Ayn Rand: The Philosophy of the Psychopath

[Drewish]

[Drewish]

This one is blah until the 5 minute mark.



Hopefully now a discussion of Ayn Rand and Objectivism (if people wish to have one) can start on more pleasant terms than the hatchet job linked to in the OP.

[Seabass]

I wonder how many of the anti-Rand crowd have actually read her work? I would bet that upwards of 9/10 Rand haters have never actually read any of her books. All this Ayn Rand bashing looks like so much mindless tribalism and bandwagoning from rabid anti-capitalists. The anti Rand faction looks almost as culty as the Rand faction, if you ask me.

For the record, no I'm not an objectivist or a Randroid, and I've never actually read any of her books, but I think I know groupthink when I see it.

I wouldn't deign to read all of Atlas Shrugged - by most accounts it's tedious, and even if it wasn't it's still an 1100+ page doorstop - but I did read through the climax, John Galt's long (25-40 pages, depending on which version you get) ideological speech over the radio, which is what the whole book builds up to. Needless to say, I despised what he had to say.

But in keeping with my thoughts of Rand and Marx being on opposite ends of a socioeconomic philosophers' spectrum, I don't mind saying that despise Marx even more.

Lol. So out of the thousands and thousands of pages that Ayn Rand has written, you've read one thirty-ish page speech out of one of her books. And you've heard accounts to the effect that her work is tedious. And you reckon these are sufficient grounds for you to make an accurate assessment of the quality of her body of work and her philosophy?

Is there any other author in the history literature who gets written off and vilified so easily and so often? I cannot imagine someone getting away with saying, "I read thirty pages of Anna Karenina and have concluded that everything Tolstoy ever wrote, said, and thought is despicable horseshit."

[Hermit]

I wonder how many of the anti-Rand crowd have actually read her work? I would bet that upwards of 9/10 Rand haters have never actually read any of her books. All this Ayn Rand bashing looks like so much mindless tribalism and bandwagoning from rabid anti-capitalists.

You could say the same thing after reversing a couple of labels. How many of the anti-Marx crowd have read Das Kapital?

[Ian]

I wonder how many of the anti-Rand crowd have actually read her work? I would bet that upwards of 9/10 Rand haters have never actually read any of her books. All this Ayn Rand bashing looks like so much mindless tribalism and bandwagoning from rabid anti-capitalists. The anti Rand faction looks almost as culty as the Rand faction, if you ask me.

For the record, no I'm not an objectivist or a Randroid, and I've never actually read any of her books, but I think I know groupthink when I see it.

I wouldn't deign to read all of Atlas Shrugged - by most accounts it's tedious, and even if it wasn't it's still an 1100+ page doorstop - but I did read through the climax, John Galt's long (25-40 pages, depending on which version you get) ideological speech over the radio, which is what the whole book builds up to. Needless to say, I despised what he had to say.

But in keeping with my thoughts of Rand and Marx being on opposite ends of a socioeconomic philosophers' spectrum, I don't mind saying that despise Marx even more.

Lol. So out of the thousands and thousands of pages that Ayn Rand has written, you've read one thirty-ish page speech out of one of her books. And you've heard accounts to the effect that her work is tedious. And you reckon these are sufficient grounds for you to make an accurate assessment of the quality of her body of work and her philosophy?

Is there any other author in the history literature who gets written off and vilified so easily and so often? I cannot imagine someone getting away with saying, "I read thirty pages of Anna Karenina and have concluded that everything Tolstoy ever wrote, said, and thought is despicable horseshit."

No, you missed my point. I'm not interested in critiquing her skills as a novelist, and I don't care about giving a book report on character development or her use of scene descriptions, plot devices, etc. I'm critiquing her philosophy. And yes, I've read more than enough about Objectivism (more than just those thiry-odd pages, thanks) to have a pretty good understanding of it. And I think it's ludicrous.

Does one need to have read every word in the Bible or the Koran to know that one doesn't agree with Christianity or Islam? I think not.

[Drewish]

I agree with Ian's general point here, even if I disagree about his assessment of Objectivism.

[Coito ergo sum]

Out of curiosity, what of the actual tenets of Objectivism as expressed by Ayn Rand are "ludicrous?"

