13 ms·

And for many of the same reasons, it gives a sense of surety in an uncertain world, it provides a sense of tribal belonging and ready-made membership in a like-

by olefoo 18y ago

And for many of the same reasons, it gives a sense of surety in an uncertain world, it provides a sense of tribal belonging and ready-made membership in a like-minded community. That said, I find it somewhat creepy to base one's life around a work of fiction.

ojbyrne 18y ago
It's a little sensationalist, and probably shouldn't say it, but your last sentence immediately brought the Bible to mind.
- frisco 18y ago
  http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html
  - ojbyrne 18y ago
    Actually my fear was of pandering to the common culture here. You seem to be suggesting the opposite.
    - frisco 18y ago
      Calling the bible fiction is something I'd consider taboo in a lot of the world still, unfortunately. Your, "I probably shouldn't say this" just reminded me of the essay.
- dmix 18y ago
  Atlas Shrugged, was fortunate enough not to have centuries where you were ostracized (and possibly killed) if you disagreed. Although both sides have some hardcore followers who blindly defend their side regardless of practicality, they both offer value if approached with rationality... and countless opportunities to enter arguments online that go absolutely nowhere.
  - Tangurena 18y ago
    Objectivism was still a cult, and one had to agree 100% with Rand, or be excommunicated. Objectivism ultimately became what is called "the unlikiest cult." Disagreeing with Rand was tantamount to heresy - much like disagreeing with L. Ron Hubbard is considered heresy in Scientology. > The cultic flaw in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is not in the use of reason, or in the emphasis on individuality, or in the belief that humans are self motivated, or in the conviction that capitalism is the ideal system. The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action. For Objectivists, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If your reasoning is flawed it can be corrected, but if it is not, you remain flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the final step for such unreformed heretics. http://www.spiralnature.com/phil/objectivism/unlikelycult.html http://www.spiralnature.com/phil/objectivism/unlikelycult.ht... > Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing." Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don't try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand's philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path. http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden... Nathaniel Branden was Rand's lover (while Rand was cheating on her husband) and the #2 person in Objectivism, until he got caught cheating on Rand and then excommunicated. Any member of Objectivism that refused to shun Branden (including members of his family) were likewise excommunicated. The book Why People Believe Weird Things has a chapter on Objectivism that is well worth reading. http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscie... I own and have read almost every book published by Ayn Rand.
- olefoo 18y ago
  That may have been intentional.
_5y6p 18y ago
> it gives a sense of surety in an uncertain world In particular, a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity.
- ananthrk 18y ago
  (Not trying to be rhetoric, but a honest question ever since I encountered Rand's works) If, as a society, everyone is a "Value Creator", will we still require a government? What would be the job of the government then? "gives a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity" - what kind of complexity are we talking about here? Is it the reality that not everyone is a "Value Creator" or the reality of difference in the level of Value they create?
  - walterk 18y ago
    > If, as a society, everyone is a "Value Creator", will we still require a government? If everyone created value by Rand's standards, were highly rational and reasonable, did not destroy value, and were otherwise law-abiding (or simply moral) citizens, then you might not need government, or at least a very minimal one. We're incredibly far off from such a world, however (assuming it's even possible), so we at least need military protection, law enforcement, adjudication, etc. A great deal of people, even if law-abiding, aren't living up to their potential for a variety of reasons (many having to do with circumstance and not choice), and so other functions of government have been created to deal with that (with varying success). Other functions include dealing with collective action problems, financing academic research, and other things I'm likely forgetting. > what kind of complexity are we talking about here? Is it the reality that not everyone is a "Value Creator" or the reality of difference in the level of Value they create? I mean the complexity of why many people aren't the productive juggernauts we would like them to be. I bought into Rand's picture of the world when I was introduced to her books, but over time, through constant checking of assumptions, realized that she was being grossly uncharitable towards the unproductive, content simply to label them as villains (which is why she's able to justify abandoning them). This, incidentally, has the self-reinforcing side effect of motivating aspiring John Galts to work even harder as a way of defining themselves in contrast to such villainy. Contempt for the unproductive is a limitless source of motivating juice. (That was my experience, anyway. Wish I still had access to it!) Whatever its faults, I feel Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers gives a pretty good idea of the (often unintentional) social processes and historical contingencies that keep people from living up to their potential. From an article previously linked on HN: This time, he’s talking about a very serious academic concept, devised by the psychologist James Flynn (“One of my heroes,” Gladwell says, swooning), called the human capitalization rate, or “cap rate,” which, Gladwell explains, “refers to the rate at which a given community capitalizes on the human potential of those in its midst.” In the United States, Gladwell is sad to report, “cap rates are really low” owing to poverty, stupidity, and culture. http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/index5.html http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/index5.html
ellyagg 18y ago
God, that's kind of despicable. I'm no Objectivist, but there's a big freaking difference between a work of superstition and one of reason and logic. Whether you agree with Rand's premises, you must have had no exposure to her writing if you don't recognize her brilliance. She's not all right, but she's not wrong about everything either: The government confiscates citizens' money at the point of a gun.
- msie 18y ago
  "The government confiscates citizens' money at the point of a gun." Why don't you find a place where you don't have to pay taxes? Would it be as nice to live in as the US?
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    It could be. I have friends who live in Costa Rica, and, deriving their income from outside CR, need pay no taxes. They talk pretty often about how great it is there. :)
    - jamesnvc1 18y ago
      But they still reap the benefits of living in a country where most people pay taxes, do they not?
      - randallsquared 18y ago
        Okay, if your problem is with the benefits, say so. It's not clear to me that there are any benefits that are actually exclusive to taxed funds. I'd be willing to consider defense against invasion, but I'm not even sure, there.
        jamesnvc1 18y ago
        Well, given that the parent comment is "Why don't you find a place where you don't have to pay taxes? Would it be as nice to live in as the US?", it seems a tad disingenuous to use people who don't pay taxes in a country where everyone else does as an example...they are still recieving the benefits (if any) of taxation.

