Far from being the proper egotist in the sense that Sam Harris describes as "not understanding pro-social emotions", Ms. Rand was the most elegantly self-centered primate whom I had the privilege of studying.
Once on the Phil Donahue show, she denied the host's goad to worship at the altar of ecology (not having been impressed by natural spectacles) by saying that she was "in awe of skyscrapers... of what man was able to construct on his OWN." Contingent upon the point of reference, Rand was theologically consistent in a Protestant manner. Ironically, of course, for the woman who claims to have had no faith at all, and who uttered that religiosity was demonstrative of "a bad sign psychologically." In other words, to believe something that by definition man knows cannot be true and is unsubstantiated in any way. I have made it plain on several occasions how dishonest Gnostic Atheism is, let alone when it's accompanied by the boring statement "you are never called upon to prove a negative."
Nonetheless, the theological postulate resides. Rand was heavily anthropocentric in a cosmological sense. This quote from a latter television appearance illustrates her almost erotic love for men and mankind. Far from being devoid of the numinous, she expanded her veneration for mammals in the strictest metaphysical sense - homo sapiens sapiens are distinct from all other creations, potentially universally, and deserve such recognition and adulation lest we revert to paganism; much of which is all too salient in modern dietary habits. She seemed almost prescient, dare I say clairvoyant? For this, I claim that the cliche and hackneyed assessment of Objectivism as being fanatically arid and lugubrious is specious. This may even connect to her writings in the Romantic manifesto (which I admit I have yet to read) and Kira's aspirations to one day contribute to the alleged glory of the concrete jungle in We the Living.
I have always been suspicious of the severely shallow criticisms of her work by public intellectuals, who undoubtedly benefit from assailing a deceased figure. My beloved Hitch repeated the same noise when confronted with this question:
"I have always found it quaint that there is a part of the American electorate who thinks that people are not yet selfish enough"
"It's too strenuous to recommend that people be even more self-centered"
"Allan Greenspan is a walking contradiction"
"Novels as transcendentally awful as Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead undermine my project... to redirect literature and philosophy as epicenters for moral discussion"
All of the above appear to me to be witticisms lacking substance. Not necessarily invalid or incoherent, but requiring development and example. Then again, I suppose Hitchens did make a career out of eloquence, charm, and the occasional intellectual posturing. Shifting from the questionably Marxist to certifiably Hegelian, I have also heard Slavoj Zizek claim that "Ayn Rand is so orthodox, that she is a parody of capitalism itself. Her ultra-conformism is so powerful, that she exposes the absurdity and evils of the system unconsciously. She is an embarrassment." I did take some liberties with the superstar communist's words, but the aforementioned quotation is an accurate reflection of his analysis. As for Jordan Peterson's view, we need not stumble around in the dark. Centrist as ever, Peterson proclaimed that he enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged on multiple occasions, but does not interpret Ayn as a great mind. Less political or economical in scrutiny, JBP stated that her characters are too one dimensional; a dearth of intra-character struggle between good and evil. Binary as ever in critique, which I presume is to be expected.
Thanks,
No John Galt
