The part about Rand’s professed superiority just seems like a blatant falsehood. All of her writings are based (it says so on the back of the books) on the existence of heroes in humanity.
Existence of heroes in her works doesn’t disprove the thesis that Rand thought she was the epitome of rationality. If, in fact, they were at all different from Rand, it would be evidence for this, but the fact that they are so staggeringly one dimensional and are, in fact, exactly as she tried to be, doesn’t really help your argument. If this weren’t the case, objectivism wouldn’t have become a closed system upon her death. This was (as I’m sure you know. Edit: You apparently talk about this later in your essay. Whoops.) the cause of a great schism in the objecitivst movement, with Nathaniel Brandon on one side and Leonard Peikoff on the other. You can bicker and argue about which the “true objectivsts” are, if you want, but Rand herself never really had any measure of humility. (And the fact that she backed the side now advocating a closed system says something.)
And she did tell her followers (and even people who weren’t her followers) to study science. She even gave a speech at MIT in the 60′s entitled “To Young Scientists” (You can find the transcript somewhere, though you may have to pay for it). She also wrote an eyewitness account of the Apollo 11 launch that vehemently shows her appreciation and awe of the products of science. If that isn’t an encouragement to study science, I don’t know what is.
She quite vehemently signaled agreement with the scientific tribe, I agree. But that’s not the same as actually supporting it. (Well, it supports it in some way, but I think you get my point.) Given how she felt about the environment (and based on the positions taken by most Objectivist themed organizations (ARI, ARC, etc.)) she probably wouldn’t have much respect for anthropomorphic global warming as a theory. I don’t know much about the science of it myself, so my opinion isn’t worth much, but I believe the predominant opinion on LW is closer to AGW denial is akin to evolution denial.
This analysis is not fair. There is nothing fair about representing a figure in an incredibly poor light in order to emphasize a point about cults.
I don’t think this is done. The bad things about Rand are emphasized, yes, but that is because that is what we can learn from.
Using her very public affair and the cultish nature of her followers would have been sufficient, but attacking her actions without mention of the underlying philosophy guiding them was unnecessary and, at many points (more evidence in the comments of the essay), factually incorrect. The tone of the essay was also incredibly arrogant, portraying Rand as some delusional crackpot and downplaying her accomplishments:
A large portion of the sequences come across as incredibly arrogant. I’ll grant you that. that happens when you’re trying to convince people you’re on a mission to save the world and that you actually can. But I don’t think it’s necessary to explain her philosophy, first because it’s highly mindkilling, and second because most people on this website (or rather, that website, when it was written) are already familiar with it.
I mean, come on! For someone who consistently encourages a charitable reading of his writing, this usage of Rand as an example of irrationality and poor judgement is disheartening. At the very least, some semblance of respect for her accomplishments would not be out of place.
I disagree. I don’t think LW does this. We’re (or at least I am) happy to admit that Rand was correct about a number of things. She made more progress than most philosophers, but that bar is set so unbearably low as to not really be worth mentioning. It’s more that she is a better example of what not to become. It’s not that she did nothing good. There have even been some decentlyupvotedAyn Randquotes in the threads.
Also, the main character of Atlas Shrugged was a physicist, invented a motor that harnessed the power of static electricity, and then went on to save the damn country. That’s not encouragement to study science?
No, the main character of Atlas Shrugged was a physicist, who invented a motor that harnessed the power of static electricity, and then went on to flip the entire country the bird. Regardless of whether or not you sympathize with him, is Galt’s position so utterly important that it justifies the mass starvation and destitution of the entire country? In my opinion, Galt had a good point to make. But that doesn’t justify letting the entire world burn around you just to make your point.
Regardless of whether or not you sympathize with him, is Galt’s position so utterly important that it justifies the mass starvation and destitution of the entire country? In my opinion, Galt had a good point to make. But that doesn’t justify letting the entire world burn around you just to make your point.
