Hardline Critics of objectivism

Questions about Objectivism
1

There is something I’ve noticed that leaves me not angry, but a little bewildered. Normally when I talk to people who criticize Ayn Rand, or see comments online that people make which are critical of her and her philosophy, these people are rarely objective. By this I mean that they don’t offer logical reasons as to why they disagree with her. Usually they hit below the belt (calling her obscene names), or criticize her writing, or simply say “her philosophy is not really a philosophy” (this one really bugs me). I rarely see someone who is just making an honest observation about why they don’t agree with her.

Another thing: Why are most critics of Ayn Rand blatantly militant and rude about it? Why do they insist on letting the world know that they absolutely HATE this woman. Just do a quick online search and you’ll see what I mean. Does anyone know, or have an idea? I know that there is not one particular reason that is to blame. I just think it’s interesting, and wondered if anyone else noticed this.

Here is an example. This is a quote from an article on CNN.

The egotist’s egotist, author Ayn Rand (born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum) is the patron saint of Thinking You’re Better Than Everybody Else.

Her most famous novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, are massive dramatizations of Objectivism, her self-spun Oscar-the-Grouch philosophy for success. Objectivism champions ego and accomplishment, shuns all religion as folly, and condemns any form of charity or altruism as counterproductive to society.

Rand’s novels often focus on protagonists (invariably men) who are shunned by others because of their genius, but then persevere over the foolishness of morons to prove said genius and emerge triumphant.

Not surprisingly, she saw humility as a weakness and regarded laughing at yourself as “spitting in your own face.”

So, just how much did Rand believe in her own philosophy? Let’s just say a lot. With signature modesty, she ranked herself as the philosophical equal of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

Now, as a person who understands Rand’s philosophy, I see a few GLARING mis-statements here.

1st. Ayn Rand does not condemn charity or altruism, but states that it is not your moral duty. (how people don’t understand that is beyond me)

2nd. She did see humility as weakness. It is. Think about it, when you are humble, what are you saying? “I have not achieved much, and I don’t think I’m that great. You’re probably better than me.”

3rd. She did believe in her philosophy, should she not? Either you believe it or you don’t, there isn’t a ‘how much’ involved.

4th. The statement about Aristotle. Why is it that some people simply think that if you were born within the past hundred years, there can’t possibly anything you can contribute to the study of philosophy? This kills me. People think that because she is a contemporary writer, she can’t know anything knew. Yet another example of “Who are you to know? Who are you to challenge?” Despite the overwhelming evidence she provides in her philosophy, some people won’t hear it.

2

Another thing: Why are most critics of Ayn Rand blatantly militant and rude about it? Why do they insist on letting the world know that they absolutely HATE this woman. Just do a quick online search and you’ll see what I mean. Does anyone know, or have an idea? I know that there is not one particular reason that is to blame. I just think it’s interesting, and wondered if anyone else noticed this.

One possibility is that she is similar to atheists in the sense that she challenges peoples core values. Atheism requires people who are religious to reexamine their actual metaphysical view which underlies everything else they believe. Rand doesn’t attack just an ethical or political view, she attacks its base and sometimes even the motivation behind it. This causes a deeper level of anxiety then most other things.

3

I have had intelligent conversations with those who oppose Rand’s philosophy, whether that be small things or disagreeing with huge parts of it ( Objectivity, Existence exists, self as primary ). People who simply attack Rand in, essentially, philosophical smear campaigns show their true cowardice and hatred, not logical disagreements, with what Rand has to say. For the most part when I argue with people about Objectivism, they are arguing on the basis of a misconception of the philosophy.

4

I have had intelligent conversations with those who oppose Rand’s philosophy, whether that be small things or disagreeing with huge parts of it ( Objectivity, Existence exists, self as primary ). People who simply attack Rand in, essentially, philosophical smear campaigns show their true cowardice and hatred, not logical disagreements, with what Rand has to say. For the most part when I argue with people about Objectivism, they are arguing on the basis of a misconception of the philosophy.

