I’ve heard this, too. For those of us, like myself, that don’t realistically expect to read her books, what was wrong with her and why do you regret reading them?
As a philosophy / ethics person who has studied and read a lot of philosophers and never her, even from basic argument structures of hers there are fallacies galore that show no sign of being addressed.
I think the view is a magnet towards selfish people looking for justification of their views. I think her arguments, when viewed objectively (ironically), have the effect mentioned in the top level comment of pushing people away from the pitfall conclusions she makes.
It's interesting that the argument in the main article there seems to be "Rand should not be taken seriously - as an academic philosopher". That is not the same statement as "Rand should not be taken seriously".
For those of us, like myself, that don’t realistically expect to read her books,
Your reasons for feeling that way are, of course, your own, and I'm hardly one to tell you to do otherwise. But if I could offer any comment on this, let me just say this: there is a LOT of what I would call "caricaturized misrepresentation" of Rand and Rand's work out there in the wild. If your view on reading Rand is based on what you've heard about her from others, I'd strongly suggest you consider carefully if you can trust what you've been told.
On the flip-side, I'll also say this: while I personally am sympathetic to a lot of Rand's thinking / philosophy, I do think she did herself a mis-service in the way she chose to use the words "selfish" and "altruism". That is to say, her usage, while possibly pedantically correct, runs somewhat counter to the common vernacular usage, and it makes it unreasonably easy to misinterpret her meaning, or to impute things that aren't there, whether intentionally or otherwise.
Just to give an over-simplified example of what I mean... Rand never really said, say, "don't give to the poor". But she probably said something roughly like "don't give to the poor because of altruism, do it out of selfish self interest." To anybody educated in the last 30 years or so, that probably sounds very weird, because we tend to assume that "altruism" means something like "a desire to do good to others, like, for example, giving to the poor". But in her world-view, "altruism" was actually just a facade used to misdirect people and get them to buy into a mindset of subjugating the individual to the whims of the collective (and by implication, the self-appointed, corrupt, elitist rulers of the collective). The latter group of people being what she referred to as "moochers" in some of her works.
Likewise, in today's vernacular the word "selfish" has a meaning that's almost negative by its very definition. That is, to say that anything is done for "selfish" reasons is to assume a lack of charity, lack of empathy, a disregard for the welfare of others, evil motives, etc. But that isn't what Rand meant. When she says do things for selfish reasons, she really means "do things because they're what you, as rational, thinking, individual choose to do, without being coerced or manipulated". A person who holds to Rand's ideas can behave in a way that is 180 degrees removed from what we generally think of as "selfish" and still be acting in the "selfish" way that Rand advocates.
Anyway... that got longer than I meant for it to. I'll just finish by saying that I think most people should consider reading at least some of Rand's works and form their own opinions of what she is promoting, rather than simply accepting someone else's interpretation (including mine).
Rand addressed your comment about "selfish" being a pejorative (and "altruism" being a positive) in detail in the introduction to her work "The Virtue of Selfishness".
==================================
The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: “Why do you use the word ‘selfishness’ to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?”
To those who ask it, my answer is: "For the reason that makes you afraid of it.”
But there are others, who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, yet who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved. It is to them that I will give a more explicit answer.
==================================
I think we agree that people should read Rand firsthand and judge for themselves.
> let me just say this: there is a LOT of what I would call "caricaturized misrepresentation" of Rand and Rand's work out there in the wild.
This cannot be overstated enough. I read Atlas Shrugged (no other Rand books) and seriously feel I must have read a different book than the one that gets such vitriol spat at it on a constant basis.
And that vitriol? It's typically attacking strawmen that I never remotely picked up from the book.
I think the strangest thing about it all is you get plenty of folks saying how the current government are ayn rand acolytes... If they are, they are certainly doing it wrong. Atlas Shrugged basically described and warned about exactly what is going on in government today - regulatory capture, corruption, gains going to the folks who do absolutely nothing vs. those providing value, etc. Essentially exactly what is going on in the government and corporate America today - it's more profitable to play politics than it is to be productive and produce something of value via hard work.
Make no mistake: In Ayn Rand's world Trump is one of the moochers and would be one of the leading villains if he was a character in Atlas Shrugged. It's almost comical how much he would fit right into that plot.
So I really feel I got something out of it that is about the opposite from everyone else. I also don't understand why it rubs people the wrong way at such a fundamental level. I have to say it makes me somewhat suspicious of such people - if they can twist meanings around so effectively to fit their narrative and have such strong feelings about that fabrication I wonder where else in their life and beliefs they are doing the same.
In the end Atlas Shrugged was an overly verbose book that contained some semi-interesting parables and then smacked you with them repeatedly for 1500 pages. I mostly enjoyed it and it certainly made me think - but I wouldn't even put it in my top 10 of "life changing" books out there.
