I don’t know why that image isn’t working anymore.
Well, here’s her quote:
"I am a mediocre writer, hypocrite and a sociopath.
My disciples are ignorant deluded hypocritical sociopaths too."
Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosembaum
AKA Ayn Rand
I bring it up because it's about the first time I've read anything she's written that has made sense to me.
~ ~ ~
UPDATE 6/12/ and 6/14 to add the bold... for the hard of comprehending
... and perhaps an adjustment to the title...
lest we get too distracted from my own incomprehension at how many people take her writing seriously.
OK so the words attached to the picture are a prank:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/15752/P60/#181829
You mean the one that starts, "I am a mediocre writer?" 100% fabrication
out of whole cloth.
Yes, I know everything she ever wrote, and most of what she said publicly. (I began
reading her in 1962).
Being in philosophy, I got to know her gradually after that. In her final years
(1980 - 1982) I was speaking to her daily on the phone and
visited her frequently. So I can on that basis tell you that such a statement would
have been impossible to her.
Thank you and I will accept your authority on the matter.
Thanks.
But, like I've said this thread wasn't about what Ayn thought of herself,
it's about my bafflement that people have elevated her novels to foundational political action.
To me it all seems so disconnected from what the real world, and pageant of our individual lives, is all about.
~ ~ ~
Still trying to comprehend the Rand loving Tea-Party/Neo-Con/Republican mind
Ayn Rand, Just Go Away
By Victoria Bekiempis, Guardian UK
11 June 12
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11863-focus-ayn-rand-just-go-away
Ayn Rand: Sociopath Who Admired a Serial Killer?
By Austin Cline, About.com GuideMay 11, 2011
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/05/11/ayn-rand-sociopath-who-admired-a-serial-killer.htm
Ayn Rand And The Sociopathic Society or ‘How I Learned To Stop Loving My Neighbor And Despise Them Instead’
2013/03/24
By Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/24/sociopathic/
"This is a simple fact that can be verified by anyone with even minimal Google skills. She was the Albert Schweitzer of Selfishness and the Mother Theresa of Greed all rolled into one. This, naturally, makes her a hero to the Right and qualifies her for sainthood. Too bad she was an Atheist. . ."
Voices from the Flats – I Me Mine: The Unholy Trinity Of Ayn Rand
By Don Millard
http://www.themudflats.net/?p=20458
Wow what a lot of childish thinking in this thread. First of all, I don’t by any means agree with Ayn Rand’s philosophy AND I’m as leftie as you can be. But what this thread appears to be is a bunch of liberals who hate the current crop of Righties so they criticize AR based on the actions of the Righties, versus anything she said or did herself. Also sounds like some rewriting of history and “found quotes” that are either completely made up, or taken way out of context. In other words, sounds like a bunch of lefties acting like the worst kind of righties. In a similar way you can find hard core Christians for the last 60 years trying to rewrite Hitlers legacy so as to hide the fact that he was a Christian. We see all this crap psycho-analysis evidently showing he was a maniac etc. Silly. The guy had a philosophy that resounded with many people. He was extremely effective in getting others to follow, brilliant one might even say. AND his philosophy was dead wrong and evil. To me trying to prove he was nuts actually gets him (and his anti-Semitic-Christian-based philosophy) off the hook. This current wave of attacks on AR seem to me to be the same. I’m sorry but she WAS a brilliant writer and a deep thinker. She’s wrong, but so what. So was Immanual Kant.
Sorry C., not sure what you are going on about.
I don’t like Rand because she wrote disgustingly contrived books; filled with irredeemably juvenile thinking;
… then for the past decades right-winger power boys have taken them and her childish sociopathic ideas to insane ideological extremes.
And we can see the fruits of that siren song throughout the world news these days… and it’s not a pretty sight.
As for those links, any in particular that offended you?
