Wow, I've been reading some of her writing and I find myself agreeing with most of what she is saying, so far. If you haven't done so, check out some of her stuff.

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.
— Ayn Rand


Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
— Ayn Rand


My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues…
— Ayn Rand

She was a selfish, self-righteous twat. I couldn't stand her books. :p

Selfishness as a ideology... wonderful.

She was a self-righteous twat. I couldn't stand her books. :pFair enough.

But, I agree that if you want to be successful, or do anything else for that matter to be a better human, that that relies on you. Don't depend or rely on others, or other outside factors that you can’t control to determine your course to achievement.

Yeah, no thanks. I'm too much of an optimist. For every unknown in my life, I do actually believe that something fabulous will happen. I have no fear, I know no fear. It'll all work out great.

Fair enough.

But, I agree that if you want to be successful, or do anything else for that matter to be a better human, that that relies on you. Don't depend or rely on others, or other outside factors that you can’t control to determine your course to achievement.
I agree with that sentiment. Her beliefs were far more selfish and absurd than that.

Selfishness as a ideology... wonderful.

Don't hate on people who care for themselves and want to make good for themselves. She's not saying shit on your fellow man to get ahead.

"Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness. But one cannot achieve happiness by wish or whim. Fundamentally, it requires rational respect for the facts of reality, including the facts about our human nature and needs. Happiness requires that one live by objective principles, including moral integrity and respect for the rights of others."

Yeah, no thanks. I'm too much of an optimist. For every unknown in my life, I do actually believe that something fabulous will happen. I have no fear, I know no fear. It'll all work out great.

"Objectivism is optimistic, holding that the universe is open to human achievement and happiness and that each person has within him the ability live a rich, fulfilling, independent life."




Edit: Didn't use quotes

"Objectivism is optimistic, holding that the universe is open to human achievement and happiness and that each person has within him the ability live a rich, fulfilling, independent life."






But not just open to achievement, but accomplishment. "If I'm falling down the pit into Hell, I will say, 'at least it will be warm.' "

So what I gather so far is that if I don't believe in myself, and if I have no drive, hey, at least I'll be happy and won't burn in hell. Oh, and I can accomplish much more without belief in myself.

Don't hate on people who care for themselves and want to make good for themselves. She's not saying shit on your fellow man to get ahead.


From what I recall, she was completely opposed to welfare of any kind.
Which as an uptight white conservative I can be down with..
BUt she was also opposed to charity, which I cannot be down with.

Oh, I think you're being a little disingenuous. What do you think?

edit: this was for Red Thunder.

Oh, I think you're being a little disingenuous. What do you think?

edit: this was for Red Thunder.

Maybe I'm just from the school of thought that you are responsible for your own actions, therefore, I see a lot of truths in what she's saying.

Responsible for your own thoughts and actions is one thing, but punishable simply because you have those thoughts? So now I'm in trouble for some shit that maybe I thought? How does that work?

edit to add: I want Thumper to get hit by a bus, am I to be punished for that?

Her beliefs were far more selfish and absurd than that.Like no need for charity or welfare?

Well I hesitate to really respond in specifics because it's been quite a while since I bothered to read anything by or about her, but I find anyone that considers an altruist to be the ultimate villain to be pretty laughable.

I find anyone that considers an altruist to be the ultimate villain to be pretty laughable.

Why is that?

This is so weird. I might have to do more research and write up some sort of thesis. Subject: Every person I've talked to who has come fresh out of an Ayn Rand binge gets this idea that they understand the whole world better, that they've gained this revolutionary insight into themselves and others... and then a few months later, they find another convenient and readily available philosophy to live their lives by. I find it fascinating. :nice:



Sorry if that sounds rude; it's just a rather frustrating idea to me. =/

Objectivism is a farce. That bullshit is for economics majors. Just think about the etymology of the word. No human being (or living thing at all) can ever be truly "objective", especially regarding important life issues.

Read some Lao Tzu instead, dude. The harder you strive for objectivity, the further away from it you will be. Embrace the humanity of your subjective opinions and revel in their fallibility.

Gee,Mandrake,what you got against econ majors? How dare you suggest that that idiot had any ability in economics?!

lol...sorry, it was a joke. Sort of a back-handed swipe at a former regular poster (is he still here?) who worshipped at the altar of Rand.

