

Review of Ayn Rand - ad93611
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1708/article_detail.asp

======
grandalf
It is odd to me that people care one iota about Ayn Rand the person. She was a
novelist and philosopher, and so the best way to approach her is to read her
works and think about them, not to try to read ancient and unreliable dish
about her personal life.

Anyone who is fascinated by the sort of gossip that these biographers found
(such as the idea that Frank was a wuss who didn't want to move to NY or that
Rand was addicted to speed) would probably strongly prefer People magazine to
any of Rand's works. Fortunately for them, many such magazines exist.

There is an odd tone of satisfaction in many reviews of Rand biographies... as
if the writer feels somehow more empowered to critique Rand's ideas after
learning about some personal foible or other than he/she did after reading (or
attempting to read) one of her books.

~~~
fexl
Sure, but this particular article is far better than the trash you describe.
It acknowledges some good ideas, notably "the delight that a human being ought
to feel at watching another member of our species doing things superbly well."
Recall the scene in Atlas Shrugged where Hugh Akston "heroically" prepares an
excellent hamburger. :)

Another good idea: "It's a world of cooperation and mutual benefit through the
pursuit of self-interest, enabling satisfying lives not only for the Hank
Reardens of the world but for factory workers."

She opposed coercion, writing that "in a free society, all government
financing would be voluntary." At the time she considered that an ideal whose
time had not yet come, but I would argue with her, probably until 3:00 in the
morning, that after 46 years it's high time we moved in that direction.

We would have other disagreements as well. She thought that monopolies of
force were needed to avoid anarchic carnage, but unfortunately anarchic
carnage was _precisely_ what force monopolies themselves delivered throughout
the 20th century.

Of course Ayn Rand had her annoying traits, habits, and foibles, but I've read
"The Letters of Ayn Rand" and seen plenty of endearing personal qualities as
well. But she hated collectivism with a vitriolic passion, having seen its
murderous effect on the people of her native Russia.

~~~
grandalf
Those are good points. I don't think those were pointed out in the essay,
however. I advocate reading her writings and learning from them.

~~~
fexl
Well, the first two points are direct quotes from the essay, but I did add a
few more points from other sources.

To those who cannot stomach Ayn Rand, allow me to summarize the high points
which I have adopted for myself:

1\. I can deal with reality effectively through the use of reason and
conceptual thought.

2\. I should interact with other people only on a voluntary basis, without
initiating force or aggression against them.

3\. I should seek my own health, wealth, happiness, and fulfillment. My
success depends not only on my own productive abilities, but also my ability
to engage with other people in _mutually_ beneficial ways.

------
Tycho
To summarize, the reviewer likes Ayn Rand and her work but thinks the author's
life showed a huge capacity for self-deception because: a) as a kid in Russia,
she was really into novels b) she had a higher opinion of the man she loved
than others did c) she moved from a ranch in California to NYC, and was
convinced this was best for her actor-husband d) she took amphetamines (under
doctor's prescription) e) was publicly bitter about a perceived betrayal by
another lover f) claimed no philosophical debt except to Aristotle (she has
received no scholarly attention by the students/disciples of subsequent
philosophy anyway)

Frankly this is phenomenally small beer compared to the sins of other
philosophers or influential intellectuals. And I find the obsession with Rand
gossip amongst her detractors pretty stupid.

The reviewer also dismisses 'Objectivism' and says the novels are the
important thing. But actually the novels contain most of the philosophical
meat of Objectivism - the subsequent non-fiction is more like
footnotes/endnotes, collections of essays that relate ideas from AS to real-
world history and economic theory. _An Introduction to Objectivist
Epistemology_ does contain many new ideas though, but it's only 50 pages or so
and is fairly a-political. I suppose the start of _The Virtue of Selfishness_
contains a couple of essential ideas one might not pick up from the novels
(ie. why you _can_ get ought from is), although that could be seen as overly
intellectual 'who cares' territory (as most people perceive the whole field of
philosophy)

------
lurkinggrue
"Second, Ayn Rand portrayed a world I wanted to live in, not because I would
be rich or powerful in it, but because it consisted of people I wanted to be
around."

Funny, I found the people in Atlas Shrugged to be two dimensional bores that
didn't talk to each other but gave long rambling speeches.

Nobody in that book acted the way humans acted and for some reason that world
had entropy turned up to 11.

The philosophy aside, the book was horrible ordeal full of people that I just
wanted to punch in the nuts.

------
stcredzero
_Objectivism takes as its metaphysical foundation the existence of reality
that is unchanged by anything that an observer might think about it—"A is A,"
as Aristotle put it, and as Rand often repeated in her own work. Objectivism's
epistemology is based on the capacity of the human mind to perceive reality
through reason, and the adamant assertion that reason is the only way to
perceive reality. In Rand's view, notions of intuition or spiritual insight
were hokum._

This sounds an awful lot like the philosophy of the Bayesian conspirators over
at lesswrong.com. However, instead of pronouncing intuition to be hokum, they
just say that intuition isn't magic. I wonder how Ayn Rand would've been
informed by the wealth of knowledge we've gained in the study of the brain and
cognition and by computer science? Objectivism would have been quite
different. (Not suffused with the false notion of mind as _tabula rasa_.)

EDIT: An excellent Review.
<http://lesswrong.com/lw/m1/guardians_of_ayn_rand/#more>

