Andrew Corsello’s The Bitch is Back article from GQ on the boorish subject of Ayn Rand Assholes is probably the best takedown of Ayn Rand’s followers (and Alan Greenspan and Wall Street) I’ve yet seen and certainly the funniest (other than Stephen Colbert’s). It was about time for an article like this to appear and I am glad it was Corsello who wrote it.

I myself became an unabashed Ayn Rand fanatic when I was in 7th or 8th grade. I’d been reading the works of Victor Hugo and so I was totally primed for discovering another “Romantic” (note capital “r”) writer like Ayn Rand next, but it wasn’t via her well-known fiction that I discovered the Russian-born novelist and philosopher, but rather a more obscure volume called Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, which I read extremely slowly so I could take in the complexity of the thought. It’s a very dry, technical book, but made a huge impression on me (more on this below, it merits special mention).

The next thing I read was Anthem, which is interesting enough, but slight compared to her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged which I read after that. Eventually I would go through nearly ever word of hers in print up to about 1979. I mean everything. Via mail order I collected single issues of The Objectivist and The Ayn Rand Letter until I had them all and I kept them in bound cases like holy relics. This is what can happen when bright kids read Ayn Rand, they get obsessed, but hopefully, like me, they will grow out of it. Discovering Lenny Bruce, Marx, Marcuse, Crowley, Burroughs and the Firesign Theatre deprogrammed my teenage ass but good and by the time I was 14 and I soon stopped caring about Ayn Rand altogether. (In my case I was young enough not to have had any shameful, reactionary moments to cringe about and regret, not like young Marty Beckerman)

By the time I was in my twenties and living in the Wall Street area of Manhattan, I’d see young, obviously Republican, stock broker types reading Atlas Shrugged on the subway and I’d feel silent contempt for them. Discovering Ayn Rand after high school is bad enough, but to discover her post-college is true pathetica. Her strident greed is good moralizing about the ‘virtues of selfishness’ (one of her best known non-fiction titles) would have an appeal to would be Gordon Gekkos, of course, but… yuck. Talk about an impoverished intellectual diet.

Many people who loathe Ayn Rand tend to go on about what a cack-handed writer she was, but this is not strictly true because her books, even the 75,000 page Atlas Shrugged are real page turners. I can absolutely see why Atlas Shrugged is still one of the all time best selling books in history—I was captivated by it myself, of course. The characters are vivid. The book’s plotting—which has tons of relentless momentum despite the novel’s legendary heft—is a tour de force. It’s Rand’s dialogue that seals her reputation as an author you just can’t take seriously. To be fair, she was writing in her second language, but the problem with her books is that no one actually speaks to one another, they just make speeches at each other. Hectoring, long-winded speeches. It’s fine to read stuff like that as a teenager, but when I crack open one of her books today, I shake my head in disbelief at how bombastic and horrible her writing is. It’s Dan Brown level tripe.

If you don’t believe me, try this one for size, the trailer for King Vidor’s screen version of The Fountainhead with a script by Rand herself. Can you imagine how difficult it was for the actors to get their lines out and try to sound convincing saying them?!?! (It’s one or the other!)

 
Here’s a clip of Ayn Rand on Phil Donohue’s talkshow that I recall seeing at the time it originally aired. She got really peevish with both Phil and the audience at points. Check her out. Who talks like that?

 
*One quick thing I wanted to say about Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is that it is an unfairly ignored and misunderstood work on how concepts are formed, shunned by academia simply because it was written by Ayn Rand. Had it been written by Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead or Wittgenstein, it would be (rightfully) celebrated as an important philosophical treatise.I may think Ayn Rand sucks as a novelist, but I highly recommend this book.

I have to admit I haven’t read one word of the lady’s prose, (the occasional flipping through Reason Magazine is enough to get the gist of it) but I’ve always been fascinated by the Art Deco design that continually sprouts in her periphery.

Methinks it’s time to go play some more Bioshock.

Yeah, have to agree with your conclusions.  I do think her argument on the non-existence of God & the afterlife is rather lame, however.  She does seem perhaps a little more tolerant than Dawkins & Dennett, who I think are promoting an existentialism on meth, lol.  Whatever, I don’t really care what she thinks, this was more a trip down memory lane with the video clips. Thanks

My main issue reading Ayn Rand was how anti-science she was. Big building projects and large engineering projects like large railroads are good. But we never meet people investigating the world at large that makes the engineering ultimately possible. And the few times we see anything like pure research going on the researchers are unambiguously bad people.

