Common Misinterpretations of Ayn Rand's Writings

[petite_lambda]

Or: what you always thought Ayn Rand has said, and guess what - she hasn't.

"Rand reasoned that it's illogical to do something that fulfills anything but one's immediate, material self-interest".
Wrong! It's amazing how many people think she said that, while what she and her protagonists believed is pretty much the opposite. I suspect that the thing

Comments

[egoistpaul]

I think to understand the reasons why Howard Roark does that in Fountainhead and Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged, you'll need to understand the two novels are about as a whole. Fountainhead is about a world where collectivists dominate and an individualist has to fight against it.

Atlas Shrugged is about what happens if the mind goes on strike and why. There are two moral codes in a war: altruism vs rational egoism.

I think you'll need to be aware of a common mistake made by most game theorists - intrinsicism and universalism, particular in the area of value. The book, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", is required for a person to understand this.

Ayn Rand is not an idealist or anywhere close to it. The only place where her philosophy is close to an idealist is her theory about art.

[petite_lambda]

I think to understand the reasons why Howard Roark does that in Fountainhead and Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged, you'll need to understand the two novels are about as a whole.

I disagree, I think I understand their motives quite well (and I sympathize with them). And I did read the whole books, and enjoyed them.

I think you'll need to be aware of a common mistake made by most game theorists - intrinsicism and universalism, particular in the area of value. The book, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", is required for a person to understand this.That is a problem. If you're saying "you're wrong, but you need to read a whole book to understand why", then I'm not going to argue with you! But I'm not going to read it, either... The last time I heard this kind of argument I was referred to the Bible ("just read that book, and you'll understand why you're wrong about [anything]"). A good debating exercise, in general, is to present the argument yourself. Even when giving a link to someone else's reasoning, it is a good idea at

[egoistpaul]

we seem to use same words to mean different things, and it causes major communication problems. I don't think we'll be able to navigate it -- we will just spiral into definitions begetting other definitions, and it's simply not going to be fun. But maybe I'm wrong.

The reality is that the same word does mean different things to different people. If a word always means the same thing to different people, then there is only one conscious being out there, which isn't possible.

The problem, as I point out, was universalism and intrinsicism. I believe if we have to discuss further, we'll have to resolve this issue.

[petite_lambda]

Sorry for taking long to reply, was busy elsewhere.

"The reality is that the same word does mean different things to different people"

But if they wish to have a productive conversation, they have to agree on meanings of words.

We can try that, if you want. What do you mean by "universalism"? By "intrinsicism"?