Amazon.com Widgets
  • Sociopath (or stupid).

    If she wasn't a sociopath then she was stupid.
    Her thesis is basically an apology of sociopathy.
    I can't though exclude the hypothesis of ignorance. Visibly she couldn't comprehend people and the mechanisms that govern the world, not only at an emotional level but also at the rational. Go back to school Ayn.

  • Sociopath (or stupid).

    If she wasn't a sociopath then she was stupid.
    Her thesis is basically an apology of sociopathy.
    I can't though exclude the hypothesis of ignorance. Visibly she couldn't comprehend people and the mechanisms that govern the world, not only at an emotional level but also at the rational. Go back to school Ayn.

  • The woman clearly displayed her sociopathy.

    Merely look at the woman's life, and it's quite clear, I feel. Powerful reasons have already been given; she admired a brutal murderer, lionised him, and complete inability to empathise with his victim. Her love life is another good example. But just visit YouTube and watch her interviews. Her vision of laissez faire capitalism was blind and delusional, and may I add "irrational". You needn't be an economist or particularly gifted political thinker to arrive at this conclusion. She was deeply scarred and poisoned from her childhood experience in Russia.

  • YES, INDEED. A Sociopath at least.

    Personally Ayn Rand definitely was indeed a sociopath, as well as in her writing. No mention of considering other people's feelings whatsoever genuinely, and IF only in a mimicking fashion, in any of her appearances, interviews or writings she shows no geniunie signs of any empathy whatsoever. Also she admired a serial killer who dismembered and tortured his victim, without any empathy for this victim too, which makes me think she was a very likely psychopath too, as sociopaths and psychopaths are pretty mush the same, just that psychopaths are more X-rated, which a fan of a serial killer must indeed be. All these red flags for total lack of empathy points clearly to at least sociopathy, the fact she admired the psychopath serial killer, also suspects her of actually being a psychopath herself…maybe not biologically inherited, but what we call a secondary psychopath, mainly triggered by her horrible and harsh childhood. In her writings of philosophy also signs and red flags of a psychopathic mind. If any hint of empathy at all it was only connected to self-interests, no genuine empathy whatsoever. She had a total lack of empathy outside of her own self interest. So yes indeed, a sociopath. Most normal human beings have empathy even outside their own self interest, Rand did not. If at her time brain scans was available I highly doubt she would not fit under the now up to 1 in 20 sociopaths out there. I also believe sociopaths love her work as it justifies their actions in the form of what many refer to as the sociopaths bible, the book Atlas Shrugged. So 1 in 20 adds up to at least one of your friends and family somewhere, so no wonder Atlas Shrugged is if not your next door neighbors favourite book, at least your local store owner. So if anything I see Ayn Rand and her work only positive for one thing, she makes it easier for us "normal people"(non sociopaths) with genuine empathy, love and compassion for our fellow man, to know who is not like us, mainly the Ayn Rand fans. Like Nazi's love Mein Kampf, Sociopaths love Ayn Rand. In both cases, a wonderful way of knowing who the bad guys are, and be extra cautious and prepared when out there in the big bad world. We cannot let bad humanity win over us good. Good humanity is not in charge at the moment. But we shall one day be victorious, and maybe some day in the future, sociopaths will be put in their place where they belong, and that is powerless unless they play by good humanity's rule of respecting one's fellow man, and it requires us good people to stand up against evil and sociopaths, in order for good humanity to blossom. One day, let us good humanity not give up.

  • 'The wicked with of the East.'

    "Altruism is evil." ~Ayn Rand. Even only that should tell you enough. Her philosophy is centered around selfishness and finding ways to make it sound virtuous. This sits well of course with some people who advocate laissez faire capitalism. Everything they can get their hands on is automatically earned and the poor have nothing to blame but themselves. Does the world improve because of Rand's philosophy and where the bottom line is money and power? I don't think so.

    Rand was also an enormous hypocrite. Her family fled Russia because of the Bolshevik revolution losing much of their wealth. A life long advocate of private property she did a complete 180 turn when it came to the Native Americans. 'They were savages and didn't have any property rights.' Finding justification of course in confiscating all their land and calling it your own. This sums up Rand - finding justification for greed and selfishness.

  • It was possible.

    Ayn Rand was very cruel and was known for caring primarily about her own well being. She was also known for a lack of remorse which is one of the criteria for sociopaths. She also wrote in notebooks her adoration for a known serial killer who gruesomely dismembered his victims. There are many things that add up together to indicate that it might have been true.