It also annoyed me how good people are good looking and bad people are ugly. That’s a common problem with a lot of writers even decent writers. But when you can’t write well it becomes all the more annoying.

The problem with Rand is not her writing style as much as the fact that the ideology is profoundly evil in many different ways.

Ayn Rand’s logic behind her rejection of God is the same as Siddhartha Gautama’s. The Buddha said that he didn’t believe anything that he didn’t experience or couldn’t prove with his own senses. The things she’s saying are nearly identical with the Buddha’s writings.

What’s sad is that she departed from the Buddha’s ideas on attachment. He went for less attachment as a way to happiness, she went for more.

In high school a friend of mine was reading “Atlas Shrugged” and my literature teacher recommended I read “the Fountainhead” saying it would “change my life.”

It was sweet of him, because he thought I was smart, but I’m glad to say I never really liked the book. I was like.. hey this character’s IS socialism.. what the fuck?

In university I met (and my friend dated) a very beautiful poet who was obsessed with Ayn Rand. Extremely dogmatic she believed in pure selfishness, and behaved accordingly. She made herself pretty miserable.

She also had herpes, and sometimes we couldn’t decide which of the two was more unfortunate. This lead to much joking about how liking Ayn Rand can in fact give a person herpes, and the concept of “Rand herp” was born.

“Rand herp” is identical to the “Ayn Rand Asshole” - a personal with a virulent strain of Rand / Obectivist devotion that just won’t go away. And it burns.

I borrowed a copy of “Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology” from a then-new Objectivist friend of mine my freshman year of college (he had a whole shelf of her books). I couldn’t make it more than 50 pages without getting so annoyed I had to put down the book, because of all the ridiculous, unprovable, and generally bad assumptions that she makes in order to construct a philosophical framework for what the ideal behavior of man is. Many of her ideas appeal to me on the surface, but once you realize that her assertions are dogmatic in nature, she becomes a bit more like a ranting priest than a philosophical “genius” as she’s touted by her followers.

Such a waste print and paper that woman’s writings are…

“Check her out. Who talks like that?”

Too few people, I would say. Is her unapologetic atheism too much for you?

“Peter Keating: Selfish! Weak!”

Now that’s good characterization!

—MrJM
http://twitter.com/misterjayem

As much as I hate her both her philosophy and books, replacing Ayn Rand with the likes of Aleister Crowley is in no way an improvement.

Re the second clip: Peevish?  It seems to me that Donahue is easily the more peevish of the two.

And the gratuitous comparison to Dan Brown? Dan Brown’s poor writing (as opposed to his extremely skillful storytelling) appears to be due to his incompetence with words.  Whereas whatever you might think of her hectoring, long-winded dialog—and we are talking about philosophical novels after all— that’s hardly a criticism that can be leveled at Ayn Rand.

I am not a fan of Rand’s philosophy but I can understand how she came to her conclusions and “outlooks”.

The thing people forget is that most philosophers are influenced by their own times / experiences. In the case of Rand it was a system that she as a child saw as suppressing and oppressing. So once she had the opportunity to create “the perfect society” she took to it.

The end result is her Objectivism and all it’s faults. She based it all on a system she considered entirely wrong and she tried to conceive the “perfect world” opposite her experience.

But the world is not just black and white, and this is why her radical ideas lead to as much destruction as her own childhood experiences.

Karma…. etc.

Rand was an over complicated version of Nietzche. The supermen that Nietzche talked about were the same people as Rand’s intellectual elite. They served the same purpose, and are obviously now obsolete ideals.

Talking shit about Rand’s teachings is like bitching about Plato being a fascist who hated democracy. At the time it made sense that both of them would come to their conclusions, even how fucking trivial it may seem now.

Someone brought up that the teaching of Buddha are parallel to Rand, well Nietzsche is also a very close parallel with Buddhism. The problem with philosophy is, the more you tend to open your mouth the more you get wrong. Rand wrote to much, and didn’t edit her writing very well, which possibly why you didn’t like to read it(OP).

Also anyone who thinks they like Rand, should just stop reading her and read Nietzche, he comes to a much better conclusion with his stuff IMO.

Corsello writes an entertaining article, and since it’s published in GQ, I’m assuming that’s all it’s meant to be…entertaining.  He comes up with a couple of good metaphors, and flogs them for all he’s worth.  However, like most critics of Rand, he does not actually tackle the ideas at any point.  He attempts to disprove her philosophy by attacking her writing style, her tone of voice, and the (admittedly true) high-handedness of her followers…in short, by criticizing everything except the philosophy itself. 
Metzger, your closing comment about “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” makes your own commentary more even handed than Corsello’s, recognizing that this is a set of ideas.  I think it should be criticized as such, and not on the basis of the personalities of the people who read them.
In the end, it’s only Corsello’s ersatz Dennis Miller writing style that makes his piece worth reading and sets him apart from the many internet trolls who knee-jerkingly shout “NAZI!” every time they read the name Ayn Rand.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old?

I came upon Rand in my mid-thirties.  While I embrace the objectivism wholeheartedly, as others have pointed out I find the official position of her followers in regards to religion is illogical. Several years ago, I attended a meeting of the Ayn Rand Institute.  After, I contacted them with questions pertaining to religion and rather than address them they advocated I attend more meetings. Isn’t that one of the earmarks of a cult?

In college I decided to read “Atlas Shrugged” as an effort to broaden my literary range, which at that time was limited to science fiction. I ended up having to force myself to finish the thing, because I found myself continually arguing with the characters, assumptions, and premises of the story, although I couldn’t quite put into words what I found so offensive about it. Age and maturity and experience have finally given me the words:

Her “utopia” is a world without justice.

I would like to take this opportunity to gloat: I first read The Fountainhead when I was 13 and thought it was a terrible piece of poop even then.

To everyone else who actually liked (or still likes) her fiction: LOL @ U

Good afternoon everyone,

It always amazes me exactly how much vitrol there is out there about a philosophy that can really be boiled down to 1) focus on the facts and 2) fight for the best life you can.

Most Objectivists I know are polite, friendly, and joyous. Yes, there are angry, bitter people that call themselves Objectivists and attempt to use the philosophy as a bludgeon. In my experience, they are usually young and have a superficial understanding of it. They see the word “selfish” and think that means you should be a jerk; when what it means is that you should be productive, protect your loved ones, protect your freedom, aspire to your best.

A philosophy that tells you to love your life shouldn’t be this controversial.

Regards,
Randal V

I’m an asshole first and a fan of Rand second.

I just wanted to point out that most of this criticism is aimed at poor storytelling, and how assholes have interpreted her work. Not much time is spent arguing the philosophy behind it. That seems like a rather ad-hominem attack.

And the 4th paragraph shuns reading her work as an adult, claiming it’s understandable to make that mistake only at a young age.
Really? So if you’re interested in reading a popular novel at a later age, you’re pathetic?

I like Rand for the simple rule; “don’t initiate force on another”, which is more than can be said for other philosophies.
But that’s just my opinion, and I’m an asshole.

I won’t deign to waste my time criticizing the cynical, nihilistic smear piece by GQ.

However, you mention you were a “an unabashed Ayn Rand fanatic when [you were] in 7th or 8th grade.” And that by the age of 14 you had given up on Rand. Really?! Only 14? Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that at most only the 9/10th grade? You were a fanatic one year and disdainful the next?

My guess is that you never really studied Rand’s philosophy. And how could you given only one or two years worth of introduction. Also at such a young age, how much exposure to philosophy in general did you have to make an informed decision upon the merits of Objectivism? Personally I first read Rand in 12th grade and have been studying ever since. I’ve had years to research her philosophy and other philosophies as well and I intend to continue.

The reason I think you never understood Objectivism is the way in which you liken it to Gordon Gekko. No where in the Objectivist literature will you find a justification for greed. Greed is simply the unquenchable desire to obtain that which you seek. People can be greedy for good values or bad values, i.e., non-values. A person can be greedy when it comes to getting A’s on a test which makes them study hard and build good productive habits or a person can be greedy for getting as many people in bed with them without regard to who those people are ultimately you contract an STI like herpes. A person’s greed all depends upon their value system. Greed as such is not the defining criterion, it is not a primary. And it certainly wasn’t Rand’s either.

