Re: Ayn Rand?
[ QUOTE ]
1) lacking in any sense of empathy or compassion for others
2) moralistic and somewhat controlling
3) overly simplistic
...
Also, she *doesn't* have enough of a laissez-faire outlook, such as would befit a true free thinker, Classic Liberal, or Libertarian.
[/ QUOTE ]
(1) Compassion is actually a secondary value within Objectivism. Goodwill is a natural consequence of the philosophy. What sets it apart from other philosophies is its rejection of altruism, which many interpret to mean that it is spiteful or hateful of the "I don't care how much others suffer as long as I get what I want." People who have that attitude before they discover her work might keep that attitude and say that she agrees with them; don't judge the philosophy by its adherents. Debate about the role of compassion within Objectivism usually twists on the difference between the consequence of a nest of rational values and the plain meaning of the core values identified by her Ethics.
(2) There are disagreements within Oist factions about the amount of personal responsibility that the intellectually dishonest bear, within a society that actively encourages it. Rand, herself, took a strong moralist approach. Basically she refused to allow the dishonest to apologize but continue being dishonest; there is no excuse for lying to yourself.
(3) I'm not sure what you mean by 'simplistic'. I normally see this term used by people who think that her metaphysics is too trivial, or by academics that feel that "proper philosophy" must address hundreds of years of critique and thereby dismiss her fresh start. Would you care to elaborate?
(4) As for "enough" laissez-faire, this again suggests to me the distinction between Rand's proper purpose of government and the competing-mafias ideas popular in some libertarian fiction. Would you care to elaborate?
|