Ayn Rand - Opinion? (preferably informed?)

[Jmpty]

http://www.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html

Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand).

 Part of the "Critiques of Libertarianism" site.
 http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html  

Last updated 08/03/10.

Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW 9/06:   Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature  Greg S. Nyquist provides perhaps the most extensive criticism of Rand. He finds that her assumptions about human nature do not match scientific knowledge of human nature. A blog based on his book. NEW 9/06:   Blog: Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature  Daniel Barnes has started a blog for the discussion of Greg Nyquist's 'A.R.C.H.N' and other criticisms of objectivism.  The Heirs Of Ayn Rand: Has Objectivism Gone Subjective?  Scott McLemee provides a charitable overview of the history, major factions, and controversies of Objectivism. Useful background for understanding criticisms, without fawning.  Ayn Rand (1905-1982)  Kelley L. Ross' Friesian School biography of Rand, which is strongly critical of some of Rand's philosophical errors.  Mrs Logic And The Law: A Critique Of Ayn Rand's View Of Government.  Nicholas Dykes' anarcho-libertarian criticism of Rand's denuciation of anarchy.  Libertarian Man!  A  John Bergstrom's Attack Cartoons  feature that skewers some common libertarian/objectivist foibles.  The Rights (and Wrongs) of Ayn Rand  Robert Bass concludes that Rand's ambition exceeded her achievement. He effectively shows how all her most important arguments fail. Part of his  Objectivism: Assorted Commentary  page.  Open Letter to Rand  Roy Childs presents an anarcho-libertarian refutation of Rand's minarchist position.  Some Problems with Ayn Rand's Derivation of Ought from Is  by David Friedman. Illuminates a few of the gaping holes in Rand's "logic".  Objectivism and Thomas Jefferson  by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr. Objectivists are taken to task for selective quoting from Jefferson, whose writings give many sound reasons to reject Objectivism. Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality: A Critique of Ayn Rand's Epistemology     by Scott Ryan. A technical philosophical criticism of Rand, now a book, based largely on the ideas of Brand Blanshard.  Why I Am Not An Objectivist  by Michael Huemer. A philosophical examination of some Objectivist claims by a skeptic coming from a very similar position and using similar methodology.  Critique of "The Objectivist Ethics"  Michael Huemer finds eight fatal flaws in Rand's derivation of objectivist ethics. (That's all?)  FAQ - What's REALLY Wrong With Objectivism?  by Chris Wolf. An explanation of why there is so much cult-like hostility and schism in a philosophy that claims perception of objective truth.  The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement.  Nathaniel Branden details some errors Ayn Rand was prone to. One of several self-aggrandizing discussions of her feet of clay, written conveniently after her death.  The Unlikeliest Cult In History.  Michael Shermer's history and critique of some basic flaws of Objectivism.  What Is Man?  Mark Twain's cynical rebuttal of egoism. Predating Objectivism, it none the less stands Objectivism on its head.  The Stance Of Atlas: An Examination of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand  by Peter F. Erickson. This advertisement for his book claims to patch Objectivism's failings, but his blurb sounds even crankier.  Rand's work: style and quality  by Gary Merrill. Why academics disdain the slipshod work of Rand and her major followers.  TV guide review of "Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life"  by Ken Fox. A dead-accurate and scathing review both of the movie and Rand's "importance". A lot said in few words.  Liberty Online's review of "Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life"  by R. W. Bradford. A libertarian critic of Rand decries its propagandistic nature, its lies of omission and commission.  Ayn Rand and the perversion of libertarianism.   Information about Specific Groups: Neo-Tech.  The  Neo-Tech Skeptic FAQ  and a collection of Mike Doughney's posts describing how Neo-Tech is a cult. Part of the  .ex-cult archive  page, which is well worth a visit.  Neo-Tech FAQ  Some of the more obvious dirt on Neo-Tech, which is like a Scientologist's interpretation of Objectivism.  Big Sister is Watching You  by Whittaker Chambers. The 1957 National Review book review of Atlas Shrugged. Wants to be sympathetic, but just can't: the book was just too awful.  Review of "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.  Rob Slade's  Internet Review Project  review casts a quizzical eye on the absurdities of Atlas Shrugged. Many amusing comments on this bizarre ideological heroic fantasy.  Synthetic A Priori: An Argument With M.R.M. Parrott  The chapter "Against Objectivism" details several reasons for considering Objectivism a pseudophilosophy. It points out at length how foolishly naive "existence exists" is. An e-book in PDF by  M.R.M. Parrott.   Parodies of Objectivism  by Scott Ryan. Some good parodies of Objectivist language, behavior, and rationalization.  