For those interested in finding out what Rand really thought I would suggest starting with her fiction. Although Intro. to Oist Epistemology is a seminal achievement for philosophy, it’s not a good starting point for new readers of Rand.

Honestly, even as a teenager I couldn’t get more than one chapter into anything Rand wrote.  I thought it was the most dreadfully written crap I’d ever laid hands on—and I read Crime and Punishment, all of James Joyce, War and Peace.  In short, I was not averse to THICK and dense.  I just found her horrifically bad.  So horrifically bad that I couldn’t manage to give a rat’s butt about her “vivid” characters, because I really couldn’t get far enough in to meet them.  Awful.

And now that I know what I was spared by tossing those books in the trash, I find her ideas reprehensible.  So I think I’ll stick to my cardinal rule of “I don’t read crap.”

You leave out what might be the best reason for her popularity among youth: the university faculties uniform condemnation of her work, sometimes even threatening people caught reading it.  I was at UCLA when an almost hysterical portion of the faculty let one and all know what kind of morons read her.  No discussions mind you, just think you think and obey.  Rand has flourished in this poisonous fertilizer.  You want to be a real rebel?  Just read her and champion her.  Your grade point average will drop like good intentions in hell.  Back in my day we all carried Atlas Shrugged under our arms just because.

Of course this is exciting

The left-wing chimps and Tin Foil Hat conspiracy theorists are her biggest critics ,

so bravo to anyone who takes down Rand !!!!!

There is nothing wrong with Socialist takeovers of GM and FNM and FRE ..... look at how much $$$ the government has made from these ventures !!!!

Actually, she makes a lot more sense to me than Donahue on the issue of religion. As somebody who was enamored with her until I was about 18 (the age of reason?), I have to admit that as an older adult, I find her philosophy is shallow and that she’s an absolutely awful writer. Having said that, she is one of the people who got me thinking about big ideas at a relatively young age. So, I guess I look back on her the way I do the Easter bunny: It served a purpose at one point in my life, but I outgrew it.

I outgrew her as well, but not before spending a couple of my years of undergraduate philosophical study working to expand her arguments vis-a-vis Kant and Leibniz, believe it or not. Eventually, it became clear that the world was vastly more subtle and complex than I’d wanted to believe (indeed, there is not either/or so much as there are competing truths and competing goods that must be parsed).

Still, I believe Rand was good for me at the time and has been good for others who perhaps need to hear that they have some domain over how their lives turn out. Work hard, argue well, value the good ?

I agree with her argument. She says truth.

Ayn Rand exemplifies how “extremists” of any kind all start to look alike. Rand’s Romanticism is so like that of Communism, and yet they are supposed to be polar opposites. Something to think about, hmmmm?

Her problem and that of the people that follow her stunted view of the world is that they all collectively suffering from arrested development.
Seriously.
Her ridiculous vision of the ultimate “self” or whatever is so laughable it’s.. not funny.
Only someone so emotionally stunted or a complete sociopath can be entranced by her crap as an adult.
Which is why it’s perfect that you note you got into her books in the 7th grade. 
It’s the same time kids get into reading Stephen King.  But he pretty much admits he’s just a hack trying to write (sometimes) scary stories..
Not that he hasn’t written some brilliant stuff (like The Shawshank Redemption story that became the movie) but I don’t think anyone would sit and read his book on the subway trying to absorb his pulp fiction as a roadmap for life.

Man how lucky you were to find a deep thinker like Marcuse to save you from Rand. Shay hut.

I no longer mock people who despise Rand just because they can’t stomach philosophical essays or long novels. That’s just the way things are. The atheism angle is new and exciting, though. I remember atheism when it was the new and exciting, everybody’s-doing-it fad of the 60’s. If you weren’t an atheist then, you weren’t making it. Although it’s entirely possible Rand helped incite that fad, to judge her anti-religion arguments now without paying attention to the meaning of atheism to mid-century intellectuals is to miss something big. And you communists, there’s a few lines from your founders I want you to scan over quickly.

