102. On Rand-Bashing (Please Read Video Description) | THUNK

NOTE: The purpose of this video is to explain *why Rand's ideas are mocked & rarely taken seriously,* NOT *why they are wrong.* If you are looking for a systematic analysis of her work, please examine the SEP link below.

-Links for the Curious-

I'm a big fan of people who can reverse their opinions on issues, but for an action which seems so near the heart of Rand's ideology to be subject to such a reversal of opinion seems counter to the idea that it is a perfectly rigorous system not subject to whim. As with the rest of this video, this is not meant to be a refutation of it or a critique of Rand's followers, merely an exploration as to why it is the subject of much ridicule.

[benjaminishere]

Not much to say, besides the fact that It makes me happy that you would put forth a much more reasonable and nuanced view of Rand's ideology and work than many of her supporters/detractors would. I would not have the patience to do such a thing for Rand. I love your videos, i'm a long time fan!

[GammaCake]

The pineal gland ISN'T where the soul interacts with the body??

[Lightja_]

it's really hard to take people seriously once they tell you they tell you Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are their two favorite books.

[paulk]

2:41 "First, by almost any account, Rand developed her entire system of thought retroactively to justify the ideals represented in her fiction. But she still asserts that they're the only reasonable set of beliefs to hold."

Where is your argument that she developed the system retroactively? She clearly thought an enormous amount about her philosophy as she was writing her books. This doesn't mean that she developed the philosophy "retroactively". That is like saying that if you have an intuition that a triangle will have certain properties, that if you then go and prove it then the proof is invalid because you did it retroactively to prove your pre-existing intuition. We *all* have an implicit philosophy that we develop as we go through life. Does that mean that all philosopher's ideas are just post-hoc rationalizations? No.

3:08 "Her works contain many sweeping statements which sometimes conflict with intuition or scientific evidence or even herself"

You cite "The evolutionary origin of human hyper-cooperation" as refuting Rand's claims, but I see no reason to conclude this. Just because humans have evolved certain behaviors (such as a desire to sacrifice self-interest to increase the likelihood of propagating certain genes in your siblings or tribe), this doesn't say *anything* about what is moral, any more than an instinct to rape and murder people outside your tribe would. It's a complete non-sequitor. Ayn Rand never says anything that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Her claims are about philosophy and are not the kinds of things that would be contradicted by evolutionary research. You're making a category error.

3:28 "I can think of few historians who would agree with that sentiment [that if you understand the dominant philosophy of a society, you can predict its course]"

This is certainly a radical claim that Rand makes. But... so? So, a lot of historians would disagree with it. Ayn Rand may not be a professional historian, but she did major in history at university. Maybe her assertion is incorrect, but the fact that it's not popular among historians doesn't really tell us much.

4:13 "Second, Rand is quick to dismiss other philosophers despite the fact that many of her objections are based on misrepresentation."

Ironically, he completely misrepresents Rand's critique of logical positivism. The quotations in which she critiques logical positivism are *completely* ripped out of context. They aren't even complete sentences as shown and they miss *critical* information for understanding her critique. The full sentence is:

"Observe the inversion propounded by this argument: a proposition can qualify as a factual empirical truth only if man is able to evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts; but a truth whose opposite is beyond man's power of invention, is regarded as independent of and irrelevant to the nature of reality, i.e., as an arbitrary product of human 'convention'".

Whether you agree or disagree with this characterization of the argument, the quotation is NOT saying that logical positivists "evade the facts of experience". She might argue that they do, but that's NOT the point being made in this quotation.

I've done a decent amount of reading on Logical Positivism, including much of "Language, Truth, and Logic" and I think that Rand's analysis is pretty spot on.

5:32 "Actually, Kant doesn't claim that at all"

Actually, he does. A few pages into the first section in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, Kant is very explicit that even actions which are in comformity with duty have no moral worth if they are consistent with your inclinations or self-interest. It's only when an action is against your self-interest but in accordance with duty that your actions can be said to have moral worth (see the bottom of this comment). This passage particularly stands out in my mind because I remember reading it in college and being horrified by it.

So, we can see that Rand's description of Kant's position is accurate: "he held that an action is moral only if you perform it out of a sense of duty and derive no benefit from it of any kind, neither material nor spiritual; if you derive any benefit, your action is not moral any longer."

