I don't know that many people hate her. 'Pity' is perhaps a more apt word. She was a very troubled woman and seemed to have a lot of unhappiness in her life - mostly self-inflicted.

Lots of people regard her political writing with disdain, because (1) it is shallow and poorly argued, consisting mostly of bald assertions, and (2) it encourages, even eulogises, selfishness, which is not only a recipe for social misery, but also a recipe for misery, or at the very least loneliness, of the person that follows that path.

Kant scholars tend to particularly dislike her nonfiction writing because apparently she completely misinterprets Kant and criticises him for holding opinions that he never held.

Opinions vary as to whether she is any good as a fiction writer. Some say she's turgid, preachy and boring. Others find her style lively and engaging. It seems to be a personal thing. The only fiction of hers that I read was the short story Anthem, which I quite enjoyed - although I could certainly sense the preachiness that some say infects her work.

You list Emma Goldman and Antonio Gramsci as two of your favorite philosophers so if you can't figure out why Ayn Rand is garbage from that, I dunno what to tell you.

I'm currently reading The Fountainhead and I'm very much enjoying it. I have never read any of Rand's work before (only the scathing comments, critiques ect.) and before I go and do bunch of preliminary research-ie. probably ruining my opinion of her, I wanted to finish the novel first. But I do want to hear what more experienced people on here think, do you hate her? Why do (generally) people find her so repulsive? What are some of the more central vs. more controversial tenets of her philosophy?
Once I finish the novel and do some of my own research, perhaps I will chime in with my own opinion and thoughts but as for right now, at the very least I feel I have to give her credit. She is a very good writer, nice intricate prose (and intriguing plot) without sounding dry or antiquated. — Grre

People do hate Ayn Rand. I probably do. Her philosophy is deeply, creepily individualistic. "Atlas Shrugged" is significantly more intense than "The Fountainhead." You might want to read it. Much more preachy about her principles and ideology. I've always thought of it as bad science fiction. That's from someone who grew up on bad science fiction.

I suggest you track down the film of "The Fountainhead." Late 1940s. Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal, Raymond Massey. For me, it has a real split personality. On one hand, well made - the cinematography is great, black and white with deep shadows. Cooper, Neal, and Massey are good actors. On the other hand, deeply melodramatic, almost fetishistic, romance and preachy, creepy ideology. Lots of fun, whether or not you buy Rand's philosophy, which I really, really don't

Scholars should take her philosophy more seriously given that we had and still do have people with bright minds who adopted her philosophy. Alan Greenspan talked about her with exaltation...

Worrying.

Scholars should take her philosophy more seriously given that we had and still do have people with bright minds who adopted her philosophy. Alan Greenspan talked about her with exaltation... — Wallows

I've known a few people who doted on her philosophy - generally young male conservatives who imagined they obtained whatever success they had on their individual accomplishment rather than the privilege they had grown up with and the support they had been given by the society they are members of. Arrogant young men without gratitude or generosity.

I don't intend that as criticism, @Grre, although I hope you will gain a more rounded understanding as you get older.

I always considered “The Fountainhead” to be a criticism of the users, the con men and bureaucrats that soak up taxpayers hard earned money. The way governments waste money and the way those who don’t earn it spend it. The waste that comes about from spending money you didn’t earn, and the waste that comes about from government behaving as if they know anything about business, behaving as if they’re a successful business because they have their hands on so much money, none of it earned by themselves. Obviously hostile to socialism: it’s easy to spend other people’s money until you run out of it.

Edit. : sorry, I meant ‘Atlas Shrugged’.

I agree with her thought process to a great measure but i don't agree with her conclusions entirely because she doesn't have all the detail. Globalism is a huge problem and so is people not caring about those who work for them.

Zoning laws, People not getting one day off every week, 2 weeks or a month, (a consistent day off is practical), land distribution (no shortage of land in canada) are all things that are keeping the poor miserable. You don't have to raise taxes to help the "poor".

I always considered “[Atlas Shrugged]” to be a criticism of the users, the con men and bureaucrats that soak up taxpayers hard earned money. The way governments waste money and the way those who don’t earn it spend it. The waste that comes about from spending money you didn’t earn, and the waste that comes about from government behaving as if they know anything about business, behaving as if they’re a successful business because they have their hands on so much money, none of it earned by themselves. Obviously hostile to socialism: it’s easy to spend other people’s money until you run out of it. — Brett

The irony here is that a year after Atlas Shrugged was published (1957), DARPA was created by the US Government as a reaction to the Soviets launching Sputnik. DARPA was a key early funder of various military technology departments, and computer science departments including the early stages of the internet and human-computer interaction research, and was pivotal in providing preliminary research for tech and personal computer startups, such as Apple.

