Why the hate on Ayn Rand?

[themusicteacher]

Actually, I'll call bull on that. Most people don't stop to make a risk/reward estimation before helping someone.

Sure, they do such rationalizations later, if you press them for why. But on the spot, someone who jumps into some lake to save a drowning kid, you can usually bet your ass that he's not thinking what rewards would make that worth bothering.

Or take the small things, which are equally illogical by Rand's way of thinking. Something as small as stopping to answer to someone asking where some street is, or what time it is. You're giving some of your time and... exactly what reward are you expecting for that? Did you ever even think consciously about such a reward before doing it? Did you actually think that that guy will tell the newspapers about how great you are for telling him to take the second left turn?

The random guy calling the firemen when seeing someone set his porch fence on fire, what reward is he expecting? It's not like the firemen show up with a billboard that says "called by John Doe."

Etc.

Anyone who'd need to think of a rational reason to be arsed to help, instead of just doing it because their mirror neurons say "this could happen to you", is essentially a sociopath. Not as an insult, but because that's what such disconnect from other people means.

Good observation. Rand's philosophy is a degenerate, cynical, childish interpretation of humanity and a poor excuse for explaining our behavior.

 

[Dinwar]

What girl does Beowulf get exactly?

I didn't think you were looking for an absolute, 100% literal interpretation of your statements. I was under the impression you were discussing a more abstract literary principle. Mia copa.

Lots of medieval heroes have major flaws:

I never said they weren't flawed. I said that the heroes are not necessarily the ones who overcome the most flaws. Some cultures have offered heroes who had few if any flaws to overcome; some offer heroes that don't overcome many flaws at all. How many flaws a hero overcomes is not the universal definition of a literary hero.

If you'd like, I could provide one.

It's not an example (I can give you a few dozen from recent events in my family off the top of my head). It's the explination that will take a while.

Or take the small things, which are equally illogical by Rand's way of thinking.

I suggest reading what Rand wrote. You've got a very weird view of what she presented.

Specifically, helping someone IS NOT against O'ist ethics. Not even helping someone you don't know. Forcing someone to help someone else is, and a culture which views helping others as The One True Moral Principle is viewed as a bad thing, but the act of helping someone is not a bad thing. The question Rand presented is "At what point does it become too much?" The time it takes to answer a simple question is not too much, for nearly anyone (if you're busy and honestly don't have time, don't answer; otherwise, have at it).

Anyone who'd need to think of a rational reason to be arsed to help, instead of just doing it because their mirror neurons say "this could happen to you", is essentially a sociopath. Not as an insult, but because that's what such disconnect from other people means.

This, I think, is at the heart of your misunderstanding of Rand's philosophy. Re-read the parts in Atlas Shrugged where Jim Taggart's wife (Sherril, I think) is talking to Dagney. Re-read the part where John Galt is rescued from beinig tortured. Re-read pretty much every interaction between Rearden and the Wet Nurse. Re-read the fight at Rearden Steel (specifically, Francisco's part in it). Re-read Anthem (it's free at Librivox.org if you'd rather not pay money to Rand's estate). Helping others is almost expected of an O'ist. The only difference is that O'ists help those who present values that they themselves value. The need isn't the major issue, to an O'ist; the shared values are.

Thanks for the responses, they make things much clearer. Consider me on board to some degree. I just haven't figured out the degree until I read more about her (not her books). Some of the stuff you guys have written about her makes my . It's not looking good for Ayn.

I would recommend making your determination about her philosophy based on her philosophy, not her. There IS a difference, after all--the philosopher can be correct, despite being worthless. And it's best to get the information directly from the source, not from our interpretations of the source (not even that of an O'ist--any real O'ist [meaning one who actually understands and accepts the philosophy] wouldn't want you to take their word for it anyway).

 

[HansMustermann]

1. Again, I don't remember her qualifying it as forced altruism, nor nuances for when it's too much. Except in that her BS needs artificial situations in which there are no grey shades everything is waaay too much, to make that point work.

