Vanity Fair on Ayn Rand's Influence in Silicon Valley
Posted by robgambrill 8 years, 1 month ago to Business
“THEY SHOULD RETITLE HER BOOKS IT’S O.K. TO BE A SOCIOPATH!” reads the article, but the people they list as influenced by Rand reads like a who's-who of Silicon Valley Innovators.
The fact that AR is mentioned in and of itself is positive in my opinion.
I am not sure what Rand would have thought of that since it was after the breakup.
"The disciple of causation faces life without inexplicable chains, un-chosen burdens, impossible demands or supernatural threats. His metaphysical attitude and guiding moral principle can best be summed up by an old Spanish proverb: 'God said: 'Take what you want and pay for it.'' But to know one's own desires, their meaning and their costs requires the highest human virtue: rationality."
So "take what you want and pay for it" did not mean to her stealing from others and paying the price when caught. She was talking about the cost of pursuing your goals in accordance with strict causality in both identifying what is required to reach a goal and what is required of you to do it.
The trouble with the Causality versus Duty is that both distinguish different causes of actions. Rand, in that case, uses the 'final cause' type of cause which she considered to be only available to a rational mind. Unless there is no mind, there would be no final cause to consider. But a person who believes in duty does have a mind and duty would be a final cause in that case. The fact that duty is irrational does not remove causality from it. It just is a cause of a wasted life. There is no such thing as strict causality, just causal strings whether goal oriented or not.
Oh well...
" The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me."
"“Do you mean to tell me that you’re thinking seriously of building that way, when and if you are an architect?'
“'Yes.'
“'My dear fellow, who will let you?'
“'That’s not the point. The point is, who will stop me?'”
The subject of the sentence is Peter Thiel, not Donald Trump.
Later on, Bilton seems to suggest that the "selfish" innovators will get there comeuppance when more socially minded motivated innovators displace their creations?
I highly suspect the unnamed founder has not read any of her books. If she read it, she'd probably realize it means just the opposite.