6 ms·

I wish I hadn’t ever read Ayn Rand’s books. They were a waste of time and a distraction for too many years. I’ll say this though, I’m glad I grew up and I’m gla

I wish I hadn’t ever read Ayn Rand’s books. They were a waste of time and a distraction for too many years. I’ll say this though, I’m glad I grew up and I’m glad that when I got to the end of the Fountainhead I had already figured out what was wrong with her. If not for that, I wouldn’t have recovered.

adamnemecek 9y ago
I’ve heard many people say that.
sidcool 9y ago
I would like to know what you thought was wrong.
slap_shot 9y ago
I’ve heard this, too. For those of us, like myself, that don’t realistically expect to read her books, what was wrong with her and why do you regret reading them?
- adjkant 9y ago
  This links to a lot of good stuff: https://nintil.com/2016/04/09/why-ayn-rand-is-not-and-ought-not-be-taken-seriously/ https://nintil.com/2016/04/09/why-ayn-rand-is-not-and-ought-... As a philosophy / ethics person who has studied and read a lot of philosophers and never her, even from basic argument structures of hers there are fallacies galore that show no sign of being addressed. I think the view is a magnet towards selfish people looking for justification of their views. I think her arguments, when viewed objectively (ironically), have the effect mentioned in the top level comment of pushing people away from the pitfall conclusions she makes.
  - sidcool 9y ago
    An interesting counter argument: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/13/ayn-rand-was-not-a-defender-of-the-rich/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
  - mindcrime 9y ago
    This links to a lot of good stuff It's interesting that the argument in the main article there seems to be "Rand should not be taken seriously - as an academic philosopher". That is not the same statement as "Rand should not be taken seriously".
- mindcrime 9y ago
  For those of us, like myself, that don’t realistically expect to read her books, Your reasons for feeling that way are, of course, your own, and I'm hardly one to tell you to do otherwise. But if I could offer any comment on this, let me just say this: there is a LOT of what I would call "caricaturized misrepresentation" of Rand and Rand's work out there in the wild. If your view on reading Rand is based on what you've heard about her from others, I'd strongly suggest you consider carefully if you can trust what you've been told. On the flip-side, I'll also say this: while I personally am sympathetic to a lot of Rand's thinking / philosophy, I do think she did herself a mis-service in the way she chose to use the words "selfish" and "altruism". That is to say, her usage, while possibly pedantically correct, runs somewhat counter to the common vernacular usage, and it makes it unreasonably easy to misinterpret her meaning, or to impute things that aren't there, whether intentionally or otherwise. Just to give an over-simplified example of what I mean... Rand never really said, say, "don't give to the poor". But she probably said something roughly like "don't give to the poor because of altruism, do it out of selfish self interest." To anybody educated in the last 30 years or so, that probably sounds very weird, because we tend to assume that "altruism" means something like "a desire to do good to others, like, for example, giving to the poor". But in her world-view, "altruism" was actually just a facade used to misdirect people and get them to buy into a mindset of subjugating the individual to the whims of the collective (and by implication, the self-appointed, corrupt, elitist rulers of the collective). The latter group of people being what she referred to as "moochers" in some of her works. Likewise, in today's vernacular the word "selfish" has a meaning that's almost negative by its very definition. That is, to say that anything is done for "selfish" reasons is to assume a lack of charity, lack of empathy, a disregard for the welfare of others, evil motives, etc. But that isn't what Rand meant. When she says do things for selfish reasons, she really means "do things because they're what you, as rational, thinking, individual choose to do, without being coerced or manipulated". A person who holds to Rand's ideas can behave in a way that is 180 degrees removed from what we generally think of as "selfish" and still be acting in the "selfish" way that Rand advocates. Anyway... that got longer than I meant for it to. I'll just finish by saying that I think most people should consider reading at least some of Rand's works and form their own opinions of what she is promoting, rather than simply accepting someone else's interpretation (including mine). Also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/13/ayn-rand-was-not-a-defender-of-the-rich/?utm_term=.022b3e0945d3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
jrs95 9y ago
You actually managed to finish them? I couldn't haha
notacoward 9y ago
I agree, and further suggest Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations as a book people should read early on. Anyone familiar with subsequent developments in economics will find things to disagree with, but it's important to know what he actually said instead of the self-justifying caricature presented by Rand and her ilk. If you go on to read Theory of Moral Sentiments the contrast becomes even more clear.
smaddox 9y ago
She has a naive understanding of economics, but I find her commentary on cronyism and shallow thinking spot on. I also identify with the struggle of the heroes in Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and strive to maintain their resolve. Edit: Also, everyone should at least read Anthem. It's a quick ~6 hour read.
- abtinf 9y ago
  What do you find naive?
slip_shoe 9y ago
Though I have never read Ayn Rand (and from now on I will be more cautious if I decide to read her books) I can't second more the point of your message about the existence of some books/theories that should be avoided at best. To add to your example, when I was about 16-17 I came in touch with the various strains and ideas of European nationalisms, I have read on topic extensively, rapidly abandoned the topic after two years of reading about it, but right now I clearly see how toxic and distortive the ideas of nationalism have been on my word view. I have abandoned them long ago consciously, but up until now a strain of thought most typical for the practitioners of nationalism may come to my reasoning from time to time, randomly and in most surprising places. It has so easily penetrated the whole corpus of knowledge I have got about this world, so that even now I need to carefully inspect my own thought on whether they are infiltrated by stereotypical nationalistic waste of any kind. But, put it the other way round, I once thought that the toxic books containing easy-to-understand, sometimes appealing, but deeply-flawed or useless theories are a very good (but somewhat dangerous) way to exercise mind to check whether the mind is mature enough to stand the lure of a toxic book: if your world view withheld the pressure of the book to adopt its theory, then you passed the test, otherwise you are probably f*cked in a long term.
- abtinf 9y ago
  If you want to obliterate any last remnant of nationalist thinking from your mind, read Ayn Rand. Or read The Ominious Parallels by Leonard Peikoff, one of her students.

