Why the hate on Ayn Rand?

[I Am The Scum]

Brenn, you made some accusations there. Could you please go into more detail?

 

[Dinwar]

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.

She was a writer, not all that different from any other (how many writers go on to give lectures? The entire New Atheist movement is built on it). It's the people that took her way too far, and way too uncritically, that are the real issue.

I Am The Scum: I'm getting to your question about actions violating peoples' values. It's just more than I can deal with while doing inventory reviews at work, so it'll have to wait.

 

[Piscivore]

Because both christians and left-wingers... left-wing nuts and christian nuts.

Isn't "taking sides" like this indicative of an embrace of ideology, and isn't that an avoidance of "reality"? Haven't you decided who all these "christians and left-wingers" are based on what your competing ideology tells you they are, instead of what they themselves say or do?

Most people prefer to fool themselves with fantasies instead of making an effort to understand.

That's Glen Beck's bread and butter.

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.

The mistake is that few humans are rational, and they are motivated by primarily emotional perceptions of what is in their self-interest.

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

Yes, but not very conclusively, especially when going among more explicit quotes to the contrary. I mean, ok, Rand would have thought it's ok to care for her own child, if she were to ever happen to have one. But that's not really altruism by anyone's definition.

It doesn't say what she'd think of giving a bottle of milk to the _neighbour's_ kid. So I think really I'm affraid I'll have to fall back on different quotes for that idea.

 

[Dinwar]

It doesn't say what she'd think of giving a bottle of milk to the _neighbour's_ kid. So I think really I'm affraid I'll have to fall back on different quotes for that idea.

I'll have to look into it...That quote was part of a larger discussion about the definition of "sacrifice", burried in Galt's Speech (and therefore rather difficult to pull out without slogging through what, 90 pages of text?).

The whole point of her statement was that sacrifice is acting against one's value judgement. Later in the paragraph (maybe the next one or so; anyway, fairly close) it discusses joining the military, and giving money to friends, and that sort of thing. It makes the point more clear.

Isn't "taking sides" like this indicative of an embrace of ideology, and isn't that an avoidance of "reality"?

Out of curiosity, how is embracing an ideology as such rejecting reality? I understand how specific ideologies reject reality, but I'm not sure you can argue that ideology as such is a rejection of reality. I'm also not sure how one would go about rejecting ideology as such--I mean, the skeptical view of expecting evidence to support claims is an ideology of sorts.

 

[Paradox74]

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.

Here's my rational defense of altruism:

Suppose that you're an excellent swimmer and you happen to see a kid drowning in water. There's no laws and there's no government in the land in which you live in so basically you can decide to let them drown. However, you decided to rescue the child and after doing so, the kid asks why. Now, my response would be the following:

1. Altruism is basically a genetic hardwiring to promote survival of our species (that basically the scientific argument...you don't see too many animals around the globe that lets their offspring die of malnutrition. even spiders lay their eggs near sources of food).

2. It pays to be the hero. Fame and the like!

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

You're right! I HATE when people try to correctly explain reality to me! Ayn Rand did entirely too much of that.

I say we burn all of her books as soon as possible.

 

[hgc]

I hate Rand for her love for child killer Walter Hickman. It takes a sociopath to admire a sociopath.

 

[Phrost]

Here's my rational defense of altruism:

Suppose that you're an excellent swimmer and you happen to see a kid drowning in water. There's no laws and there's no government in the land in which you live in so basically you can decide to let them drown. However, you decided to rescue the child and after doing so, the kid asks why. Now, my response would be the following:

1. Altruism is basically a genetic hardwiring to promote survival of our species (that basically the scientific argument...you don't see too many animals around the globe that lets their offspring die of malnutrition. even spiders lay their eggs near sources of food).

2. It pays to be the hero. Fame and the like!

Here's the thing though that validates Rand's thinking: at the end of the day, you're still performing those actions because by doing so, you benefit. Your benefit might be as grandiose as having a statue erected in your honor, or it might be as trivial as just feeling proud of your accomplishment.

Either way though, it's not altruism. Altruism is ********. Unless a person is simply insane, everyone does things because those things will benefit them in some way.

Now, the thing that sticks in most people's craw about Rand (aside from her horrible writing) is the notion that it's immoral to force others to be charitable. This runs in direct opposition to those who feel the democratic process should be used to right every wrong in society, and should be paid for at the point of a gun with other people's money.