I wasn't mad-yeah he's still here...

Don't hate on people who care for themselves and want to make good for themselves.

I don't hate Ayn Rand, I just would never waste money on one of her books. Her philosophy is like libertarianism finally stripped bare of any moral restraints. Perhaps she was inspired by Nietzsche, I couldn't say for certain.

I can't hate her in an age where everyone seems so keen on controlling others in the name of the collective good (no smoking allowed on this thread) or for the children (put that porn away!). Whatever errors I think she has, at least her followers do not intrude upon my life. However, I think she had little understanding of human nature, which is more emotional than rational. Humans will also always form packs more than live as individuals. She formed her own pack and demanded obedience within it. She also had rather silly ideas about marriage and art.

I don't agree with the idea that everything can be objective. The rock is the objective reality. The value of the rock is the subjective.

She was the patron saint of the Neo Con movement: a conservative athiest, a foreign born woman who tapped into the heart and soul of america. I might say she was the other side of Jack Kerouac.

She was undoubtedly a brilliant writer, but I cannot say that I am 100% in her corner.

I can't think of very much conservative about her. Conservatives support traditional institutions/authority and invoke the collective good. Rand is more radical. Belief in the free markets and sovereignity of the individual is liberal.

I can't think of very much conservative about her. Conservatives support traditional institutions/authority and invoke the collective good. Rand is more radical. Belief in the free markets and sovereignity of the individual is liberal.

Indeed, she referred to herself as a "Radical for Capitalism." And she out and out depised Libertarianism as a philosophy, and most libertoons personally.

She was the patron saint of the Neo Con movement: a conservative athiest, a foreign born woman who tapped into the heart and soul of america.

I don't think she was, but the confusion is understandable, given some of the very odd things her latter-day disciples have come up with, especially re: US foreign policy. I certainly can't see her endorsing many of Bush II's domestic policies. She was out and out in favor of unlimited abortion on demand; and though she had a problem with homosexuality personally she was careful to keep her personal feelings (in this instance) out of the doctrines of Objectivism.



She was undoubtedly a brilliant writer, but I cannot say that I am 100% in her corner.

The plots of her novels move along at a good clip, but her use of dialogue is horrible. To say nothing of the fact that her characters barely rise above the two dimensional. Oddly, her most fleshed out, human characters are in her first novel, We, the Living.

In non-fiction, her biggest mistake was leaving the definitive work on her philosophy to her heir, Leonard Peikoff.

Oddly, her most fleshed out, human characters are in her first novel, We, the Living.

This is probably because she eventually allowed ideology to overwhelm the art.

I've tried reading Ayn Rand. I think she had some great ideas, but I just don't have the attention span to figure out what the hell she's talking about half the time :shrug:

But anyone who thinks altruism is the height of morality is a self-delusional fool.

This is probably because she eventually allowed ideology to overwhelm the art.

It also got re-written, from its first issuance in the 1930s to the 1950s reprint. Believe it or not, first editions of We, the Living now sell for over $10,000 due to this. 'Course she also changed Atlas, Shrugged, but only the dedication. In that instance it was to drop the "unperson" in Objectivism that Nathaniel Branden became. It went from being dedicated to her husband and Branden to just her husband.

Clearly the woman had some issues. But, then again, don't we all.

I don't hate Ayn Rand, I just would never waste money on one of her books. Her philosophy is like libertarianism finally stripped bare of any moral restraints. Perhaps she was inspired by Nietzsche, I couldn't say for certain.

I think I read somewhere she was too,but she had no idea what Nietzsche was about at all.He was not at all an apologist for the rich.He deplored dilletantism and snobbery and that is absolutely all that woman was.

When I was younger and more idealistic, I thought Rand was great. Since I've grown up, I notice some serious flaws in the real application of her ideals. Basically, it's great on paper, just don't let humans try it.

The ideals she suggests are only funcional in an ideal world, not in the real world.

I do agree with the basic principles she's suggesting, it's just that humans haven't evolved enough to impliment that kind of a system with out it being regressive.

And her ideas of "rational self-interest" isn't the same as "greed". There's a huge difference (although most of the people claiming to be objectivists are probalby just greedy little ditto-heads trying to pretend to be philosophical moralists).

