to be nurses and teachers, if they had careers outside of wife/mother. And her notions on the sexual liberation of women would similarly seem to undercut any allegation of a closed mind. If you want to say she held strong views about her conclusions and defended them vigorously, it would agree.
But closed minded, what is your evidence?
On the issue of her membership in some kind of club/society of philosophers, I think you are even more mistaken. Your citicism, if correct, is that she was a poor student of the history of philosophy.
But as far as I am aware, one need only have a love of wisdom and a dispassionate desire to discover and explore universal truths to gain the title “philosopher.” I am as happy to talk philosophy with truck drivers, waitresses and mechanics as I am to argue with professional, usually academic (and usually state employed) philosophers.
You may disagree, and if you do, then please name your criteria for being a philosopher.
December 31, 2009, 12:50 pmluke says:
Penniless immigrant? is that from the book or is it your opinion because it does not match other biographical accounts of her life.
December 31, 2009, 2:02 pmJohn Donohue says:
Ayn Rand did not choose to read “other philosophers” to any extent for the following reason in my opinion:
The philosophical orthodox establishment is thoroughly Platonic. They even joke about it: “All of Western Philosophy can be seen as a footnote to Plato.”
This includes all religion. All religion is Platonic.
Rand was not a Platonist. She is arguably the first completely consecrated Aristotelian since, perhaps, Aristotle. I mean absolutely Aristotelian. Not Thomastic, not Lockean, but completely of the metaphysics of “Primacy of Existence” with reason as an absolute. She understood Platonism very well, seeing it without the affliction of being inside it. She did not participate in its presuppositions.
She did enough due diligence. She and Leonard Peikoff did a digestion of the most important neo-Platonic book ever written, namely Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Piekoff would read sections, then look up various translations and concordances (you need help trying to even parse Kant). Then they would go over the material together and get to the essentials. They read every word. we call this “chewing” the material. The above was elucidated by Peikoff himself on his radio show in the 90s.
Remember, this would be two Aristotelians “going over” Kant, not two Kantians. There is a huge difference.
Rand read other intellectuals, economists, etc., who were on her side of the line. She longed for others to read and mentioned it many times.
So, if you wish Miss Rand to read your philosophical treatise, establish in the abstract section that you are are completely Aristotelian, or even better Objectivist, and you may get her attention.
December 31, 2009, 2:33 pmneurodoc says:
Like JFK?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Jacobson
January 1, 2010, 10:57 amneurodoc says:
A homeless “nut”/genius who lived out of a suitcase, staying with fellow mathematicians while they collaborated with him on papers. I wonder what the wives of those colleagues thought of him, but then they had chosen to marry mathematicians, so they must have been on notice. (The wives didn’t even get their own Erdos numbers for their troubles.)
January 1, 2010, 11:06 amneurodoc says:
The “famous Boston asylum for the rich” wouldn’t have been MacLean, would it?
January 1, 2010, 11:08 amneurodoc says:
Yup, “turgid,” that was the word I used to characterize her writing in a previous comment.
January 1, 2010, 11:11 amJohn Donohue says:
One man’s turgid is another’s proud inspiration for life.
January 1, 2010, 11:46 amEx parte McCardle says:
One man’s proud inspiration for life is another man’s Dianetics.
January 1, 2010, 12:13 pmJohn Donohue says:
Hmmm….I think we are still outselling Ron Hubbard. I’ll have to look that one up.
January 1, 2010, 12:26 pmChrisTS says:
YES! I knew it was something of a ‘Mc/Mac’ sort. What a memory I have. :-}
January 1, 2010, 6:25 pmChrisTS says:
John Donohue & David Kilmer:
I do not think being a ‘philosopher’ necessarily requires being credentialed as such. I do think one must be well-versed in the tradition (at least western or eastern), skilled in logical and critical thinking, and open-minded in the ordinary sense of not being fanatically attached to any ideas – least of all one’s own.
