Can someone explain Ayn Rand to me?!

You're right, that article is horrible.

"Internalizing" lol

The banality of Latinates.

atlas shrugged was boring

also kindof offensive

"lit cred" = high schoolers read Anthem and so think Ayn Rand is Serious Literature.

the arendt piece is one of the worst things i've ever read on slate. incredibly ignorant and hysterical. has rosenbaum always been an idiot?

The tone most offends me -- the smug assurance with which he thinks we'll agree that the banality of evil is a hackneyed phrase.

especially because his own idea of what evil actually is (bad people apparently ALWAYS know what they're doing, and revel in the fact of their evilness) is so laughable.

i get the sense that most of the people who criticize arendt's calling eichmann "banal" haven't even read that book. she hardly lets him off the hook.

And she endorses the death penalty for him!

In fact, the imaginary judgment she wrote for the prosecutor is the best case for a one-shot application of the death penalty I've ever read.

My understanding of "the banality of evil" is that it refers more to the collusion of millions of otherwise apparently mundane civilians than it does to the actions of ideologues and high-ranking Party officials.

ron rosenbaum is a maroon

My understanding of "the banality of evil" is that it refers more to the collusion of millions of otherwise apparently mundane civilians than it does to the actions of ideologues and high-ranking Party officials.

Yes, true, and also: Eichmann the family man didn't act like Conrad Veidt.

I'm all for intelligent criticism of The Origin of Totalitarianism, whose first third splinters into discrete chunks that don't really advance her theses yet if treated as such make for fascinating reading. Rosenbaum doesn't have time for it.

as far as i can tell this is his argument

1) i, ron rosenbaum, hate the phrase "the banality of evil"
2) luckily, no one will use the phrase "the banality of evil" any longer because people have recently pointed out that hannah arendt uses anti-semitic sources in her work
3) therefore, hannah arendt is a self-hating jew
4) hannah arendt is a self-hating jew because she was in love with martin heidegger
5) martin heidegger was a nazi through and through and there is absolutely nothing of value in his philosophy
6) i know there is nothing of value in his philosophy because a) i didn't understand and b) internet commenters at the chronicle for higher education website didnt explain it

7) How on earth could Arendt have fallen in love with an unrepentant Nazi?

I feel like this bit is the crucial sub-text:

It's a concept that has great relevance right now because there are still those who don't understand how theocratic police states can be called "fascist." Duh! It's because they're totalitarian. Whatever religion they profess, what they share with past fascist regimes is greater—in terms of denial of human rights—than what separates them. Just as political regimes adopt religious-type totalist worship of the state or the leader to enforce their oppression, religious or theocratic regimes adopt political oppression to enforce their orthodoxies.

The whole piece isn't really about Arendt or Nazi Germany but about Iran and whoever else is in this year's Axis of Evil, and Rosenbaum is arguing for a hawkish US stance because you can't negotiate with Fascists.

h8 this ho

"Just as political regimes adopt religious-type totalist worship of the state or the leader to enforce their oppression, religious or theocratic regimes adopt political oppression to enforce their orthodoxies." Wtf does the "just as" mean here?

and ALL regimes are "political."

that essay...

saw a documentary once bout arendt and heidegger's relationship, was pretty okay, like there was some cool "brief encounter" lookin re-enactments and a shitload of speculation like "arendt was prolly conflicted"

Come on, people
Oooh, so daring!
Duh!

http://timothyzhu.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/bill_cosby1.jpg
Come on people!

wake up, sheeple!

THE NAME IS HARVEY. HARVEY WEE-WAX.

The interesting thing about the libertarian saint is that she was also virulently anti-religion.

This could, and should, be exploited.

anti-democratic too

also russian

and ugly

did anyone mention that she is totally creepy and when she writes about sex its like fucked up slash

"The interesting thing about the libertarian saint is that she was also virulently anti-religion.
This could, and should, be exploited."

What's the game plan?

holy war

the banality of evil is a hackneyed phrase.

did anyone mention that she is totally creepy and when she writes about sex its like fucked up slash

So many books have this problem. Sophie's Choice, anyone?