2. Railing even against it as just a moral principle, specifically that moral systems which value altruism are wrong, is still basically rationalizing a psychopathic view of the world.

Society does work because everyone does more or less for the others. Saying that not only it's actually ok and rational to be a parasite who only takes and never gives, but we should even stop treating those who do their part as moral... well, it's rationalizing antisocial behaviour.

3. ... and at that a dysfunctional view of the world. As I was saying, society works because we all do something for the others. Preaching for a system in which (A) there is no expectation whatsoever to even think of doing anything for society in return, and (B) doesn't even show any appreciation for those who do, and in fact it's treated as some irrational act, is essentially preaching a social model which would come apart very fast.

4. Restricting help to just those who share your values, is still not actually making it any better. It's still pretty much BS. Then it's not altruism, it's a form of basically class warfare. It's "us vs them." It's drawing circles on the map, and defining sets of people who it's ok to help, and sets of people who it's ok to watch dying in the street instead of giving CPR just because they don't qualify.

Ultimately I'll return to what I was saying. Anyone who can watch someone die instead of helping, because they need some extra reason or reward to be arsed to help, is plain and simple a psychopath. Even if that reason is belonging to the right faction. Anyone who can look at a human life and just think "it's ok because he wouldn't vote for the same guys I do", is showing a lack of empathy that has a name in the DSM.

 

[drkitten]

Not necessarily. This is the modern view; other cultures have had different views. For example, in the Middle Ages Aragorn would have been held up as the hero of LOTR. In the Middle Ages, it's the noble that gets the girl (read El Cid or Beowolf for examples). Tolkein's Silimarilion is much more along those lines.

... and this comment would be insightful, or at least relevant, if Rand had written Atlas Shrugged in the 9th century in Old English.

Unfortunately, she wrote it in the 20th century, using 20th century conventions, for a 20th century audience,... and failed miserably at producing anything other than a type-specimen of an unrealistic Author Tract. (In fact, TV Tropes calls her the "undisputed queen" of this trope. That's not a compliment. See also "Author Filibuster" -- where again she's the literary type-specimen.)

And the fundamental problem, again, is that by the standards of any reasonable ethicists of the time period for which she was writing -- and for that matter, a modern ethicist -- the "flaws" that Rearden and company "overcome" are actually virtues. Married couples were expected to work out their differences; that was part of the marriage vow. Support of a wife was an enforceable debt; the idea that Rearden, who would never welsh on a business debt, would even consider cutting his wife off without a cent, is ludicrous.

And even today, he would be expected to divorce her, not abandon her.

The only "flaw" that Rearden had to overcome was not being a clinical sociopath. Once he fixed that, he was suitably "heroic" to join the other sociopaths in GG.

 

[drkitten]

I would recommend making your determination about her philosophy based on her philosophy, not her. There IS a difference, after all--the philosopher can be correct, despite being worthless. And it's best to get the information directly from the source, not from our interpretations of the source (not even that of an O'ist--any real O'ist [meaning one who actually understands and accepts the philosophy] wouldn't want you to take their word for it anyway).

So does a "real O'ist" put salt on her porridge?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Being in Emergency medicine in Rands world would rock, it would be great to be able to withhold life saving medication like say an epipen from someone dieing from anaphylactic shock until they sign over their house to you. Hmm I wonder if this could be combined with a restaurant that puts shrimp and peanut oil in say hamburgers...

 

[drkitten]

Being in Emergency medicine in Rands world would rock, it would be great to be able to withhold life saving medication like say an epipen from someone dieing from anaphylactic shock until they sign over their house to you. Hmm I wonder if this could be combined with a restaurant that puts shrimp and peanut oil in say hamburgers...