I still like what Rand had to say quite a bit. I thought Howard Roark was an ideal fictional hero. I just don't think the human race can support a completely free capitalistic market. There has to be government, and there have to be government controls. Human nature, acting on greed, short sightedness, laziness and ignorance would self-destruct a free market economy.

Boo,you're one of the last people I would suspect of defending her...

But anyone who thinks altruism is the height of morality is a self-delusional fool.
You've got it backwards. The altruists are her villains.

Wow, I've been reading some of her writing and I find myself agreeing with most of what she is saying, so far. If you haven't done so, check out some of her stuff.
i read alot of her stuff while in high school and thought some of it was great, but have since found myself disagreeing with most of her philosophies.

i remember liking the fountainhead alot.

I think I read somewhere she was too,but she had no idea what Nietzsche was about at all.

Some would say Nietzsche didn't know what he himself was about since he never really created a coherant philosophy. One thing that is certain though is that he was certainly against anti-Semitism even though the Nazis tried to use his philosophy to back up their deeds.


He was not at all an apologist for the rich.He deplored dilletantism and snobbery and that is absolutely all that woman was.
He was a misfit who wanted to make himself understood, he never really wanted to surround himself with luxary I don't think. She was... I have no idea what she was...but she seemed to have deficit of humanity in her.

You've got it backwards. The altruists are her villains.

I know. I was agreeing with Ayn Rand.

Some would say Nietzsche didn't know what he himself was about since he never really created a coherant philosophy. One thing that is certain though is that he was certainly against anti-Semitism even though the Nazis tried to use his philosophy to back up their deeds.


He was a misfit who wanted to make himself understood, he never really wanted to surround himself with luxary I don't think. She was... I have no idea what she was...but she seemed to have deficit of humanity in her.

I agree with all the above.

I know. I was agreeing with Ayn Rand.

I would enjoy a debate between one of Rand's followers and a libertarian (perhaps more than one libertarian because there are some differences in the libertarians on this board). To me one seems a more extreme version of the other.

In my opinion, Rand tended to focus on what should be, and I agree with her on what should be, but she didn't accept that what should be clashes with what actually is.

Just my take on it. I appreciate her insistance that morality is defined by reason and self-interest, I just disagree with her conclusions. (Well, I agree with her in the sense that things 'ought to be' that way, but they aren't, so her philosophy doesn't work).

Please don't compare Rand to Nietzsche.

Rand might be worthy of being seen as Nietszche's sociopathic, demented niece.

I've heard that a lot of Nietszche's "philosophical" writing was actually intended to be humorous (if the two are mutually exclusive). Some of it is actually pretty funny. He wrote a philosophy book called The Gay Science, for crying out loud. Tell me he wasn't messing with people with that one.

Nietszche was the man.

And since I don't have any of his books handy, just pick whichever of the various spellings of his name I just used that is correct and ignore the others. Thanks.

Ecce Homo-the chapter titles sound like Rice or Snouter "Why I am a genius"
pssst it's Nietzsche....

Ecce Homo-the chapter titles sound like Rice or Snouter "Why I am a genius"
pssst it's Nietzsche....Yes, near the end of his life (just before his final mental break) his mind was cracking as his ego was growing.

Yes, near the end of his life (just before his final mental break) his mind was cracking as his ego was growing.

Hopefully this isn't commentary on our two friends...

Hopefully this isn't commentary on our two friends...

Not unless they have late stage neurosyphilis.

You really think he had Syphilis? Kaufmann,his biographer,contended that he didn't..

You really think he had Syphilis? Kaufmann,his biographer,contended that he didn't..

I think he did.

Well I hesitate to really respond in specifics because it's been quite a while since I bothered to read anything by or about her, but I find anyone that considers an altruist to be the ultimate villain to be pretty laughable.
I absolutely agree...

In 1982, I discovered the books of Ayn Rand, and I have read Atlas Shrugged at least four times. At no time have I ever agreed with her. I wanted to write to her when I discovered her books, only to learn from a flatmate I had at the time, that she had literally only just died. I was very cross.

I truly believe that no one is ever 100% wrong, but Rand came closest to being - she was about 98% wrong. Her novels are awful - cardboard characters, painful dialogue, and We the Living is no better than the later books. She could never understand how much she was influenced by her own background and experiences - in other words, she was no more objective, despite her claims, than anyone ever is. Her father disdained her and her sisters as girls - and she as an adult hated women with a purple passion - including probably, herself!