by olefoo 18y ago

ojbyrne 18y ago

It's a little sensationalist, and probably shouldn't say it, but your last sentence immediately brought the Bible to mind.

frisco 18y ago
http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  Actually my fear was of pandering to the common culture here. You seem to be suggesting the opposite.
  - frisco 18y ago
    Calling the bible fiction is something I'd consider taboo in a lot of the world still, unfortunately. Your, "I probably shouldn't say this" just reminded me of the essay.
dmix 18y ago
Atlas Shrugged, was fortunate enough not to have centuries where you were ostracized (and possibly killed) if you disagreed. Although both sides have some hardcore followers who blindly defend their side regardless of practicality, they both offer value if approached with rationality... and countless opportunities to enter arguments online that go absolutely nowhere.
- Tangurena 18y ago
  Objectivism was still a cult, and one had to agree 100% with Rand, or be excommunicated. Objectivism ultimately became what is called "the unlikiest cult." Disagreeing with Rand was tantamount to heresy - much like disagreeing with L. Ron Hubbard is considered heresy in Scientology. > The cultic flaw in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is not in the use of reason, or in the emphasis on individuality, or in the belief that humans are self motivated, or in the conviction that capitalism is the ideal system. The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action. For Objectivists, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If your reasoning is flawed it can be corrected, but if it is not, you remain flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the final step for such unreformed heretics. http://www.spiralnature.com/phil/objectivism/unlikelycult.html http://www.spiralnature.com/phil/objectivism/unlikelycult.ht... > Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing." Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don't try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand's philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path. http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden... Nathaniel Branden was Rand's lover (while Rand was cheating on her husband) and the #2 person in Objectivism, until he got caught cheating on Rand and then excommunicated. Any member of Objectivism that refused to shun Branden (including members of his family) were likewise excommunicated. The book Why People Believe Weird Things has a chapter on Objectivism that is well worth reading. http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscie... I own and have read almost every book published by Ayn Rand.
olefoo 18y ago
That may have been intentional.

