[dmfdmf]

This article is such a collection of misrepresentations and misunderstandings of Rand's philosophy that it comes across as a caricature. If Rand's philosophy was as obviously stupid as this guy portrays it then I doubt it would still be popular 30 years after her death. The only error that I will address is that Rand presented her ideas in her fiction. She did do this, of course, but these were necessarily a consequences of her complete philosophic system which she fully explained in numerous non-fiction works. I'd recommend starting with The Virtue of Selfishness to see for you self.

[CSenn]

Ok that's fair, one question though because this was what I got out of the book. Do you believe the main big picture purpose of Ayn Rand's philosophy was to create the best possible society? I definitely may have over simplified her idea of selfishness, however the article was more about popular culture's interpretation of it, and maybe making a caricature of it is quite common.

[dmfdmf]

> Do you believe the main big picture purpose of Ayn Rand's philosophy was to create the best possible society?

No, that was just a consequence of her primary goal. She actually said she had no deep interest in politics other than to define a rational base for capitalism so she (and those like her) could be left alone to create. That was the basis for the title of her novel that free individuals are the fountainhead of all the values we enjoy. Her primary stated goal was to present the ideal man in her novels. In order to do that she discovered that she had to define her own philosophy of Objectivism. A complete philosophy doesn't start with politics or society but more basic questions such as the nature of existence, consciousness, knowledge, reason and ethics which all have to be defined to intelligently discuss politics (the highest level).

In reading your article and replies to others I see that the goal in your article wasn't to explain or discuss Objectivism so much but to explain the cultural phenomenon of Ayn Rand's popularity. My recommendation would be to read some of her non-fiction works like the one I recommended on selfishness. BTW, she qualified her advocacy of selfishness as acting on ones rational self interest, not emotional indulgence as you implied. (This is a common misrepresentation of her view). Also, she thought that emotions were important and essential to the human experience but they are not primaries nor means to knowledge. If you are interested in what Rand was all about you should also read her books Philosophy Who Needs It and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

[CSenn]

Ok well it makes sense that she chose to start at the highest level and work her way down. And yes I was speaking about culture.

She was absolutely brilliant, probably somewhere up there in the top thinkers in history. But building a functional society is obviously exceptionally difficult, and the highest level arguments seem to me more of a thought game for academics then a practical solution to a pressing and absolutely real societal problem. I guess the reason I wrote the article is because at times misenterpretation of complex ideas can be dangerous. Maybe similar to how Germany's propaganda misinterpreted the teachings of Nietzsche.

And thanks for your input, it's helpful