concerning The Journals of Ayn Rand

 

What Ayn Rand Stood For: On the New York Times non-review of the The Journals of Ayn Rand


To The Editors of The NY Times,

In reading David Brook's alleged review (10/5/97) of The Journals of Ayn Rand, he states that "to be one of the best-selling authors of the century" one "should be pompous, egomaniacal, humorless and vehement". Unfortunately, Brooks disproves his own theory: in reading his review it is clear that he is all of these things -- except successful. In contrast, Miss Rand was none of these things -- except a best seller. 

The reason why Ayn Rand was the most influential author of this century (according to a Library of Congress survey published a few years ago) is that she actually had something worth saying.

What did Ayn Rand have to say? Her philosophy -- Objectivism -- can be summed up in four words: reality, reason, rights, and capitalism.

First and foremost Ayn Rand observed that reality is absolute. Things are what they are, regardless of our feelings, desires, or whims. Or, to quote her favorite philosopher, Aristotle, "A is A".

Secondly, Rand held that to grasp reality, and survive in it, each and every man (gender neutral usage) must use his reason -- the faculty that identifies and integrates the data provided by ones senses.

Thirdly, Rand held that to live in society, man must be free to act by his own rational self-interest, not by permission of others, but by inalienable right. Rand was not against men living together in society, as long as it was a human society -- one that regards every man as a free individual, as opposed to a slave.

Lastly, Rand advocated laissez-faire capitalism as the ideal social system. Rand was adamantly opposed to altruism (a theory that preaches the inhuman creed of slavery, selflessness, and sacrifice) and the altruist's ideal: Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, and Red China. And this is why she so loved America: despite its blemishes, it was the most moral country that ever existed. 

Ayn Rand's only problem with the original American political system was its' contradictory ethical base: altruism. 

In her view, America was the tallest, brightest and most beautiful skyscraper built for man -- supported on a foundation of quicksand. Rand knew that in any contest between politics (the skyscraper) and morality (the foundation), morality always wins. So to save the greatest political discovery, she had to make an even greater moral one: she had to discover a morality that does not teach man how to suffer and die, but how to enjoy life and live. 

This is why irrationalists, altruists, and collectivists hate her -- and why so many others love her -- the issues she talks about are fundamental to human life.

Unfortunately, Mr. Brooks does not mention any of these essentials in his non-review. His substitution of axe-grinding, smears, and name-calling for Miss Rand's arguments, does nothing to assist Time's readers in judging whether to read The Journals of Ayn Rand, or not. 

An incompetent review like David Brooks is unworthy of a paper like the Times. I look forward to the Times publishing a fair review that also provides Miss Rand's side of the story. Does not Ayn Rand as the quintessential American of the Twentieth century deserve at least this much?

M. Da Cunha