She's been dead for almost thirty years, let the poor woman rest in peace already.
The first link , while criticizing the "cult",
is, IMO, an objective study of objectivism; while praisng some aspects of her philosophy, he also takes a hardened & skeptical look at the many limitations of the "philosophy".
Btw, aside from ripping off Nietzsche, it looks like this bitch steals from existentialism as well.
-- Modified on 3/6/2011 10:10:18 AM
She's been dead for almost thirty years, let the poor woman rest in peace already.
GaG, her followers are as bad as Michael Moore's
"unquestioning dittoheads".
I'll give Raynd & Moore, for that matter, a break, when their "sheep-like cultists" give us a break on this board.
I know we really don't agree on much of anything, and I really try to respect other peoples political beliefs whether I believe them or not...
But to refer to a dead woman in such a way just because you don't like her political philosphies??
You have to be a first class asshole to do that....
-- Modified on 3/6/2011 9:59:44 AM
If I called Michael Moore a "fat bitch" because he praised vile dictator Castro's healthcare system & also lauded BHO as a "messiah" in his film "Sicko", would you get as hot under the collar ?
Depends on whose Ox is gored, isn't it ?!
Btw, being called an "asshole" by the likes of you, is the highest compliment that I can attain.
Made my day-------
Now go back to collecting your recyclabes----
-- Modified on 3/6/2011 10:31:18 AM
I have always said anyone who reverts to calling someone names is ignorant and can not back up their arguments.
Little did I know at the time the characteristics if ignorant and unable to back up their arguments would magically combine to become the non-seeing, un-knowing...
Priapus53!!!!
LMAO!!
I agree.
He has absolutely no real argument against her political philosophy, at least none consistent with reality or her actual ideas. He can only respond with personal attacks and distortions. Childish insults and lies simply show that he is afraid of something.
Btw, why didn't you respond to the 2 links I furnished? What are YOU afraid of ?
The more one reads about Rand, the more one sees that she merely rips off several philosphers, ie, Nietzsche, Sartre, Herbert Spencer,etc. & packaged it into her "authoritarian cult" for the benefit of her "sheep".
Ad hominem attacks, as you said, may be a weak philosophical rebuttal, but you're evading the issue, which is even worse.
-- Modified on 3/6/2011 6:35:05 PM
You have given me nothing to reply to.
She doesn't rip off any of the philosophers you mention. In fact, she rips them apart.
For instance, she says about Nietzsche:
The Objectivist “Introduction to The Fountainhead,” The Objectivist, March 1968, 6.
Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his “blood,” by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” that he is a “beast of prey” whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim. Thus Nietzsche’s rejection of the Witch Doctor consisted of elevating Attila into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the Witch Doctor.
For the New Intellectual “For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, 36
In contrast, here is what she says about altruism and sacrifice:
The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.
The Virtue of Selfishness “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 31.
The one philosopher she does attribute much of her philosophy to is Aristotle. That you didn't mention him shows you have no clue. Typical of these hysterical, emotional critics who froth at the mouth any time you mention Rand's name. Like I said, all you have are insults and misrepresentations.
WHY are you evading the issue ? Afraid ?!
I took several philosophy courses in College & am well acquainted with Aristotle. I much rather would read his works than having it "warmed over"
by some "hackneyed cult writer"-----
You have yet to provide any evidence that she is a "hackneyed cult writer" rather than a legitimate philosopher in the tradition of Aristotle. There is plenty of proof that she is NOT "rip off" philosophers such as Nietzsche or Sartre.
As for your links, they are among the most hysterical, biased criticisms of Ayn Rand out there. You may as well read creationist literature to learn about Darwin.
