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?
Not sure what your impression is but I'm thinking you might get a kick outta talking to some of Solzhenitsyn's neighbors. ;- )
Who says well balanced and genius - or fashionable faux genius - go together?
Nuts is in the eyes of the beholder.
Back to Ayn, I'm serious when I pointed out the time and place that Ayn lived through as a child and young woman - rather than dismissing it as some cliche' - I wish you could spend a moment appreciating that world back then and how it impacted folks. It does inform her outlook and what she wrote and how she lived.
Ignore that and her books have even less value.
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.
"...such as Man (i.e. humans) ARE heroic and worthy of our assistance..."
"..versus sitting around criticizing everyone else but not lending a hand..."
What are you trying to say with that?
Please explain "assistance" in a Randian manner.
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?
Please, please! stop, my life is too busy living the heroic sentient, somewhat productive life to have much time for over wordy dead philosophers.
If Rand's use of "Objectivism" is so clear, why not summarize it?
OH, by "That," do you mean her Anthem?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Are you talking about this? :
1.1 - It is a sin to write this. It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon a paper no others are to see. It is base and evil. It is as if we were speaking alone to no ears but our own. And we know well that there is no transgression blacker than to do or think alone. We have broken the laws. The laws say that men may not write unless the Council of Vocations bid them so. May we be forgiven!
1.2 - But this is not the only sin upon us. We have committed a greater crime, and for this crime there is no name. What punishment awaits us if it be discovered we know not, for no such crime has come in the memory of men and there are no laws to provide for it.
1.3 - It is dark here. The flame of the candle stands still in the air. Nothing moves in this tunnel save our hand on the paper. We are alone here under the earth. It is a fearful word, alone. The laws say that none among men may be alone, ever and at any time, for this is the great transgression and the root of all evil. But we have broken many laws. And now there is nothing here save our one body, and it is strange to see only two legs stretched on the ground, and on the wall before us the shadow of our one head. . . . . . .
{http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/anthem/complete.html}
Please let me know what parts of this "Anthem" you find noteworthy?
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)?
Oh lordie, give me a break, this is melodrama you are repeating.
"Slavish purpose of only making others happy"...
What are you talking about? Please explain.
If Rand's use of "Objectivism" is so clear, why not summarize it?
Productive achievement (versus the unproductive lifestyles of many many academics who add nothing to society)?
Yipes, now you starting to sound like... like... like
well i don't want to jump to conclusions...
What are you talking about? Please explain.
Reason as his only absolute (versus blind faith that can be used to enslave)? I'm not getting what you don't get.
"Reason" as man's only absolute! ?
Are you actually saying that, ... reason our only absolute??
What about all the other stuff that makes us human? Please explain.
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.
You know here you are sounding exactly like the cartoon you have been taking such umbrage at.
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.
I welcome you to share examples of healthy civic attitude from her writings.
August 27, 2012
The simplistic flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy
A philosophy professor dissects the faulty logic in the libertarians' favorite deep-thinker.
http://crosscut.com/2012/08/27/politics-government/110215/ayn-rand-seattle-u-philosophy-professor/
By Paul Kidder
As a professional philosopher, I should be grateful to Ayn Rand. As Leonard Peikoff put it, she was “the greatest salesman that philosophy ever had." Indeed, {...}
But I must confess that I am somewhat sheepishly ungrateful for what Rand hath wrought. Her watchwords are “reason," “logic," and “objectivity," but when I scrutinize the ideas for which she has been most influential — her ideas on political economy — I find that they are logically fallacious to the point of unreason.
I see that Rand does not tolerate the philosopher’s patient tarrying with differing points of view but moves in quickly for the rhetorical kill. She seems to be moved by a passion — the libido dominandi, the desire for control — far more than by the gentle art of thinking. It is always astounding to me that some of the most educated members of our intellectual elites should swallow her arguments so gleefully, and I have to believe that it is more a function of their elitism than their intellectual capacities.
{...}
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.
CuthbertJ, I have studied some philosophy, and also read Ayn Rand’s ideas. However, I do not have a PhD in Philosophy so cannot play in your league when discussing the subject. If you want a philosopher’s take on Objectivism see Massimo Pugliucci’s four-part essay at Rationally Speaking.
I tried linking directly to the essays, but the forum software thought it might be spam. Go to ]>
Here’s my take on Ayn Rand. Her ideas were far from unique. Early 20th century proto-politcal-philosophers were a dime a dozen. Her longevity is partly due to the fact that she was a female. Otherwise her works would have been considered pulp. But in the mode of “Clockwork Orange” “1984” etc…
There’s nothing wrong with trashing her works because:
Her works have been taken to symbolize political ideology…and as such, opposing ideological promoters are perfectly justified in erasing her memories and works.
I don’t see anything wrong with book burning. Just as long as the right books are burned.
Ooooh…“What did he say?” “Book Burning?”!! Yes. It’s simple.