While her view is easily describable as "extremist", it stands in polar opposition to the equally extremist views behind marxism and communism. So if you feel it's the Government's job to take care of everyone, Rand's going to piss you off like a yarmulke at a Klan rally.

So yeah, her personal life was twisted. Her writing was crappy. She had fantasies of being submissive to an uber male and put those fantasies into print.

But she did have about about us all, ultimately, being selfish, and that selfishness isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.

 

[Ladewig]

This thread will be an example, since this forum mainly seems to attract left-wing nuts and christian nuts.

When you say this forum, are referring to the JREF forum or the Religion/Philospophy forum?

 

[drkitten]

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.

Oh, Rand herself provides any number of examples and they all uniformly come to bad ends.

* Anyone who is willing to put practical considerations over principle (e.g. to do something that might be harmful in the long term to address a short term problem. Of course, in Rand's universe, short term treatments never work, which is why no one except Bad Guys would ever take aspirin.)

* Anyone who is willing to go along with the group in the interest of social harmony (for example, a judge who is willing to enforce the law as written instead of simply legislating from the bench because he finds the plaintiffs to be a bunch of whiny losers. In Rand's universe, there is no such thing as "malfeasance in office" because rules only apply to lesser folk.)

* Anyone who simply doesn't introspect enough to discern their what their true principles are. (In Rand's world, you better know exactly who picked every bean in that cup of coffee you're about to drink, lest you support someone who's engaging in dubious business practices.)

 

[Ladewig]

.

Either way though, it's not altruism. Altruism is ********. Unless a person is simply insane, everyone does things because those things will benefit them in some way.

So if a person donates a small amount of money to a charity on a different contintnet, how does that benefit the donor?

But she did have about about us all, ultimately, being selfish, and that selfishness isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.

Can selfishness ever a bad thing?

 

[drkitten]

Can selfishness ever a bad thing?

[RANDROID] Yes, but only when done "irrationally." [/RANDROID]

That's another problem with Rand's system of ethics; it only works when the participants have no human weaknesses whatsoever. The philosopher who gave up his comfortable teaching job to flip hamburgers for eleven months of the year is happy doing it and a hero; the physicist who worked hard to found the State Science Institute is a blackguard because he sold out his principles in order to have a laboratory to work in. Judge Narragansett is a hero because he's willing to grow carrots instead of pay someone else to do it for him out in the real world.

Rearden cares sufficiently for Dagny that he's willing to sacrifice his marriage for her, willing to allow his company to crash and burn to the ground, and even disappears for a month at a time to comb the mountains, inch by inch, in a search for her dead body, but surrenders her without a bit of jealousy when she decides that Galt is a better lay. (As, indeed, did d'Anconia earlier when she decided that Rearden was better.)

 

[Phrost]

So if a person donates a small amount of money to a charity on a different contintnet, how does that benefit the donor?

Assuages guilt; feelings of pride, accomplishment, satisfaction; increases social status amongst people who are aware (or made aware) of the donation; funds a cause that ultimately helps your goals or furthers your ideology; complies with your moral or religious imperatives...

...and so on.

Can selfishness ever a bad thing?

Absolutely. But that doesn't mean it is always a bad thing, by default, as many of us have been taught. Hell, I remember being instructed that "JOY" meant "Jesus first, others second, and yourself last"; and this was in a 4th grade public school in the eighties.

But ultimately, we only do things that increase pleasure or avoid pain. And that's the very definition of being 'selfish'.

 

[Dinwar]

That's another problem with Rand's system of ethics; it only works when the participants have no human weaknesses whatsoever.

Really? Rearden and Dagny both are presented as both the heros of the story and as the guiltiest people in the book (D'Anconia's assessment of Rearden supports this).

 

[Cavemonster]

But ultimately, we only do things that increase pleasure or avoid pain. And that's the very definition of being 'selfish'.

Yes, that's one way to analyze actions, but there are a number of ways to describe anything.

For instance, I could describe a particular grouping of carbon and other atoms, a hot spot for medical costs, an example of atrocious architecture, or the retirement home where my grandmother lives. All those descriptions are useful in certain contexts.

