I recently discovered that Noam Chomsky is totally opposed to Ayn Rand. While I have known many who disagreed with Ayn Rand, none were so vehement other than some fundamentalist Christians (She was an atheist). I happen to have a lot of respect for Chomsky & also think highly of Ayn Rand. It surprises me that he is so vehemently opposed to her views. Might she have made some insulting remarks about him?
I adore Ayn Rand. She's absolutely one of my favorite authors and thinkers. I don't think she was much in the habit of speaking out against people personally, but I'm not entirely sure.
I think they are philosophically diametrically opposed to one another, it doesn't surprise me at all that Chomsky had that to say about Rand (many others also hold the same opinion). I think Rand would have had other adjectives to describe Chomsky but nevertheless she wouldn't have held his position in high regard.
Chomsky is as usual accurate and thorough. He is unusually brief, but then there isn't much to say about MS Rand's stuff from a non-sociological pov.
Another quote on Rand from Chomsky: "Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history." http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/12/question-period.html
She does look like a scary witch...and would have been perfect in the Wizard of Oz. Look at the way those furtive black eyes dart about...so disquietingly! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k
Odd that stuff like Potok's "My Name is Asher Lev" didn't catch on and edge out the Randian over-long cartoons. Kind of the way Le Carre's stuff marginalized the James Bond books, or Clint Eastwood dropped Gene Autry into the childhood nostalgia category. There are romantic heroes of competence and will in books all over. Somehow the "philosophy" legitimizes the trash writing, and vice versa. Very odd. Very lucrative.
In many ways Rand's Objectivism, and the ideology Chomsky identifies with, socialist anarchism, are similar. Both advocate freedom for all.. but what doesn't? Both are also against institutionalized power.. The differences, though, I think arise from the way both think freedom for all should be brought about. Rand doesn't seem that vivid a supporter of the idea that all people should be equal, whereas Socialist Anarchism believes in equality in the society, where resources are created and shared by the community as a whole, with no authoritarian institutions or powerholders creating a hierarchy. Finally, there's the fundamental difference of one being completely pro-capitalist, and the other being anti-capitalist. Things tend to get heated when propagators for either side meet..
Who the hell concludes Nietzsche is anti-reason? That's very ridiculous. She seems like she never even read his books.
"I recently discovered that Noam Chomsky is totally opposed to Ayn Rand." Brace yourself: Gandhi didn't see eye-to-eye with Hitler; God claims not to like his Devilish side; oil and water don't emulsify easily; your left hand is not your right hand. There are so many wonders to discover. Don't stop.
I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand's writings and philosophy. But I've never seen that video. She apparently suffers from a right exotropia; which is why her eyes appear to dart about as she shifts focus from one eye to the other.
Okay... I've talked about Rand before, so I'll say this again for those who didn't see: Quotation by me from another thread: Rand was a gross-looking slob. Notoriously unhygenic, she was sex-starved for most of her life... and the only way that she could alleviate that need for the comfort of others was to portray herself as a submissive little prostitute, like a certain character in a certain book she wrote. Often, people (and especially grotesques like Ayn Rand) tend to alleviate their own unhappiness by reaming things out in their heads until they come up with a philosophy on life that makes their rather diseased mentality appear less ugly. As an ugly woman, Ayn Rand hated thinking about herself in ugly terms... and the result was a self imposed perspective where her lonely-heart attitude was to be celebrated instead of pitied. In the midst of all this, she lived out her sexual fantasies by constructing her visions of perfect men in the stuff she wrote. They consisted of strong slavery themes, and her own character in the fantasy would be the submissive little prostitute character who was raped by such a man: "the act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted." O....kay....Can we say, domination complex anybody? Rand engaged in mental masturbation... and from that point on, her tawdry little episodes took a nosedive straight into the ideological cesspool. BELOW: Ayn Rand visits the USA for the first time... after 20 years of virginal hell in Russia. Caption at the bottom. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because freedom involves having options. People who have no options have no freedom. To create the kind of system that Rand advocates would mean, the one who stole your wallet is accountable for returning it. Which is riduculous. No agency has any lasting interest in being "fair" when its more profitable not to be. Social institutions which shrink the options of 95% of the population in favour of 5% are not the road to freedom, but disaster. This is amply demonstrated by how the economy in the US is headed now
SAM, Ayn Rand clearly states that she opposes the use of force for any purpose except against those who initiated it. If someone stold your wallet, she'd fully support the use of force by the state in returning it and punishing the offender. As to our present economic troubles being an example of the failure of laissez faire capitalism; DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE WE'VE BEEN LIVING UNDER LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM IN THE US LATELY? :bugeye: And how can you believe that statism increases opportunities? Look at history, which nations have provided greater opportunities for the people; statist societies or free societies? People are capable of creating their own opportunities. Remove the boot of government from their necks and they'll prosper. All they need is the chance. Sadly, mankind has been ruled for most of it's history by thugs and dictators eager to squeeze what it can from the populace and to impose its will. That is what creates poverty. That is what limits opportunity.
