
The subject of ‘Randroids‘ keeps coming up. The Urban Dictionary defines it as “A blind follower of Ayn Rand & her philosophy of objectivism,” going on to say “…with emphasis on the more cultic aspects of the movement. Often marked by exclusivist rhetoric, dogmatic individualism, and determinedly narcissistic self-praise.”
I generally tend to think that labels are only really useful for telling the difference between a can full of peaches and a can full of peas, but let’s examine this further.
Obviously, it’s an attempt at ad hominem and is intended to belittle someone who self-identifies as ‘an objectivist‘ or who frequently quotes from Ayn Rand. Ad hominem is a term referring to a fallacy in argumentation that involves attacking the individual making an argument rather than the premises they present. In short, it’s a lazy person’s way to avoid addressing the facts involved in an issue and often times serves as an indicator that they are either ignorant of those facts or just plain wrong. More often than not, it’s both.
Truth be told, I have run into a few ‘cultish’ types in the Objectivist community myself, but they are by far not a majority. And the fact is that a lot of people engage in various forms of ad hominem as well as many other forms of fallacious argumentation.
One thing that I have learned over the years when it comes to ad hominem and other forms of personal attacks is to examine what is really being said and then, try to see if what they ‘mean’ and what they are actually ‘saying’ are really in tandem with one another. In other words, is what they are saying (or the words they are choosing to say it) really that bad after all?
Consider ‘Randroid’. It’s an obvious coinage merging the terms ‘Rand’ from the author’s last name and the word ‘android’ – the implication being that you are an unthinking robot. But let’s first start with the definition of the word. Dictionary.com says:
- an·droid
- –noun
- an automaton in the form of a human being.
The same source says of automaton that it is something capable of acting automatically or without an external motive force. And wikipedia says of automaton that it is a self-operating machine. The word is sometimes used to describe a robot, more specifically an autonomous robot. Wiktionary goes on to say it is a machine or robot designed to follow a precise sequence of instructions; A formal system, such as finite automaton. I saw a few other sources that described it as an ‘intelligent machine’ and having a free or independent will.
When it comes to words, I also like to go back to their originations to help get a better feel for their true meanings. Automaton extends from Ancient Greek αὐτόματον (automaton), neuter of αὐτόματος (automatos, “self moving, self willed”) and android was coined from the Greek root ανδρ- ‘man’ and the suffix -oid ’having the form or likeness of’. Both terms have gotten more exposure from science fiction where they are often depicted as mindless monsters bent on destroying mankind, but – as with most things – reality works out differently.
In reality, we are learning that making a ‘human like’ machine that can act on it’s own volition requires an ‘intelligent’ – in fact – a ‘very VERY intelligent machine’. In essence, the ideal android would be something that appeared and behaved in a manner identical to most biological humans but that also possessed the superior abilities of a machine. A being who’s decision making was based on a logical process of ‘rules’ including many compiled in through very hard work of those that came before it or helped to develop it, but also many rules created through learning capabilities and drawn from the realities of the universe.
There is nothing more dispelling to an attempt at ad hominem or other means of tainting an argument by-way-of ridicule than to point out the obvious flaws in the attempt and then own the moniker with pride.
So based on the examination of the words and motivations involved, I re-assemble the definition:
Randroid – n. a human being who behaves like an intelligent machine, following a logical set of rules – many of which were exemplified by Ayn Rand in her Objectivist epistemology – that extend from the nature of what ‘is’ (existence) and all that reasonably can be deduced or induced from it.
Randroid? Yeah, I can live with that!

Rand’s derivation of ‘ought’ from ‘is’ is hopelessly broken. She was wrong about how people work, and she was wrong about how societies work.
Many studies have shown that altruism is an effective evolutionary strategy. That’s why it keeps popping up in species after species.
Plus, EVERY Randroid on Earth is an insufferable bore.
Have fun ruining your life, Randroid.
