John Oliver goes to far. Attacks Ayn Rand

[MontagK505]

I think she stays in print because we keep making adolescents, and some of those adolescents will think they're smarter than everyone, better than everyone, and then need some explanatory theory for why they aren't more successful than everyone.

Unlike politicians and philosophers? It isn't that we keep making adolescents, it's that we keep lying to them (and ourselves). Some of them become national leaders (people who accept lying as normal and even desirable), some of them become followers of Sara Palin or some other guru, and some of them become drug addicts.
Rand can be just as bad because if you aren't "rational" then you're poop and now you have people feeling guilty because they're not as good as John Galt.

 

[dudalb]

Heinlein does make reference to John Galt as a secret persona of Mycroft Holmes, the computer that oversaw the resistance movement.

Heinlein makes a couple of Rand references, but in some of his private letters he make it;s clear that although he agrees with Ayn Rand on a number of points,he does not have a high opinion of her as a writer.

 

[dudalb]

One of the most irritating things about Rand's ideas about art is her habit of making moral judgements about other people based on what kind of art they liked. Other people do this as well, but she seemed to have a more virulent form. In her own way she was just as opinionated on these issues as any hard core fundamentalist.

An even better example of this was Rand's dislike of any kind of facial hair. She felt that the only kind of people who wore mustaches and beards were those who had something to hide. Barbara Brandon describes a couple of embarassment incidents that happened because of this prejudice.

 

[mumblethrax]

It isn't that we keep making adolescents, it's that we keep lying to them (and ourselves).

Sure.

If you want to explain Rand's ongoing appeal, you need to explain why that appeal is mostly limited to our formative years, and why almost everyone eventually grows out of it. Few become enraptured with her books at 40.

It's not like people stop lying to you, and that's when you lose interest in Ayn Rand.

 

[MontagK505]

Sure.

If you want to explain Rand's ongoing appeal, you need to explain why that appeal is mostly limited to our formative years, and why almost everyone eventually grows out of it. Few become enraptured with her books at 40.

It's not like people stop lying to you, and that's when you lose interest in Ayn Rand.

If her appeal is limited mostly to adolescents, then why are some people so concerned about her "influence"? They should be no more worried about her than they are about Batman. Oddly enough, she didn't have much use for political conservatives when she was alive. She detested William F. Buckley and his ilk. She despised Eisenhower. I think it's funny that some conservatives are mining her writings for ideas. If she were alive she would be peeing all over them.

 

[mumblethrax]

If her appeal is limited mostly to adolescents, then why are some people so concerned about her "influence"? They should be no more worried about her than they are about Batman.

Probably because some of the people who aren't in that "mostly" are sitting representatives? The day that somebody in Congress expresses serious admiration for Batman's political philosophy is the day that I'll worry about that.

 

[MontagK505]

Probably because some of the people who aren't in that "mostly" are sitting representatives? The day that somebody in Congress expresses serious admiration for Batman's political philosophy is the day that I'll worry about that.

I'd be a lot more about the religious nut-jobs in congress.

 

[mumblethrax]

I'd be a lot more about the religious nut-jobs in congress.

I address myself to reasonable people--I have some hope that people who once were enthused about Rand might one day be convinced that there's just nothing to her.

I have no such hope when it comes to nut-jobs, religious or otherwise.

 

[MontagK505]

I address myself to reasonable people--I have some hope that people who once were enthused about Rand might one day be convinced that there's just nothing to her. I have no such hope when it comes to nut-jobs, religious or otherwise.

That's your problem. Trying to pretend there is NOTHING to her is why you're probably not enjoying a lot of success.

She was likely emotionally scarred by growing up in the USSR. She saw everything her family worked for bled off by bums aided by the Bolsheviks. She was a Russian Jew which probably didn't help. Her educational background made her think there was a philosophical reason for the evils of Communism. That's what shaped her views. Being Russian shaped her literary style. She had a "my way or the highway" attitude that upset a lot of people. She was wrong about a lot of things. Tough! Get over it! These are not crimes against humanity. Most people who read Ayn Rand come to understand this.

 

[MontagK505]

It doesn't help that there are parents who start that nonsense early in childhood.

Actually it's parents that don't do that, that have children that look to Ayn Rand. Telling children it's wrong for them to lie while the parents tell constant lies does tend to encourage disrespect. The message you send: is when I grow up, I too can be a hypocritical lying adult.

 

[catsmate]

Have you tried the freehold series by Michael Z. Williamson?
Apart from the libertarian zeal it is quite good.

And the awful characterisation, plot holes and general stupidity...

 

[mumblethrax]

That's your problem. Trying to pretend there is NOTHING to her is why you're probably not enjoying a lot of success.

Like I said, I address myself to reasonable people. If you can't identify any useful idea that she contributed to the world and you want to believe that contributed useful ideas to the world anyway, I don't address myself to you.

 

[MontagK505]

Like I said, I address myself to reasonable people. If you can't identify any useful idea that she contributed to the world and you want to believe that contributed useful ideas to the world anyway, I don't address myself to you.

Well, you wasted time replying to me. And I never claimed her ideas were useful to the world at large. All I've said is that some people have read her stuff and they got some benefit from it. Some people have been harmed with unearned guilt by her chronic moralizing. The fact that most of that her ideas originated from her philosophy studies in Russia is hardly a crime. Some people are attracted to her writings because they thought she presented ideas in a interesting way. I've given my opinion as to why some people are attracted to her writings. Other than the claim that what she wrote was poop, you haven't bothered to explain much of anything.

 

[jimbob]

Objectivism, like Communism, is a ovelylousy idea on paper, which completely fails to function when it encounters actual human beings.

Highlighted to fix it for you.

 

[MontagK505]

Ayn Rand was half right. Her villains are real and her heroes are not.

There may be some truth to that. I've met a few corporate executives who act like they are channeling James Taggart. I've met a few people who are John Galt wannabes, with poor sucess. In the Nine Names of Odin, these are characters in a freeping novel people, get a life.

 

[MontagK505]

I never understood why Randroids and Scientologists idolize such incredibly awful writers.

Rand's books do sell a lot more then L. Ron's so I don't think you can regard them as equally bad. Equating "Battlefield Earth" with "The Fountainhead" seems a bit unfair.

 

[MontagK505]

Because of the enduring message that you are the most important person in the universe and spaceships used to look like DC-8s.

Honestly, how can you not get on board with that?

I can understand the first part, after all somebody has to regard you as important. so it might as well be you. The second part is a complete failure of imagination and originality.

 

[MontagK505]

As if anyone even knows who John Galt is.

That's the whole idea. Who is John Galt anyway?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Rand's books do sell a lot more then L. Ron's so I don't think you can regard them as equally bad. Equating "Battlefield Earth" with "The Fountainhead" seems a bit unfair.

I know. One involves a fictional reality that could never work. The other has purple aliens.

 

[Apathia]

That's the whole idea. Who is John Galt anyway?

You bit the hook!