Ayn Rand’s books are deliciously anti-statist, but her philosophy is borderline Nazi

Jeff Montgomery

As someone who lives by Rand's philosophy (which you have not presented here), I can tell you that Anthony Daniels' article was misleading and awful, and this article simply propagates the same misconceptions.

Regarding sympathy: Ayn Rand was not against it, she was making the epistemological claim that feelings are *not tools of cognition*, only reason is. Feelings, including the feelings of others, are indeed facts of reality like any other, to be taken into account in making choices. She is not saying to ignore them; she is saying not to allow feelings to cloud your grasp of reality. Example: succumbing to fear by passing up a fine career simply because your family doesn't approve. It was a stand for intellectual courage.

As far as society and frailty goes, you miss her point again. She was not against any particular group of people with particular capabilities. She was against watering down values to claim that less is more. She was against claiming that failure is *more worthy* than success, that imperfection is *more worthy* than perfection, etc. This was a stand for intellectual honesty.

Finally, you are interpreting romantic fiction by the standards of naturalism in your criticism of her characters. They were extreme to make her points, and to *provide a foil* to show certain human strengths to maximum advantage. She wasn't advocating rape, self-destruction or blowing up buildings. You are confusing the literary means with the end.

Likening Rand to a Nazi is beyond the pale. Shame on you. It's time to revisit Rand's original work with a more critical eye -- and mind.

david baker

Rands' followers include some very off-putting types in my experience. As a philosophy objectivism appeals to narcissist's as well as the socially inept. As a stepping stone to more nuanced views it is valuable. She is an important figure in modern conservatism although she would be shocked by that

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Ayn Rand, in my opinion, should never be read as a novelist. Her work should be studied as political philosophy,because as Delingpole points out her characters are severly flawed. They are cardboard cutouts and have no dimensions outside the written page. Where I disagree with Delingpole is when he states she is almost Nazi in her judgement of flawed humanity.When Delingpole demonstrates the 'Nietzschean contempt' for human fraility in her work, I believe he is correct when he sees the influence of Nietzsche, but cannot accept that there is a Nazi element in her philosophy. My reasons are as follows: a. Nietzsche despite much literary criticism stating that he held Nazi beliefs is not a hypothesis that I agree with, and b. Rand is brutally honest in her assessment of the human condition, and doesn't soften the blow. To appreciate her work, one should never attempt to read her as a novelist, the characters are dead and Delingpole is spot on, when he likens the dialogue as a conversation between Gladstone and Queen Victoria. Finally, to return to my first sentence, Rand is not a novelist, and should never be treated as one.