SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: koan who wrote (18559)12/17/2011 8:35:02 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) of 69300
 
I have read most of the books written about Rand. I was also reading Nathaniel Branden when he was becoming popular as a therapist in the late 60's/70's. I have not read "An Oral History of Ayn Rand" published last year but I have now ordered it.

Clearly, she was true to her principles of not compromising her belief system which meant that she made enemies of all those who are devoted to the collective. So she strikes two chords in people: A very positive chord in those who think her philosophy was a necessary and useful antidote to a society which leeches moral choice from individuals and uses collective might and religious guilt to choose what an individual may or must value...and a negative chord in communists, socialists, collectivists, and those who believed her philosophy opposed the spirit of community and cooperation which is an extension of the natural family unit.

I have found that most of the hostility to Rand is a knee jerk reaction based on a misunderstanding or a gratuitous misinterpretation of her philosophy. But I want to be fair to your proposition. So let me give this the structure that I think it merits on the basis of my personal familiarity with her work and with her critics.

Basically, there are two channels of attack by those determined to undermine her unflagging popularity:

1. They attack her as a person (which even if true would be feckless as an argument against her philosophy),

or

2. They attack her philosophy (sometimes fairly rationally in which case we can sincerely examine the validity of their criticisms).

Of course, the record shows that much of the antipathy toward her flowed from a collective "self righteousness" in defending what she attacked in her writings. And let it be admitted: She DID ATTACK--and she attacked without mercy and without compromise. So it is not surprising that the people or the things she attacked should coalesce into a defensive core--swinging back viciously...and sometimes with a convenient oversight of the facts.

But having stated this for the record, let us set it aside and examine the criticisms leveled against her by others--whether sincerely offered or originating from personal malice. Whenever one takes an extreme position they will be both loved and hated. Many Christians have contempt for Islamic beliefs. Many Muslims think Christians are next to the devil. Many Christians think atheists are evil because their belief system considers "free thinking" to be an affront to the god they were taught to worship. Republicans and Democrats (of course) are superior to one another in almost all respects and there may even be some doubt that they belong to the same order of primates. And other examples are endless. What this means for us is that an extremely hostile opposition to Rand and her philosophy is expected--and indeed the absence of such would suggest a suspension of natural law in the universe.

So I would like to look at this fairly because your question was fairly posted. However, tonight I am going to a dance. Perhaps tomorrow I can respond to this. I will separate the grievances levelled against her into personal censure and difference of opinion on her philosophy. I believe we shall find that many of the philosophical arguments are merely a misinterpretation--willful or otherwise.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext