Why do some people criticize Ayn Rand's philosophy and literature?

[AndrewSheldon]

I disagree with your view on objectivity. And if I can't escape my nature, then why does Ayn Rand have to remind us of what it is? Also I don't think science supports your views, in my opinion. As well, I also think that human nature is variable and adaptable in some of it's aspects in this context.

Good point. You can't escape your constraints unless your force others to assume them or members of society to accept them. She opposes coercion. In what sense does science not support my view...admittedly their are specific scientists who argue a great number of things...any specifics?

Clever doesn't imply something one should appreciate. I can make clever points in about any direction one could think of, so what.

Actually appreciation implies value. Cleverness is one form of value. Perhaps you mean she has a great imagination.

Should you be concerned if the biosphere were to be destroyed a day after you die?

Silly to answer that question out of context. Context makes all the difference.

What does any of this have to do with physics?

Well, philosophy is underpinned by science. Values are derived from facts, whether its the nature of existence or human nature, i.e. A Christian might argue there is a god who created the earth. Physics is useful for invalidating the 17th century proposition that the Earth was created in 6000 years.

I never said interesting, I said clever, or intelligent. Hitler was also clever, so was Jim Jones, so was L. Ron Hubbard, so was Stalin etc, etc. I find Ayn Rand's philosophy an abuse of cleverness. The less clever layman is easily confused by such people. It may take someone clever and intelligent to realize they are full of it.

Yes, I said 'interesting' as a general statement, thinking it implausible that anyone could find them clever. I have not read Jim Jones though. Have you read 'Mein Kampf', Hitler is incoherent. Well, I'll leave you to your reading list of 'cleverness', its not mine. Their depravity is interesting to understand. Clever? Ok, you go with that.

 

[AndrewSheldon]

Rand is polarizing.

Yes, she is...that is the implication of holding principles, people either accept or reject them. Conflict is a point of debate...it is how we grow if we don't bury our heads in the sand, or evade those questions raised.

She takes the most extreme individualist position on the spectrum from individualism to collectivism. that's fine, so Rand is an extreme individualist.

Since when is 'extreme' a basis for assessing the morality worth of a proposition? Extremely what? Coherent, intelligent, rational? You are extremely unprincipled by arguing for a compromise. It is not a plausible standard.

... but that doesn't mean that humans are by nature extreme individualists. if most people disagree with Rand, then the logical conclusion is that most humans are by nature at least somewhat collectivist. and this is not surprising, as there are other collectivist species on the planet. i don't think we are bees, but we're hardly wolverines, either.

Having answered your issue of 'extremism' above, I reject the idea of an 'extreme nature'. Moral absolutism is not a new concept. Christianity is based on it. The problem is that its dogma detached from reality. How can you be a physicist and not accept universal laws? Are they extreme as well? No, they are absolutes that apply in a specific context.
Yes, most people are at least partially collectivist, and also individualist...because they have to have some element of 'worth' otherwise they would be dead. If they were so lacking in initiative to not get off the ground to feed themselves they would be dead. The question is - by what theory do you accept a compromise between individualism and collectivism? Why the middle ground?
I don't think you can argue that animals are 'collectivist' per se...and I don't think the way humans are defines how we should be...so any comparison is moot.

basically, i think that Rand sets herself up at odds with most of humanity. she has some good points, as individualism is important for us. but it's not the only thing, and we are somewhat collectivist, too.

Agreed, she is an oddity in a collectivist world, but that is not the point. Individualism was an oddity 300 years ago. Ask yourself why individualism is good? You say we are 'somewhat collectivist'...I would challenge yourself to break down what you mean by that. Do we mean we subjugate our values for others? If so, why? Should you marry a woman because she needs you? Rand does not repudiate society...she thinks its very important...merely she rejects altruism...which is not kindness...its slavery/servitude.

 

[Proton Soup]

i'm not going to argue with you andrew. the only thing i mean by "extreme" or polar is that i think she sits on one end of a continuum between collectivist and individualist views. in fact, i had no idea that someone would find that assertion controversial.

if evangelism is your goal, then you'll have to go elsewhere. i read atlas shrugged several years ago and gained some inspiration from it then. so i can see things from her point of view. now, as a more experienced human, i no longer think she's completely right.

 

[Evo]

This thread has been active with relatively little content. Let's try to have a worthwhile discussion without disecting whole thoughts into single sentences and put some actual thought into the responses please.