For something as often painfully didactic as Atlas Shrugged is, it’s absolutely amazing how people can manage to not get its point.
The point of the book is that the country (and the world) is doomed to mass starvation and destitution by its philosophy as enacted in its policies, no matter how hard people worked to save it. By analogy, a hard-drinking alcoholic is going to be destroyed by his alcoholism, no matter how desperately his wife and friends try to help him.
When the leaders of the country ask the captured John Galt how to fix things, he tells them how: they have to end their policies. They instead demand different answers, just like an alcoholic who refuses to listen to the advice to stop drinking. But, according to Ayn Rand, no different answers exist. They are demanding the impossible, and John Galt refuses to comfort them with lies.
Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, on the other hand, spend the book enabling the people in power. Oh, sure, they tell the leadership that the policies will cause disaster; but with every drop of sweat they expend they save the leaders from realizing the consequences of their actions. Just as with the wife who enables an alcoholic husband, Dagny thinks she is helping, but what she’s really doing is masking the consequences of the problem, allowing the problem to become bigger and worse. And that is why, for example, Hank is the “guiltiest man in this room”; he is what makes it possible for the country to believe its course isn’t doomed.
The country, like an addict, won’t change until it has hit bottom. Delaying it from hitting bottom isn’t helping; it just means more will be destroyed on the way down. On the other hand, if the best brains are withdrawn, not only will it hit the bottom and admit it needs help sooner, but the best brains will not have been destroyed in the process, and thus be in a better position to put the country on its feet.
Now, you can of course take issue with the world Ayn Rand created, and its applicability to the real world. But given the world Ayn Rand created, if John Galt were concerned only with the greatest welfare for the greatest number, if his effort was entirely to maximize collective utility, his actions would differ in no respect from what he did.
given the world Ayn Rand created, if John Galt were concerned only with the greatest welfare for the greatest number, if his effort was entirely to maximize collective utility, his actions would differ in no respect from what he did.
That’s true, but it’s a privilege of being a fiction author—you can create a world where your personal philosophy happens to maximize what your readers care about. This does not mean the same thing happens in the real world too. The lesson can be useful if the same situation happens in the real world, but we should take care to consider whether that is really the case.
That’s true, but it’s a privilege of being a fiction author
Oh, certainly. But if it doesn’t conform with reality, that’s a defect of the author; no blame should attach to the character. I grant it’s a somewhat odd point, to defend the honor of a fictional character, but . . .
. . . I think it flicked me in particular because I find a persistent pattern of people critiquing Atlas Shrugged in particular for things that aren’t actually in the book. Most often people say that it claims all businessmen are good (James Taggart is a businessman and a major villain), or that being smart and virtue are the same thing (Dr. Robert Stadler is a genius and a villain), or whatnot.
Picking apart Rand’s work is one thing; I’ve done it myself fairly often. But I like to see it done right.
I don’t think this is done. The bad things about Rand are emphasized, yes, but that is because that is what we can learn from.
Most people commenting did not seem like they were very familiar with the philosophy, and I think the presentation of 1. the ideas behind the philosophy and 2. the founder of the philosophy were incredibly misleading. If someone (like me) were relatively new the site were to read this, they would have an incredibly biased view of her philosophy. I don’t see how justifying that point by saying people already know her philosophy gives any credence to the way it was portrayed. The bad things about Rand are emphasized with no regard for factual evidence. We can still learn from her errors without resorting to what felt to me like a curt dismissal of an otherwise intelligent and influential character. If we are willing to discard evidence in favor of more elegant rhetoric, I want no part of it.
No, the main character of Atlas Shrugged was a physicist, who invented a motor that harnessed the power of static electricity, and then went on to flip the entire country the bird. Regardless of whether or not you sympathize with him, is Galt’s position so utterly important that it justifies the mass starvation and destitution of the entire country? In my opinion, Galt had a good point to make. But that doesn’t justify letting the entire world burn around you just to make your point.