There’s a persistent rumor in Rand scholarship that she’d charted a sympathetic priest for Atlas Shrugged, but was so horrified at the “Moral Re-Armament” social conservative movement of Father Coughlin that she lined out the character. As much as she would resent being defined as a woman of her time, many think that in this respect she was exactly that.

I don’t particularly like Rand’s philosophies, but everything she says in the final video is spot on. I am always amazed that people get so offended when people expose religion and naysayers respond with ad hominem attacks (“you aren’t smart enough) or outlandish statements like “You can’t prove there isn’t a God.”

Actually, the best thing about her is her atheism.

I think I picked up Atlas Shrugged sometime in my teenagehood, but never read it through. I’d seen a lot of students carrying it around who had to read it for assignment.

All I can add to the discussion is, if a robot-like shrew such as Michelle Malkin is quoting Rand on TV? That’s enough for me to steer clear of Rand’s work forever.

Oh, and, right now I’m revisiting the 80s reading Nicaraguan and El Salvadoran history (the revolutions, the political machinations) and, of course, the horrors the Reagan administration visited on the people of Central America. Reagan was a Rand admirer as well you say? Figures.

Revisit away, bapyou. You will be sure to apply the same rigorous aesthetic to any robot-like shrews you encounter among, like, students carrying around communist writers they had to read for assignments. Won’t you.

HUGE of you to admit you hadn’t read it, though. “Figures.”

coma, rand has no more intellectual merit than l ron hubbard.  it’s goddamn fiction and because it appeals to your squalling ego, it is the center of your universe.  rand despises religion?  you twat, she STARTED a religion, and you fell for it.

people don’t loathe scheisse porn because they “aren’t tough enough”, they hate it because they have have a brain cell or two that they can’t turn off.

Tut, tut, old toff, you’re ranting now. I didn’t say Rand despised religion (see above), although there certainly were elements of it of which she was none too fond. And if you’d ever actually seen a twat, you wouldn’t be calling me one.

Are there other works of fiction that elicit such a visceral response in you, or did Rand just figure out how to push all your buttons?

Well, comatus, if you’d read my entry closely, your statement that I’ve “never read” Rand is incorrect. I began reading Atlas Shrugged once, but couldn’t get through it. I’m guessing I couldn’t because Rand comes form an intellectual place far too foreign to my own place in the world.

As for shrews spouting leftist doctrine, if I encounter anyone on Fox News quoting Marx admiringly, I’ll be sure to burn all the leftist literature in my library.

When do you think that day will come?

Cheers.

this is no different than avant art schoolers and mainstreamers arguing about what films and directors should and shouldn’t be included in the Criterion Collection.  beautiful fits of elitism and condescension.  http://j.mp/5Fi5bQ

hence a best-of list of comments below!

the intellectual flaming is also like older, more articulate youtube comment kids, which is amusing.

/*
haha.
the goodies:

@metzger:  Rand = Dan Brown
@junglemonkey:  Rand = Buddha
@Glinglin:  Rand = Herpes.  “And it burns.”
@mckenzie:  Rand << Nietzche
@diatalevi: Rand Institute = cult
@misanthropope:  Rand = Ron Hubbard. “you twat, she STARTED a religion, and you fell for it.”

...

@zelinsky
*Outkast - “Aquemini”:
is every nigga with dreads for the cause
is every nigga with gold for the fall
no
so don’t get caught up in appearance

@bailey:  “To everyone else who actually liked (or still likes) her fiction: LOL @ U”

@randalv:  “love your life.” 

@spencer:  “I’m an asshole first and a fan of Rand second.”
*Rand’s rule about initiation of force seems actually quite subjective, whereas the objective (causal) takes shape through Newton, Tzu, and Pythagoras.  “this does this” vs “do not/do this”.  still, if you combined the two then you have a good framework for leading life. 

@Owens:  Rand’s utopia = unjust
*which makes sense considering a utopia has no faults, and therefore no need for balance-keeping justice.  this of course, is unrealistic and physically impossible, based on Newton.  but if you look at Rand’s rule of “don’t initiate force” (quite similar in recognition of karma), then the idea of “unjust-ness” in her ideal world actually becomes “no-justice-needed” because no one is infringing on each other.  this, again, is still unrealistic because, as @lincoln said, Good can be complex and recursively conflicting.

