Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by blackrose 2916 days ago
It's not that she's evil, just that her "philosophy" is what you said: one person's view (i.e. opinion). She couldn't reconcile many critiques of Objectivism and didn't do much self-analysis on it. So despite how good many of her individual ideas sound, together they're thin and don't really make up a coherent theory that many people can take seriously. Unless you're a jerk using her name to justify being self-centered :) (just kidding)
1 comments

I have heard several working philosophers describe her work as "incoherent" in a philosophical sense -- inconsistent in ways that are unreconcilable.

These are people with no particular horse in any race; there isn't a lot of money in rejecting one 20th century pop philosopher.

I haven't read enough of her stuff to develop my own opinions, so I'm happy to defer to them on the philosophy. I have read enough of her stuff to say that I find it turgid to the point of unreadability; a very dated style. Reminds me of L Ron Hubbard's stuff, which is also just about unreadable (dianetics or otherwise).

Right, and it's echoed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [0] and elsewhere.

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/#Intr