Just don’t drink the Kool-Aid: All you need to know before beginning critical study of Rand
One can find both much of potential value and much in the way of utter nonsense in the thought of Ayn Rand. Both Roderick Long and Chris Sciabarra have notably distinguished themselves in the field of sorting Randian wheat from chaff. One is vaguely reminded of the distinction between Marxists and Marxians.
Knappster, however, aptly summarized recently why an open-minded yet skeptical approach is crucial for those who might want to study Rand:
Share This“The big problem with Rand was that over time she made it a point to isolate herself from anyone and everyone who demonstrated the kind of character that might lead them to run up the bullshit flag on her when necessary.
The big problem with post-Rand Objectivism is that her heir and his cronies wheelbarrowed the resulting bullshit to the bank along with everything of real value in her legacy, probably at least partially because they were too goddamn whipped by then to tell the difference. And then Gresham’s Law went into overtime operation.”
re:”an open-minded yet skeptical approach is crucial for those who might want to study Rand”
That approach should be used when studying anyone’s writing. No one, no matter how brilliant, should be treated as if their every word is gospel. Rand is of course no exception. She was brilliant in many ways, but not infallible. No one is.
Great entry, Brad. As a former Objectivist, I agree!
[...] Brad Spangler said: One can find both much of potential value and much in the way of utter nonsense in the thought of Ayn Rand. [...]