And, while one can be philosophical in any conversation, with any group of people, those of us who have spent years devoting ourselves to the study of the discipline not surprisingly object to having the term ‘philosopher’ applied to anyone someone else regards as ‘deep.’
As to philosophers and Platonists. Whitehead’s comment about western philosophy as a series of footnotes to Plato was neither a joke nor an endorsement. Rand was certainly not the only Aristotelian devotee. I have no idea how much she actually read; I might look at one of the biographies.
But to suggest that she was uniquely Aristotelian in a universe of Platonists is either to display a lack of familiarity with the history of thought or to be a blinkered disciple (or, both).
If the universe were to be divided into Platonists and Aristotelians, as one of my most limited grad professors claimed, Kant would certainly fall into the former camp. But, to characterize even the first Critique as nothing other than a ‘neo-platonist’ work shows, again, a deficient knowledge of the history of philosophy. That she and her young man ‘chewed’ through only the 1st Critique, if that is the case, would be further damning.
And, to suggest that a work must be ‘Objectivist’ for Rand to have read means that it would have to be of her own works or that of one of her disciples.
By the way, if the universe is divided into Platonists and Aristotelians, I am firmly and proudly in the latter camp.
January 1, 2010, 6:47 pmJohn Donohue says:
ChrisTS,
I did not mean “neo-Platonic” as an insult as in “sort of” or “minor version of”. I meant it as “new manifestation of,” more of an honor, really, from that side of the world. Hopefully you don’t think Kant was not a Platonist.
By that phrasing, Ayn Rand is a neo-Aristotelian.
Without addressing the other points you made, I will just focus on the idea that there are other Aristotelean endorsers and Rand is not alone. This would include yourself. How did they — and you — come to reject Plato?
Or do you think one can be an Aristotelian and still credit Plato’s world view as true?
January 1, 2010, 7:54 pmHarry Binswanger says:
I was one of Ayn Rand’s closest friends in her last years. I visited her in her apartment about once a week during the last year or so of her life, and spoke to her on the phone daily. This being a blog, I can only make assertions.
1. Rand had no problem with Dexedrine. She took a tiny amount daily (they even continued to give it to her when she was in the hospital).
2. Both the Heller and the Burns view of her character and personality is wrong: she was a fully rational person, as well as a gracious and charming one. The breaks she made with people were well deserved by them (I knew all the details in most of the cases.) I only wish she had broken with Greenspan.
3. She was very well versed in the history of philosophy, although more through secondary sources for the philosophers she disagreed with. Her knowledge of the history of philosophy is amply displayed in the title essay of her book For the New Intellectual. I’m a professional philosopher (not currently in academia, but I have taught graduate philosophy at U Texas/Austin), and I’m awestruck by the incisiveness of her presentation of the history of philosophy (presented in a highly condensed, masterfully essentialized form) in that essay. Oh, here’s another data point. A couple of years ago, the Ayn Rand Society of the American Philosophical Association had a meeting on her view of Aquinas, and one of the world’s leading authorities on Aquinas (not at all an Objectivist) stated that he was surprised to learn that she got Aquinas’ theory of universals right, as opposed to the claim of a lesser paper-presenter at the session arguing that she got it wrong.
You probably won’t be (and shouldn’t be) convinced by my mere assertions, but I wanted to go on record as giving a diametrically opposite view. You can pretty much judge for yourself by reading what she wrote, and as to her personality, read Letters of Ayn Rand–a fascinating look at her whole life through her letters. Also, highly recommended is the very short book by another of her close friends (Mary Ann Sures, who typed the manuscript of Atlas Shrugged in Rand’s apartment): Facets of Ayn Rand.
