Why the hate on Ayn Rand?

[blutoski]

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.

The other mysterious contradiction was the maintenance of these two premises:

• there is no obligation to improve others' standard of living
• we must convert the world to objectivism in order to improve human standards of living

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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.

I look forward to you showing, by her works, how this is "obviously false".

 

[Darat]

The other mysterious contradiction was the maintenance of these two premises:

• there is no obligation to improve others' standard of living
• we must convert the world to objectivism in order to improve human standards of living

Well that it is typical of all ideologies i.e. they are incoherent and simply don't model the real world; her ideology can be made to work in fiction but not in the real world.

 

[Dinwar]

Your second is incorrct. First, O'ists are under no obligation to convert anyone ("going Galt" is always an option). Second, you're confusing an ethical statement with what Rand considered a factual one--she held that in order to increase standards of living O'ism must necessarily dominate, in much the same manner as most believe that humans must be free to be happy and the like. It's a statement of cause and effect, from her perspective, not an ethical demand. This is witnessed by the fact that many of her heroes actually LOWERED the general standards of living throughout her novels.

 

[Piscivore]

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.

To me, it's wrapped up in the word "doctrine". There cannot be any scientific or skeptical doctrine because the answers they both provide are subject to change.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Not to mention the hypocrisy she displayed, she was given substantial assistance by family members when she arrived in the USA.
Basically a terrible writer, philosopher and economist and opposed to logic and reason whenever, such as with evolution, it conflicted with her opinions.

 

[anazgnos]

without making the effort to understand how rational self-interest motivates precisely the conduct they cite.

Well, in a way, you're correct. One can certainly easily grasp that whatever they put back into the world, or into their community, be it effort, money, time, volunteering whatever can benefit them directly. If I can help others to be more secure, stable and prosperous, then it makes my world more stable, secure, and prosperous. But this is hardly something Rand put at the forefront of her writings; rather, she made it clear that she was perfectly happy to allow those she considered morally inferior to perish.

 

[Dinwar]

I look forward to you showing, by her works, how this is "obviously false".

As I said, her discussions on politics show that it's false. Specifically, she states that a group has the right to break away from a nation in order to form a society that is more free than the nation it split from (I think it's in her essay Global Balkanization). This establishes the use of force against people who are violating the rights of others (remember, from Rand's perspective a nation cannot have rights forbidden to the individual). It therefore follows that you have the right to stop a child abuser, specifically because the abuser violated the rights of that child. You are not necessarily obligated to do so, but you are not forbidden to do so by O'ist philosophy either.

She also says many times that force and mind are opposites, and that the violation of someone's rights is immoral. Hard to imagine a way in which a child can be abused without violating its rights.

To me, it's wrapped up in the word "doctrine". There cannot be any scientific or skeptical doctrine because the answers they both provide are subject to change.

The way I read the definition a doctrine was one of several options--it also called out myths and beliefs, which are not necessarily doctrines (a myth can be accepted as valid without being accepted as true, if that makes sense; for example, Arthurian Legend holds a high place in the SCA's mindset, but none of us think that Mort d'Arthur was a historically accurate text).

 

[drkitten]

Really? Rearden and Dagny both are presented as both the heros of the story and as the guiltiest people in the book

Of course. That's the standard plot of a novel; the hero of the book is not necessarily the one with the most go'sod qualities, but the one who overcomes the most bad qualities in order to become the hero. Read your Campbell. The "hero" of the Lord of the Rings is not Gandalf, or even Aragorn, but Samwise, precisely because he's got the most to overcome -- and does so. More prosaically, the geek becomes a hero by overcoming his fear and standing up to the bullying jock -- and thereby gets the cheerleader.

Rearden and Dagney are presented as "the guiltiest people in the book" because the guilt is what they have to overcome in order to realize the true heroism that is exemplified by the sociopaths in Galt's Gulch. And, of course, the guilt and weaknesses that they need to overcome include

* Concern for his wife's well-being
* Concern for his family's well being (Rearden's brother)
* Propriety
* Respect for the law

... and that's just Rearden.

He is "guilty" because he displays those flaws. He becomes a hero by sociopathically overcoming them.

And we wonder why no one over the mental age of ten likes Rand....

 

[SezMe]

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.

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).

It appears some of her acolytes have ceased growing at about the same age.

 

[Baylor]

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.

