6 ms·

Objectivism really is a vacant and pretty incoherent "philosophy." It's no surprise she presented in in the form of tedious novels with wooden characters rathe

by cultus 8y ago

Objectivism really is a vacant and pretty incoherent "philosophy." It's no surprise she presented in in the form of tedious novels with wooden characters rather than engaging with actual philosphers. I think its popularity is due to the fact that it tells people what they want to hear, and they can think of themselves as John Galt-esque ubermenschen.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
And enlightened. Better in thought and better in results. For those prone to pride as a motivator, it was a lovely philosophy.
poulsbohemian 8y ago
> they can think of themselves as John Galt-esque ubermenschen. Of all the heroes we could encourage people to have, is John Galt really so awful? He's described as bright, hard-working, self-reliant, but also collaborative and supportive of the work of those around him. He's driven and entrepreneurial, but not anti-social. He doesn't come across as anti-government so much as desiring government that isn't kleptocratic or set on regulatory capture. So... is any of that so awful? There's a spectrum here... those who praise Rand and Objectivism might do so with a bit too much fervor. But,I'm skeptical toward those who turn up their nose with disgust.
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  Agreed. About five years ago I decided to investigate the subject, watched the recent movie and her interviews on the disc. Turns out her more subtle early novels weren't understood, so she increasingly wrote them bonking the reader over the head with the point, ala A.S. The reputation of simplistic paper-thin characters emerges from that. Meh. Her experience was of the communists taking and breaking everything, one should keep that in mind. She's basically warning about government overreach, something we should all be able to get behind. It's a valid argument until you take it too far and use it as an excuse, like all political arguments.
  - poulsbohemian 8y ago
    The interviews I've seen of her directly contradict some of the things I've heard her acolytes, including Leonard Peikoff, comment, especially in the area of foreign conflict. Like any complex person, some of what she said was brilliant and some of it didn't all add up. Thankfully as other complex people we can debate, engage, and take from it that which has merit.
- dieterrams 8y ago
  The fundamental problem with Rand's ideology is her cartoonish categorization of everyone that isn't Galt-esque or an enthusiastic, hypercompetent support person as evil looters/parasites. Iirc, Galt is basically trying to collapse society for everyone but the former. When you realize that you can't just write off people because they didn't turn out to be brilliant entrepreneurs or perky worker bees, and that the workings of government and justice are more complicated than Rand would allow, Atlas Shrugged does become pretty repugnant. Granted, she was reacting to her experiences with communism, so I don't totally blame her for going all the way to the other extreme. But insofar as someone wants to invent great things and do well from them, I don't take issue with that.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    It's hard to get more cartoonish than Star Trek's Ferengi, a left-wing caricature of capitalists, going so far as having pointed teeth.
    - cultus 8y ago
      Star Trek is a tv show. Unlike Objectivism, it is not trying to be a philosophy.
      - skookumchuck 8y ago
        Are you sure about that? Most ST episodes have a pretty heavy-handed moral lesson on progressive philosophy. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/06/new-star-trek-series-will-abandon-gene-roddenberrys-cardinal-rule/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/06/new-star-trek-series-...
        cultus 8y ago
        No one bases their lives around Star Trek moral messages besides a few nerds. Also, you may want to read what I wrote again. I said "Star Trek is not pretending to be a moral philosophy." Ayn Rand claims that Objectivism is the basis for ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, etc. How on Earth does that compare to the Ferengi being greedy as a parable of capitalism?
- holtalanm 8y ago
  wholeheartedly agree. I'm not an Ayn Rand sycophant by any means, but there _is_ some merit to her literature that doesn't discredit it entirely.
- xenadu02 8y ago
  The hero of that book is a woman who inherited a railroad and provides nothing of value to society. Why is she great? Because she is; no explanation is offered. Even John Galt stands on the shoulders of giants. He had no resources to implement his ideas and stole from his employer. If she had something smart to say about misallocation of capital then Galt might be an interesting character.
  - arkis22 8y ago
    The value she provides is running the railroad well, unlike her brother. Are you making the case that a well run railroad does not provide value to society? Perhaps you don't remember the incident in the book of the train running through a tunnel without ventilation and killing all the passengers? Can you list what Galt stole? I don't remember him stealing anything. He even leaves his greatest invention, his motor, to his old employers as he concedes it wasn't his because they paid for it.
stale2002 8y ago
Rand's works need to be read while knowing the context that it was written in. Rand grew up in Russia, and her works were a direct criticism of the failures of the Soviet Union and communism. For someone who was watching their former country being torn apart, by cartoon villians, it makes sense that she would write about the exact problems that she saw happening. IE, cartoon villians looting the country.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Back then people praised the soviet union, they feared their economic prowess. And while even some economists of name woudl say that communism was showing great results she claimed that it would collapse from within. That was a very public bet that she won and should get a lot of credit, to go against the world and standing by her ideas, and she was right.

