My reply:

I’ve heard that something like 80% of serious libertarians originally came to these ideas via Ayn Rand’s novels — though their intellectual development hardly stopped there, of course — so perhaps it’s not surprising that many people, especially those who aren’t familiar with the genre, associate her ideas with libertarianism.

The Hickman criticism is unfortunately a case of critics dropping any semblance of intellectual context. Her journal entries about Hickman were written during an early period in her development as a philosopher, when she was going through a Nietzschean phase. So she admired the radical strengths of an Übermensch, while acknowledging his faults? How scandalous! Presumably Nietzsche would come in for even more criticism on this front, but somehow he remains perfectly respectable.

Interestingly, as Ronald Merrill observes in The Ideas of Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead is at root a dramatization of the female protagonist Dominique’s (and thus Rand’s own) progression from nihilism (loving Keating) to Nietzscheanism (loving Wynand) to Objectivism (loving Howard Roark) — culminating in the portrayal of an ideal man who “neither sacrifices himself to others nor others to himself.”

And so the criticism of Rand as a Hickman “admirer” amounts to saying her philosophy is too Neitzschean when, in fact, she explicitly grew to reject Neitzscheanism in favor of her own philosophy which eschews sacrifices in any form. Her two primary novels are quite explicit about this — which the Hickman criticism ignores entirely. Could one be any less fair in one’s criticism of a philosopher?

I do believe Rand had some bat-shit moments, to use your phrase. I also think it’s a mistake to give in too easily in our defense of her. Sometimes simply restoring a little intellectual context, and reading her actual words, is enough to reveal her as far more thoughtful than her critics would suggest. Given her truly massive role in promoting libertarian ideas, we do ourselves a disservice if we are too quick to push her to the back of — or throw her under — the intellectual bus.

I truly believe we undermine our cause if we’re too quick to allow some of the more ridiculous criticisms to take root.

With that in mind, Robert Bidinotto‘s novel Hunter: A Thriller hit the spot. I found the writing crisp, the characters interesting, and the interplay of plot and theme to be tight and compelling. I was far more moved than I expected to be, particularly by the love relationship between Dylan Hunter and Annie Woods. They wrestled with real challenges, and seeing how they resolved them reminded me why I like romantic realism so much: it inspires you to want to live your own life as fully and heroically as possible.

Bidinotto’s mastery of his craft is evident. As a sometimes-writer myself, I got the feeling a few times that he must have really enjoyed the writing process, because in certain passages I got the distinct sense of a sharp mind at work and at play. I think he must’ve loved writing this book.

Ayn Rand wrote, “Don’t work for my happiness, my brothers — show me yours — show me that it is possible — show me your achievement — and the knowledge will give me courage for mine.” I read the novel intermittently over the course of about three days, and on the last morning, as I finished the final chapter, my feeling toward the author was: Thank you for showing us your achievement.

It has given me courage for mine.

The human being has two wings, the wing of universality and the wing of individuality, with which to fly above the earth and to soar into the heavens. The wing of universality grows in the awareness of selflessness, while the wing of individuality grows through the creation of selfhood. In this seeming paradox lies the secret of human evolution and of human happiness. To be universal is to be inseparably one, in the oneness of which there is no separate self. To be an individual is to be indivisibly one, in the oneness of which there is an indivisible whole self. In being universal, you come to know what Emerson calls the Over-Soul, and in being indivisibly whole, you come to realize your singular individual soul. With both wings spread freely, to soar into the whole sphere of the Universe and to fly in the entire realm of Reality is to live a Life Immortal. And that is the ecstasy of Enlightened Selfishness.

When you look at the reading list from my transformational programs, you will find books by Ayn Rand (1905-1983) and Lao Russell (1904-1988) side by side. These were two of the most powerful women of the 20th century, sharing almost identical spans of time in history. However, their philosophical outlooks are diametrically opposite to one another. Rand is an atheist and argues for the virtues of selfishness, while Russell is a theist and preaches the virtues of selflessness. People ask me how I can reconcile these two seemingly contradictory philosophical positions. A complete treatment of this question requires a formal philosophical treatise, but it will suffice here to state the following:

Ayn Rand is a philosopher of a rare genius who nonetheless never had the experience of spiritual illumination of which Lao Russell was intimately aware through her husband, Walter Russell, one of the greatest spiritual illuminates in history. Rand’s philosophy, which is a rational philosophic integration of the facts of secular human experience, does not contain anywhere in its entire philosophic equations the experiential data obtainable only through spiritual illumination. Her system, Objectivism, is quintessentially rational, but does not include the realm of the transrational. In fact, being an arch-rationalist, Ayn Rand would categorically deny the cognitive validity of such “mystical experience” as spiritual illumination or transrational awareness or kosmic (or cosmic) consciousness.

