4 ms·
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
by grandalf 16y ago
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 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.