survives is that America is a deeply anti-intellectual country. We don't take the opinions of the people who know better than we do seriously enough. Experts really do know a lot more than the average person on most issues. You wouldn't let your neighbor Bob code your operating system and you shouldn't let some crazy egoist do your ethical thinking for you.

I never personally knew an ethicist who thought her work had scholarly merit (granted I only knew a few score well enough to make a statement as to their opinion on the matter). Her work has so little argument supporting it, and what argument there is is easily refuted. A few apologists have struggled to defend it, but their efforts have been pretty pathetic.

Another thing that encourages her popularity is that her books are frequently encountered by people in high school before many of them learn the rigors of academic analysis in college. Then they either never move on to further education, or take part in majors where ethics are not required and thus her facile views on the subject survive unchallenged. People are not generally in the habit of going back and challenging previously acquired views unless pushed to it.

Worse still, her me first philosophy is particularly appealing to people in that most self-focused period of their lives. The harsh realities of the real world have not yet taught teenagers that no 50% of you are not in that top 1% of supermen, so an ethical theory attempting to coddle these best and brightest seems appealing.

Not to mention the fact that it also beyond any argumentative grounds her worldview is a complete non-starter as a practical matter.

Anyway, she really invokes a lot of scorn contempt and anger in ethical circles for polluting so many minds with such garbage.

Copernicus was not hailed until three hundred years after his death. Likewise, Rand is the most important philosopher of the 20th century, whether her detractors understand Objectivism or not. Rand is not just an intellectual; she is the most important intellectual of her time.

BTW: Rand advocated for “rational self interest,” not greed. The left is the purveyor of greed. Socialism is progressive greed for others’ wealth. Russian communists were known to have their neighbors murdered for having a few more eggs. Socialism is collective greed, economic envy fanned by green eyed progressives, who want what they did not earn, and would take your/my property by force.

Your reasoning is entirely removed from the philosophy. When you come down to earth maybe you'll be able to deal with actual points of her philosophy. You know, present actual counter arguments to arguments she has made. In absence of that, and I bet you have nothing, why should I believe in your intellectual superiority?

The bottom line, there is no there-there in your post.

Okay, arguing with leftists is like hunting a dairy cow with a rifle and a scope. This is why they've become so shrill of late.

Ayn Rand is never going to be considered the most important philsopher of the 20th century, hell she is barely even considered a philosopher period. more like a novelist who wrote about philosophical subjects.

As for arguments against her positions? Why reproduce academic literature which already exists. The purpose of my post wasn't to convince anyone, it was to inform them that this argument has already been hashed out, and the Rand acolytes lost.

If you love Rand so much go seek out some modern academic writings on her positions, they are not hard to find.

If you really insist on not looking I might be convinced to sketch out a few of the basic moves here for you, but I would rather not waste time on someone who isn't going to actually take the time to understand them.

This philosopher is selling 800,000+ books per year, 27 years after death; and “Atlas Shrugged” (which was first published in 1957) is on pace to break last year’s record. No philosopher’s ideas are reaching more people. You can sneer and condemn her ideas, while her importance expands on a logarithmic curve. Leftwing academia cannot suppress Ayn Rand’s importance. Even while we discuss interest in her two new biographies, her influence grows...

And no TV show is reaching more viewers than what American Idol, Survivor (I don't watch TV so I wouldn't know)? Popularity is no good judge of the value of something. Statism is much more popular than objectivism for example.

Not to mention the extreme irony of a Randian arguing that something is to be taken seriously because of its popularity.

Becephalus:

And no TV show is reaching more viewers than what American Idol, Survivor (I don't watch TV so I wouldn't know)? Popularity is no good judge of the value of something. Statism is much more popular than objectivism for example.

Not to mention the extreme irony of a Randian arguing that something is to be taken seriously because of its popularity.

Do you think people will STILL be watching survivor 40 years from now? If Rand was a flash in the pan, you wouldn't have even heard about her after 1960. She's obviously saying SOMETHING with lasting value to someone.

Just like the hula hoop, still going strong!

<link>

MacDonalds has sold billions since the 50s. It must be the best food in the universe!

McDonalds is one of the best business models on earth. Rational thinkers know a Big Mac is good food under the right conditions.

Only Starbucks has a restaurant business model that approaches McDonalds in global success.

So, now we're defending Rand because she has a big audience? Uh... does that mean Glenn Beck is the leading philosopher of the 21st century?

I see a few fraysters pouting that (gulp!) other people just don't share their awe at St. Ayn. You're not asking for understanding, or even really agreement with any ideas. You just wish for a quasi-religious faith in Rand.

I suspect most of Rand's ardent admirers are people who haven't read much other than some of her books. It's easy for such people to mistake "feelings" for art, and pomposity for intellect. But, if you instinctively feel ANGER when you encounter non-believers, then you should start suspecting your own feelings on that one.

I suspect most of Rand's ardent admirers are people who haven't read much other than some of her books. It's easy for such people to mistake "feelings" for art, and pomposity for intellect. But, if you instinctively feel ANGER when you encounter non-believers, then you should start suspecting your own feelings on that one.

And why do you suspect that? I'm so sick of this "anyone who doesn't see the world as I do are idiots" bullshit. I've always liked Rand's Objectivism (never really cared for her writing style) but you can't see that this article was completely biased from the beginning! Can't you just disagree with people without assuming that they are all illiterate morons? What you have wrote here is exactly why people may "confuse pomposity for intellect".

BTW, discrediting the opposing view as idiots instead of respecting the other side as equals (while at the same time disagreeing) is about the most anti-intellectual act one can do

" I'm so sick of this "anyone who doesn't see the world as I do are idiots" bullshit."

Uhh, EbenCooke didn't use the word "idiots." You did. Go back and re-read the whole thread. One side presents relatively calm, reasoned argument. The other reacts as though their self-image is at risk of being destroyed if everyone, yes every single person on earth, doesn't recognize the vast importance of Rand's ideas. Okay, that's slightly hyperbolic, but only slightly.

Steve,

I really don't give a crap whether someone likes or doesn't like Rand. I myself never really got into her books but I liked some of the ideas of objectivism.

Where I object to the above poster and the many other clones that I have read this morning on the topic is this statement:

I suspect most of Rand's ardent admirers are people who haven't read much other than some of her books. It's easy for such people to mistake "feelings" for art, and pomposity for intellect. But, if you instinctively feel ANGER when you encounter non-believers, then you should start suspecting your own feelings on that one.

I am not angry about disagreeing with Rand (I myself don't agree with a lot of what she believes), what angers me is the misrepresentation and blatant disrespect of those that disagree. The "Republicans have never read a book" thing is tired, lame and not very intellectual.

"The "Republicans have never read a book" thing is tired, lame and not very intellectual."

He (assuming Eben's a he) didn't write that. You quoted him yourself: "I suspect most of Rand's ardent admirers are people who haven't read much other than some of her books. It's easy for such people to mistake "feelings" for art, and pomposity for intellect. But, if you instinctively feel ANGER when you encounter non-believers, then you should start suspecting your own feelings on that one."

Are all Republicans "ardent admirers" of Rand? I don't think so. Eben didn't say that. What he said is correct. If you can't even hear someone disagree with you without getting angry, then it's your problem not theirs. Go look at some other entries in this Fray. Rand is the greatest thinker of the 20th Century, will be recognized as as important as Copernicus in the future, etc. Even hearing facts from two biographies presented really upsets those "ardent admirers." Like I said, go back and see which side is "angry." It ain't the ones who don't accept Rand as their savior.