For a more honest appraisal, try Nathaniel Branden's "The Benefits And Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand"
"Growing up relative to Ayn Rand means being able to see her realistically—to see the greatness and to see the shortcomings. If we see only the greatness and deny the shortcomings or if we see only the shortcomings and deny the greatness, we remain blind."--Nathaniel Branden
In his essay, he describes a phenomenon that can be observed right here on this forum, and any other forum on which anyone dares to mention the name of Ayn Rand:
It was not a pleasant experience, during my twenties and thirties, to know the truth of our position and to encounter the incredible distortions and misrepresentations that so commonly appeared in the press, or to be present at some event with Miss Rand and later read a summary of what happened in a magazine that bore almost no relationship to the facts of the occasion. I suppose, however, it focused and dramatized something I needed to learn about the world: how low in their priorities is the issue of truth for most people when issues are involved about which they have strong feelings. Media people are no worse than anyone else; they merely operate in a more public area.
So, how could he be objective ? Btw, since it was Rand & she was 25 years his senior, I'd say his reasoning powers & taste in women were pretty piss poor!!--------LMFAO !! I suggest you google "DSM"
And you rank Rand alonside Aristotle ?!----You are fucking nuts!-----LMFAO !
As for her being a "hack writer", that's how literary critics of the time described her. Of course that won't sway a cultist like you. Defenders of L Ron Hubbard's "literary" works take the same lame defense that you do.
As for my further thoughts on this, go to my bottom thread on this post.
Clearly, you did not read either of us wrote.
Often religious, philosophical ideologies and even scientific research are responses to others of the same nature, in order to counterbalance them, and/or expose the myths that are hidden within them. I think Rand did a good job of this in her writings. Reasonable people find a path or balance between two ideologies, which have pushed their reasoning to their logical extremes. Just think of it as a good exercise, like that used in high school debate classes, where you have to argue both sides of an issue. You'll learn so much in the process, and understand that reason is always trying to find balance, and will attempt mid-course corrections when pushed too far in one direction or another.
I never get this kind of thinking. Do you try to balance astronomy with astrology? Chemistry with alchemy? Evolution with creationism?
If you think Ayn Rand was wrong about some particular issue, come out and say it, and maybe we can discuss it like adults. This "balance" thing isn't as bad as Priapus's name calling, but its about as useless.
I never get this kind of thinking. Do you try to balance astronomy with astrology? Chemistry with alchemy? Evolution with creationism?
If you think Ayn Rand was wrong about some particular issue, come out and say it, and maybe we can discuss it like adults. This "balance" thing isn't as bad as Priapus's name calling, but its about as useless.
Yes, Ann Rand was countering an extreme push toward the philosophical ideology of altruism and the concept of "The Common Good," with ego-centrism, and the concept of "Survival of the fittest." As with most things there's truth in both, and balancing both is most helpful for those who really want to succeed professionally and personally in this world.
P.S. I was speaking about competing ideologies not differing fields of study. I guess you didn't pick up on that, though it was quite obvious: "Reasonable people find a path or balance between two ideologies..."
-- Modified on 3/6/2011 5:16:18 PM
-- Modified on 3/6/2011 5:20:11 PM
-- Modified on 3/6/2011 5:37:49 PM
OMFG!
When did Ayn Rand ever talk about "Survival of the Fittest"? Such a statement proves again that critics of her philosophy know nothing about it. One idea she argues for is the "Pyramid of Ability" (I'm not sure if she claims this as her own original idea. She may have gotten it from the Austrian economists), that the most "fit", the most intelligent and productive contribute to the survival of the least productive much more than the other way around:
When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think and whom you spend your time denouncing.
The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time. If you worked as a blacksmith in the mystics’ Middle Ages, the whole of your earning capacity would consist of an iron bar produced by your hands in days and days of effort. How many tons of rail do you produce per day if you work for Hank Rearden? Would you dare to claim that the size of your pay check was created solely by your physical labor and that those rails were the product of your muscles? The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift from Hank Rearden.