“disgustingly contrived”, “irredeemably juvenile”, “childish sociopathic”. Those three phrases alone tell me your knowledge of her ideas must have come from cheap shot analysis like the above links. I DO fault her for picking a bad title for one of her books that really trots out her philosophy, i.e. Virtue of Selfishness. I wonder how many people read the title, formed an on the spot opinion, and went from there to “sociopath” or the usual “she thinks it’s ok to climb over a mountain of others to get what you want”. Neither is accurate, and the made-up version the righties follow is just that, made-up. I have a feeling she would not agree with much of what they’re trying to do. The hard part with her philosophy is that there are many parts that ring true, scattered amongst stuff that is patently wrong. It’s kind of like the Ron/Rand Pauls of the world. Some of what the say make a lot of sense, and people, especially young people, flock to them. Until they find out there are other parts of their worldview (not founded on Rand’s idea) that are plain nuts.
This Ayn Rand has also been discussed in Finland during last year, partly because the the so-called “intellectuals” from right-wing parties have been adoring her. I am not very familiar with her thinking, although i know it has many, many fallacies, and i also know that her philosophy is also very, very bigoted.
So whats the big deal? Why is her so important for some people, especially for rich and famous?
"disgustingly contrived", "irredeemably juvenile", "childish sociopathic". Those three phrases alone tell me your knowledge of her ideas must have come from cheap shot analysis like the above links. I DO fault her for picking a bad title for one of her books that really trots out her philosophy, i.e. Virtue of Selfishness. I wonder how many people read the title, formed an on the spot opinion, and went from there to "sociopath" or the usual "she thinks it's ok to climb over a mountain of others to get what you want". Neither is accurate, and the made-up version the righties follow is just that, made-up. I have a feeling she would not agree with much of what they're trying to do. The hard part with her philosophy is that there are many parts that ring true, scattered amongst stuff that is patently wrong. It's kind of like the Ron/Rand Pauls of the world. Some of what the say make a lot of sense, and people, especially young people, flock to them. Until they find out there are other parts of their worldview (not founded on Rand's idea) that are plain nuts.
If Ayn Rand had been a man, we would never have known about her. That's a fact.
"disgustingly contrived", "irredeemably juvenile", "childish sociopathic". Those three phrases alone tell me your knowledge of her ideas must have come from cheap shot analysis like the above links. I DO fault her for picking a bad title for one of her books that really trots out her philosophy, i.e. Virtue of Selfishness. I wonder how many people read the title, formed an on the spot opinion, and went from there to "sociopath" or the usual "she thinks it's ok to climb over a mountain of others to get what you want". Neither is accurate, and the made-up version the righties follow is just that, made-up. I have a feeling she would not agree with much of what they're trying to do. The hard part with her philosophy is that there are many parts that ring true, scattered amongst stuff that is patently wrong. It's kind of like the Ron/Rand Pauls of the world. Some of what the say make a lot of sense, and people, especially young people, flock to them. Until they find out there are other parts of their worldview (not founded on Rand's idea) that are plain nuts.
Actually my contempt comes from reading Atlas Shrugged and subsequent research into who this person was and what people were trying to build her into. Heck even the term "Objectivism" for her philosophy is a travesty to my lower order philosophical skills, since I can't find anything objective about what I've read.
As for your last couple sentences - Well isn't that the problem with the whole neo-con nation. Take a tiny sliver of truth, rip it out of context and try to build a world around it. . . why my anger and palpable contempt? . . . because of the counter-productive insanity of the Bush Administration and it's neocons brainiacks. . . and because they seem to find tons of justification within her books. . . otherwise they wouldn't be peddling her tripe as though they were a mini Bibles.
I'm actually not trying to offend you, just want you to understand my motives.
