Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  

Yet Another Misrepresentation Of Rand

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I saw the article "Who needs Ayn Rand" by Algis Valiunas written in Commentary Magazine as I was perusing the local newstand. I skimmed through the article and although it gave a pretty good overview of all the positive aspects of Rand, mostly relating to her fiction. The critical aspects of Rand and her philosophy were smeers, misrepresentation, if not outright lies.

If I can remember correctly, several points the author made were along the lines that:

- She had too much "faith in reason" (how many times have we heard that one?)

- She claimed "emotions come from reason" (this is a complete misunderstanding and oversimplification)

- She thought there were "no mysteries in the universe..there are answers to everything" (what relevance, if any truth does this have? and what's wrong with seeking answers?)

- Then there was the litany of stale ad hominums attacking her character, particularly her affair with Branden.

- She is the bogeyman that liberals tell their kids about ie. greedy, uncompassionate, materialistic etc... which is why conservatives don't associate her name with them.

I'm sure there was more.

The point is that, sure, I'm up for listening to rational criticisms of Rand, but all these claims by the author are just so spurious it just bugs me to think of all the people who read that and get wrong ideas. Personally, I suppose I should just treat them for what they are: arbitrary claims that aren't worth the emotional and intellectual energy defeating.

Edited by drewfactor

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hardly surprising that any attack on Ayn Rands work would be outright lies, or at least grossly inaccurate...after all the author is ignoring reality in favour of irrational beleifs.

Sadly I too have heard this sort of thing so often, particulary lately. Apparently for instance, Objectivism is a religion, even though a religion by its nature is a beleif system based on mysticism, ie irrationality, and Ojbectivism is a beleif system based on rationality, on realistic axioms.

As for her being some sort of bogeyman (should it not be bogeywomen ...), well this is just silly. As anyone whom actually understands what her philosophy knows, she is quite the reverse of uncompassionate. However, she only feels compassion for those there is any reason to feel compassion for, not just anyone whom thinks they deserve compassion.

You are right, you really should not be all that bothered by it. Such people cannot be conquered by reason if they ignore it, leave them alone to their world of delusions. Dont waste the power on your mind on a brick wall. Reason cannot do more than make tiny little dents in a self-erected wall of irrationality.i

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...