For the New Intellectual Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 185
Astrology and astronomy are not different fields of study. They ARE competing ideologies. Same for evolution and creationism, and chemistry and alchemy. Altruism and rational self-interest are very much competing ideologies.
philosophy. Yet, you seem very defensive in your defense of her and them. I was just pointing out to the OP that much of what she wrote had some value, to me. And, even if he didn't agree with them, that taking into consideration what she was speaking, or responding to, when evaluating her writings and life.
I appreciate you are nowhere as hostile as Priapus. I hope I didn't come off as hostile to your criticism. I did not mean to be. My criticism of the idea of balancing her ideas with socialism and altruism still stands.
I would hope we could have a civilized discussion on this point. There is no way to have a civilized discussion about anything with Priapus.
The basic point I was trying to make to Priapus was that when one ideology is pushed toward one extreme, another comes along to push as strongly in the opposite direction. And, I think, at least pushing an ideology in conceptual terms, not necessarily in concrete terms, the ideologues on both sides are compiled to do so, and it's in everyone's best interests that they do so, in order to fully flesh out the ideology in its full fabric, and to undercover the myths of the competing ideology.
Now, being one who finds it quite uncomfortable trying to embody and live any particular ideology, hence being no ideologue but rather a pragmatist, who finds, sometimes in competing ideologies, useful concepts, strategies, and processes, and integrates and implements them into my daily life.
That's all I'm trying to say, which is saying perhaps not much at all, using a lot of words to do so.
I don't think he meant to balance a science with a mystical art or religious belief.
But no question Ms. Rand took her theory that self interest is the engine that drives the world a bit too far. For example, you could read her fiction to stand for the proposition that love must earned, and not given. And, in the political context, you can view her fiction as an extreme reaction to socialism, and balance her good criticism of social welfare with the arguments that favor some degree of social net. A compromise between the two may be the best social policy.
So I would hardly compare his post to Priapus, who has never actually read Rand but is probably pirating something he read in People Magazine,
of course, " Iago", not reading those links you wouldn't know that. The 2nd link was written by noted economist Murray Rothbard who was also a libertarian. He was a close associate with Rand & had a falling out with her, so I daresay he knows more about Rand than such brownnosers
as you & SOTF. If you bother to read it, a link on Rothbard :
-- Modified on 3/6/2011 8:30:18 PM
on what third parties have said about her?
I suspect you have not and that is the basis for which I have been criticizing you. You obviously had not seen the film but still criticized that without qualification.
Now it is perfectly fine to say "I have not read her but I have read her critics" but you should disclose that before you continue your ad hominem campaign against Mr. L.F. who obviously takes his opinion from the source material.
I have read her primary fiction several times; her pure philosophical writings I have only read bits and pieces. So my opinion is gleaned from her fiction, not how she and third persons have described her philosophy.
Now be honest - have you read the author or not?
Are you capable of presenting, in your own words, some real criticism of Ayn Rand's ideas?
I am well aware of Ayn Rand's flaws as a person, and of the events that have led some people to label her philosophy a cult. I am also able to separate her ideas from her person, examine them critically (she would expect nothing else), and decide for myself what to accept as part of my own personal philosophy. There are some conclusions of her's that I disagree with, and some things she has expressed which are personal to her, but not necessarily part of her philosophy. (One is her taste for very rough sex. One of her characters described it as rape. But I can separate her philosophical ideas from her sexual fantasies. You apparently cannot.)
So are you able to actually present some arguments against her ideas, or are you just going to fling more fecal matter, like the little monkey you are? Can you prove that you know what you are talking about? Can you make such arguments without ad hominems or strawman arguments?
I compared his post FAVORABLY compared to Priapussy's. Nothing he says is anywhere as bad or hysterically ignorant. I still stand by my comments about "balancing" such ideologies.
I do compare socialism and altruism to mystical beliefs. Altruism is a leftover from our religious, mystical past. There is no rational support for it that does not depend on an appeal to self-interest. This means that any behavior, such as kindness and charity, which you believe to be an expression of altruism, if it has any rational basis at all, is not actually altruist, but based on self-interest.