I agree with what you said about it mostly being misconceptions. I have found that the people who do really learn about the philosophy and understand it, generally only argue the finer points. However, some people choose not to understand it because, like you said, it challenges everything they thought they believed in.

5

Well, I could sum up most of the crictism like this –

“Ayn Rand was a mean bitch and Atlas Shrugged was too long! Everyone instinctively knows selfishness is wrong!”

I love Encyclopedia Dramatica’s “refutation”

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Randroid

A Randroid is a person who blindly follows the ideals of Ayn Rand (the leader of the Randroids), the founder of the “philosophy” called Objectivism, which is based upon the idea that selfishness is the highest good, altruism is the ultimate evil, and that the point of life is the individual pursuit of happiness. This is a boldfaced lie, as anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence instinctively knows. (After all, if Objectivism were the only true philosophy, a real Objectivist would keep the secret of happiness to him/herself, and not write books about it in an altruistic attempt to help others discover Objectivism! QED),

Welcome to the future of humanity. :lol:

6

Well, I could sum up most of the crictism like this –

“Ayn Rand was a mean bitch and Atlas Shrugged was too long! Everyone instinctively knows selfishness is wrong!”

I love Encyclopedia Dramatica’s “refutation”

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Randroid

Welcome to the future of humanity. :lol:

Exactly! Which goes back to what we were saying before. That quote you used is the epitome of the major misconceptions that people hold about Objectivism. Followers of Kant, Marx, or Aristotle are not made fun of, yet if you believe in Ayn Rand’s philosophy you are considered a ‘Randoid’.

The one good thing is that these ignorant people give me something to chuckle at while I’m drinking my coffee. :lol:

7

For the record Ecyclopedia Dramatica isn’t a serious site, and everything is mocked.

8

For the record Ecyclopedia Dramatica isn’t a serious site, and everything is mocked.

I’ve never looked at the site before, so I didn’t know. Even still, a lot of the criticism I hear of her does sound eerily like that. Thanks for the info.

9

1st. Ayn Rand does not condemn charity or altruism, but states that it is not your moral duty. (how people don’t understand that is beyond me)

She does condemn “altruism”, which means the abnegation or lowering of your self below others. She did not condemn charity. She considered it fine, but did not extol it as the greatest virtue. It’s something good and decent to do sometimes.

2nd. She did see humility as weakness. It is. Think about it, when you are humble, what are you saying? “I have not achieved much, and I don’t think I’m that great. You’re probably better than me.”

Having humility means being humble. To be humble means to hold a low opinion of yourself wrt others and wrt your own actual merit or worth. It’s a non-objective evaluation of your own worth, which is wrong. It’s like arrogance in reverse, holding a higher opinion of yourself than you have earned. Neither is good.

3rd. She did believe in her philosophy, should she not? Either you believe it or you don’t, there isn’t a ‘how much’ involved.

Quite so.

4th. The statement about Aristotle. Why is it that some people simply think that if you were born within the past hundred years, there can’t possibly anything you can contribute to the study of philosophy? This kills me. People think that because she is a contemporary writer, she can’t know anything knew. Yet another example of “Who are you to know? Who are you to challenge?” Despite the overwhelming evidence she provides in her philosophy, some people won’t hear it.

Well, in point of fact, what you presented was a screed by an Ayn Rand hater, or perhaps it was a joke.

10

There is something I’ve noticed that leaves me not angry, but a little bewildered. Normally when I talk to people who criticize Ayn Rand, or see comments online that people make which are critical of her and her philosophy, these people are rarely objective. By this I mean that they don’t offer logical reasons as to why they disagree with her. Usually they hit below the belt (calling her obscene names), or criticize her writing, or simply say “her philosophy is not really a philosophy” (this one really bugs me). […] Another thing: Why are most critics of Ayn Rand blatantly militant and rude about it?

It’s quite simple, really. An integral part of evil’s nature is to hate the good. Another indispensable part of evil’s nature is to be irrational. Putting these two together, it should come as no surprise at all that evil people make hate-filled, irrational statements on Ayn Rand. An evader flaunting his evasion of Objectivism is as natural a sight as pigs wallowing in mud–except of course that the pigs were born pigs, while the evaders have become ones by choice.