6:08 "she routinely constructs straw men of various philosophers to hurl invective at despite never really demonstrating but a cursory understanding of their work"

This is a really common accusation made against Rand but rarely is it ever backed up with evidence. It just might be that she *did* understand these philosophers but you disagree with her characterization of their positions, like in the case above. Until you present your argument for why she misunderstood them, there's no way to know.

Also, it's important to note that Ayn Rand was writing for the common person in the street. She wasn't engaging with academics, she wasn't writing philosophical papers that were meant to demonstrate the extent of her understanding. She was offering *her* opinion of the essential nature of these philosophies. I think that she would say that in order to know whether she was correct in her assessment, you would need to go read the philosophers yourself. For example, she said: "If you feel nothing but boredom when reading the virtually unintelligible theories of some philosophers, you have my deepest sympathy. But if you brush them aside, saying: 'Why should I study that stuff when I know it's nonsense?' — you are mistaken. It is nonsense, but you don't know it — not so long as you go on accepting all their conclusions, all the vicious catch phrases generated by those philosophers. And not so long as you are unable to refute them."

Kant in the Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals:
"By contrast, to preserve one’s life is a duty, and besides this everyone has
an immediate inclination to it. But the often anxious care that the greatest
part of humankind takes for its sake still has no inner worth, and its maxim
has no moral content. They protect their life, to be sure, in conformity with
duty, but not from duty. If, by contrast, adversities and hopeless grief have
entirely taken away the taste for life, if the unhappy one, strong of soul,
more indignant than pusillanimous or dejected over his fate, wishes for
death and yet preserves his life without loving it, not from inclination or
fear, but from duty: then his maxim has a moral content."

[thorkrynu]

Rand is ok.... Most of her defenders are condescending tho. Locus of control is the main issue left out. "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." Oscar Wilde.

[sovietsteel]

on page 225 of Atlas, will report back in 5 to 7 years

[strangeghost]

I read all the way through "Atlas Shrugged" as a philosophy student, and not as an assignment handed to me. I had previously read "The Fountain Head" and was interested in more of her work. I noticed a strong dislike of her among the philosophy professors I had that had actually commented about her, and my ire was raised that they would bash her ideas, but not actually educate their students about what those ideas where. None of her philosophy writing was ever assigned to me for critical analysis, as the works of Kant or Heidegger might be, but one of my professors spent five minutes ranting about how she was crazy; he actually begged the question repeatedly to the class, expecting us to nod along, "She's just crazy, right? Right?" My only thought at the time was, "How can we know, no one will actually talk about what her ideas are." So, I often feel the need to be the devil's advocate among my peers when it comes to Rand, by actually showing some support for her based on what I've read.

Having said that, I'm not a believer in her own brand of philosophy, and I'm critical of her reasoning and motivation when it comes to what she was trying (but I think, failing) to convey. "Sentimental" I think is a great way to describe her, as I feel she was at best making a case for an ethically-egoist meritocracy, but she gets lost in her own subjective point of view, and her need to make what she believed a "rational truth". Considering her father was a self-made man who raised his family to upper-middle class, only to have it taken away by the Communist revolution, it's not hard to see how much of her thinking was devoted to "avenging" that wrong.

I also think she was trying to emulate Nietzsche with her particularly arrogant and derisive statements, but for the wrong reasons. But, she's by far not the only person in history to do that.

[AmaranthOriginal]

Speaking of bias, I admit I went into this doubting that anything was likely to change my mind about Rand.

[vrixphillips]

Eh, I mean I'm sure some people (too many people) dismiss her philosophy because of her gender, but Simone de Beauvoir was active around the same time and she gets nowhere near the amount of vitriol Rand does, to my knowledge, though she is kind of treated like Sartre's less important other-half (which is completely inaccurate)

[ryoka]

Something that must be addressed (well, one of many things) is about the whole "she used medicare" argument. She argued that taxes are essentially theft. Therefore, there is nothing hypocritical about simply taking back something that has been stolen from you. If someone steals your bike, and you take it back, it is justifiable. likewise, if someone steals your money, your entire life, and then you to take some of it back, it does not contradict with your views against theft.

[CosmicPhilosopher]

I got through Atlas Shrugged back in high school. It was the most painful thing I've ever done and anyone who reads it should get a medal. Even when I was a clueless teenager, I knew Rand was a hack.

[alexgrigas]

The Partially Examined Life has a great episode on this as well, where they try to give Rand a chance. Try being the key word.