The world as it was portrayed in the book would not have survived long if Galt hadn’t done anything. I don’t think we can compare it with the real world—America was the last pillar of support, and if it collapsed without Galt having convinced people to “save their minds” then there would have been another long “Dark Ages” period. And people don’t actually act the way they do in her books. I would compare it to the decisions made in the Foundation series. But that wasn’t really my point anyway—in the book, it was clear that Galt was saving the country in the way Rand thought it should be saved, meaning that she believed that a scientist had that power, and thus advocating something akin to “Study Science!” regardless of the morality of Galt’s decision.
I disagree. I don’t think LW does this. We’re (or at least I am) happy to admit that Rand was correct about a number of things. She made more progress than most philosophers, but that bar is set so unbearably low as to not really be worth mentioning. It’s more that she is a better example of what not to become. It’s not that she did nothing good. There have even been some decently upvoted Ayn Rand quotes in the threads.
I didn’t say LW did this. It was only in this specific essay. I would find it hard to believe that LW disagreed with everything she said. My only problem was with the presentation, and that it would lead to wrong interpretations, or at least interpretations based on falsities.
She quite vehemently signaled agreement with the scientific tribe, I agree. But that’s not the same as actually supporting it. (Well, it supports it in some way, but I think you get my point.) Given how she felt about the environment (and based on the positions taken by most Objectivist themed organizations (ARI, ARC, etc.)) she probably wouldn’t have much respect for anthropomorphic global warming as a theory. I don’t know much about the science of it myself, so my opinion isn’t worth much, but I believe the predominant opinion on LW is closer to AGW denial is akin to evolution denial.
Again, I only have problems with the way her positions were portrayed. She was most definitely portrayed as failing to tell her followers to “study science” when in fact she did exactly that. Whether her support of the scientific community was any good is an entirely different discussion which I will probably agree with you on.
I think I failed to make it clear that I do think she is a good example of what not to strive for. I just think that the rhetoric involved in convincing me of that point was deceitful.
happy to admit that Rand was correct about a number of things. She made more progress than most philosophers
Do you think you (or for that matter any other LW regular) could expand on this? provide a quick summary or list? Genuinely curious, since from the usual tone whenever Rand comes up on LW I don’t get the impression anyone sees anything of value in her writings.
that doesn’t justify letting the entire world burn around you just to make your point.
Hm… It’s not like he set the world on fire. He just withdrew his services. EDIT: Or what See said, I really need to first read threads I respond to. slap self
Hm… It’s not like he set the world on fire. He just withdrew his services
Well, depending on your view of the Trolley Problem and the like, you might consider them equivalent. But . .
Or what See said
And in that I didn’t even scratch the surface. For example, another thing people seem to forget is Project Xylophone. When a great scientific mind (Dr. Robert Stadler) chose freely to serve and support the government in Atlas Shrugged, the government used his discoveries to make a weapon that was useful only to kill its own citizens. That is the government Galt is supposed to work with to save the country? What weapon would they make of his motor?
Indeed, I was mindkilled by the original post so hard that I just had to delete a lengthy diatribe.
Anyway, I always felt that the Sequence entry in question was an unusually restrained criticism, compared with most Internet discussion of Rand. Most of what’s out there takes the tone of either an impassioned and dogmatic defense of Objectivism or a bitter, vitriolic, sarcastic assault of it. Eliezer just makes a point about how it’s generally a losing strategy to claim that you have the Final Answer to Reality.
Could you explain to me this whole “mind killing” business? I’m not talking politics here, I’m talking rhetoric. All I did was take Rand’s actions as mentioned in the original essay and gave a justification by Rand’s philosophy. This wasn’t used to justify her philosophy, only to show that her actions were consistent with it. I agree with Eliezer’s final points, but I don’t agree with the way they were represented, and that’s all I sought to show here.
I don’t see how the nature of the criticism is changed by the fact that worse criticism exists. If the facts are incorrect, they are incorrect and that’s it.