 

[AndrewSheldon]

i'm not going to argue with you andrew. the only thing i mean by "extreme" or polar is that i think she sits on one end of a continuum between collectivist and individualist views. in fact, i had no idea that someone would find that assertion controversial.
if evangelism is your goal, then you'll have to go elsewhere. i read atlas shrugged several years ago and gained some inspiration from it then. so i can see things from her point of view. now, as a more experienced human, i no longer think she's completely right.

I agree with all your points as you have clarified them. When I first read Rand, I pretty well accepted it all, but now have issues where I disagree with her...like lack of regard for empathy...but as I say, she doesn't repudiate it. But she is against slavery, sacrifice, welfare statism, etc. What has changes is that know knowledge has advanced and my critical thinking skills. I think she still offers a lot of value...but I have outgrown her...as you appear to have well. I cannot dismiss her value as some would...and I think she is the best introduction to a philosophy of individualism at this time...though I don't know those others mentioned as 'Objectivists' at Wikipedia. They might be better.
Sorry, if I sound pedantic, but that is the nature of philosophy. It entails being a stickler for detail, context, definition, etc.
I will end my contribution with that summation. :)

 

[Proton Soup]

I agree with all your points as you have clarified them. When I first read Rand, I pretty well accepted it all, but now have issues where I disagree with her...like lack of regard for empathy...but as I say, she doesn't repudiate it. But she is against slavery, sacrifice, welfare statism, etc. What has changes is that know knowledge has advanced and my critical thinking skills. I think she still offers a lot of value...but I have outgrown her...as you appear to have well. I cannot dismiss her value as some would...and I think she is the best introduction to a philosophy of individualism at this time...though I don't know those others mentioned as 'Objectivists' at Wikipedia. They might be better.
Sorry, if I sound pedantic, but that is the nature of philosophy. It entails being a stickler for detail, context, definition, etc.
I will end my contribution with that summation. :)

sure, there is value there. i think we're talking about why people "hate" her, though. maybe we could think of it as conflict instead. as you say:

and I don't think the way humans are defines how we should be

and that i think is a basis of conflict, to change a majority of people from something that they are, into what someone else thinks they should be. right or wrong becomes a matter of religion/philosophy, and even the rational self-interest of how much you have to gain or lose by adopting that philosophy.

 

[AndrewSheldon]

sure, there is value there. i think we're talking about why people "hate" her, though. maybe we could think of it as conflict instead. as you say:

Oh ok...I know I started there...but that's easy. She is the only philosopher (at least that I know) who considers values to be objective. i.e. Self esteem is good for you because it is consonant with your human nature. This leads to her justifying capitalism on selfish grounds, as opposed to other philosophers who will argue that its for the good of society, etc. That is another distinction. Though it could be argued a lot of economics don't explicitly have any stated philosophical base to their economics.
simply, she is different in a fundamental way, and people like to 'burn witches' because they cannot fathom their nature (metaphorically speaking).

 

[noagname]

Thanks to everyone, you gave me a lot of insite and information on both sides. I'm going to read over it again. To fully understand and if I have any questions I shall post a reply.
Thank you

 

[WhoWee]

Soon after Atlas came out, Bill Buckley, editor of the newly created National Review magazine, did not know quite what to make of it and assigned Atlas for review to the famous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker_Chambers" who had recently joined NR. In 1957 Chambers was one of the most famous former collectivists, former communists, former spies in the US. Just before WWII, Chambers finally rejected communism, left the communist underground in the US and condemned it, later testifying in HUAC and the courts. Chambers was also a brilliant Columbia educated writer and linguist, with an encyclopedic knowledge of the sweep of history, and who became one of TIME magazine's top editors after jettisoning communism.

At the time of the book review Buckley was creating the coherent intellectual foundations of the conservative right in America, and negotiating with various intellectual bents including libertarians, rejecting some of nuttier ones such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society" . Though Rand was gaining a following at the time, I think it fair to say that it was this review that stopped her momentum, or at least ended her chances of gaining further serious intellectual respect.

I think the presence of Rand helped Buckley define what the new Conservative movement did not represent - helped him define some boundaries - political ladder logic.

 

[trautlein]

I think most humans don't like her because she obviously doesn't care about anybody but herself. If you want to go through your life that way, be my guest, but it won't turn out good for you in the end. You'll be miserable.
And that's what Ayn Rand advocates.