So even now with the cloud of fear around her, while he taunts her and abuses her - even now her pleasure is not mere mild enjoyment but the perennially re-created bliss, and chill waves shiver down her back as she sucks and sucks and sucks. She is not even surprised that the more he torments her scalp, the more he goads her with the detested "Irma," the more gluttonous becomes her lust to swallow up his price, and when she ceases, just for an instant, and panting raises her head and gasps "Oh God, I love sucking you," the words are uttered with the same uncomplicated and spontaneous ardor as before. She opens her eyes, glimpses his tortured face, resumes blindly, realizing now that his voice has become a shout which begins to echo from the flanks of the rock strewn hill… The delicious marble palmtree, the slippery trunk swelling and expanding, tells her that he is on the edge of coming, tells her to relax so as to accept the pulsing flood, the seawater gush of palmtree milk, and in that instant of hovering expectancy, as always, she feels her eyes brim over with stinging inexplicable tears.

Rand, sadly, doesn't even have that much competency at writing a sex scene. Which is saying -- if you'll pardon me -- a mouthful.

Also see: all science fiction evar.

She also shares the problem of the subtlety of exposition with sf. Her characters exposit her philosophies at length, and with no transition more elegant than from one song on the radio to the next. "And now, my character will say all the things he thinks, and it will be clear that I either agree or disagree with this particular character's opinion." It's bargain-basement shit, it really is.

I tried reading one of her books in high school but abandoned it after she explained that no-one can ever truly perform an altruistic action because everything you do is inherently self-serving. Even as a moody self-wallowing teenager it was too narcissistic of an outlook for me. BS.

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2010/8/12hague.html

Ayn Rand Philosophy: MINE, MINE ALL MINE AND YOU CAN'T HAVE IT HAHAHAHAHA!!!

I see Randianism as a slight wrinkle on basic Calvinism, which included the idea that moral rectitude was rewarded by God with material prosperity, so therefore it was possible to gauge who among the upright was the most upright and who among the righteous was most righteous, by looking at their wealth. After all, because God has predestined all of us to our lot, it would be unthinkable that God would knowingly reward purity and righteousness with illness, poverty, misfortune and endless fruitless labors.

This was always a crock, but it has just enough of the Grasshopper vs. Ant fable in it to appear mildly plausible.

well, in rand's defense (not that i would), she ups the credibility of her argument by removing divine providence from the equation. thus one's material station in life derives not from preordained destiny, but from the congruence of one's actions & abilities with a sort of logical morality, the basic desire of the universe, or some such. which makes the whole thing harder to dismiss out of hand. though i still do, ha ha ha.

Aimless you do realize it's really easy to call Randianism a crock without pretending it has anything to do with God

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2010/08/worldsbiggestwriting-660x647.jpg
“The main reason I did it is because I am an Ayn Rand fan,” he says. “In my opinion if more people would read her books and take her ideas seriously, the country and world would be a better place — freer, more prosperous and we would have a more optimistic view of the future.”
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/08/worlds-biggest-writing/

can someone explain that man to me?!

melvillean 7 hours ago

I would write "Don't" in Canada.

if she was alive today she'd have a vv quotable column on 'the corner'

"The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky."

- Flannery O'Connor

Ayn Rand is an extremely interesting personality because of the historical and pop culture references she makes. Her work is sort of a document of mid-century economic and social relations. I highly recommend the documentary "A Sense of Life", it spends a lot of time on her Hollywood roots and her affection for the early film industry. As a media phenomenon she is very interesting. But she praises individualism and I don't understand how this squares with how some of her followers use her. I don't think a lot of them see her as a historic persona. I don't think they know a lot about Russia or respect her Russian roots.

If she were alive today she'd get a lot of attention, not all of it from "followers". I am not sure she would enjoy being cited as an influence by tea partiers, for example. She seemed to do everything possible to deter that sort of hero worship.

I don't think her fiction is that hot either but it is illuminating, again for its historic relevance. In the same way that detective fiction might be. I thought the "great books" model died with postmodernism.

She seemed to do everything possible to deter that sort of hero worship.

not true at all