The only factual inaccuracy (and you’ve spent more time looking at this post than I care to, evidently, so maybe I’ve missed something) I see is the math bit. And that’s even a stretch. I’d say it’s a reasonable interpretation that Rand didn’t meet the “particularly good” standard. I’ve certainly never seen any of evidence that it is beside the third hand account (Professor > Rand > Barbra) presented in the post. And even if she was unusually talented, she didn’t really use any significant math in her philosophy or writing, which probably lead to the decay of the talent.
But basically, anything that divides humans into tribes is “mind killing”. It doesn’t have to be politics—any polarizing issue will do. Religion is the other prototypical example. But even inane things like Mac vs. PC can be mindkilling to an extent—anything that’s polarizing. And Rand was one of the most polarizing figures of the 20th century.
I originally had it that way and changed it, since I thought it was technically incorrect and that bothered me. But I think you’re right, the statement is less distracting when you are ignored, and you don’t significantly lose information. I will edit it and change it.
Ah, I see. The mind killing bit makes sense, but wouldn’t you want to combat it by confronting it head on and refusing to succumb to the polarization? I don’t find it to be particularly hard to do, and I’m fairly certain I haven’t been mind killed. But I very much respect this position, and I accept the consequences of publishing material that enables these tendencies.
The factual inaccuracies were primarily in the presentation of her actions as being discordant with her philosophy. I have attempted to show her actions were not so incongruous. Also, the presentation of her character was inaccurate, portraying her as some sort of pseudo philosopher who had no idea what she was talking about. Just because she idolizes Aristotle is not evidence of her ineptitude as a thinker. Just because she has a bloated ego (though this is also a big part of her philosophy) does not mean she is incapable of recognizing her superiors. She may have thought she was the epitome of a rational person, but this certainly did not prevent her from recognizing ability when she saw it. She is portrayed in the original essay as being unable to recognize the nature of science and its progression, when there is much evidence that she was very aware of how science progresses and why.
Ah, I see. The mind killing bit makes sense, but wouldn’t you want to combat it by confronting it head on and refusing to succumb to the polarization?
In short, no. Because this site isn’t about Rand, or politics, or religion, or whatever. It’s a site about rationality, and discussion thereof is tremendously hindered by mindkilling topics.
If you want to make a point about science, or rationality, then my advice is to not choose a domain from contemporary politics if you can possibly avoid it. If your point is inherently about politics, then talk about Louis XVI during the French Revolution. Politics is an important domain to which we should individually apply our rationality—but it’s a terrible domain in which to learn rationality, or discuss rationality, unless all the discussants are already rational.
The mind killing bit makes sense, but wouldn’t you want to combat it by confronting it head on and refusing to succumb to the polarization? I don’t find it to be particularly hard to do, and I’m fairly certain I haven’t been mind killed.
Discussing mindkilling is difficult. I also wish there was a way to discuss politically heated topic safely (even at the cost that I would be forbidded to participate, just allowed to read a discussion on topic of my interest written by people I consider rational), but seems to me that experiments don’t give us much hope. Even on LW when the discussion starts to approach something political, I feel it becomes worse that usual, though still rather good compared with the rest of Internet.
It is difficult to argue why and how exactly this happens, because saying “a person being mindkilled usually does not feel like being mindkilled” seems like a fully general counterargument. But in my experience, someone saying they are able to discuss topic X without being mindkilled means almost nothing. I believe some people are able to discuss some sensitive topics without getting mindkilled, but I also believe there are much more people who think they are able to discuss the same topic without getting mindkilled and they are completely wrong. Trying to invite to discussion only people self-diagnosed as resistant for mindkilling does not work.
If such discussion ever becomes possible, it will need to have very strict rules set in advance, much higher than an ordinary LW discussion.
