4 ms·

Please 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

by Rod 16y ago

Please 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    The 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]
  - thebigshane 16y ago
    Do her books (or more precisely: her ideas) need to last two millenia in order to be influential now or have been influential for the past 60 years? Fact or not, you can't dispute the Bible's influence over the last 2 millenia either. Dismissing the Bible as a fairytale for entertaining fools is either an extreme hyperbole or proof that you have no idea what the Bible is about. I also am beginning to believe you know just as little about Ayn Rand other than that lots of assholes justify their actions using her ideas.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
scott_s 16y ago
I don't agree with Rand's philosophy, but I think you're maligning her by not even considering the effort she put into writing her books "work." I read the second biography in this review ("Ayn Rand and the World She Made") and from that it's obvious she worked damned hard. I don't like what she produced, but that doesn't change that she worked hard to make it.
- Rod 16y ago
  You're missing the point. She glorified the "productive people", the people who, if absent, would lead to the collapse of society. John Galt, Rand's superhero, was nothing like Rand. Let's face it, Rand never did Science, nor Technology, she invented nothing, she did not start businesses that generated jobs. All she did was write and have tea and cookies with her fellow Manhattan socialites who believed that the world owned them something. Rand wrote book for teenagers and emotionally retarded individuals who believed they were special and unique snowflakes and that the evil world failed to recognize their extraordinary talents. It could be worse. At least Rand valued hard work and self-reliance. It would have been worse if her books glorified being a social parasite.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    You're playing a game of semantics; redefining "work" to mean "work that you think is valuable." That's not helpful. If you want to say "I don't value her work for reasons x, y and z," just say that.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
      - xenophanes 16y ago
        > Actually, I am using Rand's definition of work. Rand's biggest hero, John Galt, was a thinker not an industrialist.

by Rod 16y ago

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 ago
I 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 ago
  The 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]
- thebigshane 16y ago
  Do her books (or more precisely: her ideas) need to last two millenia in order to be influential now or have been influential for the past 60 years? Fact or not, you can't dispute the Bible's influence over the last 2 millenia either. Dismissing the Bible as a fairytale for entertaining fools is either an extreme hyperbole or proof that you have no idea what the Bible is about. I also am beginning to believe you know just as little about Ayn Rand other than that lots of assholes justify their actions using her ideas.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

scott_s 16y ago

I don't agree with Rand's philosophy, but I think you're maligning her by not even considering the effort she put into writing her books "work." I read the second biography in this review ("Ayn Rand and the World She Made") and from that it's obvious she worked damned hard. I don't like what she produced, but that doesn't change that she worked hard to make it.

Rod 16y ago
You're missing the point. She glorified the "productive people", the people who, if absent, would lead to the collapse of society. John Galt, Rand's superhero, was nothing like Rand. Let's face it, Rand never did Science, nor Technology, she invented nothing, she did not start businesses that generated jobs. All she did was write and have tea and cookies with her fellow Manhattan socialites who believed that the world owned them something. Rand wrote book for teenagers and emotionally retarded individuals who believed they were special and unique snowflakes and that the evil world failed to recognize their extraordinary talents. It could be worse. At least Rand valued hard work and self-reliance. It would have been worse if her books glorified being a social parasite.
- scott_s 16y ago
  You're playing a game of semantics; redefining "work" to mean "work that you think is valuable." That's not helpful. If you want to say "I don't value her work for reasons x, y and z," just say that.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - xenophanes 16y ago
      > Actually, I am using Rand's definition of work. Rand's biggest hero, John Galt, was a thinker not an industrialist.