Ayn Rand (does not) describe herself and other thoughts regarding Rand

General Discussion
61

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.

62
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. Now the question - should I remove the image at the beginning of this thread, or is it grandfathered in, in light of the subsequent discussion, never mind, figured it out. Thanks.
63
And the point you’re missing is that I’m not actually hanging anything on That quote.
From where I sit, it looks to me like you are. Look, if you disagree with La Rand then fine and dandy. But take issue with what's real, not what's contrived. It's not hard.
64
And the point you’re missing is that I’m not actually hanging anything on That quote.
From where I sit, it looks to me like you are. Look, if you disagree with La Rand then fine and dandy. But take issue with what's real, not what's contrived. It's not hard.
Yea and what's real is what I've read in a couple of her books & having listen to the Mike Wallace interview and what I find is repugnant - got nothing to do with some poster I saw some where - don't try to pretend otherwise. Beyond that look at the reality your Randian, libertarian, Reaganomic, neo-con, right wing mind set and decisions have gotten our world. Get real ! Read the words I've written... I don't think you've actually done that >:-(
65

I have read the words you’ve written, starting with: “Ayn Rand describes herself and other thoughts regarding Rand” which is the title of the thread,
No harm no foul for anything that’s legit, but…and this is the important point you’re trying to sidestep and avoid…one of the quotes you attributed to her IS A FRAUD!!! Resorting to that sort of thing is no better then what the creationist crowd does with Darwin.
Do we get it now?

66
I have read the words you've written, starting with: "Ayn Rand describes herself and other thoughts regarding Rand" which is the title of the thread, No harm no foul for anything that's legit, but...and this is the important point you're trying to sidestep and avoid....one of the quotes you attributed to her IS A FRAUD!!!!!!! Resorting to that sort of thing is no better then what the creationist crowd does with Darwin. Do we get it now?
And apparently you stopped reading there. Why the need to get so shrill?
67

Will that last adjustment to the title of this thread help relieve some of your indignation?

68
Ayn Rand....pfeh. “I am a mediocre writer, hypocrite and a sociopath. My disciples are ignorant deluded hypocritical sociopaths too." Sounds about right.
Show a respected source for the quote. This is not about her qualities as a writer or thinker, it is about a possibly made-up quote. Show your source before you use it to criticize her philosophy. There is plenty to criticize without making something up. Such tactics simply undermine your case and make you look as if you don't know what you're talking about. Lois
69

In trying to post to this tread, i received this screen:
Thank You!
“Your subscription to the following thread has been removed:
Ayn Rand (does not) describe herself and other thoughts regarding Rand
Click here if you are not redirected automatically”

What, pray tell, is that all about? I was able to post.
Lois

70

Yes Lois, this program does have a mind of it’s own and there are times when I think it needs psychiatric therapy. Occasionally it doesn’t recognize me or let me enter a post, so I just copy my post, stick it in my word processor, then completely log out, wait a minute or so, then log back on. Half the time I can then start my post from scratch and stick my copy in. The other half of the time, even though it said it wouldn’t let post, it’s already there.
All you can do is take a deep breath, smile and think, “Well, it doesn’t cost us anything”. :lol:
Occam

71
Yes Lois, this program does have a mind of it's own and there are times when I think it needs psychiatric therapy. Occasionally it doesn't recognize me or let me enter a post, so I just copy my post, stick it in my word processor, then completely log out, wait a minute or so, then log back on. Half the time I can then start my post from scratch and stick my copy in. The other half of the time, even though it said it wouldn't let post, it's already there. All you can do is take a deep breath, smile and think, "Well, it doesn't cost us anything". :lol: Occam
Yeah, you get what you pay for. Now can we get back to discussing Rand's psuedo-philosophy and recognize CC's admission the quote at the beginning of this thread was a fabrication? Rand had plenty of morally repugnant ideas we can debate.
72
Yes Lois, this program does have a mind of it's own and there are times when I think it needs psychiatric therapy. Occasionally it doesn't recognize me or let me enter a post, so I just copy my post, stick it in my word processor, then completely log out, wait a minute or so, then log back on. Half the time I can then start my post from scratch and stick my copy in. The other half of the time, even though it said it wouldn't let post, it's already there. All you can do is take a deep breath, smile and think, "Well, it doesn't cost us anything". :lol: Occam
Yeah, you get what you pay for. Now can we get back to discussing Rand's psuedo-philosophy and recognize CC's admission the quote at the beginning of this thread was a fabrication? Rand had plenty of morally repugnant ideas we can debate. Indeed. Can we move on?
73
Why the need to get so shrill?
Because you're not getting the message about that core fact. I don't care about the rest. Guess your ideology is more important to you so I'm not going to waste my time any more with this.
74
Why the need to get so shrill?
Because you're not getting the message about that core fact. I don't care about the rest. Guess your ideology is more important to you so I'm not going to waste my time any more with this.
CC already acknowledged, several times, that the quote in his first post is a fabrication. Get over it and move on to discussing Ayn Rand's philosophy, which I consider vile.
75

