Randian cults

I'll admit I'm not an expert on Rand's work. I have studied its opposite, Marxism, with considerable focus and intensity. I'm not a huge fan of either however. Somewhere in between the truth lies, always to the grey we should look to find answers. I've read some of her books. What I tend to find fault with is the extreme imbalance that her characters develop. The extremist individualist, devoid of any social reactiveness, any social responsibility. These are premises which are inherent and necessary for a society to function.

She has a few points which are worth considering. For instance. Justice is a viewpoint which we are to consider as the punishment of wickedness. But is not there also a balance created when we reward and honor successes? Why are we so quick to defeat and defy success and why are we so quick to forgive wickedness? We are surely failing to apply justice in anything approaching even-handedness if we act in this manner. Rand believes the accomplishment of the individual is theirs to earn and keep if they so choose. I feel this is foolish and irrational, even evil in her terms. Accomplishments are to be shared, distributed, so as to have maximum impact. Certainly it is right to take credit, and to profit by our achievements. Certainly it is right to receive acclaim, fame and fortune. But Rand decides that to do so, to share willingly of ourselves and our ideas is perhaps a dangerous thing. A sort of mental looting perpetuates society and if we are to spread out this thing we have done, then it will no longer be our work that is celebrated. I'm not sure this is actually the case. There are times where the person behind the masterpiece is discarded. But usually the masterpiece begs the question, who did this?

A second problem is the lack of integration. Rand's characters are too bland. They have the presupposed ability to be more passionate, more powerful, but yet they are cut off from the source of their passion. Reason by itself does not rule, does not empower. It does not act. It stalls. It runs around and around in circles finding reasons NOT to act. Cutting one's self off from emotional and reactive responses is like cutting off an arm and pretending that it's still there. I found the 'black knight' funny too. But I'm not about to become him. He's a loony. Emotion does require balance, and that is reason's purpose. To give us a clearer path of action. But that path must be a team effort of emotion, intuition and reason. Reason alone cuts us off from actually caring about the result or the damage that we do ourselves. Such stoicism serves me well in that I fail to express emotions, most of the time, this is probably good as my emotions are often hostile. There are times however when I find a way to use them. And I believe I'm for the better when I do. I feel empowered and confident when I have an emotional stake in the game. I feel intelligent and wise the rest of the time, but this is by itself, useless.

Rand would have us reach this state, where we have such power, but does not give us clues to the capacity to reach it. Like other religions and cults, it claims to have answers but the real answers are not the end results, but the means to achieve them. We are in a society devoid of answers. Philosophers since Nietzche have been busy running around telling us the world doesn't have answers. Religions have been in steady retreat since the Renaissance. And governments or other institutions (like the media) are busy distracting us with entertainment or fears rather than feeding our craving for leadership and direction. This is a a dangerous time. One that Rand certainly grasped.