I don't find her philosophical views appealing; however, there is no reason not to enjoy reading her novels. When I read them I thought they were OK--not fabulous, but you know, not that bad.

That said, I also enjoy the kind of scathing comments people make about her -- mostly because they are well-crafted scathing remarks. Like this one:

I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you. The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky.

Some background:

Mickey Spillane was a VERY popular mystery writer; he sold 225 million books -- far, far more than Flannery O'Connor, who I adore. (All these people are dead.). "his specialty was tight-fisted, sadistic revenge stories, often featuring his alcoholic gumshoe Mike Hammer and a cast of evildoers. Critics, appalled by the sex and violence in his books, dismissed his writing."

Ms. O'Connor's writing had a little sex and violence, but it was much subtler than those tight-fisted sadistic revenge stories.

Spillane was criticised for the quality of his writing, but Rand defended him.

Here's one last snide comment:

Ayn Rand defended him. In public, she said that Spillane was underrated. In her book The Romantic Manifesto, Rand put Spillane in some unexpected company when she wrote: "[Victor] Hugo gives me the feeling of entering a cathedral--Dostoevsky gives me the feeling of entering a chamber of horrors, but with a powerful guide--Spillane gives me the feeling of listening to a military band in a public park--Tolstoy gives me the feeling of an unsanitary backyard which I do not care to enter." All of which goes to show that Ayn Rand's literary taste was no better than her literature.

Gramsci and Goldman are two of my favourite thinkers-radical as they were-but I’m confused by your hostility? I had only now come across Rand (or at least had the opportunity to read her) so I thought here would be a good place to ask for some further information and opinions.

Looks like I will have to check out Spillane after this-I liked O’Connor, but I also enjoy books that appal mainstream appetites

The first issue is that Ayn Rand/Objectivism isn't a form of philosophy as it is a form of religion/ideology. The dead giveaway of this is that it puts so much effort wrapping itself in its own moral codes (much like a nationalist likes wrapping themselves in flags) but fails horribly when it tries to explain why its moral codes are so much better than any other moral codes. Most people that have argued awhile regarding either religious and/or moral beliefs get the same unpleasant experience when dealing with Objectivism.

Also if you ever hear of the game Bioshock and it's story of a city called Rapture, then you should be aware of some of the fallacies that Ayn Rand has since Rapture itself is based on the idea of what would happen if any place in the world if the based their society and morality on Ayn Rand/Objectivism. I'm sure you can find plenty of YouTube videoes on this subject if you try to look for them.

How Bioshock discovered the meaning of Ayn Rand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U517H3f85_o

Bioshock - Rand Gone Wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avkWhFp09JA

Ayn Rand - How Is This Still A Thing?: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM

Thom Hartmann: Atlas Shrugged - bizarre philosophy at work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHnnnmuYAdw

Five Stupid Things About Ayn Rand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0CyunRUJmc

I don't care for her, but I don't dislike her or disagree with her any more than a ton of other philosophers I don't care for, don't agree with. And I'd say that Rand is a better writer than many of them, especially the continental philosophers that I don't care for, who are pretty uniformly horrible writers in my opinion.

At that, I really don't like Rand's fiction, but I don't care for realist-to-soap-operatic "straight dramatic" fiction in general. I like fantastical/imaginative fiction, or at least mystery/crime/thriller fiction (So the exception with Rand is that I did like Anthem okay, since that's the SciFi/allegorical novella).

Rand's value (ethics, aesthetics) objectivism is diametrically opposed to my own views, by the way.

More troublesome, though, and a big part of the reason that she gets the reactions she does is that fans/followers tend to display a cult mentality, and they tend to be ignorant of/dismissive of/uninterested in other philosophy in general. Many even seem to ignore Rand's nonfiction writing.

I'm new to her. Finally read her book Fountainhead. LOVED it. I'm reading it again right away and giving as gift to others. I've read a lot of books in my day. Not saying I"m smart but I've read a lot of the classics - Hugo, Tolstoy, Dosteovsky, Melville, Fitzgerald, etc and a lot of Nietzsche. Her book well it kinda rises above a lot of them to me in my context. It "blew my mind" multiple times if you pardon the cliche. Since then I've been listening to her on youtube. I'm not an expert.

Sooo.... if you're not a fan, I"m interested in knowing why, so I can learn. Nobody is immune to criticism. However, part of the reason I liked it, I think, is that I had already got largely in alignment with her views on reason, the self, selfishness, etc as lessons I took from life.