Amazing how you can say so little by saying so little. My life is just fine without opening a vein out of some feeling of obligation to you and others like you. Effective how? I would be curious to know by what standard the sacrifice of one creature for the benefit of another is good for anyone. OH wait, that’s right, we are supposed to be interested in the benefit of the species as a whole. And how well has that worked out anywhere it has been tried? CSSR? Czech republic? Cuba? Venezuala? Greece? Spain? Even the efforts to slowly dilute that toxin into American politics via progressivist incrementalism dating back to the days of Roosevelt I, Wilson and Roosevelt II are finally coming to their fruition – and we see the results ongoing in the papers every day.
Yeah, effective – at turning everyone into sacrificial lambs. Fuck that!
“Randroid” is one of those curious terms that exposes the character of the person using it for exactly what he’s projecting onto the Objectivist. You sir are clearly incapable of a thorough argument, and instead rely on soundbites and toxic words that attempt to portray your opponents as unworthy of thorough debate for the purpose of evading the responsibility of actually debating them.
@CaptainReality I must be a bore, though my creativity & fun have never been higher.. what is it about your life in which you find so much hate, Captain?
Must suck….
Captain,
All of your propositions went unsubstantiated. You didn’t even care to prove any of your assertions, yet Objectivists are supposed to be the unthinking automatons? The irony is sweet. Altruism is good because it’s an effective evolutionary process? That’s a pretty weak argument for altruism.
I’m curious. How can an individual ruin his/her life by being an Objectivist? Is it because they won’t accept altruism? Is it because they won’t value the evolutionary process over their own lives?
Maybe instead of being a dumbass, Captain, you could use actual logic and demonstrate your claims. I’m also curious about your claim that Rand failed to bridge the is-ought gap. How did she fail?
He fell one short of proof. He didn’t even offer any support for them to prove.
Oh hes trying to make an argument off this principle” http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6982.full
Which shows he truly doesn’t understand objectivism. He is assuming if your priorities include taking care of your needs first, your selfish and only through self sacrifice can society be prosperous.
I highly recommend before you trash talk objectivism you first learn to understand it principles because it just makes you sound ignorant and racist’s.
BTW, understanding ‘it” does mean you have practice it..just means you understand what it is your ‘objecting” to.
From that link….
re: “selfishness undermines altruism”
That is a statement of truth, but I would go one further to say that altruism in it’s pure form undermines the group itself. Pure altruism isn’t about what benefits the group but what benefits the weakest and least capable members of the group and thereby sacrifices the strongest and most capable to the weak simply based on a contrived concept of ‘need’ overseen by whoever holds the biggest stick capable of forcing the exchange.
re: “Selfishness is rarely described as a group-beneficial strategy”
I would argue that selfishness is seldom delineated properly and therefore often misrepresenting leading to it rarely being understood. Irrational selfishness sacrifices reason for the sake of self. Altruism is by itself irrational because it sacrifices the good for the sake of contrived notions of expedience. Rational selfishness (ethical egoism) sacrifices no one and is the only way to allow both true freedom and independence to men as well as to allow each individual to flourish and be capable of reaching their full potential.
To say that ethical egoism aka rational selfishness is not group-beneficial is to rely on the misunderstood interpretation of what selfishness entails. It is beneficial to me to have rational neighbors, therefore it is selfish of me to help the more rational among them when I am able and they are in need. It is not rational for another to decide for me when that is in my own interest and then to force me to comply with their assertion that it is.
As I was looking over this fall’s philosophy offerings at the local college, I noticed that one of the professors was using a book with multiple references to various philosophical thinkers’ essays. One that was included was Rand’s essay on ethical egoism. The contra argument was written by the author of the book and brought up similar ‘evolutionary’ based arguments, so it’s not a new idea when criticizing Rand.
No doubt, this guy probably took a community college course from some liberal part-time professor who made this very same argument based on the same textbook or something similar and now thinks he can speak from a position of authority on the subject because the book references the likes of Richard Dawkins and some poorly frame analogies on the benefits birds receive by picking mites off one another.
Sure, you can find evolutionary proof of the benefits of ‘altruistic’ behavior as benefiting the process of passing on hereditary traits. But such arguments are so easy to defeat that raising them is ridiculous. The biggest two: 1. we are not birds. 2, birds don’t know they are being altruistic.