 

[AndrewSheldon]

I think most humans don't like her because she obviously doesn't care about anybody but herself. If you want to go through your life that way, be my guest, but it won't turn out good for you in the end. You'll be miserable.
And that's what Ayn Rand advocates.

That is not an adequate explanation. What is the nature of their sensitivity or dislike of her? Does she see something in them they dislike? Why is this so personal for her 'haters'. After all, there are philosophers making a case for more 'extreme' political systems, and economists arguing then same 'libertarian' politics. Why not just dismiss her as foolish? Why is she so vile to them? I mean it gets to the point where they utterly misrepresent her. They are so passionate in their loathing that it begs belief.
Here is a good example... http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40248.html.
Personally I know why because I get the same type of feedback from people for challenging their thinking...evasive repression or loathsome, disparaging feedback. If people were like that in science, they would be snubbed, but in the humanities, there is no expectation of scientific veracity. Which is why psychology and philosophy has not developed...well not in the minds of 'government-funded' academia.
I read Philippa Foot, a highly regarded English philosopher of late. She is struggling to grasp what Rand theorized 50 years ago...and still make mistakes. Mind you Rand was not perfect, but she got the essentials...and popularised it through novels. That was her greatest contribution...a populariser of humanities and her theory of values.

 

[Evo]

That is not an adequate explanation. What is the nature of their sensitivity or dislike of her? Does she see something in them they dislike? Why is this so personal for her 'haters'. After all, there are philosophers making a case for more 'extreme' political systems, and economists arguing then same 'libertarian' politics. Why not just dismiss her as foolish? Why is she so vile to them? I mean it gets to the point where they utterly misrepresent her. They are so passionate in their loathing that it begs belief.
Here is a good example... http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40248.html.
Personally I know why because I get the same type of feedback from people for challenging their thinking...evasive repression or loathsome, disparaging feedback. If people were like that in science, they would be snubbed, but in the humanities, there is no expectation of scientific veracity. Which is why psychology and philosophy has not developed...well not in the minds of 'government-funded' academia.
I read Philippa Foot, a highly regarded English philosopher of late. She is struggling to grasp what Rand theorized 50 years ago...and still make mistakes. Mind you Rand was not perfect, but she got the essentials...and popularised it through novels. That was her greatest contribution...a populariser of humanities and her theory of values.

I've never cared enough to read anything by her, but if she's the sociopath that everyone says she is, she can't be all bad. I doubt that she warrants this much discussion unless there is truly a link to mental illness, that I can see. It usually takes a psychosis to bring about this type of near hysteria, no? At least that is what I have observed, people are not ambivalent, they are rabid. It's like a cult.

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps this quote...took the fun out of too many arguments?

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/432.Ayn_Rand
"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see."
— Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead)

 

[ParticleGrl]

I've noticed that no one at all has mentioned that Rand's view of the market has turned out to be empirically wrong. It isn't the "producers" who rise to the top in society- most recently its been the financiers and the administrators. This skews her economic ideas dramatically.

Further, I assume at least some of the people on this board are scientists and engineers- in Rand's world taxation is immoral- how would we support the science that makes our careers possible without publicly funded science? If individualism is the ultimate goal, and a good, should we attempt to develop society in such a way that we allow as many people as possible to explore their individual goals and ambitions? (this is just a restatement of utilitarianism).

 

[mheslep]

I've noticed that no one at all has mentioned that Rand's view of the market has turned out to be empirically wrong.

Because that's not the case?

It isn't the "producers" who rise to the top in society- most recently its been the financiers and the administrators.

Rand doesn't say this, she says in current societies the parasitic collectivists shake them down (and often they do). Look at the http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/09/united-states-richest-people-warren-buffett-michael-bloomberg-billionaires-2010-gates_slide.html" . How many of them are financiers?

This skews her economic ideas dramatically.

Further, I assume at least some of the people on this board are scientists and engineers- in Rand's world taxation is immoral- how would we support the science that makes our careers possible without publicly funded science?

By private funding, just like it use to be, and, to a considerable extent, still is.

If individualism is the ultimate goal, and a good, should we attempt to develop society in such a way that we allow as many people as possible to explore their individual goals and ambitions? (this is just a restatement of utilitarianism).