Likewise, altruism and selfishness can both easily describe the same actions. The reason we most always need to go beyond self interest in talking about decisions is that there are a number of competeing self interests. There is long term, short term and everything inbetween. There is physical and emotional pleasure and pain and millions of routes to both.

Rand doesn't value the emotional selfishness of people who want to build a long term community in which they are accepted and feel good. When she supported selfishness, she cast a morally disaproving eye on those who acted for particular kinds of emotional and psychological goals, but there really is no logical reason that that kind of enlightened self interest is "bad".

 

[Baylor]

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

This^^^^expect for the forgotten negation.

Oh dude, please not you too.

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

Oh good, you corrected him

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.

This^^^^and he knows when to use a negation.

As for Ayn Rand as an author, hands down the worst I've ever come across. The "plots" in her books go absolutely nowhere, I couldn't even identify the main antagonisms.

As for her philosophies, it's just individualism on steroids. Somewhere during her college years, she stumbled upon the differences between collectivism and individualism, decided she liked individualism, and *********** ran with it.

 

[Piscivore]

Out of curiosity, how is embracing an ideology as such rejecting reality? I understand how specific ideologies reject reality, but I'm not sure you can argue that ideology as such is a rejection of reality.

I'm using the defintion of Ideology meaning "the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group"... the kind that comes with ready-made answers looking for questions- "hurting animals is bad", "abortion is murder", "illegal immigrants are ruining this country", "selfishness is good/selfishness is bad", "it's all Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Obama's fault"- that sort of thing. That kind of ideology is antithetical to skepticism because it tends to breed resistance to evidence if it contradicts the ideals.

I'm also not sure how one would go about rejecting ideology as such--I mean, the skeptical view of expecting evidence to support claims is an ideology of sorts.

I'd say it's more of a principle (an adopted rule or method for application in action). It does not really dictate particular answers the way ideologies tend to.

 

[Darat]

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.

...snip....

Children pose a problem for her philosophy, a much better writer, Nancy Kress, sums it up well in an interview: Nancy Kress: http://www.lysator.liu.se/lsff/mb-nr28/Interview_with_Nancy_Kress.html

...snip...

The thing about Ayn Rand, with whom I was enraptured when I was in my early twenties as so many people are, and who I eventually outgrew, as many people do, is that although there's something very appealing about her emphasis on individual responsibility,.....snip.... Ayn Rand's philosophy, lacks all compassion, and even more fundamental, it lacks recognition of the fact that we are a social species ...snip.... and if you really take objectivism and push it to it's ultimate question, you have to conclude, from her philosophy, that society as a whole does not have a responsibility for all of its children. What that means is that if you have an abused child, a child that is being beaten or tortured next door you have no obligation and no right to interfere under objectivism. It's not your problem. It's not your business. And there's something ultimately wrong with a philosophy that would postulate that. It doesn't treat us as a social species, which we are. It treats us as nothing but a collection of individuals, and the truth is that what makes human society entensioned is the pull between our obligation to the group, to the state, however you want to define it, and to the individual. ...snip...

 

[Dinwar]

As for Ayn Rand as an author, hands down the worst I've ever come across. The "plots" in her books go absolutely nowhere, I couldn't even identify the main antagonisms.

I've never found either to be the case. The plots are fairly straightforward, and while there's no specific antagonists that makes sense, given her philosophy.

Her philosophy was that of someone who hadn't gotten out of the "I want those sweets NOW" stage of intellectual development,

Might I suggest actually reading what she wrote? She's very big on property rights--both hers and those of others, meaning that it's just a tad more advanced than a child's tantrums. (In fact, she wrote an essay titled "Counterfit Individualism" that pretty much proves that this view of her philosophy is either ignorant, deluded, or a misinterpretation.)

I'm using the defintion of Ideology meaning "the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group"... the kind that comes with ready-made answers looking for questions-

To me, it seems the stuff after the "..." is tacked on there. It doesn't necessarily follow from the stuff in the quotes. For example, if you're guided by the concept of rights it would be an ideology, yet it would not necessarily provide ready-made answers. I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily; I just don't get the connection. To me, it seems like you're defining a specific subcategory of ideology.

What that means is that if you have an abused child, a child that is being beaten or tortured next door you have no obligation and no right to interfere under objectivism.

The bolded part is obviously false to anyone who understands O'ism. Her discussions on politics amply demonstrate this. It's a common straw man, but a straw man none the less.