Judging ideas, not people
There seems to be a consistent problem with portraying Ayn Rand and virtually all prominent thinkers in the political and philosophical sphere. Their ideas increasingly get judged by who adopts them and what those adopters do with it instead of judging the idea purely at face value and independently of its adoption.
I think it’s just a totally different argument to make – at least in these spheres, where I think you have to differentiate between concept and adoption. Either you critique the original idea or you argue that its adoption is flawed. But to combine those two arguments just makes your critique seem lazy and to be a foregone conclusion.
Judging ideas on their merit is, of course, much more difficult as you need to be intimately aware of their context and of the creator’s intentions. This requirement for deep understanding not only makes it harder to argue your point, but also exposes your incapability in case you go ahead nonetheless.
Apparently though, it’s much easier to get published by mainstream publications if you just make shallow and sloppy arguments which sound good and go nicely with pre-existing world views.