[sheltodj]

I love Ayn Rand's books, to the point that I routinely list The Fountainhead as my favorite book. I have never particularly respected objectivism as a philosophy, but there are several distinct principles espoused in her writing that I very much favor. It doesn't hurt that I love her writing style, I read endlessly and for some reason her descriptive style speaks to me better than almost any other I've found.

That said, one of the reasons I love Ayn Rand is because I love rationality and I see a similar love in her, even if she doesn't always use it. With that perspective, I have never refused to turn a blind eye or make excuses for the parts of her books or philosophy that are logically objectionable. I often read Rand-hate (I like opposing opinions), but rarely find calm, rational discussion or neatly laid out points, it's all straw men and ad hominem attacks from both sides.

This is the best anti-Rand video I've found, as it actually discusses the ideals rather than just attacking her. Just had to say this.

[patrickcoan]

Read both Shrugged and the Fountainhead as my father had always referenced them as some of his favorite books. As a 19 yo, I found them to be satisfying and refreshing. Your points are well received. Rand deserves credit as an author and woman of opinion, which I believe is great for feminism. I still hold to the belief that one must care for themselves to be of help to others. 10 years later, I was ammused in learning that the conservative persuasion took Objectivism so seriously, going so far as to defend the mitary industrial complex, citizens United, and unregulated capitalism. I guess the biggest mistake is taking Ayn as serious as she took herself.

[strengthbuild]

I laughed so hard when I saw the Reddit thread for this video was locked. I'm a former libertarian and I thank you for this video.

[lalayon]

I’m a bit curious to see what books of objectivism you read to make this evaluation.

[johngalt]

"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual’s rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others’ ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas and say, ” . . .and that’s what I reject”? --Barbara Branden

[RadioPlastic]

I made it through both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountain Head. I originally had issues with her characters as walking capitalist hero's walking among "Statist" straw men. Research into Rand's life and history coming from the USSR makes me understand her bitterness toward socialist dictatorship and read it through her bias. It's not unlike my compassion toward reading Gloria Anzaldua's book on feminist theory called "Boarderlands" that paints everyone bad being white, greedy, capitalist, male staw men. Many philosophers create works that demonize the systems they feel victimized by. I much prefer enlightenment age philosophy. Often too religious, but tend's to focus more on logic and reason than modern hyperbolic fringe rable rousing. I feel like Rand and Anzaldua would be seen as the "tabloids" of philosophy in the enlightenment age.

Thanks so much for the great content by the way. I hope your channel grows and that my comments are a helpful addition to the narrative.

[mikensd]

There are several comments about which philosophers influenced Rand's development of her own philosophy (Aristotle, for instance), but my thinking has long been that she was 'mortally wounded' as an adolescent child when the Bolsheviks seized power, and her father’s pharmacy business was confiscated and they had to flee to the Crimea after losing most everything they owned. She came from a well to do family, so it was a huge loss of life style and material wealth. That caused her, quite understandably, to have a very deep and potent subjective response to this serious emotional trauma, which later lead to 'objectivism', which in no way is rooted in anything objective, no matter how hard she later tried to make it so. That would also account for why she contradicts herself so much and misrepresents what other philosophers espouse, even though she does not well understand the philosophy she's denigrating. Objectivism is not about objectivity at all. Rand's response is analogous to a female rape victim who after the fact is very objective about why men are more trouble than they're worth. She may never be able to engage in a meaningful relationship. But underneath all that objectivity is a horrifying and totally subjective experience that scarred her and preordained her future objective interpretations of the subject years in advance. The objectivity is a coping mechanism to deal with the underlying emotional trauma that she is unable to confront. If you want to read about another famous but tragic figure like Rand, read up on St. Augustine and his experiences as a child with females in his family. Both he and Rand took the cowardly way out by unleashing their emotional instability on society rather than having the courage to confront their demons and better themselves. But I don't think it fair to judge her, b/c those were her personal experiences, and each of us has a different threshold when it comes to coping with and confronting emotional trauma. But I do think it's fair to say that she was a very emotionally damaged individual from an early age, and that it deeply affected the rest of her life. What we today would call PTSD.

[Ice]

Excellent critique. I belive that Ayn was at her best when discussing the use of force and the rational mind, in Atlas Shrugged. That was possibly one of her strongest moral arguments, I've found.