8 ms·
Review of Ayn Rand
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Synthetase 16y agoI'm probably going to get flamed but I never much liked Ayn Rand or her writing. Her novels were stodgy, repetitive, and inelegant. I did find limited inspiration in her exhortations of personal achievement but I found her brand of libertarianism to be laced with an unhealthy level of misanthropy.
- stcredzero 16y agoObjectivism 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 http://lesswrong.com/lw/m1/guardians_of_ayn_rand/#more
- grandalf 16y agoEliezer 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 16y agohe'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 16y agoBy 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 16y agoI 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 16y agoNote that Rand herself disliked the term "objectivism" and so I think she'd be in agreement.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago>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. Now that would make a quite interesting blog/thesis/book. If you or anyone else ever gets motivated to write such a thing, I'd certainly be motivated to read it. :)
- ThomPete 16y agoAnyone who even think a little about A is A will realize how little it provides beside some circular reasoning. The problem with Rands repetition of A = A is not that it's wrong but that it doesn't bring anything to the table. The real question obviously is what is A?
- rpledge 16y agoI like to read my copy of 'Atlas Shrugged' in the morning...
- grandalf 16y agoIt 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.
- DenisM 16y agoGreat minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, mediocre minds discuss people.
- jamesbritt 16y ago"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, mediocre minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt.
- DenisM 16y agoAre you aware of the irony of what you just did?
- jamesbritt 16y agoYou do realize this can go on forever. :)
- DenisM 16y agoYes, that was not lost on me. I am however appalled at how many people chose to discuss attribution of the quote when the very quote itself instructs them not to. Reminds me of murderous zealots killing in the name of their merciful god; not in their savagery of course, but in the blinding irony of the situation.
- Rod 16y agoAyn 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 16y ago> 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.
- jamesbritt 16y ago"Do you think when people at 37 Signals worked on writing their book, ..." Well, there are books and then there are books.
- Rod 16y agoPlease 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.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- sublemonic 16y agoFormer 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.
- Tycho 16y agoTo 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)
- akkartik 16y agoAnother good review: http://www.slate.com/id/2233966 http://www.slate.com/id/2233966
- ThomPete 16y agoWhether 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 16y agoWhat is wrong with what she was -- teaching?
- ThomPete 16y agoThere 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.
- koeselitz 16y agoThis 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 16y agoFor 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.
- lurkinggrue 16y ago"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.