~~~
grandalf
Eliezer is not reviewing Rand's work, he's accumulating a variety of gossip
about her life and judging the organization that she formed (which still
exists) on that basis.

I think Eliezer is trying a bit hard to have a negative view of Rand (which is
a very faddish view these days). Rand's scientist heroes would fit right in
among the LessWrong crew, and Rand acknowledged that her own role (as a
philosopher and novelist) was to help elucidate the moral issues around reason
and capitalism. She was not particularly interested in the mechanics of reason
itself, but I would guess that she would very much have enjoyed LessWrong.

Rand's heroes were driven, passionate, often outcasts from society. They
sought only their work and the fulfillment they gain from it. Their
_processes_ involve reason, but their identities do not. Their creative drive
is more like what we expect from artists these days. Perhaps this feels
foreign to those in academia who live grant to grant.

note: I consider Eliezer Yudkowsky one of the most important intellectuals
alive today. Of course, I judge him by his primary work not by his personal
habits or his occasional rant about subjects that are not his focus.

~~~
stcredzero
_he's accumulating a variety of gossip about her life and judging the
organization that she formed_

By my lights, an individual or organization can be judged by how well they
adapt to reality: do they interpret facts to suit their ideology, or does
their ideology grow by accepting new facts and knowledge?

By this measure, it's much easier to have a negative view of certain of Rand's
followers.

 _They sought only their work and the fulfillment they gain from it._

I think this will be my new credo.

 _Perhaps this feels foreign to those in academia who live grant to grant._

Perhaps this is like certain entrepreneurs who live to exit, or head hunters
who live only for their fee. We should navigate and groom our incentives
instead of letting them rule us.

~~~
grandalf
_By this measure, it's much easier to have a negative view of certain of
Rand's followers._

I completely agree. I have generally had a fairly negative impression of the
organizations that exist today to support her philosophy, but I read most of
her books (fiction and nonfiction) and enjoyed them tremendously.

~~~
stcredzero
_I have generally had a fairly negative impression of the organizations that
exist today to support her philosophy, but I read most of her books (fiction
and nonfiction) and enjoyed them tremendously._

I've had a generally negative impression of her followers. All self
identifying "Objectivists" I've met seem to be "second-handers" latching onto
greatness as a substitute for their own work. This term comes from The
Fountainhead, which I enjoyed greatly. I am certain that it's useful to
occasionally ask oneself, "Am I second-handing?" My answer in a few cases has
been "yes."

(In particular, regard for the individual and reason are not gods. They are
not absolutes but best regarded as good policies and tools.)

~~~
grandalf
Note that Rand herself disliked the term "objectivism" and so I think she'd be
in agreement.

------
sublemonic
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan details his own relationship
with Ayn Rand in his book _The Age of Turbulence_. I don't have the book or
I'd pull direct quotes. But the gist is that he had an immense respect for her
and she was a meaningful influence on his life.