I don’t have to subscribe to some blind meme about “The sanctity of freedom of expression.”
When enough can determine that an idea or an ideology is harmful(subjectively) then that thing should be erased.
We’re trying to erase Nazism. We’re trying to erase racism. We’re trying to erase communism. Etc Etc.
It’s a war of information and thoughts. It always has been.
citizenschallenge - Now you’re just being, well I can’t say it here. Man As A Heroic Being. Do you not know the meaning of the word “man”? “Heroic”? You’re just being stubborn, much like I remember the devout Objectivists I used to meet at forums (in person, pre-internet!). They stubbornly refused to explain WHY they believed AR. You stubbornly refuse to accept that words have meaning, so you want to play a silly word game.
DarronS and VYAZMA - You make good points based on thinking about her ideas (or point to essays that do). Bingo! That’s all I’m saying. Some of her ideas are novel, some, like VYAZMA said are just variations of existing ideas. But at least you’re giving thoughtful reasons why you dislike her (sort of) versus basically personal prejudice. That’s all I was saying.
I think I’m going to start another thread related to this notion of putting ideas based on personal prejudice of the person having the ideas.
DarronS - btw, I don’t have a PhD in Philosophy, I stopped short because of conversations similar to this thread. The professors at the school were utter snobs, and wouldn’t debase themselves by even considering that AR might have an idea or two worth debating. They wouldn’t even consider her enough to say, “gee her ideas are basically the same as X”. Academic “racists” would be a good term for it. Also, almost every one of the professors I had merely engaged in word games like citizenschallenge. “Man”, ok what do you mean by “Man”, you know the human race, “yes but what is the human race”, you know people from ancient times til now, “yes but race, that term itself is malleable”, and on and on ad nauseum. I mean a certain amount of analysis is what philosophy is all about, but I don’t call words games analysis. Anywho.
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.
Further reading for the curious:
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
I suspect that when she wrote
"I am a mediocre writer, hypocrite and a sociopath.
My disciples are ignorant deluded hypocritical sociopaths too."
She was mocking her critics by repeating their words.
I remember her from when she appeared on televisionyears ago. I dont agree with her ideas about untrammeled capitalism or politics, but her ideas about religion were interesting and they had some effect on my moving from doubter to atheist. She was one of the very few intellectuals who apeared on television at that time.
citizenschallenge - Now you're just being, well I can't say it here. Man As A Heroic Being. Do you not know the meaning of the word "man"? "Heroic"? You're just being stubborn, much like I remember the devout Objectivists I used to meet at forums (in person, pre-internet!). They stubbornly refused to explain WHY they believed AR. You stubbornly refuse to accept that words have meaning, so you want to play a silly word game.
Is that how you side step giving serious answers to serious questions.
Fighting cliche with cliche, doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Why not do some explaining about what is on your mind?
For instance Lois makes an interesting point... {actually two ;- ) }
citizenschallenge - Now you're just being, well I can't say it here. Man As A Heroic Being. Do you not know the meaning of the word "man"? "Heroic"? You're just being stubborn, much like I remember the devout Objectivists I used to meet at forums (in person, pre-internet!). They stubbornly refused to explain WHY they believed AR. You stubbornly refuse to accept that words have meaning, so you want to play a silly word game.
Is that how you side step giving serious answers to serious questions.
Fighting cliche with cliche, doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Why not do some explaining about what is on your mind?
For instance Lois makes an interesting point... {actually two ;- ) }Sorry, I don't take your questions seriously anymore. Lois gave a nice response, similar to things I have said. For some reason though you choose to quibble about words with me and not her.
Sorry, I don't take your questions seriously anymore. Lois gave a nice response, similar to things I have said. For some reason though you choose to quibble about words with me and not her.
jeez this is what I asked
Why not do some explaining about what is on your mind?
... in regards to examples of Ayn expressing what you think is of value. I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts.
This is a discussion board.
peace :cheese:
I read Atlas Shrugged a few years back without the knowledge of any of the partisan posturing that has taken place around it. I found it interesting, the basic fiction hooked me enough to get me through it and I found some of her ideas at least worth thinking about. I’m very left leaning and disagreed with much of what she was preaching (and preach she did), but I found that she made some valid points regarding religion and certain physiological tendencies regarding peoples motivations.
I can see why rights would cling to this book, she can make agreements that at face value can be convincing (although when you control the actions and motivations of every character in the book, it’s easy to make anyone who agrees with you seem virtues and those who oppose you seem like illogical idiots.)
If I could point to one positive I took away from the book it’s that it gave me a different perspective on how some conservatives view certain issues. It allowed me in a sense to at least see where they are coming from on occasion, because I admit at times their beliefs puzzle me. My mind wasn’t changed on these issues but I think even a little bit of a different perspective is a good thing and can help when discussing and debating topics.