If you draw that out a bit more, what you are saying there is, are there not occasions to use force in order to allow the majority of people to freely go about pursuing their ambitions? The answer has been generally yes, that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." But the proposal, as I rephrased it, also immediately shows itself to contain its own self-contradiction, which was the problem of all government, http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm" :

the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

 

[WhoWee]

Further, I assume at least some of the people on this board are scientists and engineers- in Rand's world taxation is immoral- how would we support the science that makes our careers possible without publicly funded science? If individualism is the ultimate goal, and a good, should we attempt to develop society in such a way that we allow as many people as possible to explore their individual goals and ambitions? (this is just a restatement of utilitarianism).

Welcome to PF ParticleGrl. I see this is your second post - do you have any support for your comments - it will help to frame the discussion and move it forward.

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps this quote...took the fun out of too many arguments?

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/432.Ayn_Rand
"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see."
— Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead)

I have found this one to be more true than not:

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it."

 

[WhoWee]

I have found this one to be more true than not:

Agreed.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Because that's not the case? Rand doesn't say this, she says in current societies the parasitic collectivists shake them down (and often they do).

This implies that deregulation should lead to growth in the areas of the economy Rand would consider to be the "producers." However, the regulation under Reagan, Bush, Clinton lead to a huge expansion in the personal debt market (mortgage backed securities/bonds), and a much lesser expansion in corporate bonds, etc (which would be the "producing" areas). See Lewis's excellent books Liar's Poker and The Big Short for discussions of the growth of mortgage bonds.

Are there any mainstream economists who agree with Rand? I thought economics had moved beyond a pure free market ideology. See, for instance, Akerlof's famous market for lemons paper. In a free market, asymmetric information can lead to the bad driving out the good.

Look at the http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/09/united-states-richest-people-warren-buffett-michael-bloomberg-billionaires-2010-gates_slide.html" . How many of them are financiers?

Of course, it is interesting that the highest percentage by far inherited their money. I guess the old fashioned way is still the best way. However, a fair portion did make their money in the financial sector (Soros, Paulson, Icahn, Buffet, etc).

Now, if there are economists reading this, is there some way we can answer this question with data: how many $200,000 a year jobs are there on Wallstreet as compared to Silicon Valley? How many $500,000 a year jobs?

By private funding, just like it use to be, and, to a considerable extent, still is.

US companies largely no longer do basic research. See, for instance http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_36/b4145036681619.htm This role has been largely contacted to Universities. Further, you can't deny that the rapid growth of technological development began with the huge increase in state supported scientific research.

If you draw that out a bit more, what you are saying there is, are there not occasions to use force in order to allow the majority of people to freely go about pursuing their ambitions?

The answer to this must be yes or a government serves no purpose.

Further, if I take a dollar from you by force today to give you $10 tomorrow (because you aren't being a rational actor), is this justified? How much does a stable society benefit economic growth?

 

[disregardthat]

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it."

That actually appears quite insightful. I believe there is much truth to this, in a limited sense of course. My impression of Ayn Rand is that of a person with arguments one (often) easily can accept, but with conclusions which one just as easily can deny. I understand how that can sound hypocritical, but society doesn't boil down to idealism. In the end, common sense pragmatism guided by a strong basis of empathic ethics will always trump idealism. Both in practice and in mind.

My main (naive) objection to libertarian idealism is the vital importance of state regulations. Private companies are "subconsciously" inclined to profit maximally without bounds, and the tendencies we witness all the time of taking advantage of the common customer could only be restrained through a larger authority. Second, I don't at all see how such an idealized society could be governed by civil laws, under what authority does one have to sanction civilians? And what motivations? In the extreme case, there would be no profit in arresting murderers, but a large profit in arresting competitors.

 

[Phrak]

Why do people hate Ayn Rand?

Because she would eat her own children in a pinch.

Her ravenous, sexual fixation makes the rest of us, who have taken notice, feel like appetizers de la grande buffet.

 

[WhoWee]

This implies that deregulation should lead to growth in the areas of the economy Rand would consider to be the "producers." However, the regulation under Reagan, Bush, Clinton lead to a huge expansion in the personal debt market (mortgage backed securities/bonds), and a much lesser expansion in corporate bonds, etc (which would be the "producing" areas). See Lewis's excellent books Liar's Poker and The Big Short for discussions of the growth of mortgage bonds.

Liar's Poker was focused more on the relationship (or disconnect as it were) between Wall Street traders and the largely unsophisticated Savings and Loan presidents in small communities. It chronicled the start of the mortgage crisis and emphasized the inept yet manipulative acts of Congress. When you consider the book was written in the late 1980's - it's unfortunate that (apparently) nothing was learned by Congress over the following 20 years with regard to Fannie, Freddie, and derivatives.

