Why the hate on Ayn Rand?

[jakesteele]

Sometimes there are some things on this forum that I just don't get. One of them is the hate and ridicule on Ayn Rand. I don't know that much about her other than she was a famous author who wrote some seminal works that made her stand out from the crowd.

I tried to read Atlas Shrugged in high school as an assignment but got bored, skimmed through enough to get a C on a book report. From Wiki-ing her she seemed to be famous for the philosophy of Objectivism.

Objectivism is a philosophy created by the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982). Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.

So what's all the fuss about?

 

[ravdin]

What I don't like about Ayn Rand: she was essentially a cult leader who defined rationalism as anything that was liked by Ayn Rand. She was also a crackpot who wanted to return to the gold standard, thought that poor people were poor because they were morally inferior, and thought it was wrong to help people without any self-interest.

What I do like about Ayn Rand: she wasn't wrong about everything! A lot of Tea Party types love to quote her, but conveniently ignore that she didn't care at all for their religion. This is right on the money- and I hope that Glenn Beck watches it.

 

[drkitten]

Sometimes there are some things on this forum that I just don't get. One of them is the hate and ridicule on Ayn Rand. I don't know that much about her other than she was a famous author who wrote some seminal works that made her stand out from the crowd.

Largely, because of her completely failed evangelism for a completely unrealistic and unworkable economic system, wrapped up in some philosophical trash that would make a sophisticated college sophomore blush.

As an author, she's mediocre, and as an economic philosopher, she's about as wrong as it's possible to be without working for Fox News. The problem is that a whole bunch of libertarian wannabees latch onto her writings as a proof of validity and workability of libertarian ideas.

Basically, Rand is a card-carrying member of the You Fail Economics Forever club. As TVTropes puts it,

"Combined with all the above is the general zeroth rule of the Author Tract:

Regardless of quality, writing a work of fiction neither adds nor subtracts empirical evidence to or from your point of view. It may display evidence, it may make an argument using that evidence, it may convince the reader using that evidence. However, merely writing a fictional work about a free-market/socialist utopia/dystopia does not prove anything.

Too many authors forget this."

 

[HansMustermann]

Well... "Objectivism" is BS and bad enough as it is, and there is something to be said about her crackpot followers and theories on the whole... but for me basically her trying to justify rape and then using the the-bitch-wanted-it defense about her rape scene, is pretty much the rock bottom. You can't get much lower than that.

 

[Dinwar]

I consider myself something of an objectivist (with a little "o"; there was a big stink about that), and even I get annoyed with Rand. The problem was, she was incapable of separating her personal views from what she considered rational views. She liked classical music and hated drums, so that was the rational choice--despite the fact that in The Romantic Manifesto she states that no one really understands exactly how music works in the human brain. She didn't like homosexuality, so it was wrong--despite a complete lack of understanding of the phenomenon.

A lot of it comes from differing opinons as well. When you differ on an opinion held deeply enough, it gets heated. That's one reason I've taken to reading Chesterton--it presents me with both sides of the issue (more or less), so I can do the whole "goblen universe" thing.

thought that poor people were poor because they were morally inferior, and thought it was wrong to help people without any self-interest.

She did not think that. In fact, she goes out of her way to illustrate that poor people are poor because of government regulations. And she didn't think that helping people was wrong, necessarily; she simply didn't think it was important. The idea that it was an obligation to help them is wrong according to her, but your purchasing power is yours to use as you see fit. If you want to hoard it do so. If you want to distribute it among 10,000 people, have fun. She speaks strongly against the idea, but any who tell you that you must not give your money away are violating your property rights (it's your cash, after all) and are therefore necessarily wrong.

 

[HansMustermann]

Largely, because of her completely failed evangelism for a completely unrealistic and unworkable economic system, wrapped up in some philosophical trash that would make a sophisticated college sophomore blush.

As an author, she's mediocre, and as an economic philosopher, she's about as wrong as it's possible to be without working for Fox News. The problem is that a whole bunch of libertarian wannabees latch onto her writings as a proof of validity and workability of libertarian ideas.

You know, now that you mention that, I think it gets even more general than that. I keep running into people quoting some fictional character or another of hers as if it were proof that, say, there is some secret government agenda to criminalize as much stuff to control people that way. I mean, hey, look, they even have a quote of someone saying it's so, so it's true!

I mean, we all like to throw around funny quotes or profound sounding quotes or illustrate some point that is already evident or supported otherwise, but Jesus-Christ-onna-stick... there are people out there for which a quote from Ayn Rand is _evidence_.

 

[Dinwar]

I mean, we all like to throw around funny quotes or profound sounding quotes or illustrate some point that is already evident or supported otherwise, but Jesus-Christ-onna-stick... there are people out there for which a quote from Ayn Rand is _evidence_.

Which is contrary to O'ist philosophy. "What we need is not an open mind, but an active one." Always thought that this particular contradiction was funny.