Why do they insist on letting the world know that they absolutely HATE this woman.

Another thing they are is second-handers. They think that by showing their hatred, they will influence you to hate her too–since the only form of epistemology they know is adopting other people’s ideas.

11

For the record Ecyclopedia Dramatica isn’t a serious site, and everything is mocked.

You’d think so.

But you’d be suprised how much of the Internet takes mocking of something for actual explanation of that thing. It’s not joking mocking it’s “I have this complex to shit on everything” mocking. It’s also called /b/ cancer in some places. Depends how it manifests itself.

12

She does condemn “altruism”, which means the abnegation or lowering of your self below others. She did not condemn charity. She considered it fine, but did not extol it as the greatest virtue. It’s something good and decent to do sometimes.

Having humility means being humble. To be humble means to hold a low opinion of yourself wrt others and wrt your own actual merit or worth. It’s a non-objective evaluation of your own worth, which is wrong. It’s like arrogance in reverse, holding a higher opinion of yourself than you have earned. Neither is good.

Quite so.

Well, in point of fact, what you presented was a screed by an Ayn Rand hater, or perhaps it was a joke.

I think you misunderstood me. I was stating everything you said. In my examples I was correcting their mis-interpretations. Like when I said she did not condemn charity, that was me correcting their thought that she did condemn it. I should have clarified. And thanks for the explanation on Altruism. I didn’t know its exact definition.

13

There is something I’ve noticed that leaves me not angry, but a little bewildered. Normally when I talk to people who criticize Ayn Rand, or see comments online that people make which are critical of her and her philosophy, these people are rarely objective. By this I mean that they don’t offer logical reasons as to why they disagree with her. Usually they hit below the belt (calling her obscene names), or criticize her writing, or simply say “her philosophy is not really a philosophy” (this one really bugs me). I rarely see someone who is just making an honest observation about why they don’t agree with her.

Another thing: Why are most critics of Ayn Rand blatantly militant and rude about it? Why do they insist on letting the world know that they absolutely HATE this woman. Just do a quick online search and you’ll see what I mean. Does anyone know, or have an idea? I know that there is not one particular reason that is to blame. I just think it’s interesting, and wondered if anyone else noticed this.

Here is an example. This is a quote from an article on CNN.

The egotist’s egotist, author Ayn Rand (born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum) is the patron saint of Thinking You’re Better Than Everybody Else.

Her most famous novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, are massive dramatizations of Objectivism, her self-spun Oscar-the-Grouch philosophy for success. Objectivism champions ego and accomplishment, shuns all religion as folly, and condemns any form of charity or altruism as counterproductive to society.

Rand’s novels often focus on protagonists (invariably men) who are shunned by others because of their genius, but then persevere over the foolishness of morons to prove said genius and emerge triumphant.

Not surprisingly, she saw humility as a weakness and regarded laughing at yourself as “spitting in your own face.”

So, just how much did Rand believe in her own philosophy? Let’s just say a lot. With signature modesty, she ranked herself as the philosophical equal of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

Now, as a person who understands Rand’s philosophy, I see a few GLARING mis-statements here.

1st. Ayn Rand does not condemn charity or altruism, but states that it is not your moral duty. (how people don’t understand that is beyond me)

2nd. She did see humility as weakness. It is. Think about it, when you are humble, what are you saying? “I have not achieved much, and I don’t think I’m that great. You’re probably better than me.”

3rd. She did believe in her philosophy, should she not? Either you believe it or you don’t, there isn’t a ‘how much’ involved.

4th. The statement about Aristotle. Why is it that some people simply think that if you were born within the past hundred years, there can’t possibly anything you can contribute to the study of philosophy? This kills me. People think that because she is a contemporary writer, she can’t know anything knew. Yet another example of “Who are you to know? Who are you to challenge?” Despite the overwhelming evidence she provides in her philosophy, some people won’t hear it.

