On Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and her Literature.

[Benuty]

To be honest I find the whole lecture of "altruism is bad because of my experience in the USSR" theme that is present in many of her books to be rather overrated. I mean you could possibly make an argument the altruism is bad, but saying "because communism" doesn't really work in a world like ours.

[Benuty]

Terrible prose, fake philosophy. Sad!

Seriously, though, her bad writing asides, she wasn't even a decent philosopher in her own right. Her writings were little more than angry strawmen-filled rants in favor of sociopathy.

That is rather insulting to sociopaths, but I do find some irony in that people following certain religious doctrine which espouses heavy doses of altruism, and community to follow a person bent on individuality, and selfishness.

[Valaran]

Though my thoughts are nowhere near as developed as the OP's clearly are, I'm fairly unimpressed by Ayn Rand's body of work. For simplicity's sake, I tend to refer to Max Barry's own view:

Here’s the thing with Atlas Shrugged. It’s eleven hundred pages of brilliant, beautiful, go-getter industrialists talking to stupid, grasping, corrupt collectivists, set in a world where only half the laws of economics apply. The character names change but nothing else. Otherwise, it’s not bad. No, I lie. Even setting that aside, it’s terrible. I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days.

It’s not a novel so much as a manifesto, and, I think, impossible to enjoy unless you’re at least a little on board for the philosophy, and it’s hard to be on board for the philosophy if you understand economics or see a moral problem with starving poor people. I realize many believe fervently in the philosophy. They email me. And I don’t think it’s one hundred percent bogus. But it demands that you choose between no government or total government, and I think all such extremes have similarly extreme problems.

[Benuty]

I'm not a huge fan.

She was a god awful writer and her political ideology was just the polar opposite of Communism. Instead of extreme collectivism, it was extreme individualism. Nonsense all around.

To be fair at least she had a reason to offer the opposite of the extremist collectivism of the time. Albeit it wasn't like she stayed in the USSR to try, and prove this point at all. I mean perhaps the world might view her in a completely different light if she had.

[Benuty]

The most lasting contribution by Ayn Rand to the U.S at least is the great struggle to pronounce their name.

[Valaran]

The most lasting contribution by Ayn Rand to the U.S at least is the great struggle to pronounce their name.

heh.

[Northern Davincia]

Terrible prose, fake philosophy. Sad!

Seriously, though, her bad writing asides, she wasn't even a decent philosopher in her own right. Her writings were little more than angry strawmen-filled rants in favor of sociopathy.

That is rather insulting to sociopaths, but I do find some irony in that people following certain religious doctrine which espouses heavy doses of altruism, and community to follow a person bent on individuality, and selfishness.

Objectivism does not forbid private charity, but instead denies the power of the state to enforce charity. It does not readily contradict religious doctrine.

[Benuty]

That is rather insulting to sociopaths, but I do find some irony in that people following certain religious doctrine which espouses heavy doses of altruism, and community to follow a person bent on individuality, and selfishness.

Objectivism does not forbid private charity, but instead denies the power of the state to enforce charity. It does not readily contradict religious doctrine.

Was speaking more on Ayn Rand, and the cult following she has by some people in the U.S. The ideas themselves are a whole other level of irony, but when you espouse the local branch of Protestantism with a "fuck you" attitude it deserves to raise eyebrows. Considering many of these people belong to branches of Protestantism like southern baptists who are heavily into the community.

[NewLakotah]

To be honest I find the whole lecture of "altruism is bad because of my experience in the USSR" theme that is present in many of her books to be rather overrated. I mean you could possibly make an argument the altruism is bad, but saying "because communism" doesn't really work in a world like ours.

I equate both the objectivist and the communist philosophies a lot. both work great on paper and could probably wok in a perfect world, however, we don't, so neither is a really applicable philosophy to the real world.

[Major-Tom]

She was certainly intelligent, but her literature...holy hell, it was preachy. I really found it impossible to read!

On top of that, her philosophies and economic ideas are simply unfeasible and stupid. Objectivism is stupid, I will be blunt, as is her romanticized idea of hardcore libertarianism. She was intelligent, but a bit out there, and certainly not a very good writer.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That is rather insulting to sociopaths, but I do find some irony in that people following certain religious doctrine which espouses heavy doses of altruism, and community to follow a person bent on individuality, and selfishness.