 

[HansMustermann]

I consider myself something of an objectivist (with a little "o"; there was a big stink about that), and even I get annoyed with Rand. The problem was, she was incapable of separating her personal views from what she considered rational views. She liked classical music and hated drums, so that was the rational choice--despite the fact that in The Romantic Manifesto she states that no one really understands exactly how music works in the human brain. She didn't like homosexuality, so it was wrong--despite a complete lack of understanding of the phenomenon.

A lot of it comes from differing opinons as well. When you differ on an opinion held deeply enough, it gets heated. That's one reason I've taken to reading Chesterton--it presents me with both sides of the issue (more or less), so I can do the whole "goblen universe" thing.

She did not think that. In fact, she goes out of her way to illustrate that poor people are poor because of government regulations. And she didn't think that helping people was wrong, necessarily; she simply didn't think it was important. The idea that it was an obligation to help them is wrong according to her, but your purchasing power is yours to use as you see fit. If you want to hoard it do so. If you want to distribute it among 10,000 people, have fun. She speaks strongly against the idea, but any who tell you that you must not give your money away are violating your property rights (it's your cash, after all) and are therefore necessarily wrong.

Actually, I think that's an oversimplification. She makes it perfectly clear that altruism is irrational, incompatible with reason, and only supportable by mysticism BS. E.g.,

"Now there is one word—a single word—which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand—the word: “Why?” Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it—and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given.

It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been called upon to justify it—or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. What most moralists—and few of their victims—realize is that reason and altruism are incompatible."​

So, yeah, she won't stop you from giving away your money or time to help others, but she's basically calling you an irrational idiot if you do. She's not technically calling it "wrong", she's calling it, basically, stupid.

 

[joobz]

Basically, Rand is a card-carrying member of the You Fail Economics Forever club. As TVTropes puts it,

"Combined with all the above is the general zeroth rule of the Author Tract:

Regardless of quality, writing a work of fiction neither adds nor subtracts empirical evidence to or from your point of view. It may display evidence, it may make an argument using that evidence, it may convince the reader using that evidence. However, merely writing a fictional work about a free-market/socialist utopia/dystopia does not prove anything.

Too many authors forget this."

Exactly true with Ayn Rand. I found it funny that even her completely imaginary Galtopian society needed a limiteless source of energy to work.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Because Officer Barbrady from South Park, having conquered his demons of illiteracy, made the fateful decision to read, as his first book, Atlas Shrugged. Naturally, he concluded that "reading totally sucks ass" and he never read again.

 

[Dinwar]

So, yeah, she won't stop you from giving away your money or time to help others, but she's basically calling you an irrational idiot if you do. She's not technically calling it "wrong", she's calling it, basically, stupid.

To paraphrase John Galt (who is basically the standard-bearer for Objectivism [note the big "O"], by design, and therefore CAN be quoted as evidence in this instance): If you give a bottle of milk to your starving child instead of buying a hat, it is not a sacrifice, unless you are the type who values that hat more than the child. Giving the money to someone else is not a moral or immoral action in O'ist ethics; WHY you do so makes it moral or immoral. If you do it out of obligation, or because someone told you to, that's immoral. If you do it because you want to (you think it'll help them be more productive, for example), it's moral.

It's not the concrete action of giving away money that's the problem--any parent does this every time they give a child a dollar. It's the reasoning behind it.

 

[I Am The Scum]

To paraphrase John Galt (who is basically the standard-bearer for Objectivism [note the big "O"], by design, and therefore CAN be quoted as evidence in this instance): If you give a bottle of milk to your starving child instead of buying a hat, it is not a sacrifice, unless you are the type who values that hat more than the child. Giving the money to someone else is not a moral or immoral action in O'ist ethics; WHY you do so makes it moral or immoral. If you do it out of obligation, or because someone told you to, that's immoral. If you do it because you want to (you think it'll help them be more productive, for example), it's moral.

It's not the concrete action of giving away money that's the problem--any parent does this every time they give a child a dollar. It's the reasoning behind it.

And here we have a problem. The argument is that it is irrational for one to act outside of their values. Can you provide me with a hypothetical example of someone willfully acting outside of their values? Feel free to use an extreme example.

 

[Nonpareil]

Personally, I hate Rand because I think she was a terrible writer. I could give less of a crap about her philosophy.

 

[TraneWreck]

1. Horrible writer
2. Crazy cult leader
3. Horrible historian, economist, and philosopher
4. Developed a philosophy that argued for the morality of greed. It's a terrible idea and horribly supported, but somehow it appeals to narcissists and has had an incredible effect on politics despite its awful formation.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Personally, I hate Rand because I think she was a terrible writer. I could give less of a crap about her philosophy.

Oh dude, please not you too.

COULDN'T give less of a crap. Could not. Not could.