Rand’s philosophy is an attempt at constructing a rational theory of reality based solely on the absoluteness of reason and the evidence of the senses (a premise which ultimately breaks down in the kosmic awareness of Primary Reality) which can lead to the attainment of moral character and human happiness within the parameters of individuation and individuated identity. Her system, though incomplete, is consistent and coherent, giving us a rational foundation for living in the realm of life in which there is individuation, individuality, and the diremption (separation) between you and me—the realm of reality which constitutes what is called secular experience, within which we all exist as individual or individuated human beings.

See his full article for much more.

I suspect most Objectivists, and especially those who don’t have any background in Eastern teachings, will choke hard on his transrational comments. I mean, once you’ve found the value of reason, who wants to listen to someone talk about the indivisibly whole Over-Soul?

Yet, for those of us who’ve found value in the writings of teachers like Eckhart Tolle and Adyashanti — and the sense of personal liberation that comes from adopting a psychological perspective that is somewhat “outside” the self without renouncing the self in any way — there is something eerily powerful about reading Yasuhiko’s words.

It is this: It’s rare to encounter someone who can understand and embrace both worlds — and especially while actively appreciating, even loving, Rand’s perspective so fully.

Do his words make sense to you? Does his jargon get in the way?

I would love to hear your thoughts.

Tonight I find myself clarifying several of the key ideas that Ayn Rand developed that were expressed in the movie. Here are the four key ideas I see in ASM:

1. Innovation and the joy of creation
2. The importance of industrial production
3. Egoism and reason vs. altruism, faith, and force
4. The distinction between the productive class and the political class

Each of these points emerges from time to time as the theme of Atlas Shrugged comes forward: That theme is “What happens to society when the ‘men of the mind,’ the men of honest ability in any field, go on strike?” By the way, the movie does a 10-star job of getting across the theme and the related key ideas within its artistic format limits.

And later:

Without a doubt, ASM is a sterling movie of ideas, and the four I mention above—however vaguely grasped by a general public misled by decades of government schools and the advent of “TV Planet”—will play their way into the public consciousness. Perhaps slowly at first. Americans are not accustomed to movies illuminating big ideas in conceptual terms. Moreover, this is a movie that stands up for the good guys—which are all of us who insist on critical thought and on our rights to live as we choose for our own sakes. The average fellow has never heard a movie character state categorically that he intends to seek his own joy and abundance in life, neither sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself. It’s nice to see these good guys win, even when still relatively few people understand how good these good guys are.

When I walked out of the theater, there was a newfound spring in my step and confidence in my voice and bearing. On the most profound level, it made me feel as if I were “right,” and have been all along. Certainly others who have fond familiarity with the Randian oeuvre felt the same. And I speculate that those who are innocent of the book ideas, who may never have even heard of Ayn Rand, will experience a similar—yet not so intense—boost in authentic self-esteem. The movie, the ideas so well expressed by believable artists and artistry, makes me feel young again. That we’re going to turn our country around and throw out the evildoers. A natural high like no other: also, that the “great masses” will ultimately throw off their chains along with their externally contrived ignorance and rise to the occasion. Can’t wait for ASM 2 and 3.

It’s a question I’ve had for many years, and the answers I’ve gotten from various Objectivist thinkers have varied considerably. It seems like a pretty important question, particularly for a philosophy that aspires to be internally consistent:

Ayn Rand taught that we have no unchosen obligations. She also taught that we must respect the rights of others. How does one resolve the apparent contradiction? Is it because rights constitute only a negative obligation? Or because we choose to live in society? Or something else?

I hope Dr. Peikoff answers it. I would be interested to know how he views the matter, viewed through Ayn Rand’s eyes. Does anyone know if Dr. Peikoff has addressed this question already, in OPAR or elsewhere?

I’m also interested to hear how other Objectivists view the matter. Your thoughts?

I definitely think her novels provide the best introduction to her ideas. They’re easier, so they’re more accessible to many people. They’re best sellers over the last 40 to 50 years, so obviously they’ve appealed to many people. But also, they set her ideas in the context of the real world and, if you read The Fountainhead first, you’re really treated to a beautiful introduction to her thinking. It’s the way she came to her ideas.

She was originally very interested in the notion of how do people maintain their independence and integrity in the face of a world that demands compromise and The Fountainhead is about that. And you read that book and you really, you get a personal introduction to her ideas. Then you can read Atlas Shrugged and she shows how that same idea plays out in aesthetics and romantic love and politics and ethics and, by the time you get to Galt’s speech, you’ve pretty much got it all laid out in front of you.