I found much of the political rhetoric from both sides a bit overstated regarding the book. Upon finishing it I though Rand was an intelligent women, who’s extreme views were largely shaped by her experiences early on in her life. Now I should admit I have read no further books by her and have not seen any interviews, on further research I may find her to be an abomination, I can only speak to my impressions regarding Atlas Shrugged.
On a side note I will admit that the 60+ page monologue at the end of the book was one of the most unbearable stretches I’ve ever had to endure while reading, simply horrible.
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.
IMO, as we are social creatures, self-interest is not very rational if it excludes taking into account the interests of others. Pursuing one's goals without regard to socially imposed rules (that you personally haven't agreed to) may sometimes make sense, not only for one's self but for the larger society. But taken to the extreme, this would lead to chaos. And chaos is not good for children or other living things.
Good points but I think you mixed up words a bit. “Rational self interest” means the
opposite of what you describe. It means yes, caring about your own self interest
BUT taking into account the fact that others have just as much right to do the same.
I.e. don’t exclude others, but INCLUDE them in so much as they have the same
rights as you do. You might say too, that Christians (well fundies at least) and
right wingers go directly against this by employing an Ends Justify The Means
approach. THAT is irrational self interest and AR was against that wholeheartedly.
If you look at the motivation for many of her ideas it was from being raised in an
overbearing Communist society where in her opinion, and in the timeframe she
lived, the State took the place of the religion, and literally forced people to think
only of others, never themselves. It was considered a “sin” to want to think your
own thoughts, have your own dreams, etc. That’s what she was fighting against.
And I’ll bet many in this forum would disagree with that sentiment too.
Good points but I think you mixed
up words a bit. "Rational self interest" means the opposite of what you describe.
It means yes, caring about your own self interest BUT taking into account the fact
that others have just as much right to do the same. I.e. don't exclude others, but
INCLUDE them in so much as they have the same rights as you do...
And you think that is what AR meant in her alledged laudations of selfishness?
(I am asking sincerely, as I do not know much about her.)
Good points but I think you mixed up words a bit. "Rational self interest" means the opposite of what you describe. It means yes, caring about your own self interest BUT taking into account the fact that others have just as much right to do the same. I.e. don't exclude others, but INCLUDE them in so much as they have the same rights as you do...
And you think that is what AR meant in her alledged laudations of selfishness? (I am asking sincerely, as I do not know much about her.)Yes that's what she meant. And it's also why it's a very difficult concept to grasp, not made any easier because she used the term "selfishness" so often. It really boiled down to her abject hatred for the State claiming not just the need (like might occur during war) but the right to enslave people's mind. And then extending the idea to hatred for any organization or even person to claim that right. So for example she hated religion, since it claimed in it's own way the right to subjugate people to the church. (It's also why it's so stupid when you hear righties, who tend to be very religious, claim to love AR's ideas)
Now she also has many many more ideas where she tries to ground all this in philosophy and sort of make it all inter-related. This is where things start to get fishy, but IMO no more so than many so-called "great" philosophers like Kant et al. They all for the most part just expressed personal opinions in the semi-scientific/semi-logical jargon of philosophy. Some were just smarter than others and did it better ;) IMHO of course.
Good points but I think you mixed up words a bit. "Rational self interest" means the opposite of what you describe. It means yes, caring about your own self interest BUT taking into account the fact that others have just as much right to do the same. I.e. don't exclude others, but INCLUDE them in so much as they have the same rights as you do.
This makes it sound like it's all about bleeding heart sympathies and caring about the other's feelings and stuff like that...
.. not that I'm discounting the place for that.
Still, I always thought about "Rational self interest" more along the lines of:
It's in my "rational self-interest" to spend the extra time and effort to do a really first class job for someone... because it's good for my reputation and will lead to more work, {plus it makes me feel good}.
... Or, it's in my "rational self-interest" to pay my employee's a living wage, so that they will be able to afford the "luxury" items we manufacture.
... Or, it's in our collective rational self-interest not destroy our biosphere, because we and our society absolutely depend on our healthy biosphere just the way it is.
I would think AR would agree with your definitions. You’re right though that it can sound overly bleeding heart. She’d probably not go to that length, but more to the point of “taking into account the rights of others”. I think she hated the hippies for example, but for other reasons.
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
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
Source, please?
Who the hell cares by this point, it's probably in one of those links I shared in the opening post.
{Usually I do better, but I don't have the time or interest to search it out now,
but I'm sure it's wouldn't be too hard to track down if you wanted to.}
How about something worth thinking about?
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.
Who the hell cares by this point, it's probably in one of those links I shared in the opening post...but I'm sure it's wouldn't be too hard to track down if you wanted to.}
One should care because it goes to the heart of the very discussion.
And I searched your links and I couldn't find the quote in any of them. I also tried Google and other search engines but couldn't find it. You had to get it from somewhere. I just want to know where it came from. That's a legitimate request. I've tried, but can't find it.