adamnemecek 9y ago

I’ve heard many people say that.

sidcool 9y ago

I would like to know what you thought was wrong.

slap_shot 9y ago

I’ve heard this, too. For those of us, like myself, that don’t realistically expect to read her books, what was wrong with her and why do you regret reading them?

adjkant 9y ago
This links to a lot of good stuff: https://nintil.com/2016/04/09/why-ayn-rand-is-not-and-ought-not-be-taken-seriously/ https://nintil.com/2016/04/09/why-ayn-rand-is-not-and-ought-... As a philosophy / ethics person who has studied and read a lot of philosophers and never her, even from basic argument structures of hers there are fallacies galore that show no sign of being addressed. I think the view is a magnet towards selfish people looking for justification of their views. I think her arguments, when viewed objectively (ironically), have the effect mentioned in the top level comment of pushing people away from the pitfall conclusions she makes.
- sidcool 9y ago
  An interesting counter argument: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/13/ayn-rand-was-not-a-defender-of-the-rich/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- mindcrime 9y ago
  This links to a lot of good stuff It's interesting that the argument in the main article there seems to be "Rand should not be taken seriously - as an academic philosopher". That is not the same statement as "Rand should not be taken seriously".
mindcrime 9y ago
For those of us, like myself, that don’t realistically expect to read her books, Your reasons for feeling that way are, of course, your own, and I'm hardly one to tell you to do otherwise. But if I could offer any comment on this, let me just say this: there is a LOT of what I would call "caricaturized misrepresentation" of Rand and Rand's work out there in the wild. If your view on reading Rand is based on what you've heard about her from others, I'd strongly suggest you consider carefully if you can trust what you've been told. On the flip-side, I'll also say this: while I personally am sympathetic to a lot of Rand's thinking / philosophy, I do think she did herself a mis-service in the way she chose to use the words "selfish" and "altruism". That is to say, her usage, while possibly pedantically correct, runs somewhat counter to the common vernacular usage, and it makes it unreasonably easy to misinterpret her meaning, or to impute things that aren't there, whether intentionally or otherwise. Just to give an over-simplified example of what I mean... Rand never really said, say, "don't give to the poor". But she probably said something roughly like "don't give to the poor because of altruism, do it out of selfish self interest." To anybody educated in the last 30 years or so, that probably sounds very weird, because we tend to assume that "altruism" means something like "a desire to do good to others, like, for example, giving to the poor". But in her world-view, "altruism" was actually just a facade used to misdirect people and get them to buy into a mindset of subjugating the individual to the whims of the collective (and by implication, the self-appointed, corrupt, elitist rulers of the collective). The latter group of people being what she referred to as "moochers" in some of her works. Likewise, in today's vernacular the word "selfish" has a meaning that's almost negative by its very definition. That is, to say that anything is done for "selfish" reasons is to assume a lack of charity, lack of empathy, a disregard for the welfare of others, evil motives, etc. But that isn't what Rand meant. When she says do things for selfish reasons, she really means "do things because they're what you, as rational, thinking, individual choose to do, without being coerced or manipulated". A person who holds to Rand's ideas can behave in a way that is 180 degrees removed from what we generally think of as "selfish" and still be acting in the "selfish" way that Rand advocates. Anyway... that got longer than I meant for it to. I'll just finish by saying that I think most people should consider reading at least some of Rand's works and form their own opinions of what she is promoting, rather than simply accepting someone else's interpretation (including mine). Also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/13/ayn-rand-was-not-a-defender-of-the-rich/?utm_term=.022b3e0945d3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

jrs95 9y ago

You actually managed to finish them? I couldn't haha

notacoward 9y ago

I agree, and further suggest Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations as a book people should read early on. Anyone familiar with subsequent developments in economics will find things to disagree with, but it's important to know what he actually said instead of the self-justifying caricature presented by Rand and her ilk. If you go on to read Theory of Moral Sentiments the contrast becomes even more clear.

smaddox 9y ago

She has a naive understanding of economics, but I find her commentary on cronyism and shallow thinking spot on. I also identify with the struggle of the heroes in Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and strive to maintain their resolve. Edit: Also, everyone should at least read Anthem. It's a quick ~6 hour read.

abtinf 9y ago
What do you find naive?

slip_shoe 9y ago

Though I have never read Ayn Rand (and from now on I will be more cautious if I decide to read her books) I can't second more the point of your message about the existence of some books/theories that should be avoided at best. To add to your example, when I was about 16-17 I came in touch with the various strains and ideas of European nationalisms, I have read on topic extensively, rapidly abandoned the topic after two years of reading about it, but right now I clearly see how toxic and distortive the ideas of nationalism have been on my word view. I have abandoned them long ago consciously, but up until now a strain of thought most typical for the practitioners of nationalism may come to my reasoning from time to time, randomly and in most surprising places. It has so easily penetrated the whole corpus of knowledge I have got about this world, so that even now I need to carefully inspect my own thought on whether they are infiltrated by stereotypical nationalistic waste of any kind. But, put it the other way round, I once thought that the toxic books containing easy-to-understand, sometimes appealing, but deeply-flawed or useless theories are a very good (but somewhat dangerous) way to exercise mind to check whether the mind is mature enough to stand the lure of a toxic book: if your world view withheld the pressure of the book to adopt its theory, then you passed the test, otherwise you are probably f*cked in a long term.

abtinf 9y ago
If you want to obliterate any last remnant of nationalist thinking from your mind, read Ayn Rand. Or read The Ominious Parallels by Leonard Peikoff, one of her students.