4 ms·

She wrote at such incredible length about meaningful labor in the pursuit of happiness -- "productive value" as she put it -- and a soulful existence in general

She wrote at such incredible length about meaningful labor in the pursuit of happiness -- "productive value" as she put it -- and a soulful existence in general. It's a shame that there's such a negative knee-jerk reflex to the mention of her name.

InitialLastName 4y ago
In the same way that people use Stalin's policies to discredit Marx, people use the policies and behaviors of Ayn Rand's adherents to discredit her. At some point, when everybody who reads your books uses them to justify toxic behavior, negative knee-jerk responses become the proper societal equivalent of an immune response.
- richardanaya 4y ago
  Comparing Stalinism to Objectivism is an apples to oranges comparison. There's never been a country run on the principles of objectivism. There's many countries that followed Marxist ideology to a logical conclusion and ended up in unsurprising mass death.
- everybodyknows 4y ago
  Or the teachings of Jesus, as abused by the Spanish Inquisition, Jim Jones, David Koresh ...
  - Philorandroid 4y ago
    ... or the music of the Beatles, according to Charles Manson. If a bad actor wants a scapegoat, they will find one.
- Philorandroid 4y ago
  I can only think of one example off the top of my head of supposed adherents being used to discredit the philosophy (see Eddie Lampert with Sears), whereas the inverse is true for innumerable cases, where "they read/follow/worship Ayn Rand" is used as a negative qualifier for the person. John Oliver's segment on Ayn Rand (Last Week Tonight, I forget the name of the segment but it was something to the effect of "Why Is This Still A Thing") did an excellent job summarizing the popular case against her, in all of its disingenuousness: without making an effort to view her statements through the lens of the terms she's defined, it sounds bad compared to vulgar neoliberal sensibilities, and because she herself as a human was less than perfect. It, like every mass media analysis of her or her works I've seen, comes from and is marketed towards a pre-established understanding the Objectivism is wrong. Also, I'd love to see a source on "everyone who reads" Ayn Rand (or Marx, for that matter, or any author of any written work ever) being toxic sociopaths -- it stands to reason that you'd see her closest adherents, like Onkhar Ghate, Harry Binswanger, Yaron Brook, or Leonard Peikoff being known for acting upon bad ideas if that was all that was in their intellectual orbit, not cherrypicked cases of someone claiming to have read Rand before making questionable or unethical decisions.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  > In the same way that people use Stalin's policies to discredit Marx No, Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are not remotely comparable. Not until you can point to dozens of countries that tried to put Rand's principles into action, and show how they failed. Can you? Saying "true communism has never been tried" is to ignore what happened each time. "We'll do better next time" doesn't persuade unless you have a detailed understanding of how someone like Stalin or Pol Pot comes to power, and some plan more detailed than "we won't do it that way."
richardanaya 4y ago
Indeed, if you asked most people: "do you think your life is important?" "do you think reason is important?" "do you thinking working is important?" most people would say yes, then they turn around and totally dismiss one of the greatest advocates of individual flourishing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

InitialLastName 4y ago

In the same way that people use Stalin's policies to discredit Marx, people use the policies and behaviors of Ayn Rand's adherents to discredit her. At some point, when everybody who reads your books uses them to justify toxic behavior, negative knee-jerk responses become the proper societal equivalent of an immune response.

richardanaya 4y ago
Comparing Stalinism to Objectivism is an apples to oranges comparison. There's never been a country run on the principles of objectivism. There's many countries that followed Marxist ideology to a logical conclusion and ended up in unsurprising mass death.
everybodyknows 4y ago
Or the teachings of Jesus, as abused by the Spanish Inquisition, Jim Jones, David Koresh ...
- Philorandroid 4y ago
  ... or the music of the Beatles, according to Charles Manson. If a bad actor wants a scapegoat, they will find one.
Philorandroid 4y ago
I can only think of one example off the top of my head of supposed adherents being used to discredit the philosophy (see Eddie Lampert with Sears), whereas the inverse is true for innumerable cases, where "they read/follow/worship Ayn Rand" is used as a negative qualifier for the person. John Oliver's segment on Ayn Rand (Last Week Tonight, I forget the name of the segment but it was something to the effect of "Why Is This Still A Thing") did an excellent job summarizing the popular case against her, in all of its disingenuousness: without making an effort to view her statements through the lens of the terms she's defined, it sounds bad compared to vulgar neoliberal sensibilities, and because she herself as a human was less than perfect. It, like every mass media analysis of her or her works I've seen, comes from and is marketed towards a pre-established understanding the Objectivism is wrong. Also, I'd love to see a source on "everyone who reads" Ayn Rand (or Marx, for that matter, or any author of any written work ever) being toxic sociopaths -- it stands to reason that you'd see her closest adherents, like Onkhar Ghate, Harry Binswanger, Yaron Brook, or Leonard Peikoff being known for acting upon bad ideas if that was all that was in their intellectual orbit, not cherrypicked cases of someone claiming to have read Rand before making questionable or unethical decisions.
Cupertino95014 4y ago
> In the same way that people use Stalin's policies to discredit Marx No, Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are not remotely comparable. Not until you can point to dozens of countries that tried to put Rand's principles into action, and show how they failed. Can you? Saying "true communism has never been tried" is to ignore what happened each time. "We'll do better next time" doesn't persuade unless you have a detailed understanding of how someone like Stalin or Pol Pot comes to power, and some plan more detailed than "we won't do it that way."

richardanaya 4y ago

Indeed, if you asked most people: "do you think your life is important?" "do you think reason is important?" "do you thinking working is important?" most people would say yes, then they turn around and totally dismiss one of the greatest advocates of individual flourishing.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]