There are few places where she really distills it down to a crystal clear formulation quite the way she did in Galt’s speech. On the one hand, it’s the intellectual climax of the novel, it’s the place where the plot tension that’s been going on through the whole novel is finally explained. You understand why the producers have gone on strike. On the other hand, it’s the opportunity for Rand to lay out her philosophy as a system for the first time in the world.

The part of the speech that bowled me over the most and continued to impress me for years as I was re-reading it was her derivation of ‘ought’ from ‘is’. And I continue to think that’s one of the most valuable things that Rand did as a philosopher, is helping people understand in a clear, lucid way how you can derive principles of what you ought to do in your life from factual information about the nature of human life. So she was identifying, you know, requirements of biological life and how those lead to the need of a system of ethics and guidelines for leading the good life. And that connection which she outlined, I think first in Galt’s speech, is — it’s brilliant. You know I’ve heard philosophers complain that it’s not rigorous or they disagree with it in one way or another, but I don’t know anybody else who has provided — for everybody — a lucid, easy-to-understand explanation of why ethics is ultimately rooted in reality and in our nature as biological beings.

As a novelist, she was doing something very radical in trying to portray an ideal human being. There are very few novelists now or, I think you have to go back pretty far in history to find novelists who were comfortable with the idea that their role as an artist was to uphold an ideal. Rand was not only trying to create that ideal but she had enough of a good vision of what that ideal consisted of that often you can tell a lot about people by how they react to it. For example, some people find it hopelessly corny that she was trying to paint a picture of the ideal person and other people find the very idea of a novel extolling selfishness to be, you know, just ridiculous beyond belief.

When people ridicule Ayn Rand, I often sense that there’s something at a deeper level, there’s something about idealism itself, that’s a little uncomfortable to them. And, in that sense, her novels can be a very useful touchstone for understanding: To what extent do people share my belief that human beings can be noble? To what extent do people share my belief that thinking for yourself is really important? I find when people are uncomfortable at a visceral level with Rand’s characters … they can still be good people, but they’re probably not people who I’m going to be able to hit it off with as easily or as deeply.

Rand’s ethical teaching that I personally found the most useful is, I think, a line from the introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness. She says “the basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that every man is an end in himself” — and it’s a good razor, ethically, if you’re sizing up a situation politically or in your personal life, to ask yourself the question, “Are we creating a solution here where everybody’s treated as an end in himself, where their own happiness is the most important thing for each person — or are we creating a situation where some people are expected to sacrifice to others, where some people’s interests are subordinated to others?”

Rand’s ethical vision was really one where we want to create a win-win world for everybody and that there shouldn’t be conflicts of interest among rational people if you’re using an ethical system where everyone’s treated as an end in himself.

When Rand was writing, selfishness was really a dirty word. You know, you almost couldn’t talk about it in polite company. In the years since then, we’ve had … the hippies have grown up, the 60′s culture has matured, they’re now, you know, running the world. And selfishness, it’s really different to talk about selfishness now.

In our age, in contrast to Rand’s age, it’s a much bigger problem, people who are stuck on narcissism. I think one of the dangers of Rand’s philosophy at this point is that if you are disposed towards narcissism, Rand’s going to give you all the justification that you need to keep doing that, maybe even become worse.

So, in today’s culture, I think it’s important to point out that it really is about treating people as ends in themselves. You know, when you talk about selfishness, if you take that ideal to the extreme, depending on how you interpret it, you can end up with a lot of bad behavior. But if you take an ideal like treating people as ends in themselves, it’s hard to go wrong with it.

And I think if you really want to realize the potential that Rand outlined in her philosophy and her writings, I think you need to keep an open mind, learn from a lot of different places, even in unsuspecting places like Buddhism. One thing that Buddhism, at it’s best, and Objectivism have in common is a great respect and emphasis on fidelity with reality. And in Objectivism, that fidelity with reality takes the form of logic and making sure that what you believe matches what’s really true. So it’s intellectual. And in Buddhism the emphasis on fidelity with reality takes the form more of emotional fidelity and learning to identify your own emotional resistance to the way things are. So the Buddhists have emphasized acceptance, meditation, sometimes a sort of strategic mental detachment so that you can maintain more objectivity about your emotions and your thought processes.

Sometimes I see Buddhism as a set of practices in search of a philosophy in an analogous way that Objectivism could be seen as a philosophy in search of a set of practices for doing things like raising your level of consciousness, being more productive, having a happier life, having more harmonious relationships.

So what would it look like if you combined the ideas of Objectivism with the practices of Buddhism and the kind of personality that that creates? You know what that would look like? I think it would look like Howard Roark. And I think it would look like John Galt, too. If you want to look at a face without pain or fear or guilt, look at Buddhists. Those are people who’ve learned, they’ve learned to interact with their own mind and their own emotions in ways that lead to the kind of serenity that Rand advocated in her novels.