Ethical Egoism  Part of the  Britannica.com  article on ethics, which points out that Rand was hardly original in ethical egoism, that it must be defended in utilitarian terms, and that the claims of ethical egoism fail for very common prisoner's dilemmas.  Axioms and Egoisms  John Hospers points out the errors in axioms such as "non-initiation of force", such as intermediates between consent and force.  Libertarian Follies  Amitai Etzioni makes a communitarian critique of Tibor Machan and the failings of economic models of human behavior.  Mozart was a Red  Murray Rothbard's thinly veiled satirical play about Ayn Rand and her Objectivist merrymakers. It takes one to know one.  Objectivism  Barry Stoller presents a plain-speaking analysis of Objectivism as a supremacy doctrine for people too busy, lazy, or stupid to actually be intellectuals.  Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps (with illustrations)  This one is relatively subtle.  Objectivism: Opposing_Views  The DMOZ Open Directory catalog. A fairly good list of criticisms.  Objectivist Mockery Page  How can I top that self-description? Links to 20 or so mockeries.  Objections to Objectivism  John Ku's excellent critique of Rand's theory of ethics.  The faulty reasoning of Ayn Rand types.  Starts off with a very clever "Rape: The Unknown Ideal" example to demonstrate the "logic" in Ayn Rand's work.  The 25 Most Inappropriate Things An Objectivist Can Say During Sex  Perhaps this is why there are so few children of Objectivists. From  Save The Humans.   Atlas Shrugged 2: One Hour Later  A  Bob the Angry Flower  Classic Literature sequel.  Skepticism of Rationality  Many Objectivists (libertarians too) think that their ideas are more "rational" than those of other people. Let's look at the term.  "Ayn Rand, More Popular than God!" Objectivists Allege!  Jessica Amanda Salmonson presents the facts about this "objective" urban myth. It takes a fantasy novelist to know one....  Objectivism: Who Needs It -- A Warning To Young Readers  Tom Devine emphasizes that "we should never trust a person whose system of thought has a name." A very good rule of thumb.  Ayn Shrugged: A Look At The Work Of Ayn Rand  A harsh review of "Atlas Shrugged" that points out the "weird, pathological agendas and bad writing."  Legal Reasoning After Post-Modern Critiques of Reason  Philosopher Peter Suber provides an easily readable overview of 9 post-enlightenment critiques of reason in this academic article. Should be required reading for Objectivists. NEW 9/06:   The Virtue of Sycophancy (1)  
 The Virtue of Sycophancy (2)   Cringe and Win! - The 5 Most Embarrassing Moments in "PARC"  Daniel Barnes evaluates James Valliant's book "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics". NEW 2/07:   The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult  Murray Rothbard makes a very convincing case for Objectivism as a cult. It's delightful to see it compared to the communist party. NEW 8/08:   The Madness of King Leonard  Leonard Peikoff appears on Bill O'Reilly's show and rants so appallingly that O'Reilly looks sensible in comparison. NEW 11/08:   Greenspan's breaking away from Objectivism  Why the most famous former Objectivist chose to leave Objectivism. NEW 8/10:   Wealthcare: the Cult of Ayn Rand  Jonanthan Chait's big-picture view of Objectivism's influence after reading the two Rand biographies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print References
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The links here are to Amazon.com, through their associates program, primarily because of the review information. Books without links are generally out of print, and can often be easily found at  AddAll Used and Out Of Print Search.  Good sites for bargain shopping for sometimes expensive new books are  Online Bookstore Price Comparison  and  AddAll Book Search and Price Comparison.  Both of those list applicable coupons. Another is  BookFinder.com.  
 Albert Ellis "Is Objectivism A Religion?" L. Stuart, 1968.  Peter Erickson  "The Stance of Atlas: An Examination of The Philosophy of Ayn Rand"  Herakles Pub. 1997. Shows some fundamental errors in Rand's philosophy, and identifies some earlier alternatives that are supposedly correct.  Greg S. Nyquist  "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature"  iUniverse.com, 2001. Perhaps the most extensive criticism of Rand. Finds that her assumptions about human nature do not match scientific knowledge of human nature.  Link to online text!   William F. O'Neill "With Charity Toward None: An Analysis Of Ayn Rand's Philosophy" Littlefield, Adams, 1972.  John W. Robbins "Answer to Ayn Rand : [a critique of the philosophy of objectivism]"  John W. Robbins  "Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System"  Apparently a rebuttal from a religious point of view.  Scott Ryan  "Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality: A Critique of Ayn Rand's Epistemology"  A technical analysis that finds Objectivism to be both incoherent and unoriginal.  Jeff Walker  "The Ayn Rand Cult"  (Open Court 1998). Questions the originality of Rand's ideas, and presents the cult-like organization of Objectivism.
Counter image omitted.