@caution:  *one year in teenage life is, like, an eternity.

@howard veit: “back in my day we all carried Atlas Shrugged under our arms just because.”
*same as perennial “Cool to hate” teenage mood.  reference: vice Mag post linked above.

@lincoln: “Work hard, argue well, value the good”

@comatus:  “I remember atheism when it was the new and exciting… If you weren?

bapyou, sorry to leave you hanging like that. I give you 1 Dec, Sheila Jackson Lee, and a Bic lighter: fair & balanced.

You know, Phil Donahue was not on Fox, and he wasn’t afraid to talk to her.

I started to read “Kapital” once, but I don’t pass myself off as an authority on Marx. Got right through that Manifesto though—hers, too.

Your intellectually inept article and the comments in support of it indicate that you and your supporters are too either stupid to even suspect that they are stupid or that you all are blatantly dishonest.  If you are unable to or unwilling to abstract ideas and determine their logical consequences in reality by objective epistemological criteria for coherence and consistency, then you should not insult your betters who can and are committed to the same.

This song is for all of you! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZz2qlKeAJk

Damn, I wish I knew there was going to be a sentence length contest.

Ayn Rand, to her credit, anticipated the “new” atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens, but her libertarian philosophy is a simple defense of selfishness dressed up as an intellectual theory. Also, although this is an ad hominem attack, she was an insufferable egomaniac and cult leader who demanded sexual access to all her male followers, despite their marital status. People often, understandably, mispronounce her first name. I just remember that it rhymes with “swine.”

Littlejohn, I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but the evidence doesn’t support your characterization of Rand. Even the recent biographies, with their oft noted anti-Rand biases, don’t paint that picture. You are right that you’re giving an ad hominem attack and an incorrect one at that. 

If you are interested in actually understanding Rand’s ideas and judging them for yourself, I’d recommend reading Leonard Peikoff’s “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.” I can’t guarantee you won’t disagree with them, but you will find them to have a little more intellectual heft than you’re giving credit.

Randal

@ Robert Smith PhD (Physics)

You wrote

“If you are unable to or unwilling to abstract ideas and determine their logical consequences in reality by objective epistemological criteria for coherence and consistency, then you should not insult your betters who can and are committed to the same.”

It’s been a long time since I’ve had occassion to read anything dripping with such haughty snobbery as your comment. Is it possible for you to be any more self-important and supercilious? Doubtful.

Of course, I’d expect nothing more from a Randbot.

Klaatuu nikto barada, dude. (I think you know what I mean.)

And the A**hole song? It was written with people like you in mind. Trust me on that one.

No peace.

The biggest problem with the “Ayn Rand Asshole” characterization is that the ARA’s leave out one of the most important pieces of her philosophy… self-esteem.

Every example given is always someone trying to prove they’re better than everyone else because they’re Objectivist.  Even the #1 ARA in the GQ article is talking about how he has the biggest dick of all the other ARA’s.  Why compare yourself to anyone else?  You are you… your thoughts are your own as are your actions.  Why do you care if you’re better than the next guy or if your (actual or metaphorical) dick is bigger?

The point of Objectivism is to live YOUR life.  You take in information, apply REASON to it, and then act accordingly.

Rand != Nietzsche purely because she believes that everyone is their own goal and purpose, and EVERYONE has the ability to succeed on their own merits.  Nietzsche believed that there are supermen, BORN as such, that we should all bow down to.

The world IS black and white.  There is reality, and there is not.  There is reason, and there is not.  Any “shades of grey” out there are caused by insufficient evidence to classify as black or white or ignorance to the actual facts of the situation.

There are ARAs out there, but they are all people that glossed over the surface of Rand’s writings and never stopped to think about them past “Hey, I AM awesome and I will be greedy and everyone else is stupid if they don’t agree”.

Live for yourself and don’t fuck with anyone else’s life.

