4 ms·
Ayn 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 c
by Rod 16y ago
Ayn 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.
- zackattack 16y ago"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." It's a socially acceptable reference given the frequency of SVN articles on HN.
- akkartik 16y ago"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." Ayn Rand came from Russia to a US society that was giving socialism serious thought. She articulated for capitalism an ideology; before her it seemed to have none. She was widely read for 2 generations. Her students managed political office and monetary policy in the US. I see all this as more than zero impact.
- Rod 16y agoI am all for capitalism. But, frankly, Hayek was lightyears ahead of Rand in terms of making a strong case for capitalism and exposing the evils of socialism. Among Rand's followers we have people like Greenspan and Niederhoffer, both notorious intellectual charlatans. I am all for free enterprise and being productive, but don't claim that Rand was anything more than a brainless cheerleader, because she was not.
- grandalf 16y agoThe difference is that Rand made a purely moral argument for capitalism. Let me guess, you are religious?
- dualogy 16y ago"She had zero real impact" -- read just the first paragraph of the linked article and dare to say that again.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Tycho 16y agoIt's interesting how people keep referring to Objectivism as a 'cult' even though it is clearly nothing of the sort (no secrecy, no rituals, no superstition, no power over members...). Could it be because Objectivism is one of the few philosophies people actually embrace and practice? I mean has anyone ever literally met a practicing utilitarian for instance?