Worked for Marcus Licinius Crassus. A true Objectivist hero, that one. It would have been interesting to see how Midas Mulligan would respond to a brushfire near Galt's Gulch.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

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

She had no love for William (not Walter) ) Hickman. She called him a "monster" and a "degenerate." Get your facts straight. She was fascinated by some of his statements and used him as a character study. In what twisted universe does that equate to "love" for a "child killer"?

In her own words, regarding the book she was writing about a character with some similarties to Hickman:

"[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."

Because she was not an idiot, she realized that some of Hickman's remarks had bearings on her philosophy. Instead of ignoring that fact, she chose to explore the issue.


Of course, it's easier to just go with a childish, uncomplicated version of things, as you seem to have chosen. Too bad that type of intellectual laziness is how witch hunts get started.

 

[MontagK505]

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!

Any action that you benefit from is not truly altruistic. The pure altruist regards any action that benefits the one who acts as selfish. (immoral) In this view pleasure is the ultimate selfishness.

One thing I learned from reading Ayn Rand, is that accusations of selfishness are frequently used to pressure one into acting against their legitimate self-interest.

 

[MontagK505]

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.

Keep in mind, we are talking about fictional characters. I've never heard of Ayn Rand trying to justify actual rape. If you read the full context, both her protagonists Roak and Dominic are not normal people. This was simply a bizarre way of getting two bizarre people together.

I understand a lot of people hate Ayn Rand. There are a lot of things about her I didn't like very much. But the accusation that she supported rape isn't very convincing.

 

[TimCallahan]

Like many others, I was quite taken by Ayn Rand in my early twenties. Unfortunately, her philosophical dogma eventually overpowered her writing. The Fountainhead was still essentially a novel. However, though I originally loved Atlas Shrugged (I was in the Navy at the time and chafing to be a civilian), I had to concede that one reviewer was right on the money when he referred to John Galt's speech at the end of it as "the longest burst of sustained histrionics since The Ring of the Nibelungs."

My disenchantment with Ayn Rand began when I realized she wasn't going to write any more novels. A fiction author who only has about three books in her is a bit of a let down. My disenchantment grew when I took stock of the captains of industry and saw no Reardons, D'Anconias or Galts among them. Rather than heroic, they often seemed callous and grasping. Finally there was the fact that I was working part time in college as an orderly. Everyone t the hospital where I worked was griping about how the place was going to fill up with freeloaders once Medicare went into effect. Indeed it did fill up - with people who had broken hips, bed sores, etc. It suddenly hit me that without Medicare - one of thoss awful 'collectivist" schemes - these people, usually through no fault of their own, might well be left to die. In short, my disenchantment with Ayn Rand was the result of my growing up.

 

[marplots]

I don't mind Rand. I don't agree with her, but so what? She's dead. It's those wacky O's that came afterward that get my goat. It's like they got a taste of philosophy by way of a novel and then stopped reading philosophy!!??

So, yeah. Rand is like Jesus. I got no beef with Jesus. It's the darn minions that tick me off.

 

[HansMustermann]

Keep in mind, we are talking about fictional characters. I've never heard of Ayn Rand trying to justify actual rape. If you read the full context, both her protagonists Roak and Dominic are not normal people. This was simply a bizarre way of getting two bizarre people together.

I understand a lot of people hate Ayn Rand. There are a lot of things about her I didn't like very much. But the accusation that she supported rape isn't very convincing.

I'm not talking about just having a rape scene, but she actually said about that rape scene, "if it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation." Which, frankly, is pretty much the #1 rationalization by rapists, _and_ a traditional way to put down rape victims. The notion that sometimes a woman may struggle and try to hit, but basically you just know she wanted or needed it, or that whatever she did or wore or anything makes it her fault or "engraved invitation" to be raped, is something that really doesn't need extra reinforcement.

_That_ is my problem with it.

 

[Dilb]

Any action that you benefit from is not truly altruistic. The pure altruist regards any action that benefits the one who acts as selfish. (immoral) In this view pleasure is the ultimate selfishness.