------
koeselitz
This is a good review, and I'm enjoying it thus far; I have my degrees (a
bachelor's and a master's) in philosophy, and this is a subject that interests
me.

Regardless of my (lack of) regard for Ayn Rand, I won't indulge in any
trolling here. I do, however, think it bears pointing out that her philosophy
has absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with Aristotle.

------
dmfdmf
For the sake of argument, let's set aside all of Ayn Rand's real or imagined
foibles and supposed moral failures. Moreover, let's set aside her advocacy of
selfishness and capitalism as moral and political ideals since these seem to
raise visceral reactions in many people. So what's left? Nothing less than
identifying the basic, inescapable axioms of existence and consciousness at
the base of all knowledge and a theory of concepts to validate reason. Most
people today are incapable of understanding this profound achievement.

------
akkartik
Another good review: <http://www.slate.com/id/2233966>

------
ThomPete
Whether Rand lived by her own ethics in my mind is less worrying than her so
called philosophy itself.

You don't need to go after her as a person to point out what is wrong with
what she was fundamentally preaching.

~~~
dualogy
What _is_ wrong with what she was -- teaching?

~~~
ThomPete
There are so many things that are wrong with it.

"The individual "must exist for his own sake"

That "must" in there is basically undermining her own claims about
rationality.

It might very well be that the individual exist for his own sake. But "must"?
That's a pretty unsupported moral claim and by no metrics rational.

Her focus on the individual is in itself a very naive interpretation of
reality.

What individual is she talking about. No man is an island. The very existence
of what we call individuals depends on so many factors from our ancestors to
the existence of a live-able planet to the air we are breathing.

If anything she wrote self-help books. To call it philosophy would be a crime
to philosophy.

Or what about A = A. Existence exist. But what is existence? That is the
question you must answer before you venture out from the premise and start
prescribing what is right and what is wrong.

~~~
grandalf
_must_ is used the same way _should_ is frequently used. Moral philosophy
allows that concept.

~~~
ThomPete
Which makes it no less problematic.

It's still an unsupported moral claim.

~~~
Tycho
Rand does actually support this claim. Basically what an organism _should_ do
is determined by its nature, ie. what actions are necessary for survival. This
is what's good for the organism. Human nature is neither automatic (like
plants) or instinctual (like animals), but rational - to survive, man must use
reason. Therefore the right/moral/good path is adherence to reason.

The only thing is that it rests on a conditional premise of choosing life over
death, but that's hardly necessary to discuss

~~~
ThomPete
I am sorry but don't force your premise down on me. Choosing life over death
is for thousands who commit suicide not such a simple question.

What actions are necessary for survival. In a war what do you think? When you
get born who takes care of you?

Besides her actions being obviously wrong (no man exist in isolation) she is
also showing a very poor understanding of basic evolutionary theory. You can't
prescribe anything based on evolution.

I can see that the Rand fanboys are roaming this thread. Instead of just
downvoting perhaps (not you Tycho) you should show some cohonas and actually
make an argument.

~~~
Tycho
Well the thing is, morality is for the living, if you choose death then it's a
moot point really.

In a war you need to take risks to ensure long-term survival (and survival
'qua' man btw, not as a slave or prisoner), there's nothing irrational about
that. When you're first born you have only the pleasure/pain mechanism to tell
good from bad, and that alone is not sufficient for survival, so as your mind
develops you must use reason to live.

Rand never mentioned evolutionary theory as far as I remember, the argument is
based simply on the easily observable biological functions that support life.
No knowledge of evolution is necessary in order to act morally or come up with
a similar moral theory. Meanwhile you keep saying 'no man is an island,' 'no
man exists in isolation,' but I'm not sure what you actually mean by that. I
could just as easily say 'no man shares the mind of any other' - it's a bit of
a platitude - what's your argument exactly?

~~~
ThomPete
Given that Rand tries to make universal claims your attempt to make exceptions
are rather ironic.

Basically your argument about kids are not any different than the religious
people trying to explain how a child that haven't been baptized can go to
heaven if they die early.