I certainly didn't find that to be the case; we'll just have to agree to disagree. But you are in the minority. Out of the 5 dozen or so novels I've read, The Fountainhead was easily the worst. Many others have cited an Ayn Rand novel as the worst they've read.

 

[Dinwar]

Of course. That's the standard plot of a novel; the hero of the book is not necessarily the one with the most go'sod qualities, but the one who overcomes the most bad qualities in order to become the hero. Read your Campbell. The "hero" of the Lord of the Rings is not Gandalf, or even Aragorn, but Samwise, precisely because he's got the most to overcome -- and does so. More prosaically, the geek becomes a hero by overcoming his fear and standing up to the bullying jock -- and thereby gets the cheerleader.

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 we wonder why no one over the mental age of ten likes Rand....

Not quite. Let's look at Rearden for a moment.

His wife was abusive. While she wasn't physically abusive, she certainly was mentally abusive. She constantly insulted, belittled, and undercut everything he did. She constantly went out of her way to hurt him. Yet somehow, Rearden's recognition of the fact that his wife hates and wants to destroy him are held as a sin.

Rearden's brother was actively working to destroy everything his brother had built, while at the same time enjoying his brother's charity. Yet when Rearden refuses to keep paying his brother (not until AFTER his money had almost all been stolen from him, mind you) it's considered a sin.

I'm confused about the property thing. Who's property did he steal?

The laws were, in the words of Dr. Ferris, not intended to be upheld. And in fact they were impossible to uphold--in order to keep his mills running he had to make a deal with Dannager (to get coal to run them), which is what brought him into court (and into an obviously sham trial). If he DIDN'T get the coal his "customers" would sue him for not giving them the proper amount. Either way, he's screwed; just as the book's antagonists wanted.

His "sociopathic" act was to walk away from everyone. He didn't hurt anyone, didn't even fire a shot when people tried to forceably take over his mills if I recall correctly. He simply decided to stop working. How is that sociopathic?

But you are in the minority. Out of the 5 dozen or so novels I've read, The Fountainhead was easily the worst. Many others have cited an Ayn Rand novel as the worst they've read.

I'm okay with that. Just because I'm in the minority doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong; it just means that I'll have to argue my point better.

 

[Piscivore]

The way I read the definition a doctrine was one of several options--it also called out myths and beliefs, which are not necessarily doctrines (a myth can be accepted as valid without being accepted as true, if that makes sense;

It makes perfect sense.

for example, Arthurian Legend holds a high place in the SCA's mindset, but none of us think that Mort d'Arthur was a historically accurate text).

It doesn't have to be, "historically acurate" is something of a non-sequitor. There's nothing to say these doctires, myths, and beliefs have to be true, accurate, or correct- indeed, that's the primary problem I have with it. They just have to give you ready-made answers that guide the groups' behaviours- such as "fealty and honor = good" or "kings have more authority than knights". Within the context of the group mindset, anything that disagrees with these is automatically rejected.

 

[Baylor]

I'm okay with that. Just because I'm in the minority doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong; it just means that I'll have to argue my point better.

Good luck with that buddy. While you're arguing on the greatness of a Rand novel, I'll be in the Movie subforum arguing that Gigli was the best film ever made.

 

[Dinwar]

While you're arguing on the greatness of a Rand novel,

Never even tried. I merely argued that the plots were straightforward and that the lack of specific antagonists makes sense. While I enjoy certain parts of them, I prefer other writing styles myself.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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.

If you'd like, I could provide one.

Imagine Bob is walking down the street with a $100 bill in his pocket. Bob loves his money. Somebody points a gun at Bob and demands that Bob give the mugger everything in his pockets. Bob obliges, despite the love for his money.

Is Bob acting against his values?

 

[HansMustermann]

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!

Hey, you don't have to convince me. I wasn't the one who called it incompatible with reason. I think Ayn Rand was an insane troll. And to convince her, well, it's a bit too late, unless some medium wins Randi's million any time soon

 

[jakesteele]

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.

 

[Lucian]

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.

What girl does Beowulf get exactly? Lots of medieval heroes have major flaws: Sir Goody-Two-Shoes Galahad isn't the hero of Le Morte D'Arthur; his adulterous father is. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Gawain commits a minor but significant sin, for which he berates himself. The most entertaining saga heroes are homicidal psychopaths (okay, that's an exaggeration, but seriously, don't piss them off).

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

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.