The people who truly understand the Ayn Rand message couldn’t care less about Ayn Rand, the plain-looking, accent-muffled Russian immigrant, but respect her vocalization of the philosophy that helped their already-existing, introverted beliefs to bloom. When she puts things so simply and accurately, shoveling through the bullshit piled high by society, leading to the anteroom of humanity, you get it, and nothing else matters.
You—and most others—do not. I think her philosophy is much too sophisticated for a teen. You have to see death, strife, deep sorrow and truly fend for yourself before you understand.
I don’t totally agree with her. She missed a lot. And her writing is not very good in my opinion. She wouldn’t acknowledge empathy. And we feel empathy for selfish reasons, and we cannot help it, and neither could she. We do have charitible souls, whether it be for our own survival, because of something metaphysical or just something we don’t understand yet. She tried to deny that part of humanity exists. I think she was a bit of a sociopath, but she got a lot of shit right.

this charlatan obviously hasn’t READ a single word of Ayn Rand’s.  There is only one philosophical statement in the entire vomitous piece, and it is something about “...greed…” 

Define your soul, sir!

I read both your post and the one linked to it, and didn’t find a single argument that actually refuted any of her philosophical stances. All I found were gross generalizations, strawmen, red herrings, and non sequiturs. I’m an avid Objectivist. I’ve read many, many of her books. I live by her philosophy. But I don’t meet any of these stereotypes, and neither do any of the Objectivists that I know. I work, live my life rationally, and spend my money as a please. I don’t evangelize my philosophy. If someone asks, I tell them, and explain the basic concepts, if they ask me to. If they want to debate, I will join in, so long as they are polite and rational. If not, I will politely decline.

I will never understand posts like this, which basically boil down to someone petulantly protesting the hubris of someone else who dares to strive for the highest in life, who regards themselves as a value, and who thinks that people should be free. That’s Objectivism. The linked post’s rant about Greenspan is ridiculous; it was government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which allowed people to take such loans out. It was the altruistic moral philosophy which condemned the banks for being ‘greedy’ because they refused to grant loans to people who wouldn’t be able to pay them back. And the idea that Rand supported wallstreet was ridiculous. Her heroes were an architect, a newspaper columnist, an electrician, a copper mine owner, a pirate/philosopher, an inventor, a steel producer, a secretary, a railroad executive, a doctor, a composer, a sculptor, a young shop keeper, a newspaper tycoon, etc. Only one was a banker, and one can’t imagine Midas Mulligan lending money to people who couldn’t pay it back. In fact, the people who sought to get rich by playing with numbers instead of producing were castigated in Atlas Shrugged. Remember the crash initiated by Francisco D’Anconia in order to bankrupt the pull-peddlers like James Taggart? And now people are using the oil spill as an example of the failures of Objectivism! Look at the spill, and then look at the Taggart Tunnel scene in Atlas Shrugged. The layers of incompetence, lack of accountability, and blame-shifting surrounding both situations are very similar.

Skepsikyma, I completely agree.  On the BP disaster, actually applying Objectivism would be the most beneficial solution for everyone.

In a world where individual rights are protected above all else, BP would have to compensate every single individual whom they negatively impacted.  If anyone’s right to life (and support that life) was infringed (oil ruining fisheries, blocking boats, etc etc), BP would be held accountable.  They would either have to constantly reimburse every victim of this spill until they fixed it or went bankrupt in the process.

“But wouldn’t this put all the hard-working employees of BP out on the street?  What of the lost jobs??”

BP is not the only gigantic oil business in the world.  There are several others who, I’m sure, are sitting back and watching this disaster unfold, thinking, “If only I could get in there, fix that spill and have a huge new supply of oil.”  In the objectivist world, that’s exactly what would happen.  BP would spend millions (billions?) trying to fix this disaster, and when they’re almost out, another company would come in, buy the failing company out, gain all of its assets and completely fix the problem, gaining massive amounts of new product in the process.

Unfortunately… all we see is BP shrugging its shoulders, making half-assed attempts to right their wrong.  They don’t have to go full-out… they have team Obama helping and everyone in the world ready to donate and help save the environment… when this is all BPs responsibility.  Take responsibility!! 

I think that’s the main problem with the world, especially the US lately.  No one takes responsibility for anything… they push blame around, wait for handouts, bailouts, welfare… they wait for anyone else to step in so that they don’t have to face the consequences of their actions.  Our government no longer protects individual rights, it sacrifices the successful to support the failing.  Objectivism is about focusing on the self, rationally.  That means being proud of your individual successes and righting your individual failures.  In this example, BP has failed, horrifically, and they will continue to exist and have absolutely no incentive to fix anything in the future, since it’s clear that the world will clean up all their mess for them.