That being said, Ayn Rand was that most precious of things. A five year old child. Her philosophy was that of someone who hadn't gotten out of the "I want those sweets NOW" stage of intellectual development, her writing is among the worst on the planet and she was a vile vile piece of slime based on her lovely social and moral beliefs, in particular her attitudes towards women and the poor.

Other than that, there's nothing wrong with her.

 

[HansMustermann]

To paraphrase John Galt (who is basically the standard-bearer for Objectivism [note the big "O"], by design, and therefore CAN be quoted as evidence in this instance): If you give a bottle of milk to your starving child instead of buying a hat, it is not a sacrifice, unless you are the type who values that hat more than the child. Giving the money to someone else is not a moral or immoral action in O'ist ethics; WHY you do so makes it moral or immoral. If you do it out of obligation, or because someone told you to, that's immoral. If you do it because you want to (you think it'll help them be more productive, for example), it's moral.

It's not the concrete action of giving away money that's the problem--any parent does this every time they give a child a dollar. It's the reasoning behind it.

1. I'm not sure the Galt quote actually proves anything. Note that it's about _your_ child, hence I'm not even sure it counts as "altruism". I didn't actually make a poll or anything, but I think most people wouldn't rank ensuring their child's very survival as altruism, and many would probably even be offended by the idea that it's something classifiable as altruism.

Now if it were for someone else's child, you might have a point.

2. Also, that may be so, but I'm judging Ayn Rand by what she actually said, not by what it would be nice to think she believed. The quote I supplied, for example, makes no actual mention of doing it out of obligation or anything. It says that altruism _itself_ is incompatible with reason. Any other qualifiers like obligation, force, etc, just aren't in there.

ETA: 3. Just to make it clear, I have no problem with using a quote as evidence that, basically, something is in a book, or representative of an author, or anything of the kind. The only problem I have is with people using quotes from a fictional character to prove something about reality, other than about the author's views. Basically if you use Galt quotes as evidence that Rand believed something, sure, I'm perfectly ok with that. No need to explain it. But the people I was talking about were basically using Galt quotes as evidence somehow that the US government actually does this or that. That's the whole WTH factor.

 

[Dinwar]

1. I'm not sure the Galt quote actually proves anything.

It doesn't prove that Rand is right--but it does prove that it's what Rand thinks. That's what I meant it to prove.

I didn't actually make a poll or anything, but I think most people wouldn't rank ensuring their child's very survival as altruism, and many would probably even be offended by the idea that it's something classifiable as altruism.

Rand provided her definition of the term (the original definition, as it turns out), and provides her argument for why it's the case. I was simply offering a reference to it, not the entire argument.

Also, that may be so, but I'm judging Ayn Rand by what she actually said, not by what it would be nice to think she believed. The quote I supplied, for example, makes no actual mention of doing it out of obligation or anything. It says that altruism _itself_ is incompatible with reason. Any other qualifiers like obligation, force, etc, just aren't in there.

Not in that quote, certainly. In other places, she does state it.

Basically if you use Galt quotes as evidence that Rand believed something, sure, I'm perfectly ok with that. No need to explain it. But the people I was talking about were basically using Galt quotes as evidence somehow that the US government actually does this or that. That's the whole WTH factor.

Agreed. In fact, such people are ignoring Rand herself (specifically The Anti-Industrial Revolution).

 

[sadhatter]

When i think about Rand, i think of someone much like myself. Except without that little regulator in thier brain that states " you could be wrong, you don't know everything.".

I would love to have " my finger on the button" as the case may be, but i wouldn't actively go for it because i realize that no matter who the person is once you start taking everything someone says as fact, there is a problem.

Rand, on the other hand, jumped into to cult leadership with both feet, tried, and failed to do anything good. I respect the chutzpah, i disrespect the results.

 

[brenn]

Because both christians and left-wingers (OK, most people in general) maintain their beliefs about everything from religion to their own moral character by avoiding reality. Those who correctly explain reality to them are generally not well liked. Ayn Rand explained entirely too much for most people to accept and, therefore, the majority of people are not fans. This thread will be an example, since this forum mainly seems to attract left-wing nuts and christian nuts.

Most people prefer to fool themselves with fantasies instead of making an effort to understand ("skeptics" included, when it comes to understanding themselves).

I will now use my psychic powers to predict that this thread will turn into people giving examples of altruism/selfessness without making the effort to understand how rational self-interest motivates precisely the conduct they cite. These same people will equate self-interest hedonistic (simple, common definition version) excesses.

...Ok, I'm not psychic, I am really basing my prediction on the shallow and simplistic responses in this thread so far.

 

[TraneWreck]

Because both christians and left-wingers (OK, most people in general) maintain their beliefs about everything from religion to their own moral character by avoiding reality. Those who correctly explain reality to them are generally not well liked. Ayn Rand explained entirely too much for most people to accept and, therefore, the majority of people are not fans.

Most people prefer to fool themselves with fantasies instead of making the effort to understand the reality that actually motivates them.

Haha, what? Ayn Rand's problem was that she was too accurate?

Wow.