[lumpymunk]

I can keep going, if you like.

I can keep going too.

* http://www.salon.com/2013/01/19/ayn_ran ... _children/

Salon.com, home of scholarly philosophical analysis.  Brought to you by Jmpty.

* RationalWiki

The place where pseudo-intellectuals go when they've exhausted google and they still can't prove a point.

Do you read tabloids and claim that it's news?  That is the equivalent of posting all this trash and pretending its "scholarly."

             

There is plenty of content on the internet for someone looking to not learn or analyze Objectivism.  Keep posting all of the "scholarly articles" you find.

ROFL

[Jmpty]

#-o

[Jmpty]

I think we're done.

[lumpymunk]

You've never even begun to think for yourself, keep posting all of your authoritative Salon articles though.

 :Hangman:

[SkepticOfMyOwnMind]

You've never even begun to think for yourself, keep posting all of your authoritative Salon articles though.

 :Hangman:

I generally find Salon to be an informed, yet unjustifiably biased source.

"I've shown you clear misrepresentation. It's not that Massimo is intentionally misrepresenting Objectivism, it's that he's an academic philosopher. Academic Philosophers do not study Ayn Rand on a scholarly level."

I wonder why?

I've Posted several scholarly articles critical of Rand, including one by her former partner, and the response is always That it's being misrepresented, or that I need to refer to the "Rand lexicon." I don't think that I am being intellectually dishonest at all.
You are obviously enamored with objectivism. It is my hope that you'll grow out of it.

While I appreciate that you're using sources, it would be better for you to incorporate them by reference,  for the following reasons:

• The text you posted isn't styled, thus making it more difficult to read. (styles emphasize important information, e.g. titles, quotes, and unusual terms)
• It would be much easier to just copy-and-paste a link.
• You're stretching the bounds of fair use (or you're more likely to do so).
• People may be confused into thinking you wrote that rather than another author. Normally, the BBCode "quote" or "spoil" tags would alleviate this issue.
• The length of the copied information forces forum members to scroll much further to reach any post below yours (except the most recent one, if they know how).

You may avoid link rot by posting the entire article, but that may not be as much of an issue if you stick to permalinks when they are available. Additionally, you could label the links with the title and/or author to combat link rot.

Please note that you should describe the relevance of articles you post, or your opinion is likely to be disrespected or ignored. Some (not all) of the articles you posted make sense, but you decrease the reward for effort spent reading your posts by excluding more specific information about their relevance.

[lumpymunk]

Just for your own information SkepticOfMyOwnMind, from a long time Objectivist... this type of treatment is very typical in any discussion of Objectivism (online or in person).  JohnHarvester touched on this earlier.  People are willing to substitute the thinking of uneducated pundits for their own judgments, because thinking for oneself is a lot of work, and considering Objectivism seriously would mean having to deal with the flood of ignorance you've seen me dismantle in this thread.

It's really staggering, the behavior of "rational" Atheists.

[JamesTheUnjust]

Bingo.

Her fans want to ignore this hypocrisy and call it a red-herring. It proves the bitch was only an advocate for capitalism when she was benefiting from it, and when she was cut down by the cruelty of her own sword, she quickly started "leeching" off a liberal program.

When she talks about how she doesn't want to pay for social programs because she thinks they are not beneficial, what she's really saying is, they are not beneficial because they had no value to her personally. She didn't like those programs not because she thought another way would be better, but because she didn't give a fuck about society, and only wanted more for herself. All she did was take her ideology and wrap it up in a nice little package with a bow on top, in order to sell her sociopathy to the public.

