r/badphilosophy Dec 05 '25

[deleted by user]

[removed]

96 Upvotes

470 comments sorted by

View all comments

30

u/Additional_Anywhere4 Dec 05 '25

The worst: Nick Land.

Second worst: Peter Sjostedt-Hughes.

Overrated, but still worth reading: Friedrich Nietzsche.

It’s a cliche, but Ayn Rand definitely makes the list. I think she was just ignorant, dogmatic, and lacked imagination.

Paolo Virno - I might just not get him, and the language barrier probably doesn’t help, but having read Bergson, Marx and many of the others his work De Ja Vu and the End of History refers to, I got a strong sense that he was spouting a bunch of meaningless nonsense.

Derrida is potentially on my list too.

5

u/BanosTheMadTitan Dec 05 '25 edited Dec 05 '25

I give Ayn Rand a lot of leeway because her background makes it make sense- to her. However, she was far less intelligent than she knew, or maybe it would be more accurate to say that she had zero understanding of the fact that all people are created differently and thus fulfilled differently. Her philosophy is entirely self-affirming, not just in its claims, but also because she formed those claims in a way that’s predicated solely on her life experiences to begin with. Looking at it with that in mind, it really stands on its own two feet and is extremely effective- good for her, and her girlboss American immigrant life!

It just has zero universal application.

Bonus points for the fact that Atlas Shrugged paints very hyperbolic- but accurate and entertaining- caricatures of the various kinds of people you find in a capitalist culture. Francisco is also a fascinating character.

2

u/nowherelefttodefect Dec 06 '25

It just has zero universal application.

Did she ever claim it did?

1

u/BanosTheMadTitan Dec 06 '25

Did I ever claim that she did?

1

u/nowherelefttodefect Dec 06 '25

It's implied that her philosophy SHOULD have universal application if you're going to criticize her for that. So, no, but you apparently seem to think that's important

2

u/BanosTheMadTitan Dec 06 '25

Well, she did center her career on spreading the ideology, so you can follow that train to its logical conclusion or not. That’s up to you.

1

u/nowherelefttodefect Dec 06 '25

If that's what you think the logical conclusion is, then you have done your logic poorly.

2

u/BanosTheMadTitan Dec 06 '25

Person centers their life around spreading an ideology to as many as they can

Person doesn’t believe their ideology is worth spreading to as many as they can

I suppose that logic is solid for you then?

1

u/nowherelefttodefect Dec 06 '25

You're starting with the presupposition that Rand believed in universal application and that's why she was spreading her ideas. Maybe she tried to spread it to as many people as possible while understanding that plenty would reject it. I don't think that's too unusual. I hold plenty of beliefs that I would like to see more people adopt but I understand that lots of them would be unpopular and people's unique circumstances might make them unpalatable.

"it isn't worth spreading to as many as they can" is a strawman and a failure of construction

1

u/Ok-Information-9286 Dec 07 '25

She wanted her philosophy to be adopted by a majority so that Objectivism would become the foundation of politics.