For an excellent explanation of why, I suggest David Kelley's "Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolance".
There may be some instances where you can balance different ideas, arrive at a compromise that is closer to the truth than either idea alone. But many ideas cannot. Rational self-interest and altruism cannot. Socialism and capitalism cannot.
At the risk of falling into Godwin's Law, did you know that fascism was proposed as a balance or compromise between communism and capitalism? Mussolini wanted to bring management and labor together under the power of the state.
A compromise between laissez-faire and government control is a mixed economy, something that has been proven, historically, to fail badly every time, often leading towards more government control. California's electric utility "deregulation" was supposed to be a compromise between free markets and regulation, supposed to achieve the benefits of free markets without the supposed problems of monopoly. The result was everything that a free market economist would have predicted. Of course, it was the free market that took the blame in the mainstream media. Can you say "A L I B I"?
if that's the case, for the umpteenth time, WHY haven't you discussed my Ayn Rand cult links ?
It certainly makes you look cowardly. Why not discuss Murray Rothbard's ( who've you quoted in the past on economics ) article ? He's a noted libertarian economist who rips into Raynd & her "cult"
Btw, the more one reads biographical info, the more it is reveled that Raynd was quite a reprehensible person. Which means she fits the profile of a cult leader perfectly.
I swear, your unquestioning & obsessive adulation
of Rand reminds me of those teeming poor, glassy eyed souls who populated Nuremburg rallies 75 years ago.
-- Modified on 3/7/2011 2:49:02 PM
I have just made such a reply. Look up my post about Nathaniel Branden's "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand".
If you read that article, knowing that I agree with Branden on most of his points, you will understand why I laugh anytime you make such asinine statements as "your unquestioning & obsessive adulation of Rand".
She wrote some books - which happen to be excellent reads by the way - and for that, she should be called a bitch?
You do realize that practically every philosophical theory is a rehash or spin on the work of others right? Usually several other perspectives, combined into a new perspective. She didn't "steal" from anyone. However, she clearly has a better foundation in philosophy than you. And she's the bitch. So does that make you the runt?
Should I add you to the list, Stacy ?----
"She clearly has a better foundation in philosophy than you".
As a believer in relativism, I'll dispute that; I'll say this: when it comes to crackpot libertarianism, she has it all over me-----LOL!
Btw, SOTF, I took several philosophy courses in College----you do likewise ?
When it comes to long novels, prefer acknowledged masterpieces like "Ulysses" & "Gravity's Rainbow" to such drivel as "Atlas Shrugged".
-- Modified on 3/6/2011 8:51:03 PM
Yup, I got an A in philosophy in college. One of my favorite classes actually, and one of the few textbooks I actually read completely.
Actually, an A in philosophy is pretty easy, unless you take very advanced symbolic logic courses.
The relativism Priapus talks about is has some merit, but I outgrew the stage where I thought of myself as a relativist. Objectivity is possible once you learn to abandon false dichotomies such as mind-body, and the analytic-synthetic. And then there is the objective-subjective-intrinsic trichotomy. Too many people confuse the objective with the intrinsic.
All Rand cultists are pretentious & crazed monkeys.
WannaBeBFE is a Rand cultist.
Therefore, WannaBeBfE is a pretentious & crazed monkey.
Btw, Aristotle invented the syllogism, unless Rand also wants to falsely claim credit for that--------
All kidding aside, "Wanna", there were many great philosophers out there; in addition to those I mentioned, add Locke, Hobbs, Kant, Bentham, Mill, etc.
However, to give credence to Rand, a hackneyed novelist, to stand shoulder to shoulder along with these philosophical giants, is the height of lunacy.
-- Modified on 3/7/2011 3:16:30 PM
Since you have absolutely no clue about Ayn Rand, except what you have read from her most hysterical and biased critics, you are not one to judge her.
You have no clue how much I have read of those other philosophers.
Ayn Rand, in fact, gives Aristotle almost all credit for her philosophy.