Thoughts on the philosophy of Ayn Rand

There too much idealism within Ayn Rand’s books – the ideal of what a man, and a woman should be. The ideal that always stands to be perfection because of the contrasts she depicts – the contrasts of weak men partiality on unfocused humanitarian concepts that have no real sustainable or noble use to man’s development. Great men must never bend from their principles, their pride in who they are, their convictions of what they stand for… this is the ideal that Ayn Rand proposes, in utter simplicity and yet great pain. She sees the world from her perspective with a truth that her eyes teach her.
But it is not the whole truth, it is a facet only. There are many things that are grown incomprehensible to her mind because of her rigid stance in a free market, and detest for communist principles. Although she consistently attempts to forestall the virtue of these other facets that are the ingredients in what ‘a better human existence’ are, she fails upon scrutiny. Perhaps what is amiss is history – she has lived in an era of prosperity and great industrial growth, with no true knowledge of the impact that such a growth meant. The world was, to minds then, endless property from which one could feed from. It has proven to be not, but only now do we realize the seriousness of this issue.
Rand’s ideal world is the exact opposite of Daoism. Rand proposes that man shall move constantly forward, never to be content with what is now and but find pleasure in what could be. Man cannot be distracted from other complex motivations than their simple pleasure in what they can achieve – and clear-cut goals to set their pace. By this principle, man is sure to succeed. If a man’s conviction in himself can hold water, he can, and it is his duty, to ignore what ulterior opinions may imply.
Daoism, on the other hand, proposes a world that should always be stagnate – with everyone content with what little they need to do to survive, and not pursue ulterior pleasure. Ambition is a corrupting factor, only a stagnate human society would create a sustainable utopia. Yes, Daoism seeks utopia. Objectivism seeks endless possibilities and the centerpiece of the human ego.
With the knowledge we have today of the condition our world is in, we know that endless possibilities, at least in the direction that Rand has pointed for us, is sure destruction. Perhaps in the now, what we may propose of Rand’s ideas can no longer fit the form of society she envisioned, but come in another industrial aspect – a shift in job focuses, in human goals… shifts that will not be less noble because they do not follow her exact formula. Though Rand hates compromises, this is not a compromise, but an execution of philosophy due to circumstance that she would be unwise to find fault with. Responsible managing, for example – particularly towards the environment; a certain level of social and human responsibility. These things in no way denote the detestably fallible socialist system that Rand has consistently disparaged in her work. But a means of survival in face of crisis’s that Rand could not have foreseen in her time.
Admittedly, for any social system to work, we need to abandon the structures of Rand’s ideal. The personality and will behind this force, however, is another matter.
In Rand’s world, she often shows up great men by the weaker ones, and uses intense jealousy as the reason for whatever hatred and furtive feelings that these lesser men hold for the greater ones. The weaker ones are abundant, aimless, scared and confused. They grow cocky when they’re alone, or among people who have less power than they, but they gain a perceptible inferiority complex whenever they are among those who are truly great. Holding on to the higher vision, the great men rarely defers to pay attention to these little people or whatever resentful sensations that flickers across their pitiably normal little minds. Indeed, if the great people observe it, they acknowledge the danger of such enmity but continue to ignore it, taking whatever unsolicited revenge as an insult to the propagator himself with stoic self containment.
This brings me to the other bias that Rand employs – the admiration of genius. This admiration a tribute to Rand is because it sticks to her free market principles – in which the stronger wins and the weaker does not. What makes this concept culpable, however, is that sense that Rand exudes concerning these gifts of intelligent, discernment and strong will. Because Rand espouses such with such a fervency, whilst demeaning any ‘other’ as weakness, it can be inferred that Rand believes such is capable by power of will. While I do not doubt that Rand herself may contain such a strong character, and her husband as well, it is too much to ask of others as well. From most perspectives, Rand’s principles would be considered stiff and extreme at best. This is also an exact opposition to Dao principles, because Daoism believes that man should be adjustable, like water, and extremes always breed opposite extremes, keeping a society in constant turmoil and its people in constant unhappiness. Such a spirit is abnormal in the human psyche.
Indeed, Rand teaches us to strive – both for our own principles and the pleasures of our work. In fact, she gives us an utopia not unlike that envisioned by Karl Marx when he depicts a world where man will help one another and be satisfied. Perhaps her egoism incentive is far more appealing, but the human psyche cannot be fulfilled merely by the pleasure and reward one gleans from one’s work, nor the satisfaction in exultation of self. Viewed in this manner, Rand’s philosophy, though progressive, is still too simplistic to stand on it’s own, and must be relegated to self-help books that people who desire a sense of purpose would wish to purchase.

(This is something I'm definitely not going to send for the Ayn Rand scholarship.)