Objectivism does not forbid private charity, but instead denies the power of the state to enforce charity. It does not readily contradict religious doctrine.

It does, however, contradict itself on the particular point of welfare.

Were you to take a Republic and, given everyone gets a vote in a Republic to place representatives on the government, they'd vote in people who will create a welfare state, as minimal as it could be, does that mean the state is not Randian anymore? Or that Randian agents voted their interests into a welfare state and, thus, it is still a Randian state because the vote represented the collective summary of interests of the population towards a welfare state?

[Cannot think of a name]

People overly concerned with people living off their tit who are somehow unaware of all the tits in their mouth.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I read atlas shrugged and the fountainhead a long time ago. I will give it to max for the best quote about the experience of reading atlas shrugged. Cornered in a room and yelled at, really nicely sums up the one big assault on the senses it was.. I don't remember fountainhead as well, but I remember thinking it was a better story. So much for the writing.

Politically I am a big believer in enlightened self interest. So ultimately even the reasons charity, welfare, education is done is more for the doer, that the doee, isnt that selfishness?

I prefer local control to remote centralized control. I like strong female leads who like sex yet are dynamic human beings. I think people act in their own interests, and work hardest when their benifit is in the game......

I don't go to the extremes Ann goes too, and I think I am a better writer... (no its not ego, I think most of y'all are better writers than her too). But I do see some similarities of belief.

And I don't consider it a philosophy, I consider it a political position.

Well, one could say that your way of rationalizing selfishness is more along Nietzsche's lines of "everyone is selfish, even the doer is selfish and gives things or does things for others out of the selfish reason to feel good" which to be fair is a position I also hold, and not so much along Rand's lines of "the truly selfish man is they who don't coercively take away from the rich in order to give to the poor, as this is a conflict of interest for the rich" even while it can be easily demonstrated that it might not be.

I tend to agree with most of your positions, here, though, except for the local/remote control thing (yea, I am a Federalist in U.S. politics ). And yea, The Fountainhead felt a lot less drawn out than Atlas Shrugged, and definitely less preachy. It was a decent novel, although I would not think of picking it up again. It certainly leaves you with a satisfaction to have read it, but it's not a story you'd pick back to read on your free time.

[Ethel mermania]

I read atlas shrugged and the fountainhead a long time ago. I will give it to max for the best quote about the experience of reading atlas shrugged. Cornered in a room and yelled at, really nicely sums up the one big assault on the senses it was.. I don't remember fountainhead as well, but I remember thinking it was a better story. So much for the writing.

Politically I am a big believer in enlightened self interest. So ultimately even the reasons charity, welfare, education is done is more for the doer, that the doee, isnt that selfishness?

I prefer local control to remote centralized control. I like strong female leads who like sex yet are dynamic human beings. I think people act in their own interests, and work hardest when their benifit is in the game......

I don't go to the extremes Ann goes too, and I think I am a better writer... (no its not ego, I think most of y'all are better writers than her too). But I do see some similarities of belief.

And I don't consider it a philosophy, I consider it a political position.

Well, one could say that your way of rationalizing selfishness is more along Nietzsche's lines of "everyone is selfish, even the doer is selfish and gives things or does things for others out of the selfish reason to feel good" which to be fair is a position I also hold, and not so much along Rand's lines of "the truly selfish man is they who don't coercively take away from the rich in order to give to the poor, as this is a conflict of interest for the rich" even while it can be easily demonstrated that it might not be.

I tend to agree with most of your positions, here, though, except for the local/remote control thing (yea, I am a Federalist in U.S. politics ). And yea, The Fountainhead felt a lot less drawn out than Atlas Shrugged, and definitely less preachy. It was a decent novel, although I would not think of picking it up again. It certainly leaves you with a satisfaction to have read it, but it's not a story you'd pick back to read on your free time.

I see a lot of nietzche in rand, John Galt is the Uberman who is beyond the constraints of good and evil.

Full disclosure: I am no fan of nietzche as a philosopher either. That said His interpretation of the ancient philosophers is brilliant.