If you don't like her I'd be curious to know why. We're individuals who can think for ourselves. But if you don't like her because you have low self-esteem and like to tear things down, like Ellsworth Toohey, I'm not going to value it that much (especially if you're sneaky like him). If you don't like her because she's atheist/agnostic then I'll chalk that to just religion. There has to be a reason and I might not agree with all.

To me objectivism is a simple system but powerful, most of the pieces I already got together on my own. I am not one to follow or adhere to a system in general but it's pretty simple. Reason sits at the top, and then egotism and then capitalism. She said the latter derives from the former not vice versa, so it's hard to argue against reason as the top principle (unless you are a person of faith preferring to believe in the supernatural). Your reason might not lead to egoism (individuality and rational self-interest). You might think otherwise, but the higher you go, I would feel, the more you would agree. You might think a mixed economy is better. Incidentally I am capitalist, mostly, for practical reasons, but in any system, happiness is more about the internal state- taking care of yourself, rational self interest and self esteem. To me she and the book are about far more than the economic system, which Fountainhead didn't even really touch on.

I read a bit of Nietzsche. I think he's a brilliant psychologist and he got me out of depression in my college years and later times and he has some great quotes, but Ayn Rand clarified what was wrong with him. He's sometimes mystic and irrational. Mysticism is dangerous. It could lead on the one hand to hippies and meditation, but it can equally lead to fascism and cults. So I feel like her philosophy kind of subsumed Nietzsche for me, which is a remarkable feat, but he's still amazing as a poet and writer. Not like he's irrelevant. The other philosophers, from Aristotle to whomever: Yeah as far as 'reality' is concerned, I never felt the need to probe. I'm interested in learning and growth but I never cared for 'being as such" or what have you. I'd rather learn to swing a hammer. I'm thirsty for knowledge but Kant was too hard to crack, and I didn't know if I was on safe ground. Some philosophers are pierian springs. Drink deep or else (you'll be confounded). Aristotle and them are good. I like the philosophers who created the scientific method. But I also know thinkers deeply affect society and so they should be evaluated. So I heard said by Rand that Kant had a negative influence- and maybe had a purpose for that. I mean is anything accidental with smart people? So he might be worth auditing. To me if you can't explain something simply, either you don't get it or you're trying to pull one over. Or maybe you're talking about quantum physics. Can you separate philosophy from the character who expounds it? I didn't need a guide how to live my life-- except it kinda helps to be reminded and encouraged to reason and selfishness and be inspired by fictional characters. Why wouldn't you be selfish? If selfishness makes you happy, well that's proof in itself. If it doesn't, then you do unselfish things for selfish reasons- serve the group. I believe in groups and communities, very much. I'm a social individual. I hate isolation. But I stress individual. I help myself, then maybe I can help others, if it serves me more, or if I get pleasure from it- from the act itself, not the promise of future reward unless that promise has a security interest attached.

Funny OP is asking us if he should like Ayn Rand, etc. OMG he's such a Keating! I've always been like Roark actually in life when I knew myself, when I had an opinion, but I've been like Keating as far as career because I've been clueless, without self-knowledge. I know now- engineering and building stuff, but I'm already 38, like Keating when he finally realized he was in the wrong line. So I've been like Keating but also like Roark.

So basically what is there to object to in objectivism? There are worse things. She's for reason and against mysticism, as well as group think, so that puts your feet on the ground and reduces risk of any form of cult or totalitariansm. Yes, any virtue taken too far can become a vice, but the form this vice might possibly take compared to other ideologies is not that socially dangerous. For those who think we need to serve the group, the herd, the hive and are livid when we don't-- well I don't mean to sound overly harsh or hyperbolic but I think on some level they may be parasites or parasite enablers. We can give to charity of our own choice, but government is force and intimidation and ever growing and what did the preacherman ever do for me? Some people in the current year equate capitalism for instance with fascism and reason and logic with western civilization that is white supremacy or something. These are the ridiculous ones, and also the dangerous ones. They exist, incredibly. I have no time arguing with those types. But if you're a reasonable person, I find little objectionable about objectivism and may be much good. The rest, if she said something incorrect in a footnote about Kant- well point that out, I'm interested but I'm not that concerned.

Thanks for your attention good folks. It's been my pleasure to post.

I don't have a problem with her. All philosophy / philosophers have strengths and weaknesses. For whatever reason I always felt that she would have done a little bit better as a psychologist rather than philosopher.