Existence of heroes in her works doesn’t disprove the thesis that Rand thought she was the epitome of rationality. If, in fact, they were at all different from Rand, it would be evidence for this, but the fact that they are so staggeringly one dimensional and are, in fact, exactly as she tried to be, doesn’t really help your argument. If this weren’t the case, objectivism wouldn’t have become a closed system upon her death. This was (as I’m sure you know. Edit: You apparently talk about this later in your essay. Whoops.) the cause of a great schism in the objecitivst movement, with Nathaniel Brandon on one side and Leonard Peikoff on the other. You can bicker and argue about which the “true objectivsts” are, if you want, but Rand herself never really had any measure of humility. (And the fact that she backed the side now advocating a closed system says something.)
She quite vehemently signaled agreement with the scientific tribe, I agree. But that’s not the same as actually supporting it. (Well, it supports it in some way, but I think you get my point.) Given how she felt about the environment (and based on the positions taken by most Objectivist themed organizations (ARI, ARC, etc.)) she probably wouldn’t have much respect for anthropomorphic global warming as a theory. I don’t know much about the science of it myself, so my opinion isn’t worth much, but I believe the predominant opinion on LW is closer to AGW denial is akin to evolution denial.
I don’t think this is done. The bad things about Rand are emphasized, yes, but that is because that is what we can learn from.
A large portion of the sequences come across as incredibly arrogant. I’ll grant you that. that happens when you’re trying to convince people you’re on a mission to save the world and that you actually can. But I don’t think it’s necessary to explain her philosophy, first because it’s highly mindkilling, and second because most people on this website (or rather, that website, when it was written) are already familiar with it.
I disagree. I don’t think LW does this. We’re (or at least I am) happy to admit that Rand was correct about a number of things. She made more progress than most philosophers, but that bar is set so unbearably low as to not really be worth mentioning. It’s more that she is a better example of what not to become. It’s not that she did nothing good. There have even been some decently upvoted Ayn Rand quotes in the threads.
No, the main character of Atlas Shrugged was a physicist, who invented a motor that harnessed the power of static electricity, and then went on to flip the entire country the bird. Regardless of whether or not you sympathize with him, is Galt’s position so utterly important that it justifies the mass starvation and destitution of the entire country? In my opinion, Galt had a good point to make. But that doesn’t justify letting the entire world burn around you just to make your point.
For something as often painfully didactic as Atlas Shrugged is, it’s absolutely amazing how people can manage to not get its point.
The point of the book is that the country (and the world) is doomed to mass starvation and destitution by its philosophy as enacted in its policies, no matter how hard people worked to save it. By analogy, a hard-drinking alcoholic is going to be destroyed by his alcoholism, no matter how desperately his wife and friends try to help him.
When the leaders of the country ask the captured John Galt how to fix things, he tells them how: they have to end their policies. They instead demand different answers, just like an alcoholic who refuses to listen to the advice to stop drinking. But, according to Ayn Rand, no different answers exist. They are demanding the impossible, and John Galt refuses to comfort them with lies.
Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, on the other hand, spend the book enabling the people in power. Oh, sure, they tell the leadership that the policies will cause disaster; but with every drop of sweat they expend they save the leaders from realizing the consequences of their actions. Just as with the wife who enables an alcoholic husband, Dagny thinks she is helping, but what she’s really doing is masking the consequences of the problem, allowing the problem to become bigger and worse. And that is why, for example, Hank is the “guiltiest man in this room”; he is what makes it possible for the country to believe its course isn’t doomed.
The country, like an addict, won’t change until it has hit bottom. Delaying it from hitting bottom isn’t helping; it just means more will be destroyed on the way down. On the other hand, if the best brains are withdrawn, not only will it hit the bottom and admit it needs help sooner, but the best brains will not have been destroyed in the process, and thus be in a better position to put the country on its feet.
Now, you can of course take issue with the world Ayn Rand created, and its applicability to the real world. But given the world Ayn Rand created, if John Galt were concerned only with the greatest welfare for the greatest number, if his effort was entirely to maximize collective utility, his actions would differ in no respect from what he did.