Wow what a lot of childish thinking in this thread. First of all, I don't by any means agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy AND I'm as leftie as you can be. But what this thread appears to be is a bunch of liberals who hate the current crop of Righties so they criticize AR based on the actions of the Righties, versus anything she said or did herself. Also sounds like some rewriting of history and "found quotes" that are either completely made up, or taken way out of context. In other words, sounds like a bunch of lefties acting like the worst kind of righties. In a similar way you can find hard core Christians for the last 60 years trying to rewrite Hitlers legacy so as to hide the fact that he was a Christian. We see all this crap psycho-analysis evidently showing he was a maniac etc. Silly. The guy had a philosophy that resounded with many people. He was extremely effective in getting others to follow, brilliant one might even say. AND his philosophy was dead wrong and evil. To me trying to prove he was nuts actually gets him (and his anti-Semitic-Christian-based philosophy) off the hook. This current wave of attacks on AR seem to me to be the same. I'm sorry but she WAS a brilliant writer and a deep thinker. She's wrong, but so what. So was Immanual Kant.
Rand was not a brilliant writer. Atlas Shrugged is a banal and predictable novel with an entirely unreadable sermon near the end. Your assertion that Rand's critics are taking her ideas out of context is wrong, at least in my case. If you watch the Mike Wallace interview with Ayn Rand] you'll realize the critics you bashed are not taking her words out of context. Rand's Objectivist philosophy is nothing more than an attempt to justify greed.
DarronS - that’s your opinion nothing more, and a very condescending one at that (and inaccurate). Personally, back in the day I was extremely well read, on my way to a PhD in Philosophy and found her novels excellent, couldn’t put them down. I also found no one in academia thought anything of her. I’ve since discovered many in academia look down on anyone, whether it’s a philosopher, a musician, etc. who pursues activities that relate to the “unwashed and ignorant” masses. Too bad, because she does have some interesting ideas.
Her main mistake IMHO was to try to express her ideas in loaded words such as ‘greed’ and ‘selfishness’. Those words have standard meanings and have negative connotations that will never change. It’s sort of like the word “manifesto”. That word is forever connected with communism and totalitarianism. If you wanted to write and promote a “manifesto to happiness” you’d fail.
So while folks in this thread continue to summarize her thought as defending greed and selfishness, they’re really missing the fact that she means something different by those words. It’s no different than if I’d written a “happiness manifesto” and folks in this thread accused me of writing something to brainwash people just like the Commies did.
The next time you read a criticism of her, do the following substitution:
instead of Selfishness, use Rational Self Interest.
instead of Greed, use Pursuit of goals unimpaired by efforts of others to enslave ones mind or to impose rules and conditions that you haven’t agreed with prior to acting.
Those are the ideas she’s expressing. Now debate THOSE ideas. I personally find there are problems with them and I don’t live my life by them. But at least now we’re talking ideas, accurately represented, versus silly personal attacks and loaded statements like “she’s supports climbing over others to get what you want”. UNFORTUNATELY…it’s hard work, and righties take the easy route and twist things.
DarronS - that's your opinion nothing more, and a very condescending one at that (and inaccurate). Personally, back in the day I was extremely well read, on my way to a PhD in Philosophy and found her novels excellent, couldn't put them down.
OK, then...
Please share some examples of anything Ayn wrote worth spending a lot of time pondering.
(including location would be fun - for the sake of further research into context)
DarronS - that's your opinion nothing more, and a very condescending one at that (and inaccurate). Personally, back in the day I was extremely well read, on my way to a PhD in Philosophy and found her novels excellent, couldn't put them down.
OK, then...
Please share some examples of anything Ayn wrote worth spending a lot of time pondering.
(including location would be fun - for the sake of further research into context)Well your response is just plain dumb. You've pre-determined that everything she has written is worthless. Tell me what of hers have you read?
It occurred to me too that for those who AREN'T closeminded, you might try reading Anthem. That's a better synopsis of her thought, and it's a short read. (And by closeminded I mean unwilling to judge her ideas based on one's own investigation into her thought, versus hearsay.)
Keep in mind, I personally don't agree with her ideas. But what I hate is when others disregard her ideas based on personal prejudice, expressed in stupid phrases like "she was a nutjob who thought it was ok to steal from the poor..." or "she was a sociopath", "she wasn't even an academic at a respectable university".