In any case, I read her book The Virtues of Selfishness and really enjoyed her existential views associated with our self-directed motivations.

I been Ayn Randed
Nearly branded a Communist because I'm left-handed
If that's the hand ya use well, nevermind.

That's unfortunate, considering the hand you've been dealt. On the other hand, when I go to BK I typically see folks using two hands when handling their Whopper's.

That extra hand comes in handy.

A very wise man once said, and keeps saying:

Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion.

:smirk:

New and improved?

The new portrait/image you mean? Just giving Marcus Tullius Cicero his due.

:rofl:

I don't understand the Randian thing as a philosophy.
The scene in Fountainhead about how charity is a depletion of personal power, especially for a woman to undergo, seems to be the "message" or what have you.
For myself, that moment is the time at the party when you realize that you do not belong. Privilege has a certain style and collective quality.
A fork in the road.

Kudos for getting through that book.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. — John Rogers

A fourteen-year old would also find the rough sex scenes in both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead interesting.

I've read a lot of books. I think I would rate high in openness on the big five scale of personality, as well as conscientiousness. The one is predictor of liberalism and the other of conservatism. For me I think it's foolish to draw identity from your political point of view. I think lesser government and more freedoms (freedom of speech) the better, and safer, and a safeguard against revolutions like the French revolution and the Russian Revolution, but my happiness or lack thereof is not a function of my politics.

My openness and conscientiousness I'm told are not a likely combination. I think I'm also high in neuroticism. I don't know where I stand on agreeableness. I'm becoming less agreeable (not giving a shit) the older I get, but I have to be agreeable when necessary to avoid unnecessary troubles. On extroversion, I like people but I don't like mundane small talk. I sometimes do, if I feel comfortable, if people keep it neutral. I don't like answering the question "how are you" right off the bat. I'm more european in that sense. They just don't ask such questions of strangers. I don't like American extroversion culture. That said, I don't like just standing around in a group where nobody is talking and everyone else is introverted. In a world of introverts, I"m the extrovert. In a world of extroverts, I"m the introvert.

I've read a lot of types of books. I'm not a utilitarian. Not everything has to have an immediate use, but people like Kant and other philosophers, I tried to check what they were about. It seemed useless to even try, for my purposes. I got into Rand because her book blew my mind. I have still only read Fountainhead, though I started reading it a second time more carefully. I always read things the first time quickly because I'm caught up in the narrative, what happens next. Now I can soak the details better. But I have not read Atlas Shrugged. I started listening to her on youtube, and others like Yaron Brooks and Nathaniel Brandon. Her 'philosophy' is useful and practical and I agree with large parts of it. Her political philosophy as I understand it is the least important part, just an extension of the core. Reason at core, and the self as the next layer.

One guy compared to Lord of the Rings. Well well yeah I think it would be acknowledged that she wrote characters as ideal types. How often do you really meet a Roark or a Toohey. I'm sure the Keatings of the world exist. Maybe even the Tooheys, or the Wynands, maybe even the Roarks and Dominiques.

As a novel, this had me gripped- more than Les Mis, Crime and Punishment, the Great Gatsby, and others. She subsumed Nietzsche for me, which is good because as much as I liked and like him, and he lifted me out of depression in college, there were parts that troubled me. Mysticism I guess she described it as.

I'm not defensive. Well-- hey that word is a dig. My friend, a girl, told me --- I should "be defensive" more when talking to people. Ha. My mother always criticized us, telling us and my father "don't be so defensive." I thought it universally bad, and Roark hardly defends himself. There's a place for that but here I have this girl who knows me well telling me I need to be defensive. So now that freed me from a fear, so now I will be as I desire to be. I will "be defensive" if I need be. And so I didn't read Fountainhead when I was 14, I read when I was 38 and more mature in my thinking, or more established in it if you prefer, and I loved it. To idealize anything is to set yourself up for a fall, so I shant say it is perfect, but it's a best seller for a reason (social proof fallacy haha cause I also know the bible is #1). I think her Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead are the top two after the bible as the alternative to those who like the bible- the theists/collectivists/altruists, though many a bible reader and believer are selfish individualists. Still, she's the alternative for those who "just can't" - yet also just can't read Marx either- with a believing mind. I daresay the thinking man or the thinking rational atheist libertarian minded doesn't find any book to be perfect or biblical but in Rand I can see how they find the closest thing to a good system. Comparing a book and "philosophy" that preaches reason and selfishness and individualism to Scientology is bat shit silly in my not that humble opinion. Maybe there's something I don't know about what she said in her later years or whatever. I said before, virtues taken to an extreme can often become vices. Take a pandemic, covid. Besides individualism and autonomy, we need law and order kinda, but as a general day to day way of being, leave me alone, don't steal fruit of my labor, let me be me, which is an individual but a social individual and I'm happy. Governments mess with markets and I don't just mean economic markets. The mess with markets of the soul and social dynamics. Government involvement often has effects on family structures of society, on self esteem levels, etc. In general you get more of what you pay for and the primary cost is usually not my biggest concern for any program (welfare, for instance) but the side effects, which can be myriad and cascading. More single mothers possible, which can create more troubled youth. I don't know, I'm just saying, side effects can be bigger deal than the primary direct costs of a thing.

