5 ms·

Two memorable discussions here in which I played a seminal part: http://news.ycombinator.net/item?id=359551 http://news.ycombinator.net/item?id=359551 The lin

by rinich 17y ago

Two memorable discussions here in which I played a seminal part: http://news.ycombinator.net/item?id=359551 http://news.ycombinator.net/item?id=359551 The link died, but it was a comparison between Rand and Gladwell, and provoked a lot of interesting conversation/drama. That's pretty old; I was actually still arguing in favor of Rand. http://news.ycombinator.net/item?id=499109 http://news.ycombinator.net/item?id=499109 This one has some of the most elegant denunciations: This was one of the few arguments that wasn't overridden by one side or another. But if you want a really terrific online discussion, I'm going to abandon ship and give you a link to MetaFilter instead, which starts with a series of critical articles and leads on to one of the most lucid, multifaceted discussions of Rand's many flaws I've ever seen. This was the discussion that severed the last of my connections to Rand and her philosophy. http://www.metafilter.com/86325/She-screamed-You-have-rejected-me-You-have-dared-to-reject-me-Me-your-highest-value http://www.metafilter.com/86325/She-screamed-You-have-reject... rdtsc's link is thorough, but dry reading. I found it harder to digest than the community conversations.

CamperBob 17y ago
But if you want a really terrific online discussion, I'm going to abandon ship and give you a link to MetaFilter instead, which starts with a series of critical articles and leads on to one of the most lucid, multifaceted discussions of Rand's many flaws I've ever seen. I'm not defending Rand, but is it really intellectually honest to judge her stated principles by her behavior, as most of her critics do? Many of the most influential philosophers in all schools of thought have proven to be either hypocritical or downright nuts. It's easy to attack someone as flawed as Rand, and it's even easier to attack strawmen fashioned from bits and pieces of her work. Neither of these facts tell you anything about the quality or relevance of her overall message.
- rinich 17y ago
  Actually, the linked discussion mentions that also. When discussing such an inherently flawed philosophy, it's important to really think about the origins of Rand's thoughts. Why did she think the way she did? Who inspired her? Objectivism is not a stand-alone philosophy. In particular, the talk about her and the mass murderer horrified me. When her ideal of humanity cut a young girl to pieces, you have to wonder if the sadomasochism in her philosophy was more a personal kink than it was some step of logic.

by rinich 17y ago

CamperBob 17y ago

But if you want a really terrific online discussion, I'm going to abandon ship and give you a link to MetaFilter instead, which starts with a series of critical articles and leads on to one of the most lucid, multifaceted discussions of Rand's many flaws I've ever seen. I'm not defending Rand, but is it really intellectually honest to judge her stated principles by her behavior, as most of her critics do? Many of the most influential philosophers in all schools of thought have proven to be either hypocritical or downright nuts. It's easy to attack someone as flawed as Rand, and it's even easier to attack strawmen fashioned from bits and pieces of her work. Neither of these facts tell you anything about the quality or relevance of her overall message.

rinich 17y ago
Actually, the linked discussion mentions that also. When discussing such an inherently flawed philosophy, it's important to really think about the origins of Rand's thoughts. Why did she think the way she did? Who inspired her? Objectivism is not a stand-alone philosophy. In particular, the talk about her and the mass murderer horrified me. When her ideal of humanity cut a young girl to pieces, you have to wonder if the sadomasochism in her philosophy was more a personal kink than it was some step of logic.