What about the victims that meet the an enemy with overwhelming power. Are
they heroic when they flee because that is the rational thing to do? Or are
they irrational because they take the risk and attack the enemy?

What about the retarded? Are they not humans because they aren't rational?

You simply skip over all the problematic part with Rands philosophy. That's
fine with me, just don't call it careful thinking.

The point about no man is an island is that the idea of the individual is not
just naive it's flat out wrong.

With regards to your easily observable biological functions. Let me remind you
that the body is a colony of cells that all work together to ultimately
maintain the idea of you as an individual.

To claim that the individual is somehow a well defined thing is simply showing
the same kind of ignorance that the religious people have towards science.

The survival instinct is hardwired into you only to the extent that it's not
being suppressed by a severe depression. The brain is not a mechanical thing
it's moldable.

Obviously being young and immortal Rand makes some sense. This explains why
she is so popular to young people who lack any fidelity and experience outside
the campus.

If anything Rands thinking is that of a immature human being who lack any
desire to really understand the world around them because it is to occupied
with themselves.

Existence exist, but the question is what is existence. Rand goes from
description to prescription but forget to do the check and balances of her
premise.

~~~
Tycho
Rand makes claims based on clearly defined concepts - if you change the
definition of the concept or misinterpret that's not her fault. When she says
'man' it is shorthand for an adult human capable of rational thought. If the
human in question is not capable of rational thought (infant, retarded
person), then most of Rand's theory does not apply. It consists of _qualified_
universal claims, all depending on the nature of the organism (on a case by
case basis, but we generalize for convenience).

Meeting an overwhelming foe in war is an ethical emergency where there is no
good outcome, just a choice of bad ones. As such, do whatever seems to best
protect that which you value most, either fleeing or fighting (or even dieing
to save others) could be moral decisions. These are not the problematic parts
of Rand's philosophy, the rules themselves don't change - but they are in fact
the problematic parts of almost every other philosophy I come across: ie. the
unhelpful focus on emergencies and exceptions, rendering the 'answers'
irrelevant to everyday life. See Rand's essay 'The Ethics of Emergencies' for
more on this.

You say the concept of the individual is wrong but just as morality only has
meaning to the living, _this very discussion_ only has meaning if it involves
conscious, self-aware individuals, so there's literally no point entertaining
any idea to the contrary (even though I'd like to point out that molecules
still exist as unique entities even though they're made up of quarks).

Also it's irrelevant whether there is a hardwired survival instinct in place
or not - as I said the whole thing rests on a conditional premise, a choice.
Look at what Rand's saying like this:

 _Do you, lifeform, wish to live?_ If so then [insert Objectivism here]

~~~
ThomPete
It doesn't matter if Rand makes claims on clearly defined concepts. Her
concepts are wrong. The premise is wrong.

I don't change the definition I am telling you what is wrong with her
definition. There is a world of difference.

Again you speak of conscious self-aware individuals as if it's well defined
what that means.

This is exactly the problem with Rands philosophy and your belief. Words are
not reality, words are simplifications of reality.

No matter how many descriptors you put around the word individual it won't
become more well defined. There isn't any clear cut easily observable
individual when you start to really dig into it.

"Do you, life-form, wish to live? If so then [insert Objectivism here]"

This obviously isn't what she is saying since there are other ways to live
than by the gospel of objectivism. Ways that have no problem supporting life.
Religion being one of them.

~~~
Tycho
Words are symbols for their referents, which are concepts - concepts that are
a condensation of many, many observations about existents or other concepts.
So yes words are simplifications of reality, they encode the essential aspects
of some part of reality - but their definitions are right or wrong depending
on the truth or falsehood of the condensed observations. Rand observed that
biologically developed men were autonomous agents with the ability to
perceive, reason and conceptualize (ie. conscious, self-aware individuals) and
proscribed an ethical theory accordingly. She declares her definition so if
you want to invalidate it you need to refute those observations or the manner
in which they're integrated into a single concept.

Individuals are extremely easy to recognize, we do it all the time. We just
don't know exactly _how_ all the systems supporting our individuality work,
but then we don't know exactly how _all_ the systems supporting _anything_
work either. Quantum mechanics, anyone? Humans are rational animals: that
means as animals they have all the usual biological considerations of
growth/development/decay but the end product of that growth/development (when
successful) is always a being with the type of consciousness (ie. awareness)
that allows him/her to not only respond to the environment and act
autonomously, but also to abstract, conceptualize, and reason.

Also I think you misinterpreted my last line - Rand is only addressing or
'trying to reach' life-forms who choose life. Of course they could choose to
follow some other advice and still choose to live (although not wholly
consistently, Rand would argue)