First, thanks for the great comment!
That’s true, but it’s a privilege of being a fiction author—you can create a world where your personal philosophy happens to maximize what your readers care about. This does not mean the same thing happens in the real world too. The lesson can be useful if the same situation happens in the real world, but we should take care to consider whether that is really the case.
Oh, certainly. But if it doesn’t conform with reality, that’s a defect of the author; no blame should attach to the character. I grant it’s a somewhat odd point, to defend the honor of a fictional character, but . . .
. . . I think it flicked me in particular because I find a persistent pattern of people critiquing Atlas Shrugged in particular for things that aren’t actually in the book. Most often people say that it claims all businessmen are good (James Taggart is a businessman and a major villain), or that being smart and virtue are the same thing (Dr. Robert Stadler is a genius and a villain), or whatnot.
Picking apart Rand’s work is one thing; I’ve done it myself fairly often. But I like to see it done right.
Most people commenting did not seem like they were very familiar with the philosophy, and I think the presentation of 1. the ideas behind the philosophy and 2. the founder of the philosophy were incredibly misleading. If someone (like me) were relatively new the site were to read this, they would have an incredibly biased view of her philosophy. I don’t see how justifying that point by saying people already know her philosophy gives any credence to the way it was portrayed. The bad things about Rand are emphasized with no regard for factual evidence. We can still learn from her errors without resorting to what felt to me like a curt dismissal of an otherwise intelligent and influential character. If we are willing to discard evidence in favor of more elegant rhetoric, I want no part of it.
The world as it was portrayed in the book would not have survived long if Galt hadn’t done anything. I don’t think we can compare it with the real world—America was the last pillar of support, and if it collapsed without Galt having convinced people to “save their minds” then there would have been another long “Dark Ages” period. And people don’t actually act the way they do in her books. I would compare it to the decisions made in the Foundation series. But that wasn’t really my point anyway—in the book, it was clear that Galt was saving the country in the way Rand thought it should be saved, meaning that she believed that a scientist had that power, and thus advocating something akin to “Study Science!” regardless of the morality of Galt’s decision.
I didn’t say LW did this. It was only in this specific essay. I would find it hard to believe that LW disagreed with everything she said. My only problem was with the presentation, and that it would lead to wrong interpretations, or at least interpretations based on falsities.
Again, I only have problems with the way her positions were portrayed. She was most definitely portrayed as failing to tell her followers to “study science” when in fact she did exactly that. Whether her support of the scientific community was any good is an entirely different discussion which I will probably agree with you on.
I think I failed to make it clear that I do think she is a good example of what not to strive for. I just think that the rhetoric involved in convincing me of that point was deceitful.
Upvoted you, but,
Do you think you (or for that matter any other LW regular) could expand on this? provide a quick summary or list? Genuinely curious, since from the usual tone whenever Rand comes up on LW I don’t get the impression anyone sees anything of value in her writings.
Hm… It’s not like he set the world on fire. He just withdrew his services. EDIT: Or what See said, I really need to first read threads I respond to. slap self
Well, depending on your view of the Trolley Problem and the like, you might consider them equivalent. But . .
And in that I didn’t even scratch the surface. For example, another thing people seem to forget is Project Xylophone. When a great scientific mind (Dr. Robert Stadler) chose freely to serve and support the government in Atlas Shrugged, the government used his discoveries to make a weapon that was useful only to kill its own citizens. That is the government Galt is supposed to work with to save the country? What weapon would they make of his motor?
How is that? The difference seems to me obvious and enormous.
Indeed, I was mindkilled by the original post so hard that I just had to delete a lengthy diatribe.
Anyway, I always felt that the Sequence entry in question was an unusually restrained criticism, compared with most Internet discussion of Rand. Most of what’s out there takes the tone of either an impassioned and dogmatic defense of Objectivism or a bitter, vitriolic, sarcastic assault of it. Eliezer just makes a point about how it’s generally a losing strategy to claim that you have the Final Answer to Reality.
