Ayn Rand?

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
You should be aware that Rand had no use for libertarians, calling us "The hippies of the right."

That being said, I appreciate a great deal of the objectivist philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rand's issue with Libertarians is that the Libertarian party cherishes the word 'liberty' without a solid philosophical basis. Deeply religious but think the government should back off a bit? Agnostic, vegetarian, and think the gov't should back off a bit? Into voodoo and think the gov't should back off a bit? The Libertarian party doesn't strictly delineate these groups; they're all welcome. Rand's complaint was that if you can't agree on the derivation of the term, then it is meaningless to agree on a word.

[Cosimo]

[ 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?

I'm going to just hope that your response wasn't sarcastic, hahaha. I've been reading the forums for a long time and just recently joined the ranks as a 2+2er. I guess the pissing matches that take place and the bs just makes me sick, definitely one of my pet peeves. Thanks for the response!

[eternalnewbie]

In response to the original question -

1) I am a big fan of Ayn Rand's work

2) I think that her work is more valuable if you consider it to be literature rather than a philosophy text. The reason is that I think her main point - that a philosophical system can be derived from objective reality - is pretty clearly lacking. I remember reading a good discussion of this on the website of a law professor whose last name is Friedman (yes, he is Milton Friedman's son). I would give his first name but I can't remember it.

3. With that said, I again think her work as valuable if it is seen as the work of a novelist. As a libertarian in a world that seems to more or less think libertarians are nutty, I gain a lot of comfort from knowing that there are other people who understand that John Rockefeller brought the world a lot more good than any number of FDRs could ever comprehend.

4. If you like her books and are interested in philosophy, you might check out the books of Nietzsche (sp?). I don't completely agree with him either, and there is a very subtle difference between his philosophy and that of Ayn Rand, but I think that if you put some work into understanding what he has to say it is pretty compelling.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Luckily she is dead

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with some of Rand's stuff, but the above is just meanspirited and juvenile.

[ QUOTE ]
...Whilst talking about Ryn it is deeply offensive to use the words philosophy and reason.Her work in no way relates to these terms

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course this is completely untrue, and most people can see at least that much. What's really offensive is the way you choose to respond to those whose opinions are different from yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not untrue. If you have an understanding of philosophy that extends beyond psuedo pop philosophers you would acknowledge this.

As far as it is lucky her being dead. Dont you think it is fortunate that someone as responible for the spread of ignorance as Rand can not continue to posion minds?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to be kidding me.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
I could only get about halfway through any of her books, but I think I can summarize them by saying "greediness is godliness. [insert horrible plot line and character development] the end."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so completely and utterly wrong. She espouses a few simple ideas:

1) You and only you are entitled to use and dispose of the product of your energies.

2) You have no entitlement to product of any other person.

3) "Society" is pulled forward in knowledge, invention, and overall proseperity by the energies of a select very few.

4) "Society" benefits much more by allowing those who would produce in excess to keep or dispose of their largess as they see fit; rather than enact laws, taxation, etc to "even things out".

These are her basic points; and yes, viewed from a overy simplified ( and totally incorrect ) angle you could create the summary "greediness is godliness" -- but you will have missed her entire point.

If you want to ask a simple applied question to test her theory:

Why is it that no socialist ( or communist ) nation has ever succeeded in creating prosperity?

And don't point out China, they are now operating in many ways in a largely capitalist fashion and moving that direction more every year. And they don't produce anything near their portion of the global economy vs their population.

=========================
As regards her actual writing ability, yes it sucks. It is more like bashing someone over the head with a 2x4 than actual writing.