In the 1980s, her screwy ideas had a hugely disproportionate influence on a number of elected officials here in NZ. Our society and economy are still suffering the results.

She could never understand how much she was influenced by her own background and experiences - in other words, she was no more objective, despite her claims, than anyone ever is.

If no one is objective, ever, you have no more basis for saying she wasn't objective than she does for claiming she was.

Her father disdained her and her sisters as girls - and she as an adult hated women with a purple passion - including probably, herself!

Sciabarra says nothing about this, neither do either of the Brandens. In fact, her parents did all they could for her and her sister, at least according to them. The fact that they could do very little to help after the Revolution doesn't mean they disdained her. And none of these biographers were inside Objectivism when they wrote their books. In fact, the Brandens had been tossed out, and not even they make this claim.

In the 1980s, her screwy ideas had a hugely disproportionate influence on a number of elected officials here in NZ. Our society and economy are still suffering the results.

What ideas that could be interpreted as Objectivist were ever codified into NZ law? I'm curious. Did the country return to the gold standard? :rolleyes:

Sciabarra says nothing about this, neither do either of the Brandens. In fact, her parents did all they could for her and her sister, at least according to them. The fact that they could do very little to help after the Revolution doesn't mean they disdained her. And none of these biographers were inside Objectivism when they wrote their books. In fact, the Brandens had been tossed out, and not even they make this claim.
My information comes from the book Barbara Branden wrote on her own, and although Barbara was still fond of Ayn Rand, she was no longer in the 'cult'.

What ideas that could be interpreted as Objectivist were ever codified into NZ law? I'm curious. Did the country return to the gold standard? :rolleyes:
It couldn't return to the gold standard, having never been on it. :D (Aside, did you know we had our own gold rush here in NZ, in Otago in the 1880s?)
The businesman as hero, the worship of capitalism and the free market, many of wossname's ideas, the guy who just retired as leader of your federal reserve, Greenspan, that's the guy - privatising everything that moves, including all our communications, TV, radio and telephone, and selling it all off to the Americans. Ma Bell bought our telephone system.

Greenspan was Rand's first non-student follower.

The harder you strive for objectivity, the further away from it you will be.

Aquisition of knowledge is the path to objectivity. Learning every side to a subject allows you to make objective decisions, not that you will learn every side of a subject, but the more you know the better decisions you can make.

Embrace the humanity of your subjective opinions and revel in their fallibility.

If I know something is true it is not failable. I sharpen my opinions but stand on a rock of aquired knowledge. My rock is not failable because I choose not to be vapid.

Aquisition of knowledge is the path to objectivity. Learning every side to a subject allows you to make objective decisions, not that you will learn every side of a subject, but the more you know the better decisions you can make.



If I know something is true it is not failable. I sharpen my opinions but stand on a rock of aquired knowledge. My rock is not failable because I choose not to be vapid.


Hmmm...in any other conversation I wouldn't bring this up, but you just mis-spelled "fallible".

Twice.

Anthem-Favorite reading of all time!! :D

Bored.

I know. I was agreeing with Ayn Rand.- You do know that there are several situations where humans can't exist without altruism, right? Just look at the beduins of the middle east or the !kung peoples.

That's one of the main flaws of her philosophy - the reason we're on top of the food chain is that we cooperate and share. We can't make it being completely alone, nor do we really want to.

--

There are also a lot of other things to complain about, I mean, for calling herself rational and "objectivist", most of her reasoning is pretty blurry and I'd say flawed as well. In addition to the fact that her view on contemporary philosophy was just plain wrong - she pretty much thought contemporary philosophers were all nihilists, and to be honest, I'd be surprised if any of them were.

Her books make smooth and easy reading, though, which I guess is commendable. You could compare it to the Matrix, using old philosophical points in a cheap way in order to get the audience to go "ooh" and "aah".

If no one is objective, ever, you have no more basis for saying she wasn't objective than she does for claiming she was. - She's not saying that no one can ever be right - just that no one can escape their horizon.

What a fascinating thread! I loved Atlas Shrugged- but I read it more for the plot line than the philosophy, political connotations.