Welcome to the real world of ideas, John. Ayn Rand called this “the hatred of the good for being good.” There are people out there, Ted Kennedy for instance, who look into a mirror and see nothing of any value. They intensely resent having anyone hold up in front of them a philosophy solidly grounded in reality, because their own is not. It is like holding a mirror in front of a vampire; they cannot stand what they see. If everyone thinks the same thing, there will be no comparison and their ideas will not be revealed as anti man. This is what they strive for. The group commonly called liberals (socialists) is most guilty of this intolerant, belligerent attitude. They use personal attacks and smear tactics because that is all they have, and they know that others as stupid as they are will believe them. In a rational argument based upon reason and solid principles, they lose every time and they know it. However, you are dealing with people who do not use reason or logic, they live in a utopian fantasyland in which everybody has everything but nobody has to produce. You cannot win an argument with them because they do not recognize the concept of defeat where their ideas are concerned. Don’t waste your time with these people. Live your own life according to the best within you.

14

Normally when I talk to people who criticize Ayn Rand, or see comments online that people make which are critical of her and her philosophy, these people are rarely objective.

Keep in mind that due to Kant and others after him, that the man haters have had a field day and no one has called them on it until Ayn Rand and Objectivism. They’ve been able to get away with quite a bit over the centuries, and either no one knew what they were up to or they didn’t want to acknowledge it if they did know it. The existence of altruism led to much wholesale injustices, that even the best of man accepted it and wouldn’t defend themselves on moral / philosophic grounds. And I think those who are the man haters know that their days are numbered, and they will have to go back into the slim pit from which they came – or more accurately, they’ve always known they were from the slime pits but were able to pretend to be man, because they could get away with it. With the advent of Objectivism, they can’t really hide any longer – both the mystics of the spirit and the mystics of the muscles have been told that they are wrong and evil , and they can’t hide behind the thin veneer of uncertainty about their character any longer; Objectivism lays their vapid souls bare for all to see.

So, though I think hatred of the good for being the good is the largest part of their motivation, they also have a hatred of themselves that they were able to hide on a pretense, which they can’t do around a rational man. It’s like a con man getting caught and hating the one who caught him, because the con man has to then face the fact that he has been wrong for reality all along. He had been able to hide behind a kind of uncertainty principle of morality: Judge not least ye be judged. To which Objectivism says: Judge and be prepared to be judged. A rational man can take it; the irrational cannot. So they spew their venom in the hopes that it will erase the judgement upon them. And when they see that it doesn’t, they claim that you hate mankind because you won’t let them get away with it. And all the time they are trying to deflect the identification of themselves.

They can’t take Objectivism seriously because it will lead them to face their own worst fears – that they are unfit to live the life of a rational being.

15

I think another part of the reason people react so violently to her and her writings, resorting to name-calling and such, “hitting below the belt”, is that she sometimes did the same.

“When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved…” (galt’s speech)

So, if a person believes (mistakenly, of course) that existence must be proved, and has the assertiveness to state what he believes, he can’t simply be misguided. He is “a savage who has not learned to speak”. I think this kind of attitude is a large part of what alienates so many from her.

Edit: wow, I guess I shouldn’t have skipped your post, Thomas. So someone who has been raised to think altruism is good is not simply misguided and mistaken, but is further a man-hater from a slime pit, is wrong, and evil. I’m pretty sure that referring to someone as an “evil man-hater from a slime pit” qualifies as “calling names”. I think like begets like, and when you call people these things, you’re going to alienate them–even those who might agree with Objectivism if their disagreements were addressed with care.

16

I think another part of the reason people react so violently to her and her writings, resorting to name-calling and such, “hitting below the belt”, is that she sometimes did the same.

“When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved…” (galt’s speech)

So, if a person believes (mistakenly, of course) that existence must be proved, and has the assertiveness to state what he believes, he can’t simply be misguided. He is “a savage who has not learned to speak”. I think this kind of attitude is a large part of what alienates so many from her.

Edit: wow, I guess I shouldn’t have skipped your post, Thomas. So someone who has been raised to think altruism is good is not simply misguided and mistaken, but is further a man-hater from a slime pit, is wrong, and evil. I’m pretty sure that referring to someone as an “evil man-hater from a slime pit” qualifies as “calling names”. I think like begets like, and when you call people these things, you’re going to alienate them–even those who might agree with Objectivism if their disagreements were addressed with care.