~~~
ThomPete
I have refuted those observations simply by showing that men are not ONLY
individuals. That they don't exist in a vacum, that they are not ONLY
autonomous.

That's all I need to do. I don't have to buy Rands observations if they don't
fully account for the reality they are trying to make claims about.

You are confusing what seems to be the case with what is the case. You take
one interpretation of phenomena and makes it the only interpretation.

Then you (or Rand if you like) take that an try to make universal claims.

That is exactly what is wrong here. That is only one interpretation not very
well thought out and certainly not grounded in any deep thinking on the
matter.

Humans are not only rational animals they are also irrational animals.
Sometimes that irrationality actually have benefits for survival. And then we
haven't even looked at the problem with claiming that something is rational
outside of it's context as you are fundamentally arguing.

No I didn't misinterpret it I understood very well what you said.

To boil it all down. The problem that you find yourself in is that every time
I give you examples of where Rands universal claims don't apply you simply
exclude them from the claim. You don't need to think about this very long
until you realize that this is not what constitutes careful thinking. That's
sloppy thinking.

There is nothing well defined about reality. No slam dunk easy peacey way to
get to certainty in these matters no matter how many words you use to describe
it.

Listen you will grow up meet the woman in your life, perhaps get kids. Then
you will realize just how wrong Rands thinking is.

And don't get me wrong. Rand did have some clever things to say and sure did
inspire many to do better. But a philosopher she was not. That requires
careful thinking something that she and the whole objective school that came
after her so sorely miss.

~~~
Tycho
I think a lot of the things you say are contradictions. There's no reason why
individuals can only exist 'in a vacuum.' Saying men are 'not ONLY autonomous'
is like saying the president is not ONLY elected, he is also unelected. Men
are rational beings, ie. they possess the ability to reason (regardless of
whether they use it properly or at all), saying men are rational but also not
rational is like saying 'this car is a diesel but it is also not a diesel.' If
you think irrationality has benefits for survival you need to actually state
your case, give examples.

I don't think you understand very well what Rand is arguing, either - the
reason I responded initially was because you said 'rationality is good' was an
unsupported claim by Rand, as if she used it as an axiom but she doesn't. I'm
not making any effort to 'exclude' examples that you give - you just don't
seem to fully grasp that which you're criticizing, so it's no surprise that
you give inappropriate examples.

And of course something cannot be rational outside of its context - in man's
case the context is the environment (and his own thoughts/memories), hence
'consciousness.' Consciousness implies something to be _conscious of._

Look, you can try to deny statements like 'doves can fly' (all doves? baby
doves? retarded doves? doves with broken wings? doves in cages? war doves?)
all you want. You seem determined to deny the basic tenets of human existence
- we just think we're individuals, but we're not; we just think we perceive
reality, but we don't; we just think words denote reality, but they can't; etc
etc. You know, _the things that let us go about our daily lives._ And let's
face it that's what most philosophy does, which is what leads to endless pages
of borderline unintelligible _and almost always completely useless_ treatises
and critiques about 'pure reason' or 'phenomenology' or whatever. But this is
not deep thinking or careful thinking... it's just a sneaky attempt to
sidestep the facts of existence and hence shirk responsibility for one's
decisions.

~~~
ThomPete
Welcome to philosophy, that is how it's done.

If you want to make universal claims as Rand obviously wanted then you
naturally need to take all factors into account. You can't just cherry pick
those that seem to support your argument and then skip over the rest.