_5y6p 18y ago

> it gives a sense of surety in an uncertain world In particular, a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity.

ananthrk 18y ago
(Not trying to be rhetoric, but a honest question ever since I encountered Rand's works) If, as a society, everyone is a "Value Creator", will we still require a government? What would be the job of the government then? "gives a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity" - what kind of complexity are we talking about here? Is it the reality that not everyone is a "Value Creator" or the reality of difference in the level of Value they create?
- walterk 18y ago
  > If, as a society, everyone is a "Value Creator", will we still require a government? If everyone created value by Rand's standards, were highly rational and reasonable, did not destroy value, and were otherwise law-abiding (or simply moral) citizens, then you might not need government, or at least a very minimal one. We're incredibly far off from such a world, however (assuming it's even possible), so we at least need military protection, law enforcement, adjudication, etc. A great deal of people, even if law-abiding, aren't living up to their potential for a variety of reasons (many having to do with circumstance and not choice), and so other functions of government have been created to deal with that (with varying success). Other functions include dealing with collective action problems, financing academic research, and other things I'm likely forgetting. > what kind of complexity are we talking about here? Is it the reality that not everyone is a "Value Creator" or the reality of difference in the level of Value they create? I mean the complexity of why many people aren't the productive juggernauts we would like them to be. I bought into Rand's picture of the world when I was introduced to her books, but over time, through constant checking of assumptions, realized that she was being grossly uncharitable towards the unproductive, content simply to label them as villains (which is why she's able to justify abandoning them). This, incidentally, has the self-reinforcing side effect of motivating aspiring John Galts to work even harder as a way of defining themselves in contrast to such villainy. Contempt for the unproductive is a limitless source of motivating juice. (That was my experience, anyway. Wish I still had access to it!) Whatever its faults, I feel Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers gives a pretty good idea of the (often unintentional) social processes and historical contingencies that keep people from living up to their potential. From an article previously linked on HN: This time, he’s talking about a very serious academic concept, devised by the psychologist James Flynn (“One of my heroes,” Gladwell says, swooning), called the human capitalization rate, or “cap rate,” which, Gladwell explains, “refers to the rate at which a given community capitalizes on the human potential of those in its midst.” In the United States, Gladwell is sad to report, “cap rates are really low” owing to poverty, stupidity, and culture. http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/index5.html http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/index5.html

ellyagg 18y ago

God, that's kind of despicable. I'm no Objectivist, but there's a big freaking difference between a work of superstition and one of reason and logic. Whether you agree with Rand's premises, you must have had no exposure to her writing if you don't recognize her brilliance. She's not all right, but she's not wrong about everything either: The government confiscates citizens' money at the point of a gun.

msie 18y ago
"The government confiscates citizens' money at the point of a gun." Why don't you find a place where you don't have to pay taxes? Would it be as nice to live in as the US?
- randallsquared 18y ago
  It could be. I have friends who live in Costa Rica, and, deriving their income from outside CR, need pay no taxes. They talk pretty often about how great it is there. :)
  - jamesnvc1 18y ago
    But they still reap the benefits of living in a country where most people pay taxes, do they not?
    - randallsquared 18y ago
      Okay, if your problem is with the benefits, say so. It's not clear to me that there are any benefits that are actually exclusive to taxed funds. I'd be willing to consider defense against invasion, but I'm not even sure, there.
      - jamesnvc1 18y ago
        Well, given that the parent comment is "Why don't you find a place where you don't have to pay taxes? Would it be as nice to live in as the US?", it seems a tad disingenuous to use people who don't pay taxes in a country where everyone else does as an example...they are still recieving the benefits (if any) of taxation.