Provide a citation for this to backup your "interpretation?"  All you've done is show you hold a strong uninformed opinion about something you haven't even attempted to understand.

Rand commented that people who are forced to fund government programs are not immoral for taking the benefits for which they paid.

...the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money —and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

See... the argument breaks down entirely under the slightest scrutiny.

The Myth: Ayn Rand violated her own philosophy by collecting social security.

The Answer: This is the same as claiming that if you are against robbery, and you were one of Bernie Madoff's victims, you violate your principles by putting in a claim for partial restitution.

She addressed a similar issue in her article "The Question of Scholarships," The Objectivist, June, 1966. From that article:

"Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today's society. We are frequently asked the questions: "Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?" and: "Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?" (more mid way down the page)

http://www.aynrandmyths.com/

I can provide citations all day long about the subject that backup this justification, can't you come up with one source?

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/gover ... ships.html
Contrast http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/indiv ... ights.html
With http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/colle ... ights.html
and http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/property_rights.html
also the role of government http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html

Holy shit, you've got to be fucking kidding me on this. She took the money because her medical costs from lung cancer were too expensive for her to pay on her own, so she had to take the money from SSI and Medicare, or else she'd have been up shit creek. Her philosophy of "every man for themselves!" was something that she felt didn't apply to her. It had nothing to do with getting her money back; she needed the money to survive and pay bills.

She stated in many of her books that to accept government money was to be a part of the problem. Over and over again, one will find these denouncements of taking government money... under any circumstances. Yet, it was Rand that ended up taking money from a system she said was for "looters" and "leeches", and that was because she goddamned needed the money in order to save her pitiful life. She knew how hypocritical it was for her to take from the system, which is why she filed under the name Ayn O'Connor instead of her publicly known name - she didn't want anybody to know about her taking from the "evil" social program.

BTW: Rand didn't believe smoking caused lung cancer either. But she did go to a doctor when she became ill with the very cancer she said she couldn't catch. Not once, ever in her life, did the bitch have the guts to apologize to the scientific community, and the public for her statements. Who knows how many people continued smoking because of her influence and maybe would have quit if she had show some intellectual maturity.

You're defending something that can't be defended I'm afraid. But if you want to defend this disgusting hypocrite then fine, I'm not going to try and talk you out of it.

[entropy]

I am not well informed on Rand's views, but perhaps you will be willing to answer what I consider to be some important questions about her philosophy. All logical arguments can be evaluated in terms of two general characteristics. One is the veracity of the axioms/assumptions that are made and the other is if the conclusion(s) of the argument logically follow from the axioms/assumptions. If I can come to understand the axioms that Rand's philosophy starts with in its arguments, then it may be possible for me to assess whether or not I accept those axioms/assumptions and/or if the conclusions follow from the axioms/assumptions.

By axioms/assumptions I mean those claims that she makes that are taken for granted as being true - not backed up by further explanation or argumentation. All logical arguments must begin with such claims or else they will have to devolve into an infinite regression of justifications or will be circular. So what are the core axioms/assumptions of Rand's Objectivist philosophy that she takes as true without further justification?

[JamesTheUnjust]

I am not well informed on Rand's views, but perhaps you will be willing to answer what I consider to be some important questions about her philosophy. All logical arguments can be evaluated in terms of two general characteristics. One is the veracity of the axioms/assumptions that are made and the other is if the conclusion(s) of the argument logically follow from the axioms/assumptions. If I can come to understand the axioms that Rand's philosophy starts with in its arguments, then it may be possible for me to assess whether or not I accept those axioms/assumptions and/or if the conclusions follow from the axioms/assumptions.

By axioms/assumptions I mean those claims that she makes that are taken for granted as being true - not backed up by further explanation or argumentation. All logical arguments must begin with such claims or else they will have to devolve into an infinite regression of justifications or will be circular. So what are the core axioms/assumptions of Rand's Objectivist philosophy that she takes as true without further justification?

Then you're going to have to get informed on she believed.

I wouldn't recommend the piece of shit marathon fiction that she wrote. You'd be better to read something like The New Intellectual or The Virtue of Selfishness. There you will find a more philosophical approach to her ideas and more importantly, how she herself justified what she believed - they are shorter reads too.

If you want to understand what free market libertarians/anarchists believe then you might try Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, or David Frieddman.

[entropy]

Then you're going to have to get informed on she believed.