Well you can but then you are not interested in making philosophical
arguments. You are just making claims.

With regards to _rationality is good_ I was responding to that not claiming
that, please read the thread.

But let's look at something she did claim.

"Existence exist"

The question obviously is, what is existence. You can't just say well the
environment seems to have individuals, therefore individuals are a fundamental
property of reality. And then use that as if it's a well defined entity.

 _You know, the things that let us go about our daily lives. And let's face it
that's what most philosophy does, which is what leads to endless pages of
borderline unintelligible and almost always completely useless treatises and
critiques about 'pure reason' or 'phenomenology' or whatever. But this is not
deep thinking or careful thinking... it's just a sneaky attempt to sidestep
the facts of existence and hence shirk responsibility for one's decisions._

But that _is_ philosophy whether you like it or not. Philosophy isn't there to
let you go by in your daily life.

That is not the job of philosophy, luckily as there would have been no
intellectual progress.

You are confusing what could be called life philosophy with philosophy. You
wan't simple answers but in philosophy answers only lead to new questions. You
want certainty were none exist.

And just to be clear here. Science is disagreeing with Rand, QM, Biology,
Neuroscience. Reality is disagreeing with Rand.

Even if we were to take experience of reality for what it is. You try and have
some children and you will realize that this egomaniac approach is nothing but
an illusion that speaks to a very tiny part of the human mind.

That doesn't mean that you can't make rational decisions but to claim that
it's somehow well defined is simply yet another non philosophical, non-sceptic
approach.

Your last sentence really says it all. You want a life philosophy, that's all
fine and good. Some follow Gods word you follow Rands. But independent
rational thinking it is not.

~~~
Tycho
_With regards to rationality is good I was responding to that not claiming
that, please read the thread._

In this case it is _you_ that needs to properly read my reply. That's the
second time you've misread my post (the first was the [insert Objectivism
here] bit).

I want philosophy to help guide me through life, yeah. Whereas you want
philosophy for, um, what exactly? I feel like there's a lot of empty rhetoric
in your responses. First you just keep asserting that individuality and
certainty are impossible. You think you've made the case for this by
mentioning the words 'context' and 'vacuum' or something. You also try to use
the prestige of science (QM, biology, neuroscience) to trash Rand without
offering any specific evidence/argument, and try the same thing with the
emotional appeal of family. Maybe you do have arguments involving those things
but I've yet to hear them. You also keep saying 'universal claims' without
really explaining what you mean.

Put it like this. Objectivism is only for rational beings, that is beings with
the power to reason. Which is fine, because non-rational beings could never
understand/use it anyway. She says 'man' in place of 'rational animal' or
'rational being' because on Earth as we know it humans are the only entities
that develop rationality. Anyway, if you don't think that usage of the word
'man' is correct, it doesn't really matter - again the point is that anybody
reading Objectivism qualifies as a subject.

By the way, Rand does discuss epistemology and metaphysics in some detail in
her paper 'Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology' if you were interested in
reading more about these low-level details of Oism.

~~~
ThomPete
Well you are asking philosophy to do something that it can't.

Guiding you through life is the job of self-help books and religion and
objectivism.

I don't want philosophy to help guide me through life. I use philosophy to
constantly question assumptions in order to push my understanding of the world
around me, not dictate what is right or wrong which is how Rand uses it.

 _First you just keep asserting that individuality and certainty are
impossible._

Well by all means please show me something that is certain. Existence exist
just isn't going to do it as existence itself is an open question. What is
existence, how can you with certainty say something is the way you experience
it.

I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. But if it goes like in most
cases when I ask objectivist to prove their claim there will be silence.

 _Objectivism is only for rational beings, that is beings with the power to
reason._

So the ability to reason makes you rational? Surely you can see what is wrong
with that statement. A religious person is able to reason, a communist is able
to reason.

That isn't what Rand was doing. She was reasoning a specific way based on
specific premises. The rationale that followed her premises are what makes for
objectivism. It is a specific moral claiming how man ought to be.

Of course as most first year student's of philosophy will quickly learn is
that there aren't any certain premises.