by cultus 8y ago

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

And enlightened. Better in thought and better in results. For those prone to pride as a motivator, it was a lovely philosophy.

poulsbohemian 8y ago

> they can think of themselves as John Galt-esque ubermenschen. Of all the heroes we could encourage people to have, is John Galt really so awful? He's described as bright, hard-working, self-reliant, but also collaborative and supportive of the work of those around him. He's driven and entrepreneurial, but not anti-social. He doesn't come across as anti-government so much as desiring government that isn't kleptocratic or set on regulatory capture. So... is any of that so awful? There's a spectrum here... those who praise Rand and Objectivism might do so with a bit too much fervor. But,I'm skeptical toward those who turn up their nose with disgust.

mixmastamyk 8y ago
Agreed. About five years ago I decided to investigate the subject, watched the recent movie and her interviews on the disc. Turns out her more subtle early novels weren't understood, so she increasingly wrote them bonking the reader over the head with the point, ala A.S. The reputation of simplistic paper-thin characters emerges from that. Meh. Her experience was of the communists taking and breaking everything, one should keep that in mind. She's basically warning about government overreach, something we should all be able to get behind. It's a valid argument until you take it too far and use it as an excuse, like all political arguments.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  The interviews I've seen of her directly contradict some of the things I've heard her acolytes, including Leonard Peikoff, comment, especially in the area of foreign conflict. Like any complex person, some of what she said was brilliant and some of it didn't all add up. Thankfully as other complex people we can debate, engage, and take from it that which has merit.
dieterrams 8y ago
The fundamental problem with Rand's ideology is her cartoonish categorization of everyone that isn't Galt-esque or an enthusiastic, hypercompetent support person as evil looters/parasites. Iirc, Galt is basically trying to collapse society for everyone but the former. When you realize that you can't just write off people because they didn't turn out to be brilliant entrepreneurs or perky worker bees, and that the workings of government and justice are more complicated than Rand would allow, Atlas Shrugged does become pretty repugnant. Granted, she was reacting to her experiences with communism, so I don't totally blame her for going all the way to the other extreme. But insofar as someone wants to invent great things and do well from them, I don't take issue with that.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  It's hard to get more cartoonish than Star Trek's Ferengi, a left-wing caricature of capitalists, going so far as having pointed teeth.
  - cultus 8y ago
    Star Trek is a tv show. Unlike Objectivism, it is not trying to be a philosophy.
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      Are you sure about that? Most ST episodes have a pretty heavy-handed moral lesson on progressive philosophy. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/06/new-star-trek-series-will-abandon-gene-roddenberrys-cardinal-rule/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/06/new-star-trek-series-...
      - cultus 8y ago
        No one bases their lives around Star Trek moral messages besides a few nerds. Also, you may want to read what I wrote again. I said "Star Trek is not pretending to be a moral philosophy." Ayn Rand claims that Objectivism is the basis for ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, etc. How on Earth does that compare to the Ferengi being greedy as a parable of capitalism?
holtalanm 8y ago
wholeheartedly agree. I'm not an Ayn Rand sycophant by any means, but there _is_ some merit to her literature that doesn't discredit it entirely.
xenadu02 8y ago
The hero of that book is a woman who inherited a railroad and provides nothing of value to society. Why is she great? Because she is; no explanation is offered. Even John Galt stands on the shoulders of giants. He had no resources to implement his ideas and stole from his employer. If she had something smart to say about misallocation of capital then Galt might be an interesting character.
- arkis22 8y ago
  The value she provides is running the railroad well, unlike her brother. Are you making the case that a well run railroad does not provide value to society? Perhaps you don't remember the incident in the book of the train running through a tunnel without ventilation and killing all the passengers? Can you list what Galt stole? I don't remember him stealing anything. He even leaves his greatest invention, his motor, to his old employers as he concedes it wasn't his because they paid for it.

stale2002 8y ago

Rand's works need to be read while knowing the context that it was written in. Rand grew up in Russia, and her works were a direct criticism of the failures of the Soviet Union and communism. For someone who was watching their former country being torn apart, by cartoon villians, it makes sense that she would write about the exact problems that she saw happening. IE, cartoon villians looting the country.

conanbatt 8y ago
Back then people praised the soviet union, they feared their economic prowess. And while even some economists of name woudl say that communism was showing great results she claimed that it would collapse from within. That was a very public bet that she won and should get a lot of credit, to go against the world and standing by her ideas, and she was right.