And I remember reading a post by Yudkowsky who downright called objectivism a cult.
That post also contained an explanation why. It listed specific things Ayn Rand did wrong. (She admired a philosopher from two millenia ago, but ignored recent research related to her central topics. She wanted to be rational, but didn’t know how exactly, and thus couldn’t teach her followers. So she made “rationality” an applause light, and her followers admired her, but didn’t know how—or even aspire—to surpass her.) And there are also a few nice things in the article, when deserved.
EDIT: Connotations disclaimer: I listed a summary of criticism by Eliezer to show that Eliezer provided specific criticism in his article. It does not mean that I agree with all of it. It means that I support that style of debate, as opposed to the drive-by shooting in this article.
There were circles of dysfunction about Rand, the worst in the center where she was the Queen bee of her coterie of intimates. I wouldn’t confuse the problems of her philosophy with the social problems of a group of hangers on to a wealthy and famous woman with an ideology to spread.
Even in the philosophy itself, there are Peikoff and the “closed system” Objectivists who believe that Objectivism was a completed truth, to “open system” Objectivists like David Kelley who do intend to revise, extend, and surpass Rand.
And for the rank and file Objectivists, I’ve known a few and none of them thought Rand was always right and not to be surpassed.
That post also contained an explanation why. It listed specific things Ayn Rand did wrong. (She admired a philosopher from two millenia ago, but ignored recent research related to her central topics. She wanted to be rational, but didn’t know how exactly, and thus couldn’t teach her followers. So she made “rationality” an applause light, and her followers admired her, but didn’t know how—or even aspire—to surpass her.) And there are also a few nice things in the article, when deserved.
Compared with that, you merely did a drive-by shooting. (Which does not contribute to a reasonable discussion.)
EDIT: Connotations disclaimer: I listed a summary of criticism by Eliezer to show that Eliezer provided specific criticism in his article. It does not mean that I agree with all of it. It means that I support that style of debate, as opposed to the drive-by shooting in this article.
There were circles of dysfunction about Rand, the worst in the center where she was the Queen bee of her coterie of intimates. I wouldn’t confuse the problems of her philosophy with the social problems of a group of hangers on to a wealthy and famous woman with an ideology to spread.
Even in the philosophy itself, there are Peikoff and the “closed system” Objectivists who believe that Objectivism was a completed truth, to “open system” Objectivists like David Kelley who do intend to revise, extend, and surpass Rand.
And for the rank and file Objectivists, I’ve known a few and none of them thought Rand was always right and not to be surpassed.