Ayn Rand took characterizations of other thinkers to their logical extremes. Why does that upset people?

Question

When Rand herself is taken to her logical extremes, she is not proven wrong, but only proven to be someone that particular people to do not like. She has been described as "cold," and as "black-and-white," but not proven epistemologically wrong. When she proves other thinkers to be epistemologically incorrect by drawing their ideas out to the extreme that it leads to, she is villified. Her own extremes led to the book "Atlas Shrugged." Every reader of this book sees her point and does not disagree that it is the extreme. They only say, "Oh it will never get that bad," yet year after year we grow ever closer to the extremes she proved would become our destruction. I believe she upsets people because they do not want to see her extreme become reality, yet refuse to accept that it is already happening. My own literature teachers told me I would "grow out of" Rand's ideas. Arrogance knows no bounds.

Answer 1

There is a quote that is falsely related to have been said by Churchill, "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."

Now, he never said it, but the irony of the statement is it is just plain wrong. He was a liberal at 35, had been a conservative at 15. Now to Ms Rand.

I read Atlas Shrugged in 1970. It affected me deeply. I was still a Democrat, and still am. Point is I still agree with ideas that she states. I think what your literature teacher was saying was s/he had read the book, liked the ideals, and then a change of mind took over, and that is being projected to you.
It was not arrogance, but the teacher was drawn into a the comittee ideal. Great ideas come from great minds. They have to be free to create. When they do, jobs come forth, the world as a whole moves to a better place. Little was ever invented in the Soviet Union, or in P.R. of China.
There is a difference of adding to the public good, but ideas are not owned for the public good. In Fountainhead we see a man struggling to create building that not only says something, but enhances our world.
Note also, Rand was pro choice. She had many liberal ideals. Just not the ones that get talked about.
I sat at Barnes and Noble two weeks ago reading a collection (irony) of her answers to questions about her views. Rand hated collectivism, just as I do.
Lastly, I think people attack her for downgrading the selfless, and raising on high the Selfish. I think they feel to realize what she was talking about or fail to have the where with all to read a 1300 page book.

Answer 2

How, exactly, does Objectivism lead to fascism? I've seen the claim before, but I've never understood the line of thought. Some people do accept anything Rand said without thinking; those people are fairly useless. However, to assume that all Objectivists are like that, and calling it a "cult," ignores how the movement looks and has grown. For example, look at the David Kelly split, and what he did in response (founding a new Objectivism-based organization). Or look at the success that SOLO has had, despite not having the resources of Kelly's organzation or the ARI. In other words, if you just take the quick glance, but don't get a full view of the field, your arguments about the *culture* of Objectivism are obviously limited. Her ideas on "rationality" was that the world works in specific ways, and that our actions will only produce the desires results if we work within the context of these ways. She said that the world works without contradiction, and that we have specific requirements that must be met. How is any of that "hare brained [sic]?" Next, what is this "special center for Individual Rights?" I'm not aware of what you're talking about. Finally, as for existentialism, show me something that exists, but that isn't some sort of thing. I've yet to see such an item.

Answer 3

The workings of the human mind are exceedingly difficult to understand partly because it is a matter of integration rather than sorting.
Western thought is primarily based on the binary parsing. The mind/brain functions in an integrative fashion. There is no one place where speech, sight, memory takes place. It's all over.
Because of that, it is difficult to speak to the motives of Rand's detractors, except that they can't prove her theories wrong. In 2007, we are so far into Orwell's vision, that we have lost sight.

Answer 4

I don't believe the criticisms directed at Rand ( from those in philosophy) are about her ideas or characterizations. The criticisms reside from a lack of writing on many of the principles she pontificated on. I can go to Nietzsche or Hegel and can find volumes of work on the thought process behind their ideas. With Rand, we mostly have works of fiction.

I think your teacher chose the words poorly. You don't grow out of an idea, you branch out to other ones.