Ayn Rand, what are your opinions?

Answer 1

Ayn Rand has some good ideas, but she makes a number of erroneous assumptions. One of the most egregious, in my opinion, that that what is profitable is what is best.

While I'll happily concede that over-regulation can strip the motivation and the ability of great people to do great works, I think the solution is hardly under-regulation. It's not hard at all to find examples of completely amoral millionaires who are more than happy to cut corners and endanger everyone but themselves to make a few extra bucks. Their ability to produce great works hardly excuses this behaviour - I think, on the converse, it makes it doubly reprehensible, when they could so easily engage in alternatives.

Another major flaw in Rand's philosophy is the assumption that those with talent always choose to play fair. A world were such people simply work harder to each outstrip the others does seem idyllic, but again it's all to easy to find examples of great men who were more than happy to take other means to destroy the work of their contemporaries, even though they KNEW they were wrong. Take the battle between Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla over power generation. Tesla has developed alternating current which was excellent for long-distance power lines, but Edison held no patent on it so he used his money and influence to try and squash the idea. He even went so far as to electrocute animals with alternating current to try and prove that it was inherently more dangerous (again, a claim he would know only too well was false).

So while Rand's ideas are nice in an altruistic world, even geniuses often fall far short of altruism themselves. Alas.

Answer 2

History runs in cycles, as Hegel said, Action --> reaction--> synthesis. Rand is the reaction, the inverse of Lenin's original plan for Russia. Her philosophy is too individualistic unworkable because humans are not solitary animals, like some wolves and wild cats, but tribal animals. Certainly not as tribal as Lenin thought.

Of course, the Chinese are far more tribal than Russians or Americans, which explains why Communism has succeeded more in China than anywhere else. It is true that the current development policy in China is as capitalistic as it is communistic, but any growth rate of 7% or better for as long as China has maintained it, in a nation as huge as China is certainly worthy of note. Mao was a disaster, but the current Chines government has managed to develop the country fadster without inflation than anyone, anywhere in history. I am sure that this would really piss Rand off were she alive today.

I believe everyone should read her books, We the Living is far and away the best, and see the film about her, The Passion of Ayn Rand.

Answer 3

Overrated and not really profound. Her main idea is that the collective good can, and should be achieved through individual selfishness. Hobbes had pretty much the same idea in the XIXth century but has been debunked many times over.
a) She lacks understanding of true motivations of humans - spent too much time in university circles.
b) Stretches the definition of selfish so far it ceases to mean anything.
c) Blindly believes free market will always end up bringing people more happiness, without providing a shred of evidence for it, except some vague 'economically free societies are the richest in the world' - False. U.S. government is one of the most meddlesome.

Answer 4

She's an exceedingly proficient novelist. she will positioned across tale ok in terms of retaining you hooked to the probably meaningless characters. yet her philosophy is in basic terms approximately valueless, there is rather no thank you to coach it to the actual worldwide till you the two A: stay interior the woods via your self and die on my own OR B: by some potential convince rather everyone on earth to go beyond to a state of philosophical anarchy. the place rather everyone seems to be proper, she has no regards for different human beings for this reason no government exists. The topic of all her products is the 'Primacy of the guy' in different words: One is the midsection of one's very own universe. yet there is not any factor to questioning that way in a society. with the aid of fact no remember what you would be able to desire to treat different human beings. If all of us lived via Rand's regulations of the primacy of the guy then site visitors lighting fixtures have not any which potential, police shelter no person. Society descends to the state of nature. So sure, she's a experienced author, yet her philosophy of objectivism is infantile and moronic.

Answer 5

Her philosophy is very ambitious, and very Republican.

In her books, you can see that she has some very strong, opinionated anti-heros (Dagney Taggert, Hank Reaedon, Howard Roark), who are constantly beset by mediocre people (James Taggert, Elsworth Toohey, Peter Keating) who have nothing to contribute.

If her ideas were actually adopted, then the economic balance would be restored properly. Those with abilities would be able to direct those who have lesser abilities.

Answer 6

Atlas Shrugged is my favorite but I like all of her books. She expresses a very strong point of view in her writing but it is not necessary to agree with it to have a good read and a good think.

Answer 7

I have read her socialized medicine pamphlet and I think her thinking is inherently flawed.

Yes there are problems with health care but we are improving and in her pamphlet she says that improvement is impossible and we have proved her wrong

Answer 8

nothing........