So what do people hope to get from "philosophy"? What is it to them, that Rand comes up short? I'm not one for talking about the existence of things, why things exist, in a way that will get me nothing and is not provable. I like math and logic, hard as it may be to get really deep into. I like epistemology and the scientific method. I like what enhances my feeling of aliveness. Rand does this. I like getting a sense of values and psychological harmony. I take it as a given that I do not feel guilt or shame for others. Someone on next door just posted how ashamed he is sometimes as a x race man, as a man, as an American. I replied that's cause you're a collectivist. I'm not ashamed for something others do because I'm not them. If I was part of a group that did unsavory things, I still wouldn't be ashamed. I'd leave the group if necessary and possible. I'm not them, so how can I be ashamed on their behalf? I think that is disgusting and the displays people are exhibiting. Such types of collectivism apparently exist, as evidenced by what I read from this guy, straight in his own words. What else would you ascribe it to if not collectivism? I'm kind of disgusted and horrified that anyone would be like that and kind of full of pity or compassion, but how can I be ashamed. Granted your group or class may have a branding issue to deal with as a result of the behavior of some but shame? I don't think it's real. I think he thinks it's real but I think he's signalling and he's being an opportunist, through unconscious motives, because how is that shame even possible? This is a good illustration of individualism. But I still believe in the utility of groups- collective bargaining can be useful for instance. I don't know if I'm a pure capitalist. I never said I was though I see it having amazing benefits and possible downsides, but those benefits are real and I will not deny them, but heck that doesn't mean I'm 100 percent. I don't know what I think of unions but I know some unions are corrupt, like teachers unions possibly. Anyway it's reason and rational self-interest that must come first. I can see it easier perhaps to be a collectivist or non individualist by self identification if good things have always come your way, flowed to you (like they did Peter Keating), or like they maybe do young attractive women and celebrities, but they have not been so to me and I'm not asking for pity but explaining why rational selfishness works for me or at least resonates with me. I know the group theory- people feeding each other and scratching each others' back. Well you can still get that, in value exchanges (not all monetary), or ... wait for it.. 'quid pro quo' haha. I'm still social.

I guess there's an intelligentsia or something for whom nothing is sacred. I don't ask anything to be sacred but they can dismiss certain works in a few lines of code but put nothing in its place but some dry laughter. If it was laughter of joy I could understand. Nothing is perfectly perfect. We are all human and there is probably no abrahamic deity in the heavens who is perfect either, but the Fountainhead is a fine work in my eyes, for what it's worth and I fail to see how it can skew people. If I would have read it at 14 I probably would have known not to go to college just to go through the motions, doing some business and finance program, struggling for years. Perhaps it would have altered my course or I should say focused my course and saved me wasted efforts at things. It would have been necessary for my heart to be into something before I put effort, time and money into it and I would have had courage. Instead I wasted years in fear and confusion not knowing how to aim and focus my life. Could have had that effect because it has it even now. Couldn't have hurt. It's not for everyone.

Funny OP is asking us if he should like Ayn Rand, etc. OMG he's such a Keating! I've always been like Roark actually in life when I knew myself, when I had an opinion, but I've been like Keating as far as career because I've been clueless, without self-knowledge. I know now- engineering and building stuff, but I'm already 38, like Keating when he finally realized he was in the wrong line. So I've been like Keating but also like Roark. — badboy

Funny you assume I am a man! For the record nowhere in my original post includes me "asking if I should like Rand"...far from it, I only asked for some background on her and her works since I was new to her work and have only heard of her from infamy. I even stated that I would add my own opinions once I had finished the book. Not sure how this makes me any kind of pushover.

MY OPINION: Nice enough prose and a nice enough story. I guess I didn't read that deeply into it, I just enjoyed the story too much. But it didn't really stand out to me either. Like there was no passage I found particularly offensive or revolutionary.