Ayn Rand: The Ultimate INTJ

[Into It]

Tell me what to think about objectivism. I value your opinion over my own.

 

[pure_mercury]

There's a lot there I kind of enjoy, but Rand herself was a crazy bitch.

 

[Into It]

There's a lot there I kind of enjoy, but Rand herself was a crazy bitch.

I'm 3/4 through The Fountainhead. I can't help but to think that exact same thing...Her preface to TF is that the book was written "to present the perfect man" rather than to present objectivism. I just don't see how he is the perfect man...I don't see how his character would not be improved by adding compassion, but she seems to think this.

 

[pure_mercury]

I'm 3/4 through The Fountainhead. I can't help but to think that exact same thing...Her preface to TF is that the book was written "to present the perfect man" rather than to present objectivism. I just don't see how he is the perfect man...I don't see how his character would not be improved by adding compassion, but she seems to think this.

Well, part of the point of Objectivism is that you should not be compassionate toward the unproductive/lazy/unscrupulous. Politically, Rand and I share a lot of views, but the unremitting orthodoxy and dogma is silly. What's the point of being a libertarian if you have someone telling you which books to read, which films to watch, how you should behave in personal relationships, and so on?

 

[jenocyde]

Well, part of the point of Objectivism is that you should not be compassionate toward the unproductive/lazy/unscrupulous. Politically, Rand and I share a lot of views, but the unremitting orthodoxy and dogma is silly. What's the point of being a libertarian if you have someone telling you which books to read, which films to watch, how you should behave in personal relationships, and so on?

yes yes yes. She was definitely not a libertarian, though. Libertarianism is complete personal/economic rights as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's (of course there is more to it than that...) And Objectivism is complete personal rights, no matter whose rights you infringe upon because the perception of rights is objective to you. Among other things, it denounces religion, as well as altruism (which obviously does not lend to someone who feels it is their right to aid or worship). "Rational self-interest" does not appeal to me and makes no logical or practical sense.

I find her writing to be too preachy, for one. And though she may start off with a good idea, she takes it to a ridiculous extreme. Especially with her characters being either gross, unreachable prototypes, or bumbling stereotypes. There are never any shades of gray in humanity, in her writings.

Atlas Shrugged was my favorite novel of hers, but there is a whole ~100pg chunk (the John Galt monologue) that I just skip over since she just bangs the same idea into your head over and over and over. She's relentless. Anthem was a good novella.

 

[Into It]

Among other things, it denounces religion, as well as altruism (which obviously does not lend to someone who feels it is their right to aid or worship). "Rational self-interest" does not appeal to me and makes no logical or practical sense.

I find her writing to be too preachy, for one. And though she may start off with a good idea, she takes it to a ridiculous extreme. Especially with her characters being either gross, unreachable prototypes, or bumbling stereotypes. There are never any shades of gray in humanity, in her writings.

Anthem was a good novella.

I liked Anthem. I read it first, and I was surprised when I started reading TF, because the main character is of such a similar mind and profession...So I'm curious: would it be within the boundaries of objectivism to say that each person has his own views, and the world would be best if each person followed his own calling? This makes a lot of sense to me because of the different needs that different people have (illustrated by MBTI). For instance, I and the other NF's I know value altruism, and this is an important piece of the whole. Scientific advancement is also an important element of humanity, as well as art. We each have our niche, and we all follow and enforce these laws within ourselves. That is my view on the state of things, which could be considered a practical, working objectivism. But I just do not understand why altruism should be cut out of the picture. I will read on this subject someday, but can someone briefly explain this to me?

 

[jenocyde]

I liked Anthem. I read it first, and I was surprised when I started reading TF, because the main character is of such a similar mind and profession...So I'm curious: would it be within the boundaries of objectivism to say that each person has his own views, and the world would be best if each person followed his own calling? This makes a lot of sense to me because of the different needs that different people have (illustrated by MBTI). For instance, I and the other NF's I know value altruism, and this is an important piece of the whole. Scientific advancement is also an important element of humanity, as well as art. We each have our niche, and we all follow and enforce these laws within ourselves. That is my view on the state of things, which could be considered a practical, working objectivism. But I just do not understand why altruism should be cut out of the picture. I will read on this subject someday, but can someone briefly explain this to me?

Then you would lean more toward Libertarianism (hey, you're in good company *coughs*) For a matter of record, Libertarianism encourages altruism, rather than relying on the state.

There are positive foundations of Objectivism in my eyes, but the negatives bear more weight for me.

some random (albeit, illustrative to my negative points) quotes from Objectivim website:

"You cannot say 'I love you' if you cannot say the 'I'," wrote Ayn Rand. According to Objectivism, a person's own life and happiness is the ultimate good. To achieve happiness requires a morality of rational selfishness, one that does not give undeserved rewards to others and that does not ask them for oneself.

"An artwork must therefore be accessible to comprehension at the level of perception. It must be recognizably representative of something. A painting that presents a figure or scene is art. Paint splotches are not. "

"Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness."

