4 ms·

The vast majority of people who have opinions on Ayn Rand or her philosophy of Objectivism haven't read a word of what she wrote and are repeating what they hea

by dmfdmf 8y ago

The vast majority of people who have opinions on Ayn Rand or her philosophy of Objectivism haven't read a word of what she wrote and are repeating what they heard or have read it and failed to comprehend her ideas. Whether such failure is due to ability or dishonesty doesn't really matter. Note the ad hom comments in this thread dismissing the content of this article because Binswanger inherited his money. Nobody has "deconstructed" Rand's ideas because they are true and because modern intellectuals are unable to rebut her arguments they are reduced to smears and gross misrepresentations of an important intellectual achievement. My advice; read Rand's work firsthand and judge her ideas for yourself.

specialist 8y ago
That's true of every cult's membership. It's a mistake to confuse proclaimations with beliefs. What sounds like gibberish to outsiders is just ways for members to find each other, validate their shared identity, reinforce their superiority.
- dmfdmf 8y ago
  Have you read Philosophy Who Needs It?, Have you read the Virtue of Selfishness? Have you read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal? Have you read The New Left:The Anti-Industrial Revolution? Have you read The Voice of Reason? Have you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? Pick one and refute it instead of spreading the old and tired "cult" smear. You would be the first.
  - specialist 8y ago
    Do Christians read the bible? Do randians read her works? Do capitalists read Adam Smith? Do Marxists read his Manifesto? No. And neither do their critics. Settle down. I was supporting your point. And yes, I was once in highschool, read my share of Ayn Rand. Then I grew up.
    - dmfdmf 8y ago
      You have plenty of company.
BLKNSLVR 8y ago
"dismissing the content of this article because Binswanger inherited his money" That fact should pretty much exclude Binswanger from having a public opinion on it because, whilst he may have worked hard for what he's got, the very fact of his being an 'heir' means his opinions will always be coloured by the likelihood of a life born into privilege. Even if the ideas presented make sense in a highly-complex interwoven society, having articles written by someone potentially starting with heavy assistance will not help their cause. Get a genuine gutter-to-penthouse self-made person to write up how the common worker should be more thankful to their upper management and company-owners that they rarely see, much less have any interaction with. I'd read that with interest. (Disclaimer: I've not read Rand, so I'm knowingly squarely within dmfdmf's crosshairs. I understand the basic concepts, but do need to actually read the source material - and am planning to do so, in order that I can "deconstruct" properly)
- dmfdmf 8y ago
  The truth or falsehood of the content is independent of Binswanger's income source and can be verified apart from that fact. This is the meaning of Ad Hominem fallacy, to get people to dismiss an argument not because it is false but because of some supposed flaw or fact about the person making the argument. Moreover, this is the exact method by which the Communists dismissed the objections to communism, accusing anyone who defended property rights as "bourgeois" and biased because they owned property. They established multiple brutal dictatorships last century that led to the death of millions and are still active today. I truly hope you follow through with your intent, ignore the smears and misrepresentations, and read Rand firsthand and judge for yourself. As the first book I recommend Philosophy Who Needs It followed by The Virtue of Selfishness and leave the politics for later. Rand argued that politics follows from ethics and that is where the debate needs to shift if you want to understand the dire state of the world.
  - Semirhage 8y ago
    You opened with this: The vast majority of people who have opinions on Ayn Rand or her philosophy of Objectivism haven't read a word of what she wrote and are repeating what they heard or have read it and failed to comprehend her ideas. That is ad hominem against a straw man, so I’m applying grains of salt heavily to your commitment to logical and rhetorical integrity.

by dmfdmf 8y ago

specialist 8y ago

That's true of every cult's membership. It's a mistake to confuse proclaimations with beliefs. What sounds like gibberish to outsiders is just ways for members to find each other, validate their shared identity, reinforce their superiority.

dmfdmf 8y ago
Have you read Philosophy Who Needs It?, Have you read the Virtue of Selfishness? Have you read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal? Have you read The New Left:The Anti-Industrial Revolution? Have you read The Voice of Reason? Have you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? Pick one and refute it instead of spreading the old and tired "cult" smear. You would be the first.
- specialist 8y ago
  Do Christians read the bible? Do randians read her works? Do capitalists read Adam Smith? Do Marxists read his Manifesto? No. And neither do their critics. Settle down. I was supporting your point. And yes, I was once in highschool, read my share of Ayn Rand. Then I grew up.
  - dmfdmf 8y ago
    You have plenty of company.

BLKNSLVR 8y ago

"dismissing the content of this article because Binswanger inherited his money" That fact should pretty much exclude Binswanger from having a public opinion on it because, whilst he may have worked hard for what he's got, the very fact of his being an 'heir' means his opinions will always be coloured by the likelihood of a life born into privilege. Even if the ideas presented make sense in a highly-complex interwoven society, having articles written by someone potentially starting with heavy assistance will not help their cause. Get a genuine gutter-to-penthouse self-made person to write up how the common worker should be more thankful to their upper management and company-owners that they rarely see, much less have any interaction with. I'd read that with interest. (Disclaimer: I've not read Rand, so I'm knowingly squarely within dmfdmf's crosshairs. I understand the basic concepts, but do need to actually read the source material - and am planning to do so, in order that I can "deconstruct" properly)

dmfdmf 8y ago
The truth or falsehood of the content is independent of Binswanger's income source and can be verified apart from that fact. This is the meaning of Ad Hominem fallacy, to get people to dismiss an argument not because it is false but because of some supposed flaw or fact about the person making the argument. Moreover, this is the exact method by which the Communists dismissed the objections to communism, accusing anyone who defended property rights as "bourgeois" and biased because they owned property. They established multiple brutal dictatorships last century that led to the death of millions and are still active today. I truly hope you follow through with your intent, ignore the smears and misrepresentations, and read Rand firsthand and judge for yourself. As the first book I recommend Philosophy Who Needs It followed by The Virtue of Selfishness and leave the politics for later. Rand argued that politics follows from ethics and that is where the debate needs to shift if you want to understand the dire state of the world.
- Semirhage 8y ago
  You opened with this: The vast majority of people who have opinions on Ayn Rand or her philosophy of Objectivism haven't read a word of what she wrote and are repeating what they heard or have read it and failed to comprehend her ideas. That is ad hominem against a straw man, so I’m applying grains of salt heavily to your commitment to logical and rhetorical integrity.