John Oliver goes to far. Attacks Ayn Rand

[mumblethrax]

In other words, even Objectivism has useful ideas, but if you think it's a way to organize a country, you're as crazy as the Bolsheviks.

But does it have any novel useful ideas? It's not like she was the first critic of communism the world ever saw, and she was very far from the best.

The problem with Rand, as a philosophaster, is one that she shares with many others that go down that path. When she's right, she's thoroughly derivative (but seems incapable of recognizing that), and when she's wrong, she's crashingly wrong. It's a shame that so much ink has been spilled in her name.

 

[MontagK505]

But does it have any novel useful ideas? It's not like she was the first critic of communism the world ever saw, and she was very far from the best.

The problem with Rand, as a philosophaster, is one that she shares with many others that go down that path. When she's right, she's thoroughly derivative (but seems incapable of recognizing that), and when she's wrong, she's crashingly wrong. It's a shame that so much ink has been spilled in her name.

It's a real pain to some people that her badly written novels keep staying in print. I agree with RandFan, she had some useful ideas. Her biggest fault is she too often assumed she had knowledge when she really didn't know what she was talking about. I think her criticism of altruism as a philosophical ideal as a source of much of the evil in the world is right on.

 

[mumblethrax]

It's a real pain to some people that her badly written novels keep staying in print.

Not to me. To me, it's a pain that she's still taken seriously by people who don't really understand what philosophers do. I mean, I don't really care that the Twilight books are likely to be around for a very long time.

I agree with RandFan, she had some useful ideas.

So, what are they? I'd be particularly interested in useful ideas that had never been put forward by better thinkers than Rand.

I think her criticism of altruism as a philosophical ideal as a source of much of the evil in the world is right on.

Whereas I think it's intellectually dishonest, as it relies on a definition of altruism that nobody had used for about a century at the time of her writing. It's also a prime example of where engaging in some peer review would have done her a world of good.

And here's a good example of where she's thoroughly derivative: Nietzsche beat her to the criticism by many decades.

 

[Travis]

Being a parent while being an Objectivist must be a weird thing. I mean you have this little child who is utterly dependent on you and your instincts are to help them along. But then you have the ideology that you should never help others competing with your emotions.

What do you do? Raise the child but keep them in a spartan bedroom with only a cardboard box to play with? Do you throw a party when they turn 18 and you are no longer legally responsible for the welfare of your "parasite" that has a name?

 

[MontagK505]

Not to me. To me, it's a pain that she's still taken seriously by people who don't really understand what philosophers do. I mean, I don't really care that the Twilight books are likely to be around for a very long time.


So, what are they? I'd be particularly interested in useful ideas that had never been put forward by better thinkers than Rand.


Whereas I think it's intellectually dishonest, as it relies on a definition of altruism that nobody had used for about a century at the time of her writing. It's also a prime example of where engaging in some peer review would have done her a world of good.

And here's a good example of where she's thoroughly derivative: Nietzsche beat her to the criticism by many decades.

You're right, many people don't understand what what philosophers do. And whose fault is that?
There are better thinkers that Ayn Rand, no doubt. So why are more people reading Rand rather than Nietzsche?

I never fell into the trap of seeing Rand as some sort of "goddess of reason" that some of her followers do. But neither do I have the knee-jerk hatred that some of her detractors seem to experience. Look at almost any thread about her, and it turns into a dog pile of hatred that is out of proportion to her failings as a writer or philosopher.

 

[mumblethrax]

You're right, many people don't understand what what philosophers do. And whose fault is that?

People who have not made even the slightest effort to engage with philosophy in any meaningful way are probably primarily to blame. Philosophers who refuse to engage with the public also carry some blame, although I don't think there are many of those left in the English-speaking world. Most that I've talk with seem quite eager to communicate their ideas to the public, even if that can be very difficult.

There are better thinkers that Ayn Rand, no doubt. So why are more people reading Rand rather than Nietzsche?

For the same reason that more people on this forum have likely read Sam Harris than Hume, Kant, Bentham, Mills, Moore, Anscombe, or Parfit. Because it's relatively rare for people to set aside identity politics and engage with challenging thought, even among self-identified critical thinkers (maybe especially among that group). Harris says "Science!" and science fanboys line up to read him with an insufficiently critical eye. In the 1950s, Rand said "Capitalism!" and the capitalism fanboys lined up to read her.

The idea that these people aren't blameworthy for producing junk philosophy isn't one that I'm going to take very seriously.

I never fell into the trap of seeing Rand as some sort of "goddess of reason" that some of her followers do. But neither do I have the knee-jerk hatred that some of her detractors seem to experience. Look at almost any thread about her, and it turns into a dog pile of hatred that is out of proportion to her failings as a writer or philosopher.

Oh, I don't have knee-jerk hatred of her, either. I have the kind of distaste that one develops after reading an argument and noticing that it's complete garbage right out of the gate.

 

[RandFan]

But does it have any novel useful ideas? It's not like she was the first critic of communism the world ever saw, and she was very far from the best.

The problem with Rand, as a philosophaster, is one that she shares with many others that go down that path. When she's right, she's thoroughly derivative (but seems incapable of recognizing that), and when she's wrong, she's crashingly wrong. It's a shame that so much ink has been spilled in her name.