And I do not intend on picking up either book ever again.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

She was a brilliant woman. Beyond that, Ayn Rand was a gateway philosopher; someone who could guide people along a bigger path once they understood the basics.

I would not consider her such, myself, given she pretty much praised William Edward Hickman, who was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer. Not to mention one of the most grotesque killers I have read about so far. But no, to Rand he was the perfect conception of a man and the one who enshrined her philosophy the most that she went ahead and modeled a heroized character after him.

I'm sorry, but when your role model for a hero is a guy who'd even give me second pause to say anything about him in a neutral light, there's issues, and you're not probably a good leader anyways if your conception of a true man is a sociopath with little to no regards of life or other people's suffering to the point of actually throwing a girl's mutilated upper half by your own hand in front of her grief-stricken, horrified father.

[Sanctissima]

I'm not a huge fan.

She was a god awful writer and her political ideology was just the polar opposite of Communism. Instead of extreme collectivism, it was extreme individualism. Nonsense all around.

To be fair at least she had a reason to offer the opposite of the extremist collectivism of the time. Albeit it wasn't like she stayed in the USSR to try, and prove this point at all. I mean perhaps the world might view her in a completely different light if she had.

Had she stayed in the USSR she'd probably have been sent to a gulag.

Realistically, she had little in terms of options other than leaving that god-awful country as soon as she could. I doubt that even her works would have survived if she'd stayed and written them in Russia. In all likelihood, they'd have been destroyed along with her.

Still, you make a good point about her views largely boiling down to a reaction against Communism and her experiences in the USSR. I suppose if anything, she does at least offer a good critique of Communism and excessive collectivism in general.

[Gauthier]

She was a brilliant woman. Beyond that, Ayn Rand was a gateway philosopher; someone who could guide people along a bigger path once they understood the basics.

I would not consider her such, myself, given she pretty much praised William Edward Hickman, who was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer. Not to mention one of the most grotesque killers I have read about so far. But no, to Rand he was the perfect conception of a man and the one who enshrined her philosophy the most that she went ahead and modeled a heroized character after him.

I'm sorry, but when your role model for a hero is a guy who'd even give me second pause to say anything about him in a neutral light, there's issues, and you're not probably a good leader anyways if your conception of a true man is a sociopath with little to no regards of life or other people's suffering to the point of actually throwing a girl's mutilated upper half by your own hand in front of her grief-stricken, horrified father.

When you espouse that sociopathy is a virtue, a serial killer is Superman to you.

[Benuty]

I would not consider her such, myself, given she pretty much praised William Edward Hickman, who was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer. Not to mention one of the most grotesque killers I have read about so far. But no, to Rand he was the perfect conception of a man and the one who enshrined her philosophy the most that she went ahead and modeled a heroized character after him.

I'm sorry, but when your role model for a hero is a guy who'd even give me second pause to say anything about him in a neutral light, there's issues, and you're not probably a good leader anyways if your conception of a true man is a sociopath with little to no regards of life or other people's suffering to the point of actually throwing a girl's mutilated upper half by your own hand in front of her grief-stricken, horrified father.

When you espouse that sociopathy is a virtue, a serial killer is Superman to you.

To be honest superman realistically would be a mass murderer claiming to be god.

[Northern Davincia]

Objectivism does not forbid private charity, but instead denies the power of the state to enforce charity. It does not readily contradict religious doctrine.

It does, however, contradict itself on the particular point of welfare.

Were you to take a Republic and, given everyone gets a vote in a Republic to place representatives on the government, they'd vote in people who will create a welfare state, as minimal as it could be, does that mean the state is not Randian anymore? Or that Randian agents voted their interests into a welfare state and, thus, it is still a Randian state because the vote represented the collective summary of interests of the population towards a welfare state?

“Democratic” in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule . . . a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.

Democratic-Republicanism and Objectivism are incompatible.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It does, however, contradict itself on the particular point of welfare.

Were you to take a Republic and, given everyone gets a vote in a Republic to place representatives on the government, they'd vote in people who will create a welfare state, as minimal as it could be, does that mean the state is not Randian anymore? Or that Randian agents voted their interests into a welfare state and, thus, it is still a Randian state because the vote represented the collective summary of interests of the population towards a welfare state?