Existence isn't a certain premise as you need to describe what existence is.
That is the whole point of philosophy.

It's not to give you ten commandments to follow.

~~~
Tycho
I too use philosophy to 'push my understanding of the world around me' but for
what possible reason should I want to do _this_ except to better inform the
decisions I make in my life?

All of Objectivism can be extrapolated from 'Existence exists.' That statement
implies that 'something' exists (hence law of identity, A is A) and that you
are conscious of it (hence consciousness). That gives us the three axiomatic
concepts on which Objectivism rests - everyone directly perceives them - and
they cannot be denied because any argument against them would inevitably
_involve/imply_ existence/identity/consciousness resulting in self-
contradiction. In a similar way, the validity of the senses is not up for
debate because any attempt to negate this validity would at some point rely
upon it. So you need to accept the three irreducible primaries
(existence/identity/consciousness) and the validity of the senses - and
happily basically everyone does accept those things, and lives accordingly,
and would only so much as _attempt_ to deny them during rare philosophical
debates.

When I said rational beings are defined by their ability to reason, I did not
mean such beings are automatically acting _rationally._ Its a different sense
of the word, like _a fast car_ vs _a car that is actually going fast._ Just a
misunderstanding.

------
rpledge
I like to read my copy of 'Atlas Shrugged' in the morning...

~~~
eru
I always preferred `Telemachus Sneezed'.

~~~
weeksie
Kallisti!

And yes, I always enjoyed RAW's jabs (or nods) toward Rand, Joyce, and
Pynchon. That man was a treasure.

------
Rod
Ayn Rand was very successful at running a religious cult, I have to give her
that, at least. However, despite all her love for the "productive people", I
just can't think of her as one of the heroes her cult so worshipped. More to
the point, has Ayn Rand ever worked? All she did was write poor novels of
enormous length, and socialize (and have sex) with her cult followers.

Rand created no new knowledge, no new art. All she did was write pseudo-
philosophical treatises on why it's OK to behave badly and selfishly, and a
bunch of self-important wankers decided to deify her for creating a moral code
that legitimized their assholery. Compare Rand to the philosophers of the
Enlightenment. She's less than a lightweight, she's nothing.

~~~
xenophanes
> has Ayn Rand ever worked?

Dude, writing books is work. Try it some time, it's not so easy to make a
living that way. Do you think when people at 37 Signals worked on writing
their book, that was vacation time?

As to the rest, don't troll here. Insulting people you hate doesn't contribute
to the discussion.

~~~
Rod
Please note:

1) I don't know who the folks at 37 signals are. Please refer to people that
are widely known outside of your little bubble, please.

2) Writing a scientific paper is hard work. Writing a thesis is hard work.
Writing a _book_ is even harder. But Rand's novels are not in the same league
as Dostoevski's. Not even close. Everyone can be an author, only few can be
writers.

3) The irony is that Rand glorified a class of people she did not belong to.
The world would have been different (and poorer) without Edison, Tesla, Bell,
Shannon, and the like. If Rand had never existed, the world would have been
exactly the same. She had zero real impact, like most philosophers of the 20th
Century. Discussing "ideas" that are not even properly defined is mental
masturbation, not profound thinking.

~~~
akkartik
_"If Rand had never existed, the world would have been exactly the same. She
had zero real impact, like most philosophers of the 20th Century."_

Ayn Rand came from Russia to a US society that was giving socialism serious
thought. She articulated for capitalism an ideology; before her it seemed to
have none. She was widely read for 2 generations. Her students managed
political office and monetary policy in the US. I see all this as more than
zero impact.

~~~
Rod
I am all for capitalism. But, frankly, Hayek was lightyears ahead of Rand in
terms of making a strong case for capitalism and exposing the evils of
socialism. Among Rand's followers we have people like Greenspan and
Niederhoffer, both notorious intellectual charlatans. I am all for free
enterprise and being productive, but don't claim that Rand was anything more
than a brainless cheerleader, because she was not.

~~~
grandalf
The difference is that Rand made a purely moral argument for capitalism. Let
me guess, you are religious?