That's what I'm trying to do by asking the questions in my post. It should be easy for someone who is well-informed on Ayn Rand's philosophy to post what the core axioms (assumptions without further justification) of her philosophy are.

[lumpymunk]

Holy shit, you've got to be fucking kidding me on this. She took the money because her medical costs from lung cancer were too expensive for her to pay on her own, so she had to take the money from SSI and Medicare, or else she'd have been up shit creek.

The problem you have with this is that when Ayn Rand died her estate was worth in excess of a million dollars.  If she was so poor and unable to pay for the treatment how was her estate worth so much?

See once you step out of the fantasy created by all of the hatred and vitriol of uneducated pundits the truth isn't that hard to find.

She stated in many of her books that to accept government money was to be a part of the problem. Over and over again, one will find these denouncements of taking government money... under any circumstances.

Provide citations for these fictitious quotations.  I've given you plenty of first hand source material that contradicts what you're stating.  

You can either...
A) provide source material that is contrary to what I've posted and justify your position or
B) ignore reality and remain highly opinionated and uneducated. (we both know you've already chosen option B)

She knew how hypocritical it was for her to take from the system, which is why she filed under the name Ayn O'Connor instead of her publicly known name - she didn't want anybody to know about her taking from the "evil" social program.

I've responded to this already, but I'll summarize again for you anyway.

O'Connor was Ayn Rand's married name (Married to Frank O'Connor).  When filing for benefits you're obligated to use your real name, not a Pen name.  Do you believe Mark Twain, when signing legal documents of any kind, would have used his pen name?  Nope.... he would have signed as Samuel Clemens.  Similarly, Alice O'Connor was Ayn Rand's legal name.  (Ann is likely either a shortening of the name Alice, or a misunderstanding on the Clerk's part on the spelling of the name Ayn).

As I pointed out, Ayn Rand quite rationally justified this as restitution from a lifelong of government confiscation through taxation of her royalties from movies and books.

BTW: Rand didn't believe smoking caused lung cancer either. But she did go to a doctor when she became ill with the very cancer she said she couldn't catch.

It isn't really that surprising that someone who lived in that time believed this.  It's especially not surprising the an Author/Philosopher (Read: Non-Scientist) would believe this.  Big tobacco fought the surgeon general for years on having to advertise health concerns on their products.  There used to be commercials for smoking like there are for Alcohol now, promoting the image that everyone doing it was having a good time etc... and historically the practice of smoking dates back to before 5000 BC.

So I'll point out a few final things.

* It's intellectually dishonest for you to engage in historical bias in judging the actions of a historical figure based on the knowledge we have in the present.

* Your invalid attack on Ayn Rand says nothing about the philosophy.

* Your lack of education on the subject, and your link-spamming the invalid arguments of other uneducated pundits that have already been covered in this thread borders on trolling.

[lumpymunk]

So what are the core axioms/assumptions of Rand's Objectivist philosophy that she takes as true without further justification?

Axioms are different than premises or presuppositions.

An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.

More to read:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axioms.html

Existence, Identity, Consciousness.

In Objectivism, these prevent the "infinite regress" you were talking about.  Objectivism builds everything from this basis about epistemology, ethics, and politics.

A few "premises" that are indirectly related...

It's kind of important to understand how different Philosophy is viewed by Objectivists.  It's not done as some detached academic research projet... philosophy for Objectivists is mandatory for living a human life.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/philosophy.html

The Benevolent Universe Premise (has nothing to do with the cosmos)
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/benev ... emise.html

Free Will.  (Really its very weak determinism, you basically have one choice in life.  To think or not to think, and the rest will proceed from that.)
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_will.html

The Mind-Body Dichotomy is rejected.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/soul- ... otomy.html

The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy is rejected.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/analy ... otomy.html

None all of these are "axioms" but could qualify as a premises at some point if you were trying to figure out where an Objectivist was coming from.

[entropy]

So what are the core axioms/assumptions of Rand's Objectivist philosophy that she takes as true without further justification?

Axioms are different than premises or presuppositions.

An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.

Thanks for the links. I'll be checking those out. Perusing them should give me a sense of whether or not looking deeper into Objectivism will feel worthwhile for me.

I was using the term "axiom" in a very common way - as how you see it defined in the dictionary and Wikipedia.

[Brian37]

Ayn Rand was a political hack out to sell books just like Ann Coulter.