“Democratic” in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule . . . a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.

Democratic-Republicanism and Objectivism are incompatible.

One must assume she is talking about Republicanism in the form of modern Republics, or elected representatives, a concept I disagree with, but not farfetched considering that was the only form of Republicanism she understood at the time considering she probably was at least learned on how the French Republic and the U.S. Republican forms of government worked, which are more Constitutional Republics (meaning, Republics which agreed upon having certain limits) and not unlimited rule.

And even if we were to, reasonably, take Roman Republic's Republicanism, the primary form of it (a senate ruled by an aristocracy) proved to be impractical for Roman society in the long term, hence why the Tribunes came into existence even if the aristocrats kept most of their power. But I don't think Ayn Rand was learned in the customs and traditions of the Roman Republic, as she does not strike me as the sort of person who opened a history book considering her rather simplistic notions of human nature. Hence I must assume that for her, the only form of Republicanism she understood was Democratic-Republicanism as it was conceived both in the French Republic and the United States. Not only that, but if she had studied Livy at least (an introductory author for any person who wants to learn about Romans and the Roman Republic) she would understand the flaws of Roman-style Republicanism and its features.

Unless of course you can show that she actually understood Roman Republicanism and modeled a form of government around it. But in so far as the "Republic" she talks of, her only politics around the topic were only that a Republic must be minimalist, but she never suggested that the Roman Republic, as it existed at the beginning when the Patrician class had all the power, is what she was thinking about. Unlimited majority rule would be a direct democracy, and no Democratic-Republican model of governance has as a feature "unlimited majority rule". So if her intent was to argue against modern Republics then she built up a strawman of a Republic that doesn't exist. And during her lifetime it seems that neither her, nor her foundation, ever picked up Livy and made a serious study of it.

[Genivaria]

Didn't she loudly endorse the NAP but excused the genocide of Native Americans because "fuck the savages"?
Yeah no her own philosophy is contradicted the moment it becomes convenient do to so.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

To be honest I find the whole lecture of "altruism is bad because of my experience in the USSR" theme that is present in many of her books to be rather overrated. I mean you could possibly make an argument the altruism is bad, but saying "because communism" doesn't really work in a world like ours.

I equate both the objectivist and the communist philosophies a lot. both work great on paper and could probably wok in a perfect world, however, we don't, so neither is a really applicable philosophy to the real world.

Honestly, the biggest problem I have with her utopian philosophy (if one could call it utopian) is that the basic premise is that we live in a benevolent universe.

Basic biology tells us that the universe is not benevolent, but it's not out to kill us either. It just is. For as much as she tried to make an "objective" philosophy, she failed at understanding that the universe is not a benevolent agent nor a malignant agent. It is a neutral thing. Things cannot care about life.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Didn't she loudly endorse the NAP but excused the genocide of Native Americans because "fuck the savages"?
Yeah no her own philosophy is contradicted the moment it becomes convenient do to so.

I am not sure as to the NAP, but this is what I could find regarding Native Americans:

15:00
Man: Miss Rand...?

Rand: Oh, genocide? Eh? I'm not sure - would you excuse me a moment? - my friend here point out to me that I didn't pick up another point of your question because I had to answer at such length -- I was unaware of it. You mean the word "genocide"?

15:30 Rand: American Indians?

Man: Did you mention the Indians in your question also as one of the groups? Okay. Do you want to address yourself to that also?

Rand: Yes, because if you study reliable history and NOT liberal racist newspaper - racism didn't exist in this country UNTIL the liberals brought it up, racism in the sense of self-consciousness and separation above races. Yes, slavery existed - as a very evil instutition. And there certainly was prejudice against some minorities, including the Negros AFTER they were liberated... but those prejudices were dying out under the pressure of free economics because racism in the preducial sense doesn't pay. Then if anyone wants to be a racist, he suffers the workings of the system is against him. Today it is to everyone's advantage to form some kind of ethnic collective. The people who share your viewpoint or from whose philosophy - those catchphrases come - are the ones who are institutionalizing racism today. What about the quotas in employment? What is in education? And I hope to God - and I'm not religious, just to express my feeling - that the Supreme Court will rule against those quotas, but if you can understand the vicious contradiction and injustice of establishing racism by law... was it in favor of a minority or majority -- doesn't matter. It's more offenseive when it's in the name of a minority because it can only be done in order to destroy the majority and the whole country. It can only create MORE racist divisions and backlashes and racist feelings. If you're opposed to racism you should support individualism. You cannot oppose racism on one hand and one collectivism on the other.