I will first note one point that was made by a fairly good friend of mine, which I believe is accurate and irrelevant to the truth of Objectivism. She noted that many people who say about Rand’s work that “it changed my life,” sound just like people who read astrology and crack-pot self-help books. (Both she and I recognize this fairly clearly since we worked at the same bookstore for a while and talked to a lot of people who read these kinds of books.) They were insecure, easily manipulated, and they now superficially follow something that provides a few catchy quotes. And even though I agree with her, that a noticable number of people influenced by Rand can be so described, I still thought less of her for noting it as if she were making an argument against Objectivism. She has yet to make any logical argument against the truth of Objectivism rather than a criticism of a semi-pop culture that is associated with the name ‘Objectivism’.

Secondly, in response to the quote above, I will agree that Rand’s rhetoric was perhaps ill-chosen to persuade. More often, if a reader is older and has already formed a set of beliefs that he identifies with, Rand’s rhetoric puts him in a defensive, combative mind-set rather than an inquisitive attitude.

On the other hand, there are some matters that do not permit indifference. Obvious examples would be mistreatment of children and masochism: Even though rational argument can show how these are wrong, it is incumbent upon a good person to feel anger and revolt at these things. Altruism also deserves a sense of disgust and indignation, and Rand often simply expressed what she felt.

17

There is an interesting discussion attached to the encyclopedia, in which an objectivist is debating a critic: http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1195059362/84-

The critic presents thorough and detailed responses to the objectivist’s assertions, and it appears as though the objectivist eventually malfunctions, stating merely “take Chomsky and Marx and shove them up your ass, I’m an Objectivist and I won’t hear any of this rambling nonsense any longer.” Very good points are raised by the critic.

You should check the link.

18

“take Chomsky and Marx and shove them up your ass, I’m an Objectivist and I won’t hear any of this rambling nonsense any longer.”

LOL.

19

Edit: wow, I guess I shouldn’t have skipped your post, Thomas. So someone who has been raised to think altruism is good is not simply misguided and mistaken, but is further a man-hater from a slime pit, is wrong, and evil.

No, it’s never a good idea to skip my posts :wink:

I think you are confusing the followers of a movement with the creators of a movement. It’s possible to be taught something that is difficult to overcome with rational thinking; it gets ingrained and can be difficult to root out. However, if one comes across a more rational way of thinking, and one rejects it in a knee jerk reactionary way, then yes, there is something wrong with you.

I used to be Catholic, and some aspects of Objectivism were difficult for me to focus in on and think about rationally – like the idea that selfishness is a virtue, because it went against everything that I was taught. However, I would read over the presentation by Ayn Rand and think about it and realized that she was right. It took some time but I was able to do it.

The bottom line is that there is no honest revolt against reason; that if you are going to rebel against reason on a knee jerk level, then you are going by emotions and not by reason, which is immoral. And all of the critics of Ayn Rand that I have seen are doing that – they are not giving a reasoned response to Objectivism, they are just knee jerking emotionally, which is immoral.

Now, there is nothing wrong with questioning Objectivism, to see if it stands up to reason – and Ayn Rand would want someone to do that, instead of merely accepting it without question – but the hardliner critics aren’t doing that.

20

There is an interesting discussion attached to the encyclopedia, in which an objectivist is debating a critic: http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1195059362/84-

The critic presents thorough and detailed responses to the objectivist’s assertions, and it appears as though the objectivist eventually malfunctions, stating merely “take Chomsky and Marx and shove them up your ass, I’m an Objectivist and I won’t hear any of this rambling nonsense any longer.” Very good points are raised by the critic.

You should check the link.

I’m surprised they even attempted such. 4chan.org is overall an immature site where vulgar kids and stupid teenagers like to gather and make light of everything. Rand has already made clear that one should not use reason to persuade one who denies it, so why do people even continue to try? The worst that can happen in such a situation is that you could write out a long argument only to recieve the response of a “$%*@ YOU!11!” (online of course).