[Seabass]

I wonder how many of the anti-Rand crowd have actually read her work? I would bet that upwards of 9/10 Rand haters have never actually read any of her books. All this Ayn Rand bashing looks like so much mindless tribalism and bandwagoning from rabid anti-capitalists. The anti Rand faction looks almost as culty as the Rand faction, if you ask me.

For the record, no I'm not an objectivist or a Randroid, and I've never actually read any of her books, but I think I know groupthink when I see it.

I wouldn't deign to read all of Atlas Shrugged - by most accounts it's tedious, and even if it wasn't it's still an 1100+ page doorstop - but I did read through the climax, John Galt's long (25-40 pages, depending on which version you get) ideological speech over the radio, which is what the whole book builds up to. Needless to say, I despised what he had to say.

But in keeping with my thoughts of Rand and Marx being on opposite ends of a socioeconomic philosophers' spectrum, I don't mind saying that despise Marx even more.

Lol. So out of the thousands and thousands of pages that Ayn Rand has written, you've read one thirty-ish page speech out of one of her books. And you've heard accounts to the effect that her work is tedious. And you reckon these are sufficient grounds for you to make an accurate assessment of the quality of her body of work and her philosophy?

Is there any other author in the history literature who gets written off and vilified so easily and so often? I cannot imagine someone getting away with saying, "I read thirty pages of Anna Karenina and have concluded that everything Tolstoy ever wrote, said, and thought is despicable horseshit."

No, you missed my point. I'm not interested in critiquing her skills as a novelist, and I don't care about giving a book report on character development or her use of scene descriptions, plot devices, etc. I'm critiquing her philosophy. And yes, I've read more than enough about Objectivism (more than just those thiry-odd pages, thanks) to have a pretty good understanding of it. And I think it's ludicrous.

My bad. I assumed you meant what you said in your previous post about having read Galt's speech. You gave no indication that you'd read more than that.

Does one need to have read every word in the Bible or the Koran to know that one doesn't agree with Christianity or Islam? I think not.

Of course not, but the two aren't analogous.

Religion is ingrained into our culture, intertwined with human history; we see its influence everywhere: art, politics, music, literature, war, etcetera, etcetera. Most of us have friends and family who are religious, and many of us were raised religious. Most of us get more exposure to religion than we could ever need or want, without having to read religious texts.

The same cannot be said of Ayn Rand and her work. She's an author who wrote some fiction books and a few philosophical/political treatises. There aren't three billion Ayn Rand worshipers erecting churches, cathedrals and statues, engaging in various forms of Ayn Rand worship and idolatry, and oppressing and waging war on non-believers. When that happens, then it'll be a fair analogy.

So yes, I think it's fair to expect critics, bashers, vilifiers, and maligners of Ayn Rand to have read at least one book before they shit all over her. Just one book. I don't think that's asking too much.

[MrJonno]

Did try reading a bit of Atlas Shrugged just found it extremely dull. I simply have never had any interest in the lives of rich people whether its rock stars, Dallas/Dynasty. There is a reason that most British soaps are about the lives of the poor(ish).

Rand's ideology is evil for the quite simple reason she thinks the desires of the individuals are at all times superior to those of the society they live in. With 7 billion people on the planet and that sort of ideology you going to lose most of those. The rights of the individual are obviously important but most of us learn as children they you can't have everything you want (even if you work for it or deserve it), that sometimes you do have do things that you really don't want to do. You learn that while you may have some influence over your fate you can't always control it.

Human life is worth more than your personal freedoms, that ensuring your fellow citizens get decent healthcare, food and shelter isnt a charitable choice but an obligation that you have choosen by being part of society

[Coito ergo sum]

Did try reading a bit of Atlas Shrugged just found it extremely dull. I simply have never had any interest in the lives of rich people whether its rock stars, Dallas/Dynasty. There is a reason that most British soaps are about the lives of the poor(ish).

I found Atlas Shrugged dull too.

Rand's ideology is evil for the quite simple reason she thinks the desires of the individuals are at all times superior to those of the society they live in. With 7 billion people on the planet and that sort of ideology you going to lose most of those.

Not superior, since each individual is assumed to be of equal dignity. The ideology is quite the opposite of what you've just described, in that Rand suggest that no person or group of people can be indentured by another.

The rights of the individual are obviously important but most of us learn as children they you can't have everything you want (even if you work for it or deserve it), that sometimes you do have do things that you really don't want to do. You learn that while you may have some influence over your fate you can't always control it.