I haven’t been ignoring you - just busy.
Like I said earlier I read Atlas Shrugged listened to that Mike Wallace interview, read bit of Fountainhead before I had enough, and have looked around on the web and seen what folks that peddle her stuff the most think and have done.
I’ll have to listen to those interviews again. I just looked up Anthem and did the WIKI Cliff Notes thing and nothing too impressive in there except a reminder that she was very much a creature of the 30s and European situation in the 30s -
I never pretended to be a scholar on the topic, but than Rand is no scholar either, in fact seems she’s a college drop out… hmmm I notice you very neatly sidestepped saying anything about anything Rand wrote that we can take valid lessons from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
Early life
"Rand was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (Russian: лиа Зиновьевна Розенбаум) on February 2, 1905, to a bourgeois family living in Saint Petersburg. She was the eldest of the three daughters of Zinovy Zakharovich Rosenbaum and his wife, Anna Borisovna (née Kaplan), largely non-observant Jews. Zinovy Rosenbaum was a successful pharmacist, eventually owning a pharmacy and the building in which it was located.[8] Rand found school unchallenging, and said she began writing screenplays at the age of eight and novels at the age of ten.[9] She was twelve at the time of the February Revolution of 1917, during which she favored Alexander Kerensky over Tsar Nicholas II.
The subsequent October Revolution and the rule of the Bolsheviks under Vladimir Lenin disrupted the comfortable life the family had previously enjoyed. Her father’s pharmacy business was confiscated and the family displaced. They fled to the Crimea, which was initially under control of the White Army during the Russian Civil War. She later recalled that while in high school she determined that she was an atheist and that she valued reason above any other human virtue. After graduating from high school in the Crimea at 16, Rand returned with her family to Petrograd (the new name for Saint Petersburg), where they faced desperate conditions, on occasion nearly starving."
Well that's enough to twist a young girl's mind.
And what are we supposed to make of this is gobbildy gook:
Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."[95] She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy and esthetics.[96]
And I could spend all evening, with a couple scotches, musing on it because I know "the concept of man as a heroic being" very well, along with "the pursuit of my own happiness" as extremely important to my mental health...
However that's were it breaks down, because I am part of a community and family and to live a dignified, moral existence requires a bit of sacrifice and the appreciate that inner satisfaction goes deeper that just getting my rocks off for myself. And that is what I see Rand Peddlers being most interested: justifying their self-obsession and disregard for functional community practices.
But I'm outta time and this is probably a bit sloppy
So she had a rough early life in totalitarian Russia. That makes her nuts? What about, well, just about every intellectual/artist/etc, to come from that same background? Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Solzhenitsyn, Shostakovich? We’re they twisted too?
Lessons? Well like I said I basically disagree with her ideas. But I guess there are some lessons even I as a bleeding heart liberal could gather, such as Man (i.e. humans) ARE heroic and worthy of our assistance. Productive achievement? Sure, sounds good to me, versus sitting around criticizing everyone else but not lending a hand.
As far as that statement about Objectivism, you’ve evidently never studied philosophy. That is an extremely clear statement of her beliefs. Try reading Kant or Spinoza or Berkeley. And what don’t you understand about it? Man as a heroic being (versus a dumb slob born to lose)? Own happiness as the moral purpose (versus the slavish purpose of only making others happy)? Productive achievement (versus the unproductive lifestyles of many many academics who add nothing to society)? Reason as his only absolute (versus blind faith that can be used to enslave)? I’m not getting what you don’t get.
BUT at least you’re hinting at wanting to debate the ideas versus being a complete follower and hopping on the “hate the right, hate Ayn Rand” bandwagon. Then again you fell into the trap too when you summarized her thought as “justifying their self obsession and disregard for functional community practices”. Completely missed the point on that one buddy. It’s been awhile but I think it was Mulligan Gulch or something like that that appeared in Atlas Shrugged, where she describes her idea of community.