'The few times Ayn Rand spoke publicly about homosexuality, her remarks were disparaging. She said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting"'

"Objectivism rejects any notion of the supernatural as incompatible with the objectivity and regularity of nature as identified by reason. There is no credible evidence of miracles, magic, or other supernatural phenomena in nature." (in reference to religion)

 

[Thalassa]

Ok. The Fountainhead opens with worshipful images of a nude man. There's lots of stuff in objectivism about how women should follow man's lead. Perfect men, hero worship = romance novel.

Also, she calls lots of things "objective" which in reality are just cultural social conditioning and her personal preferences. Objectivism is creepy, sort of like organized religion.

As far as libertarians are concerned, I'd take a nice altruistic Ron Paul-ite over a Randroid any day. Of course, Ayn would have probably punched you in the face if you called her a libertarian. Because she wasn't one.

 

[Edgar]

Ayn Rand is the ultimate INTJ in the same way that Colonel Klink was the ultimate German.

 

[mortabunt]

Ayn Rand is an INTJ for sure, but I like her books.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Yeah, the ultimate INTJ, with Nietzche and Ann Coulter.

 

[Ginkgo]

Don't forget Kant.

 

[Mal12345]

Don't forget Kant.

I can't fathom how he can be confused with an INTP, but it happens.

 

[highlander]

I think I've read all of her significant books. The Foutainhead was really good but the other ones were kind of boring.

As far as her philosophy goes, there are some interesting tidbits but she was a bit of a loon IMO.

 

[Ginkgo]

I can't fathom how he can be confused with an INTP, but it happens.

The arguments I've heard usually state his categorical imperative to be some sort of Ti concoction. However, I don't think it's wise to type someone exclusively by their philosophies. Even a quick wiki search would reveal the structure in his behavior and how he conducted himself was very orderly. He wasn't a social creature, but he had a sense of duty and what "ought" to be, to the point of being Jung's extraverted thinking incarnate. He may have been a professor, but he was not absent minded.

 

[Nicodemus]

Yeah, the ultimate INTJ, with Nietzche and Ann Coulter.

I am not sure whether that is a joke or not, but Nietzsche was hardly 'the ultimate INTJ'. The writer appears clearly so, but the person Nietzsche strikes me more as an INFJ. According to celebritytypes.com, Jung typed him as INxJ.

 

[Ginkgo]

Nietzsche is a mixed bag. His health problems hampered is potential to engage with the world; whatever extraversion he had was pretty feeble.

 

[Santosha]

Who is arguing that Rand is not an INTJ? Ni dom and inferior Fi seem so evident.

I still can't figure out why everyone gets their panties in a bundle' over Rand though, lol. There are many, many other controversial writers as well. I suppose her altruism attacks leave many unesettled and disturbed. Though anything that one finds deeply unsettling should probably be looked at carefully. It is good to challenge your own beliefs, and Rand certainly does this. She takes the potential, a few key ideas and pushes them to the extreme. Its fucking fiction! She intended it to be that way. It reminds me of the satirical, dystopian fiction that Vonnegut puts out. Welcome to the Monkey Box. Harrison Bergeron. I enjoyed these as well. It was mentioned in another thread, and I'm going to repeat it.. saying that Rand is worthless is more of a reflection on the reader than Rand.

I think I will go buy a bumper sticker today that reads "Rand is coming for YOU!"

 

[Mal12345]

The arguments I've heard usually state his categorical imperative to be some sort of Ti concoction. However, I don't think it's wise to type someone exclusively by their philosophies. Even a quick wiki search would reveal the structure in his behavior and how he conducted himself was very orderly. He wasn't a social creature, but he had a sense of duty and what "ought" to be, to the point of being Jung's extraverted thinking incarnate. He may have been a professor, but he was not absent minded.

Agreed. I was originally on another thread about Bruce Lee's type where I commented to someone from celebritytypes.com that Kant's lifestyle was that of a J (INTJ, and not INTP as the site claimed). And on this thread, I commented that his philosophy was INTJ based on a really interesting quote I ran across online yesterday about Kant's philosophy. I shared the same quote on the Bruce Lee thread as further evidence - not the only evidence - of Kant's personality type.

So what I wrote above was part of a continuing thought-process that started on the other thread.

 

[Mal12345]

Who is arguing that Rand is not an INTJ? Ni dom and inferior Fi seem so evident.

I still can't figure out why everyone gets their panties in a bundle' over Rand though, lol. There are many, many other controversial writers as well. I suppose her altruism attacks leave many unesettled and disturbed. Though anything that one finds deeply unsettling should probably be looked at carefully. It is good to challenge your own beliefs, and Rand certainly does this. She takes the potential, a few key ideas and pushes them to the extreme. Its fucking fiction! She intended it to be that way. It reminds me of the satirical, dystopian fiction that Vonnegut puts out. Welcome to the Monkey Box. Harrison Bergeron. I enjoyed these as well. It was mentioned in another thread, and I'm going to repeat it.. saying that Rand is worthless is more of a reflection on the reader than Rand.

I think I will go buy a bumper sticker today that reads "Rand is coming for YOU!"

Not to derail the thread, but Rand wrote more than fiction. She was life-and-death serious about her philosophical essays written mainly in the 1960s - 1975. And Galt's Speech was part of a fictional work, but the ideas in it were not fictional to Rand. (Maybe they are fiction to Rand-haters...)