Ayn Rand writes psuedo-philosophy tied to pseudo-vangaurd cliches. She doesnt even understand the basis of philosophy, or takes into account the destruction of the category of “Dogmatism” by Immanuel Kant. Philosophy is not a matter of “this sounds good”, it is supposed to stand by itself despite its particular ends. What “rationality” when the post-enlightenment brought works on inevitable irrationality. I mean did she read Max Stirner, she is utterly cliche. Shes Apollonian plastic that tackles nothing. I do think that some collectivists disregard all of it for being a capitalist, even though shes merely reactionary and self reflexive. And I do think that some people are cryptosexists, but I do have to say that her argumentation is not up to par with 98% of the other philosophers in the conversation and made it in because shes a woman at the time of the cold war in america…

My introduction to Ayn Rand was <i>The Virtue of Selfishness</i>.  On the second or third page, she says that an altruist believes that anything that helps others is morally good, and anything that helps the altruist is morally bad.  Any actual altruist would reject this definition, saying that not everything that helps others is necessarily good and that most things that help the altruist are either good or morally neutral.

Since she starts her argument with a straw man definition, I saw no reason to continue reading.

@Fortinbras:

She’s defining the strictest form of altruism.  It’s just like religious debates where someone is arguing for a given religion, but doesn’t believe in portions of the dogma.  I believe in Jesus, but I don’t believe Noah actually had all the animals on his ark.  It’s like reading a math text and saying that you believe in algebra, but you don’t believe in trig.

She’s stating the basest and purest form of altruism, helping others at the sacrifice of one’s self.  You can’t have something that helps someone else which the altruist wouldn’t deem “good”, because then it wouldn’t be helping.  If she attempted to bring shades of gray into her arguments, then the whole collection of essays would cease to have meaning.  Again, it would be like a math text starting with, “1+1 is sometimes 2”.

If you enjoy helping others - your friends, family, maybe even sharing your good fortune with a stranger - you’re gaining something from helping them, which is *not* altruistic (using the most basic definition of the word).  It’s mutually beneficial to you both, which is part of her entire argument. 

If you actually read her work (since it seems that most people just skim it or read some parts that seem “mean” and stop) she continues to say that if you *want* to help others, go right ahead.  If you’ve reached a point in your life where you can afford to give out charity to a cause that you believe in, do so.  You have earned your money through hard work, you are fit to use it however you see fit, without denouncement or criticism from anyone else.  That is the other consequence of altruism… the altruists usually make a point of making those who do not help others feel guilty about it.  The whole point of her work is that everyone should have whatever it is they can earn, period.  No one has the right to anything that someone else has created without their consent, and no one should guilt someone prosperous into sacrificing herself for someone who isn’t.

Try to actually read the book.  Her arguments make sense.  We cannot continue as a society by forcing the productive to sacrifice their work for those who “need” it without doing anything to actually earn it.

I also read and fell in love with Ayn Rand in middle school, eighth grade, to be exact, though I wasn’t intoxicated by her philosophy to the extent that I would read her treatises. I read The Fountainhead, and my first time reading it has still been one of the most exciting, exhilarating literary experiences of my life thus far. Reading the book took three days because I had to go to school, eat and sleep, and the whole time my hands weren’t holding the book, my head was in a fog, anticipating the next few thrilling pages. 

Of course I grew out of my Ayn Rand phase when I entered high school, and became even more disillusioned with Rand after my first year in college. I harbor the same feelings about you and the yuppies that read Rand. Reading Rand is an experience that young, idealistic people go through when they disdain and spite the ignorant and shallow people around them, are full of hopes and aspirations, and long to live with pure integrity with intelligent, kindred spirits. It’s lame, however, to read Rand as a justification for libertarianism when you’re middle aged. The novel is riddled with flaws, such as the heavy handed beating people over the head with her philosophy and a lack of depth in her sterile, propaganda-ist writing. I saw the trailer for Atlas Shrugged, and off the bat I could tell that this was movie made by teaparty-ists for other teaparty-ists. But I’ll still watch the movie out of curiosity. I may also read a few chapters of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology out of curiosity, or as much as my pragmatic self will let me indulge.