Yes, but Rand's ideology does not say otherwise.

Human life is worth more than your personal freedoms, that ensuring your fellow citizens get decent healthcare, food and shelter isnt a charitable choice but an obligation that you have choosen by being part of society

I don't think that you understand Objectivism. I'm not an Objectivist, mind you, nor do I care for Ayn Rand's writing. But, I don't think you understand Objectivism.

[MrJonno]

I don't think that you understand Objectivism. I'm not an Objectivist, mind you, nor do I care for Ayn Rand's writing. But, I don't think you understand Objectivism.

Well you can spend a lot of time saying what it is or isnt but in the end of the day I will judge it on who claims to follow it

Not superior, since each individual is assumed to be of equal dignity. The ideology is quite the opposite of what you've just described, in that Rand suggest that no person or group of people can be indentured by another.

Had to look up the word indentured as its not something that is commonly used and to some extent we do have obligations to each other

I tend to see humanity much like a very loose spiders web with everyone one of having 1000's of threads connecting to each other. In a good society you can pull those threads a lot and wander around a lot but they never break and if you pull too hard you will drag everyone else along with you

[Drewish]

I don't think that you understand Objectivism. I'm not an Objectivist, mind you, nor do I care for Ayn Rand's writing. But, I don't think you understand Objectivism.

Well you can spend a lot of time saying what it is or isnt but in the end of the day I will judge it on who claims to follow it

So why not respond to my posts?

I tend to see humanity much like a very loose spiders web with everyone one of having 1000's of threads connecting to each other. In a good society you can pull those threads a lot and wander around a lot but they never break and if you pull too hard you will drag everyone else along with you

So we're all flies trapped in a web, and if we jerk everyone else around so that they have to do things our way, that's a good thing?

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think that you understand Objectivism. I'm not an Objectivist, mind you, nor do I care for Ayn Rand's writing. But, I don't think you understand Objectivism.

Well you can spend a lot of time saying what it is or isnt but in the end of the day I will judge it on who claims to follow it

Why wouldn't you judge it based on its principles, like any other philosophy?

Not superior, since each individual is assumed to be of equal dignity. The ideology is quite the opposite of what you've just described, in that Rand suggest that no person or group of people can be indentured by another.

Had to look up the word indentured as its not something that is commonly used and to some extent we do have obligations to each other

Whatever. Your assertion was that Objectivism posits that certain individuals are "superior" to others. It plain and simply does not.

That doesn't mean you have to accept Objectivism. It just means that you think something is part of Objectivism which is, in fact, not.

I tend to see humanity much like a very loose spiders web with everyone one of having 1000's of threads connecting to each other. In a good society you can pull those threads a lot and wander around a lot but they never break and if you pull too hard you will drag everyone else along with you

That may well be true.

[MrJonno]

So we're all flies trapped in a web, and if we jerk everyone else around so that they have to do things our way, that's a good thing?

Trapped is a loaded word, we are more junctions of the web. While we can drag others around there is always going to be others to drag us around. If we all drag really hard the web breaks but no one gets to eat any flies and we all starve

[Coito ergo sum]

So we're all flies trapped in a web, and if we jerk everyone else around so that they have to do things our way, that's a good thing?

Trapped is a loaded word, we are more junctions of the web. While we can drag others around there is always going to be others to drag us around. If we all drag really hard the web breaks but no one gets to eat any flies and we all starve

None of which says anything at all regarding the philosophy of Objectivism.

What actual principles of Objectivism are evil,in your view?

Is it that existence exists objectively?

Is it that existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception? Is it that they are asserted to be the base of all knowledge (and the precondition of proof): knowledge presupposing something to know and someone to know it. Is it the objectivist belief that these are absolutes which cannot be questioned or escaped: every human utterance, including the denial of these axioms, implies their use and acceptance.

Is it the law of identity? That to exist or to be means to be "something?"

Objectivism: we exist. We exist objectively. Since we exist, we exist as "something." We are conscious, because to even question if we are conscious it necessarily implies that we are conscious in order to do so.

Other objectivist ideas: The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. "Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

Do you object to objectivism's epistemology of reason? Reason is defined by Ayn Rand as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."

Do you object to the atheism of Objectivism, which is based on reason?

What is it about objectivism that makes it so evil? I haven't fully described it here in this post, but what I'm trying to do is give a starting point.