That is a completely ridiculous definition. That sort of behaviour is completely impossible. Even in an extreme case, like dieing from smoke inhalation after rescuing your arch-nemesis from a fire, you can say it wasn't 'altruistic' because while you were doing it you had the smug self-satisfaction of moral righteousness.

All that shows is this 'perfectly-selfless altruism' is not actually a good definition of altruism. You can bemoan the 'incorrect' use of altruism by people if you like, or you can figure out what people actually mean when they talk about altruism.

Let's not forget that Rand has a strawman definition of altruism anyway

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

This is, in the most charitable interpretation, the most extreme version of ethical altruism I've ever heard of. Even then, I'd be hard pressed to find a modern philosopher (as in last couple of centuries) who claims altruism implies you have no right to exist for yourself.

 

[marplots]

I am confused about altruism. If my right hand scratches an itch on my left thigh, am I an altruist or selfish?

The whole thing fails because of artificial and capricious boundaries.

 

[arthwollipot]

The main problem I have with libertarianism/objectivism, and I've said this before, is that it is fundamentally premised on the idea that when left to their own devices, people will tend to do what is best for society as a whole. This is demonstrably wrong. When left to their own devices, people will tend to be selfish and thoughtless and do things that maximise their own short-term gain.

The other problem I have with libertarianism/objectivism is that the people who hold to this philosophy have a tendency to be insufferably arrogant about it.

 

[Matt the Poet]

It’s the absence, ultimately, of kindness that angers me.

Which sounds like weak tea, but it seems to be a fundament of any ethical system you’d care to name. All of the good bits of any ethical philosophy, religious or otherwise, are neatly summarised in Bill and Ted’s exhortation to ‘be excellent to each other’. If there’s anything we all know deep down it’s that if anything at all is a proper, universal virtue it’s kindness.

This is why attempts to counter such an outlook result in bizarre (at best) behaviour and elaborate post-hoc rationalizations. It’s why its arguments consist of windy, self-contradictory philosophizing and flimsy sociobiological pseudoscience. It’s why companies have to actually set their employees targets to behave ‘competitively’, and why demagogues have to spend so much effort on rhetoric, propaganda and obfuscation to get their followers to hate as they do. It takes concerted effort for you to train yourself not to be kind, and to be honest the only word I can think of for someone prepared to make that effort is ‘evil’.

Ayn Rand is, then, doubly evil because not only has she trained herself not to be kind, but she has created tools that make it easier for other people who want to follow that path.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

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, snip....

Has anyone told Neil Peart?!

 

[Darat]

The main problem I have with libertarianism/objectivism, and I've said this before, is that it is fundamentally premised on the idea that when left to their own devices, people will tend to do what is best for society as a whole. This is demonstrably wrong. When left to their own devices, people will tend to be selfish and thoughtless and do things that maximise their own short-term gain.

The other problem I have with libertarianism/objectivism is that the people who hold to this philosophy have a tendency to be insufferably arrogant about it.

I'm going to disagree with you because I think you've got it back to front. What we find is that when people group together they tend to act to in ways that benefit the group as well as the individuals in the groups; yes there is much argument about how that can be best achieved but the fundamental "objective" behaviour of humans is to form social groups. The likes of Ayn Rand fail because their ideology requires that one ignores the actual evidence of human behaviour and replace it with their "ideal" of human behaviour.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm goign to disagree with you because I think you've got it back to front. What we find is that when people group together they tend to act to in ways that benefit the group as well as the individuals in the groups; yes there is much argument about how that can be best achieved but the fundamental "objective" behaviour of humans is to form social groups. The likes of Ayn Rand fail because their ideology requires that one ignores the actual evidence of human behaviour and replace it with their "ideal" of human behaviour.

Well, to a certain extent this is true, but I think it is true only because of the natural human tendency to form heirarchies.