Harry Binswanger’s input was appreciated but it may have just been a drive-by, as he hasn’t had any further participation. Does anyone else have knnowledge of Objectivism, that could respond to the questions that I posed for HB? :
Is this statement correct?: “A central tenet of Objectivism is that reality is independent of consciousness." If so does that mean that consciousness is viewed by Objectivists as a phenomenon that somehow exists separately from reality, and i.e., is not an outgrowth of processes that have occurred in the unfolding of the natural universe?

76

Darron thank you for the defense… and pointing out the obvious.
~ ~ ~
Lois what more do you want? a few dozen Ave Marias and thumbing through my rosary another dozen times?
~ ~ ~
As for Dead Monky’s post ( and mine too ), well hell it simply sounded too good not to be true… but, let’s keep in mind Randians have never tried to obey such moral high ground themselves, considering how great they’ve been at drawing from any and every contrivance they can to make their various arguments.
Funny how those folks never notice or complain about that. >:(

77
Harry Binswanger's input was appreciated but it may have just been a drive-by, as he hasn't had any further participation. Does anyone else have knnowledge of Objectivism, that could respond to the questions that I posed for HB? : Is this statement correct?: “A central tenet of Objectivism is that reality is independent of consciousness." If so does that mean that consciousness is viewed by Objectivists as a phenomenon that somehow exists separately from reality, and i.e., is not an outgrowth of processes that have occurred in the unfolding of the natural universe?
78
Harry Binswanger's input was appreciated but it may have just been a drive-by, as he hasn't had any further participation. Does anyone else have knnowledge of Objectivism, that could respond to the questions that I posed for HB? : Is this statement correct?: “A central tenet of Objectivism is that reality is independent of consciousness." If so does that mean that consciousness is viewed by Objectivists as a phenomenon that somehow exists separately from reality, and i.e., is not an outgrowth of processes that have occurred in the unfolding of the natural universe?
If that was the real Harry B. driving by, he's about THE best authority on AR there is. I would trust his opinions and trust that his posts would come from an honest appraisal, thought process, not some nutjob ideologically twisted mind. As far as your question, I believe the answer would be No, there is no consciousness apart from what might arise from the physical universe. Something so many here seem to forget, or just don't know, is that AR was a thoroughgoing hard core materialist who supported science and reason completely, and detested anything that smacked of faith, supernaturality, mysticism, etc. Science and technology to her were the pinnacle of human achievement, faith and religion (and the 'religion' of communism) the worst. I left this thread for awhile, and now I went back and reread a lot. What I see is many people who (rightly IMO) utterly detest anything conservative, right wing, libertarian to the point of hatred WHO then project that hatred on AR because many of them, her so called political followers (incorrectly IMO) say she's their intellectual hero, idol, etc. It's no different than if an atheist reacts with hatred towards Jesus because of the actions of Christians (and no, I'm not comparing AR to Jesus, it's just an analogy). Atheists should be able to discuss Jesus's IDEAS and even be able to say, Hey that idea was good, without somehow thinking you just endorsed Christianity. Same with AR. She has some good and interesting ideas (science is better than faith). We should be mature enough intellectually to admit she had some good ideas without feeling we just endorsed Rand Paul.
79
She has some good and interesting ideas (science is better than faith). We should be mature enough intellectually to admit she had some good ideas without feeling we just endorsed Rand Paul.
Perhaps I didn't go about it "maturely" and maybe I'm coming from an admittedly hostile predisposition, based on what (admittedly little) I've read by her, but in the end this thread was about a curiosity over why this person holds such fascination for so many and a genuine desire to hear what people thought her 'good ideas' were.
80

In that case, I would recommend reading Anthem for a quick idea of some of the main ideas.
If I had to sum up the gist of AR it’d be this:

  • science and reason above all,
  • individual intellectual and physical freedom above all,
  • AND she believed she had a logical and consist set of ideas that you couldn’t pick and choose from.
    My guess would be she’d be horrified by the current crop of so-called “followers”, the Rand Paul, Paul Ryan types. These two exemplify anti-intellect, anti-reason, anti-science AND are hard-core Christians. (Ryan at least, not sure about Rand Paul). Also I’d guess she’d be completely pro-choice, considering the Right’s notion that the government should take away a womens choice of what she does with her own body. The so-called pro-life group is a poster child for everything AR detested.