17:45 But now to the Indians. I don't even care to discuss that kind of alledged complaints that they have against this country. I do believe, with SERIOUS, scientific reasons, that worst kind of movie that you have probably seen birthed from the Indian viewpoint, as to what they did to the white man. I do not think that they have ANY right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and live like savages. Amercans did not conquer that country. Whoever is making sounds there, I think he [unfortunately, gibberish]... he is right, but, please be consistent - you are a racist, if you're objective at least.

18:44 You are there because you believe that ANYTHING can be given to men by his biological birth, or for biological reasons. If you are born in a magnificient country which you don't know what to do with, you believe that's a property right. IT IS NOT. And, since the Indians did not have any property rights. They didn't have the concept of property. They didn't even have a settled societies. They were predominantly nomadic tribes. They were primitive tribal culture, if you want to call it that.

19:20 If so, they didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. It would be wrong to attack any country which does respect, or tribe members that respect, individual rights, because, if they do, you are an aggressive, and you are morally wrong if you attack them!

19:47 But, if a country does not protect rights. If a given tribe is the slave of its own tribal chief, why should you respect the right they do not have? Or any country which has a dictatorship government, the citizens still have individual rights but the country does not have any rights - anyone has the right to invade it - because rights are not recognzied in this country and neither you nor a country nor anyone can have your cake and eat it too.

20:24 In other words, want respect, for the rights of Indians, who incidentally, [indescipherable; inpork?] most case of their tribal history, made agreements with the white man, and then when they get used up, whichever they got through agreement of giving or selling certain territory, then came back and broke the agreements. And attacked white settlements.

20:50 I will go further. Let's suppposed they were all beautifully innocent savages - which they certainly were not - what was it that they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? It was their wish to continue at/in primitive existence. Their right to keep part of the earth untouched, unused, and not even in property, but just keep everybody out so you will live... practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. ANY white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this country. And it is great that some people did, and discovered here, what they couldn't do anywhere else in the world and what the Indians, if there are any redhead Indians here today, do not believe to this day: in respect for individual rights.

21:56 I am incidentally, in favor of Israel against the Arabs, for the very same reason. There you have the same issue in reverse. Israel is not a good country politically. Some mixed economy... [gibberish] strong socialism. But, why do the Arabs resent them? Because it is a wedge of civilization - an industrial wedge, in part of a country which is totally primitive and nomadic. Israel is being attacked for being civilized. And being a specifically technological society. It's for that very reason that they should be supported. That they are morally right because they represent the progress of man's mind, just like the white settlers represented the progress of the mind, NOT centuries of group stagnation and supersition! They represent the banner of the mind and they were in the right. 23:02

https://ari-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/audio/ ... wni_qa.mp3
Transcription found at: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_ ... ican_Quote

[Genivaria]

Didn't she loudly endorse the NAP but excused the genocide of Native Americans because "fuck the savages"?
Yeah no her own philosophy is contradicted the moment it becomes convenient do to so.

I am not sure as to the NAP, but this is what I could find regarding Native Americans:

15:00
Man: Miss Rand...?

Rand: Oh, genocide? Eh? I'm not sure - would you excuse me a moment? - my friend here point out to me that I didn't pick up another point of your question because I had to answer at such length -- I was unaware of it. You mean the word "genocide"?

15:30 Rand: American Indians?

Man: Did you mention the Indians in your question also as one of the groups? Okay. Do you want to address yourself to that also?