 

[mheslep]

...
My main (naive) objection to libertarian idealism is the vital importance of state regulations. Private companies are "subconsciously" inclined to profit maximally without bounds,

The bounds are set mainly by the desire to keep customers, to give them what they want. Then there are both the criminal and property rights (of others) laws.

and the tendencies we witness all the time of taking advantage of the common customer could only be restrained through a larger authority.

I don't witness abuse "all the time." I do witness Hollywood and the media suggesting through gotcha journalism that it happens all the time. I witness worse abuse by government.

 

[disregardthat]

I don't witness abuse "all the time." I do witness Hollywood and the media suggesting through gotcha journalism that it happens all the time. I witness worse abuse by government.

Why are you blindfolding yourself? It's a fine line between "giving customers what they want" and luring them to believe they got what they wanted. It common in the food industry to for example pour water and sometimes even toxins into meat and fish to increase the weight way over the allowed limit. This happens today, and without strict regulation on this it would be much more common. Is this giving people what they want? It is naive to believe that those companies who don't do this will profit for "giving people what they want". On the contrary, those who do are the largest and most profitable companies. It is not odd that the big companies are the worst companies. It is only the government which stands between us and this trickery.

To blame hollywood and the media is just too clichè. Even if someone exaggerate doesn't mean they provide the opposite picture of the world.

 

[WhoWee]

Why are you blindfolding yourself? It's a fine line between "giving customers what they want" and luring them to believe they got what they wanted. It common in the food industry to for example pour water and sometimes even toxins into meat and fish to increase the weight way over the allowed limit. This happens today, and without strict regulation on this it would be much more common. Is this giving people what they want? It is naive to believe that those companies who don't do this will profit for "giving people what they want". On the contrary, those who do are the largest and most profitable companies. It is not odd that the big companies are the worst companies. It is only the government which stands between us and this trickery.
To blame hollywood and the media is just too clichè. Even if someone exaggerate doesn't mean they provide the opposite picture of the world.

Is it your argument that only Government can be trusted - that politicians do not lie? Do you have links to support your comments about adding toxins to meat and fish to add weight - if not - please clarify or retract.

 

[disregardthat]

Is it your argument that only Government can be trusted - that politicians do not lie? Do you have links to support your comments about adding toxins to meat and fish to add weight - if not - please clarify or retract.

There was recently a documentary by "Brennpunkt", a respected program which have received several national and international awards for critical journalism, in my country uncovering some of the methods our fish industry have. They interview a former leading worker of a leading fish producing company. He is now a food quality-inspector working for a government organization. He explained that it had been very common in his company to illegally add weight by injecting large amounts of salt water, but in addition illegal injection of phosphate (toxic in high levels, but legal within a certain restriction), to which he added that he stays well away from his own products. This illegal method also increase the bacteria-levels in the fish. I can document this, but it is unfortunately in Norwegian format.

http://nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7346289



He speaks as a person who formerly did this himself and he says that he has seen that these methods continues to this day. His company was hiding this from government inspections.

This is only one example to what limits private companies can go with regulation. That is, they managed to do what they could without being detected. Imagine the situation with the complete absence of government regulation.
------------------------------------------------
The government hires people to investigate illegal methods used in food production. This is one function of the government. In my city many fast-food kitchens have been shut down due to severely low hygienic levels, and it is still a big problem. That I can also document, if Norwegian links is of any help. Without the official organization for food inspection in my country "Mattilsynet", this would not have been regulated nor sanctioned.

In short, I rightly put my faith in government regulation of private food production. Without it it would be a lot less safe as a consumer. I don't accept rats in the kitchens where I eat, and no one else should have to.

 

[WhoWee]

Imagine the situation with the complete absence of government regulation.

I don't think anyone wants the absence of regulation - only reasonable regulation and expense.

 

[disregardthat]

I don't think anyone wants the absence of regulation - only reasonable regulation and expense.

In what way is the regulation I told you about not reasonable?

 

[ParticleGrl]

I don't think anyone wants the absence of regulation - only reasonable regulation and expense.

How do you pay for such regulation without taxation? In Rand's world, how could any government regulation be implemented?

 

[WhoWee]

In what way is the regulation I told you about not reasonable?

I don't think you posted anything unreasonable. However, we should not assume that people working in the food distribution system intend to injure others - do you agree?