Note that these blogs are not unqualified endorsements of Ayn Rand. I am trying to understand her social critique in light of her personal experience with Soviet Communism. For a view more consistent with my own, see the writings of legal theorist Richard Epstein, who understands that government regulation is at times appropriate, but must be designed with great caution and constantly tested. For this reason, I especially recommend the blog on We The Living, which tells you more about the young Rand and the Soviet Union’s “totalitarianism” than any other work of hers. But I have reread all three blogs, and they are well worth your time, if you want to resist collectivist propaganda.
https://clarespark.com/2011/01/12/ayn-rands-we-the-living/
https://clarespark.com/2011/01/04/railroading-ayn-randalissa-rosenbaumdagny-taggart/
https://clarespark.com/2010/12/29/ayn-rands-rational-modernism/.
The Clare Spark Blog 
If you want to understand Objectivism, read Ayn Rand’s works, NOT blather by non-Objectivists.
…and you’ll have to work at it – and, most importantly, not go into that with preconceptions that you treat as unchallengeable. Objectivism is different from other philosophies. It doesn’t start with the “philosophy” that has been developed over the past few thousand years; it starts (& ends) with observing reality.
If you want to understand Ayn Rand, you should first get clear on why. Understanding Ayn Rand i’s not a way to understand Objectivism.
One’s roots, etc. do give him concrete experiences, but a real philosopher treats them as what they are: only concrete experiences
(Richard Epstein is wrong on government regulations: Regulations punish people before / irrespective of any fact of actual wrongdoing (which we have laws for).)
Comment by P. Michael Hutchins — December 8, 2012 @ 3:19 pm |
Mr. Hutchins, did you read any of the blogs or just responded to my comment about Richard Epstein? Are you by chance a follower of Ron Paul?
Comment by clarespark — December 8, 2012 @ 3:31 pm |
I’m surprised at this insulting reply. What does Ron Paul have to do with anything?
Comment by Sarah Rolph — December 8, 2012 @ 5:54 pm
I would’ve thought that it’s obvious that I read this post [sic] of yours.
(Having done so, I was not motivated to read any more – but I was motivated to address where it seemed to me you were at in this post, & to help you learn.)
I am an Objectivist, & have been studying Objectivism for almost 48 years.
(Ron Paul is a L/libertarian (obviously). Libertarianism sprang from the works of Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, they left part of her work behind..
(eg: the proper nature of government & the reasons for that)
..and so they are now thrashing around helplessly.)
Comment by P. Michael Hutchins — December 8, 2012 @ 6:04 pm
Clare, I concur with Mr. Hutchins; no Objectivist would accept Ron Paul or libertarianism as being a standard bearer for Ayn Rand, and a Libertarian regards Ayn Rand and Objectivists as confused and “extreme” on points where they disagree. Libertarians do not adequately understand the roots of their beliefs and wind up making all sorts of indefensible and inconsistent policy statements.
Objectivists take a broader view of governance, national defense, and stigmatizing groups than your average PaulBot.
Comment by stereorealist — December 26, 2012 @ 3:36 pm