Could you explain to me this whole “mind killing” business? I’m not talking politics here, I’m talking rhetoric. All I did was take Rand’s actions as mentioned in the original essay and gave a justification by Rand’s philosophy. This wasn’t used to justify her philosophy, only to show that her actions were consistent with it. I agree with Eliezer’s final points, but I don’t agree with the way they were represented, and that’s all I sought to show here.
I don’t see how the nature of the criticism is changed by the fact that worse criticism exists. If the facts are incorrect, they are incorrect and that’s it.
The only factual inaccuracy (and you’ve spent more time looking at this post than I care to, evidently, so maybe I’ve missed something) I see is the math bit. And that’s even a stretch. I’d say it’s a reasonable interpretation that Rand didn’t meet the “particularly good” standard. I’ve certainly never seen any of evidence that it is beside the third hand account (Professor > Rand > Barbra) presented in the post. And even if she was unusually talented, she didn’t really use any significant math in her philosophy or writing, which probably lead to the decay of the talent.
But basically, anything that divides humans into tribes is “mind killing”. It doesn’t have to be politics—any polarizing issue will do. Religion is the other prototypical example. But even inane things like Mac vs. PC can be mindkilling to an extent—anything that’s polarizing. And Rand was one of the most polarizing figures of the 20th century.
(Unless you have significant reason to doubt my ability to transcribe a passage from a book verbatim, then I think this should only be “third-hand”.)
I originally had it that way and changed it, since I thought it was technically incorrect and that bothered me. But I think you’re right, the statement is less distracting when you are ignored, and you don’t significantly lose information. I will edit it and change it.
Ah, I see. The mind killing bit makes sense, but wouldn’t you want to combat it by confronting it head on and refusing to succumb to the polarization? I don’t find it to be particularly hard to do, and I’m fairly certain I haven’t been mind killed. But I very much respect this position, and I accept the consequences of publishing material that enables these tendencies.
The factual inaccuracies were primarily in the presentation of her actions as being discordant with her philosophy. I have attempted to show her actions were not so incongruous. Also, the presentation of her character was inaccurate, portraying her as some sort of pseudo philosopher who had no idea what she was talking about. Just because she idolizes Aristotle is not evidence of her ineptitude as a thinker. Just because she has a bloated ego (though this is also a big part of her philosophy) does not mean she is incapable of recognizing her superiors. She may have thought she was the epitome of a rational person, but this certainly did not prevent her from recognizing ability when she saw it. She is portrayed in the original essay as being unable to recognize the nature of science and its progression, when there is much evidence that she was very aware of how science progresses and why.
In short, no. Because this site isn’t about Rand, or politics, or religion, or whatever. It’s a site about rationality, and discussion thereof is tremendously hindered by mindkilling topics.
Politics is the Mindkiller
Discussing mindkilling is difficult. I also wish there was a way to discuss politically heated topic safely (even at the cost that I would be forbidded to participate, just allowed to read a discussion on topic of my interest written by people I consider rational), but seems to me that experiments don’t give us much hope. Even on LW when the discussion starts to approach something political, I feel it becomes worse that usual, though still rather good compared with the rest of Internet.
It is difficult to argue why and how exactly this happens, because saying “a person being mindkilled usually does not feel like being mindkilled” seems like a fully general counterargument. But in my experience, someone saying they are able to discuss topic X without being mindkilled means almost nothing. I believe some people are able to discuss some sensitive topics without getting mindkilled, but I also believe there are much more people who think they are able to discuss the same topic without getting mindkilled and they are completely wrong. Trying to invite to discussion only people self-diagnosed as resistant for mindkilling does not work.
If such discussion ever becomes possible, it will need to have very strict rules set in advance, much higher than an ordinary LW discussion.