3 ms·
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-ra
by 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 agoAn 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 agoThis 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".