Comments on: Pick of the Day: “Ayn Rand Nation” by Gary Weiss

By: Josh Shnayer

Josh Shnayer — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:14:16 +0000

You’re entitled to your opinions about her philosophy and her writing, but consider that some opinions (ie: ones of any substance at all) are much more meaningful than others. By what standard is she a terribly novelist, incidentally? By all accounts Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead are gripping novels and very well-written: Rand’s understanding of the nuance of the English language was perfect and she created a well-structured novel in both cases. Do you mean to say that you don’t like her novels? It’s ok to offer an opinion of an author’s work without calling them a terrible novelist, you know.. I hate Charles Dickens’ style and messages, but I don’t think he was a terrible novelist.
What determines what should be of interest to a serious scholar of either philosophy or literature? Do you make that determination? Does Weiss? I was under the impression that EVERYTHING is of interest to a serious scholar— a scholar who purposefully ignores something because it does not fit their agenda is a hack. As for Rand’s influence in the United States— if it is so strong, than why does half the country support the Democratic party line, and why does less than half of the other half openly acknowledge that their own happiness is a moral imperative? And as for the accusation that the U.S. has a “strong anti-intellectual tradition”— besides the fact that this is a blanket generalization, you are invalidating your criticism as Rand as of being of no interest to serious scholars: if these scholars are part of the country’s so-called “anti-intellectual tradition” that you claim exists, then it must be because Rand is too intellectual that she is of no interest to them

Insightful?: 0 0

By: Steve Sherman

Steve Sherman — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:05:43 +0000

Fine–She was technically a philosopher and a novelist, terrible as both. Of no interest to any serious scholar of either philosophy or literature, but worth investigating, as Weiss does well in the book described above, because of her unfortunate influence in the United States, a country, perhaps not coincidentally, with a strong anti-intellectual tradition, and one where both philosophy and literature are taken seriously only at the margins.

Insightful?: 0 0

By: Josh Shnayer

Josh Shnayer — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 00:35:13 +0000

Have you read any of her books on philosophy? I think it’s rather outrageous to suggest that someone who wrote extensively on philosophy, was well-versed in all of the major areas of the field, and was able to recall every sentence in philosophic works by writers she hated (she some interviews or documentaries about Rand) was not a philosopher. If Rand is able to offer a logical metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and political theory, what should be called if not a philosopher? Just because you’ve been conditioned to hate her does not mean she does not deserve her title– she was as much a philosopher as a novelist.
As for your suggestion that her ideas were childish and delusional– by what standard? Her premises were, essentially, that the universe is not unknowable, that mankind survives by way of the use of reason and logic, that it is proper for a person to practice self-interest (if they are rational about it), and that the ideal political system for protecting peoples’ self interest is laissez faire capitalism. Is it delusional that the universe is not some unfathomable concept, and that we do not live in the matrix? Is it delusional that the use of the mind and of rationality is the key means of survival for a human? Is it delusional that people should own their lives and live for the sake of their happiness? Is it delusional that people should be allowed to deal with each other by way of free-trade rather than compulsion and force? If you’re going to attack her, you should explain what it is about her that you think it is delusional, otherwise you come across as toothless.
If you are too impatient to construct the argument then you have no business arguing against Rand in the first place. Leave it to “more patient” (aka people who’ll actually read and try to understand the person they’re attacking) ones to criticize her– you should just say ‘I don’t like Ayn Rand for some reason which I may or may not understand” and leave it at that. Rand never argued against social behavior— she in fact advocated in favor of cooperation and trade– provided that it was willing and mutual for all parties. You fundamentally misunderstand her, as do most of her critics.
Finally, as for the thing about Medicare (which all of her detractors parrot, so there’s no reason you had to join in on the chorus): 1) she did not turn to medicare to “remain alive”. Rand was very wealthy after the publication of her novels and was not desperate for some public handout to keep herself going. She accepted medicare and social security (and advocated that others do the same) on the basis that she had been forced to pay into these systems, so it would be moronic and irrational of her not to get some of her money back. In fact, Rand moved to the U.S. in the early 20′s— before Medicare and SS were implemented— and so paid into them since they started existing. She was legally obligated to pay into them— aka. forced. Would it be just as outrageous for Soviet citizens to stand on a ration line? Or for someone to walk on public roads after they were forced to pay for them via taxes? Get real.

Insightful?: 0 0

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 04:16:45 +0000

Ayn Rand was not a philosopher. She was an imbecile, peddling childish delusions. She was not much of a debater, either. I leave it to more patient people to construct the argument against someone who has no understanding of the fundamentally social nature of human existence, or any sense of what governments actually do, except when she by necessity turned to medicare to remain alive.

Insightful?: 3 1

By: Josh Shnayer

Josh Shnayer — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:38:25 +0000

What are the arguments that liberals have to sharpen against her philosophy? In Rand’s lifetime she faced every sort of argument imaginable against her code of values and ethics, and she had a rational response and cogent counter-argument every time. And any Objectivist who really practices their philosophy can provide the same counter-arguments when called to the task. If the criticism in this review is that Rand is anti-religion, then what is the Liberal issue? Liberals are anti-religion in the realm of politics, as is Rand. The difference is, I think, that most liberals still hold the same basic premise as religious people: that they are their brothers’ keepers, and that they have a responsibility to each other, that their moral purpose in life is to serve others, and that all are equal under the eyes of god (though most liberals would omit the ‘under the eyes of god’ part). So, like I said- what are these arguments that you’ll be sharpening?

Insightful?: 1 1