I found Daniels making some fair enough points, pro and con, but was stopped in my tracks when I got to this: “She entirely lacks the literary ability to convey anything admirable, or even minimally attractive, about her heroes, who are the kind of people one would not cross the road to meet, though one might well cross it to avoid them.” The next few paragraphs go on in a similar vein, attempting to support this point with examples.

This conclusion tells me that he misses the very point of Rand — a heroic vision of a moral code — and his lack of sympathy for (or even recognition of) her characters’ virtues is so strong that he’s handicapped in his overall assessment. After seeing this, I lost my motivation to read him. He’s descended into sneering, and it is every bit as unbecoming as that of which he accuses Rand herself.

Kimball’s sneering starts much earlier in his article, so I stopped reading for the same reason.

These are people who are fundamentally unsympathetic to Rand, scratching their head, ostensibly trying to figure out why intelligent or cultured people would like Rand at all, and not doing a very good job of it. I am no more impressed by this than by high school athletes scratching their head about why nerds have any friends in the lunch room, or vice versa. It’s just poor psychological comprehension, if you ask me.

In that post, I concluded:

So to me, the case for the significance of suffering, once we look at it closely, seems overwhelming.

Does this mean we resign ourselves to suffering, or become taciturn? No, but it does suggest that there are whole areas of life that we may be blind to, and controlled by just the same, if we don’t consciously acknowledge their significance and respond to them appropriately. I find Buddhism helpful in doing the latter.

I would expect this to be a somewhat controversial or at least interesting claim, particularly for anyone with a background in Rand’s ideas. But six years later, the post still has no comments — so I’m dragging it back onto my home page, with this post.

What do you think?

UPDATE: See related previous discussion following my post Does Suffering Build Character?

From Reason TV’s summary:

Joshua Zader’s intellectual relationship with Ayn Rand began as it does for so many, during his college years. He then blazed a trail uniquely his own among Rand admirers by creating The Atlasphere—an online networking and dating site for the fans of Rand’s novels with particular emphasis on The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Zader found inspiration in Rand’s portrayals of independence and integrity, saying: “Rand’s ethical vision was really one where we want to create a win-win world for everybody, and that there shouldn’t be conflicts of interest among rational people if you’re using an ethical system where everybody is treated as an end in himself.” Zader has seen the real life impact of Rand’s ideas through his work on The Atlasphere, which currently boasts over 19,000 members.

Zader discusses the some finer points of Rand’s thought and novels, her supporters, her detractors, and her continuing impact. As a student of Buddhism, Zader explores how her ideas relate to what may seem like a conflicting view of the world. Zader: “Sometimes I see Buddhism as a set of practices in search of a philosophy, in an analogous way that Objectivism could be seen as a philosophy in search of a set of practices.” Joshua Zader blogs at Mudita Journal.

Approximately 10 minutes. Joshua Zader was interviewed by Ryan Seals, filmed by Alex Manning and edited by Hawk Jensen.

I felt Ryan Seals did a good job of coming up with interview questions. I remain grateful for his creativity in suggesting topics to explore.

I will be very interested to hear how other Objectivists respond to my comments about Objectivism and Buddhism, which are bound to be controversial, at least in some circles.

What do you think?

UPDATE: I now have a transcription of most of the interview, for those who would like a text version.

It is my great pleasure to introduce to you a man and a program of stunning originality and practical results. The man is Jon Butcher and his program is Lifebook.

Lifebook launches you into its world by inviting you to deeply examine 12 separate aspects of your life that, in reality, are not separate at all.

In each category you are stimulated and inspired to clarify your beliefs, identify your goals and define what needs to be done to actualize them. You capture and document your thoughts and feelings along the way using the Lifebook software.

This step-by-step, highly structured process results in your own, self-authored Lifebook — a detailed description of the life you want to live and a strategic plan to guide you as you move toward it.

Although it does borrow from my work, this program is not psychotherapy. It is about self-actualization. As you work through the 12 categories, you get to know yourself in inspiring and challenging new ways. Consciousness, energy, and self-responsibility rise together. The future is experienced as unobstructed. You are witness to your own transformation.

The Lifebook Program is a 4-day seminar experience, held monthly in Chicago. Normally $2995, Lifebook has agreed to extend a $1000 savings to admirers of my work. (For the record, I have no financial stake in this offer — I pass it on to you because I believe you will find it to be a truly extraordinary experience, as I did).

To learn more about this special offer, please CLICK HERE.

I simply cannot recommend this program highly enough. If you wish to become the author of your own life, Lifebook may be exactly what you have been waiting for.

Sincerely,

Nathaniel Branden

If any of you have been to one of these seminars, I would be very interested to hear what you thought.