January 1, 2010, 9:03 pmbernei says:
these two people got the connection
January 3, 2010, 12:02 amBanjo Banjar says:
Re Jealousy and other irrational impulses: http://ryeberg.com/curated-videos/love-ayn-rand/
January 3, 2010, 10:26 amDonald Kilmer says:
So then you do have a motive for excluding people from using the title “philosopher” whom you deem unworhthy, because they have not spent years devoting themselves to the study of the discipline.
What does “fanatically attached to any ideas” mean? I am fanatically attached to the idea that murder is wrong and that people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Strength of conviction for ideas is not an indictment against a charge of being un-philosophical.
BTW, its Don not David. And thank you for your comments.
January 4, 2010, 9:48 amLaura Blanchard says:
You may find that the Tramp’s Speech (on the collapse of the utopian experiment at Twentieth Century Motors) is both shorter and more accessible.
June 2, 2010, 10:08 amROBERT KINDELAN says:
Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum, AKA Ayn Rand, was a Jewish intellectual terrorist looking for a ‘hunk’ to satisfy her sexual needs and who used money and fame to achieve that end to some extent. Intelligence is often difficult to define when Nature is embraced as a guide and not money, fame, power and bookish whimsy. Rand would have been horrified by bison’s numbers, 38,000,000, but whose occupancy generated and maintained high quality soil that benefited human, animal and plant life. She preferred skyscrapers to Nature, emasculated Frank O’Connor, her husband, and wanted to dominate not just him, but the world. That is known as insanity, but when one afflicted by such an illness seems rational and is highly motivated and uses rather naive psychology on those who purportedly ‘worshipped’ her, plus has followers who, if chess players would think one, maybe two moves ahead, but have college degrees to show they had been properly programmed to continue the same silly nonsense we’re still mulling over that threatens to cause our extinction before this century comes to a close, one has to ask, what were these people’s motives and more important, what did they think they could accomplish? Obviously, and even Greenspan, a Rand inner circle member, admitted he was misled by adopting Rand’s bizarre ideology and game plan. Nature either becomes our guide, or will cause our doom as a species. So called highly educated people, sometimes referred to as genius, as in Rand’s case, are the last persons on earth to follow as it will end badly, always. For instance, why is the majority of our citizens using one form of drugs or another each day, some to tranquilize, some to stimulate, some to mask symptoms of illness, and some for fun. Monetary driven industry is destroying our lives and Ayn Rand and that ridiculous egocentric character, Howard Roark of Fountainhead, and John Galt, both who Rand wanted to be and to dictate to the world how to think, live, and act, and if we followed her example, we’d be promiscuous, emasculating, neurotic, misguided, cruel, disloyal, dictatorial, a liar, money mad, sex crazed, and quite insane. What she wanted and needed was a slimmer, more attractive body to attract the opposite sex, less emphasis on reading writers whose ideas become a mishmash of idealistic confusion because writing in itself is an unnatural vocation and one sure to upset metabolic balance which affects the mind, it’s hard work emotionally which in turn affects the body and one’s thinking. Why such persons, such as Rand, are admired is not a mystery, but she’s so obvious in that she wanted and what her appearance and demeanor didn’t attract, she found a way and much of the world has paid dearly for it, the Roark’s and Galt’s are everywhere, believing they are chosen by ‘God’ to change the world. Silly asses. Too bad, her obsession with the individual as being the best of all worlds missed a key point, had men not formed hunting parties he would not have survived, it will never be possible to use what is known as progress to make a better world as long as progress is coupled with money and power, the very act of progress leads to doing things that benefits nobody and harms everybody and with objectivism running neck and neck while the reality of our natural instincts, yes, Ayn Rand, instincts, you know, like your instinct for sex, food, fun, and sleep, the very stuff of life you wanted to deny the world where we’d sit around and debate all day and accomplish nothing, there is a thing called life, and Rand didn’t know until she was nearing fifty what life was about and by that time she’d infected millions with her nonsense and we are paying the price of that each day with environmental, social, emotional and health devastation.
August 24, 2010, 11:58 am