  • She claimed that their was no such thing as a "community"

    Ayn Rand claimed that it was "moral" to be selfish and that their was no such thing as community or collectivism only a group of interacting individuals. This is only the tip of the iceberg of her half baked sociopath ideas. To say "there is no such thing as a community only a group of interacting individuals" is like saying there is no such thing as a forest, only a group of trees planted close together (which, of course, is what we call a forest).

    It appears at first glance that Rand is being hypocritical, saying something doesn't exist and then calling it something that is actually exactly what she is claiming it isn't. The fact that, in her own writing, she couldn't see this blaring contradiction is unsettling because it's too big to pass of as simple a mistake. It indicates that she could not understand the fundamental complexity of a community and instead had to reduce it to a unilateral, one dimensional concept (a trait we see in all of her writing, especially in Atlas Shrugged). "a group of interacting individuals" leaves out all of the subtle and emotional links that bond a community together, that we know bond a community together and have done so since the dawn of civilization. Rand dismisses all of this, she claims it doesn't exist.

    To claim that community doesn't exist, to need to reduce complex social structures down to a single dimension in order to understand them and to claim that self interest is an inherent human trait (even though altruism is what allowed out ancestors to survive long enough to begin forming civilizations) establishes a strong case that Ayn Rand was a sociopath

  • Ayn Rand is the farthest thing from a sociopath.

    I have yet to meet someone who doesn't pretend to care about something they could've give less of a shit about. Since Ayn Rand was exactly that, I'd argue that she was far from a sociopath. She didn't alter herself to fit society's standards and didn't lie to herself about her true nature, while the rest of the world is busy bullshitting their way through life. Let's be honest--very few of us actually care about our friend's new pet or our mom's college roommate, but for some damn reason we all feel like we need to pretend to care. She was logical, truthful, and cared very much about her philosophy. Besides, would you care about the emotions of men and women you disliked and who disliked you? In her books the main characters were ruthless towards the moochers and looters that tried to guilt them into action, but they stuck by their like-minded colleagues that they actually cared about.

    So no, she wasn't a sociopath. She just wasn't a pretender, either.

  • She's the least sociopathic person I can think of.

    I have yet to meet someone who doesn't pretend to care about something they could've give less of a shit about. Since Ayn Rand was exactly that, I'd argue that she was far from a sociopath. She didn't alter herself to fit society's standards and didn't lie to herself about her true nature, while the rest of the world is busy bullshitting their way through life. Let's be honest--very few of us actually care about our friend's new pet or our mom's college roommate, but for some damn reason we all feel like we need to pretend to care. She was logical, truthful, and cared very much about her philosophy. Besides, would you care about the emotions of men and women you disliked and who disliked you? In her books the main characters were ruthless towards the moochers and looters that tried to guilt them into action, but they stuck by their like-minded colleagues that they actually cared about.

    So no, she wasn't a sociopath. She just wasn't a pretender, either.

  • Facts don't care about your feelings.

    Ayn Rand's works demonstrate the individual's value over that of the collective. It is logic and fact, not feelings or emotions that is moral. The perfect example of this today is the international aid industry. Run on "good intentions" and not fact or human ingenuity, it almost always causes more destruction for the actual individuals it seeks to aid. Good intentions always have unintended consequences when not guided by fact. Those shoes you donate when you purchase those TOMs, it kills the shoe maker's business and his local supplies making him now impoverished. Those food donation programs to the third world, or market dumping schemes...Now the small farmer cannot sell his produce at the market (his customers now have their food for free), and he now is impoverished and in need of aid. Oh but those mosquito nets have to help right? Well without a local delivery system to get those nets to those in need (i.E. Hiring a new enterpenuer)--these nets will languish in boxes or given in bulk to those already supplied with them. It is the seekers, on the ground looking for novel solutions to a problem, not the top down planners guided by their feelings and "good intentions" that make a difference. Rand understood this. Say what you will about her personal failings, but being guided by reason and fact is the only moral stance there is.

  • Ayn Rand Had No Sympathy For People Without a Conscience

    Ayn Rand did depict people in her fiction that were without conscience, and she portrayed them as despicable. She despised people who "mooched" off of others, forcibly appropriating others' work and the products of their work. Of course, she saw this sort of behavior up close and personal because she was a refugee from Communism, the ultimate sociopathic political system. Yes, Rand did champion reason over emotion. What sensible person would not? But reason and emotion don't always or inevitably come into conflict. She may not have been a good writer of fiction but, then, her imagination extended more to the abstract than the concrete.

  • Communities exist of course, but they have to moral rights.

    Individuals have rights, but not collectively. This does not mean communities do not exist anymore than saying a forest has no rights mean that it does not exist. Only individuals can make rational and moral decisions for themselves to ensure their continued existence. A community, ruled by a chosen few, cannot truly represent every individual and their survival needs.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.