These are fair points IMO. Rand was not a rigorous philosopher (I try to avoid the use of that title with her). Her ideas were shallow and derivative. I credit her not for pioneering but for defending an important precept at a time of seemingly growing communist influence.

That said, I honestly don't know if Rand hurt society more than she helped. As I said before, it would be a bit grand to suggest that America was in danger of becoming socialist (nationalizing industry) much less so called communist.

 

[RandFan]

It's a real pain to some people that her badly written novels keep staying in print. I agree with RandFan, she had some useful ideas. Her biggest fault is she too often assumed she had knowledge when she really didn't know what she was talking about. I think her criticism of altruism as a philosophical ideal as a source of much of the evil in the world is right on.

Agreed. So called Communism elevated society over the individual. Rand defended the idea that humans were the most productive when they pursued selfish goals like those mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. To put my spin on it, we are not ants. We do not perform well as a society if humans can so easily be sacrificed for the good of the state. I liked Rand's view of human individuals as noble creatures. Where Rand failed in my estimation is that she seemed to play into the notion of class. Her noble creature, "man", was in fact the noble producers, industrialists, bankers, entrepreneurs, inovaters and industrialists. Never mind that the normal distribution of human potential at birth is the same for rich and poor. Never mind that wealth is not possible without workers and consumers. Never mind that while there is more opportunity in America to rise above one's birth status than other nations, there is still stratification in America.

 

[RandFan]

I never fell into the trap of seeing Rand as some sort of "goddess of reason" that some of her followers do. But neither do I have the knee-jerk hatred that some of her detractors seem to experience. Look at almost any thread about her, and it turns into a dog pile of hatred that is out of proportion to her failings as a writer or philosopher.

You hit the nail on the head. I think the problem arises in part because we have an incorrect view of human nature. It's difficult to get past the intuition of a self that is analytical over rationalizing. That there is some quality of human nature that is either good or bad. I can find no truly "good" people. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. FDR imprisoned an entire race of people against their will.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Even the giants. Newton's work was preceded by others. So was Einstein's. Human progress is one of increment and many if not most advances were preceded by other advances and are foundational more than pinnacle.

I think we need to get beyond this notion that a person must be judged either good or bad. In fact, my taste for theater of the absurd and nihilism is beginning to out pace my optimism. I like to think that humanity is a noble enterprise but in the end the entirety of human existence is a trifle.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I was never an objectivist. I've certainly moved away from libertarianism. What I liked about Rand I still do. She popularized an important aspect of human nature. I think rational self interest is a valid socioeconomic principle. Communism was a real existential threat to free enterprise. I'm not claiming that she was the savior of capitalism but I think her message important. That said, while rational self interest does not obviate charity she obviously didn't think much of it. What she failed to understand is that reciprocal altruism is in our best interest. Given the likes of Paul Ryan I'm not sure if her legacy is a net good or net bad.

And at least we know that people like you on the dole are what is the greatest threat.

 

[Lorentz]

I cannot resist interjecting this quote into any discussion on the subject of Ayn Rand.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

(from Kung Fu Monkey)

 

[RandFan]

And at least we know that people like you on the dole are what is the greatest threat.

People on the dole should, in the least, be grateful for the benefits derived.

It's interesting. I've never been able to fully reconcile Rand and her willingness to take social security. On the one hand it is an insurance she paid into and was entitled to. On the other she was so seemingly hostile to such public programs. I think criticism is fair.

I chalk it up to what Private Joker called the Jungian thing. That doesn't excuse any moral inconsistency on her part of course.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Never mind that while there is more opportunity in America to rise above one's birth status than other nations, there is still stratification in America.

Do you mean all other nations, or some other nations?

 

[RandFan]

Do you mean all other nations, or some other nations?

Thank you. "Some". The truth is that a number of nations arguably have more upward mobility than America.

I reject American exceptionalism. Politicians spew that crap to get elected. We need to stop with the "greatest nation on earth" meme. I love my country like I love my parents. A lot, even though I did not pick either. However, I'm not blind. My parents were imperfect and so is my country.

 

[BenBurch]

I admit I was a fan when I was a teen. Rand was nasty to people in her personal life. I started to lose respect for her when I found out about that. And the more I have learned about many things, the less respect for her I have. I consider her to be a con-artist.

 

[Craig B]

I've never been able to fully reconcile Rand and her willingness to take social security. On the one hand it is an insurance she paid into and was entitled to. On the other she was so seemingly hostile to such public programs. I think criticism is fair.

Yes indeed; and she would have made Mises very cross, after he praised her in these terms, as I quoted earlier

You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.
If this be arrogance, as some of your critics observed, it still is the truth that had to be said in this age of the Welfare State.

She had such courage as is required to tell the masses that, perhaps, but not the greater courage needed to eschew the Welfare State on her own account.

 

[RandFan]

Yes indeed; and she would have made Mises very cross, after he praised her in these terms, as I quoted earlier...

Okay.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Thank you. "Some". The truth is that a number of nations arguably have more upward mobility than America.

That's what I thought you meant, but it's always wise to check such things, I find.

 

[maxpower1227]

Who is John Oliver?

 

[12AX7]

I consider her to be a con-artist.

Well that would exlain why so many conservatives love her.