Rand: Yes, because if you study reliable history and NOT liberal racist newspaper - racism didn't exist in this country UNTIL the liberals brought it up, racism in the sense of self-consciousness and separation above races. Yes, slavery existed - as a very evil instutition. And there certainly was prejudice against some minorities, including the Negros AFTER they were liberated... but those prejudices were dying out under the pressure of free economics because racism in the preducial sense doesn't pay. Then if anyone wants to be a racist, he suffers the workings of the system is against him. Today it is to everyone's advantage to form some kind of ethnic collective. The people who share your viewpoint or from whose philosophy - those catchphrases come - are the ones who are institutionalizing racism today. What about the quotas in employment? What is in education? And I hope to God - and I'm not religious, just to express my feeling - that the Supreme Court will rule against those quotas, but if you can understand the vicious contradiction and injustice of establishing racism by law... was it in favor of a minority or majority -- doesn't matter. It's more offenseive when it's in the name of a minority because it can only be done in order to destroy the majority and the whole country. It can only create MORE racist divisions and backlashes and racist feelings. If you're opposed to racism you should support individualism. You cannot oppose racism on one hand and one collectivism on the other.

17:45 But now to the Indians. I don't even care to discuss that kind of alledged complaints that they have against this country. I do believe, with SERIOUS, scientific reasons, that worst kind of movie that you have probably seen birthed from the Indian viewpoint, as to what they did to the white man. I do not think that they have ANY right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and live like savages. Amercans did not conquer that country. Whoever is making sounds there, I think he [unfortunately, gibberish]... he is right, but, please be consistent - you are a racist, if you're objective at least.

18:44 You are there because you believe that ANYTHING can be given to men by his biological birth, or for biological reasons. If you are born in a magnificient country which you don't know what to do with, you believe that's a property right. IT IS NOT. And, since the Indians did not have any property rights. They didn't have the concept of property. They didn't even have a settled societies. They were predominantly nomadic tribes. They were primitive tribal culture, if you want to call it that.

19:20 If so, they didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. It would be wrong to attack any country which does respect, or tribe members that respect, individual rights, because, if they do, you are an aggressive, and you are morally wrong if you attack them!

19:47 But, if a country does not protect rights. If a given tribe is the slave of its own tribal chief, why should you respect the right they do not have? Or any country which has a dictatorship government, the citizens still have individual rights but the country does not have any rights - anyone has the right to invade it - because rights are not recognzied in this country and neither you nor a country nor anyone can have your cake and eat it too.

20:24 In other words, want respect, for the rights of Indians, who incidentally, [indescipherable; inpork?] most case of their tribal history, made agreements with the white man, and then when they get used up, whichever they got through agreement of giving or selling certain territory, then came back and broke the agreements. And attacked white settlements.

20:50 I will go further. Let's suppposed they were all beautifully innocent savages - which they certainly were not - what was it that they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? It was their wish to continue at/in primitive existence. Their right to keep part of the earth untouched, unused, and not even in property, but just keep everybody out so you will live... practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. ANY white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this country. And it is great that some people did, and discovered here, what they couldn't do anywhere else in the world and what the Indians, if there are any redhead Indians here today, do not believe to this day: in respect for individual rights.

21:56 I am incidentally, in favor of Israel against the Arabs, for the very same reason. There you have the same issue in reverse. Israel is not a good country politically. Some mixed economy... [gibberish] strong socialism. But, why do the Arabs resent them? Because it is a wedge of civilization - an industrial wedge, in part of a country which is totally primitive and nomadic. Israel is being attacked for being civilized. And being a specifically technological society. It's for that very reason that they should be supported. That they are morally right because they represent the progress of man's mind, just like the white settlers represented the progress of the mind, NOT centuries of group stagnation and supersition! They represent the banner of the mind and they were in the right. 23:02

https://ari-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/audio/ ... wni_qa.mp3
Transcription found at: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_ ... ican_Quote

Holy shit what a lunatic.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Holy shit what a lunatic.

Well, this is the practical problem of Objectivism, that it's not like it's not a personality cult, or it wasn't at the time.

It definitely was, which is why most of the stuff Objectivists believe centers itself on the commentary and works of Ayn Rand. As much as she promoted free thought, she wasn't one for not falling into the trap of developing her own fan club, as her reasoning is hardly questioned among her disciples. The people who argue against her reasoning are typically non-objectivists, while objectivists tend to engage in apologetics.