Not a fan of Rand, I think people are a lot more like ants then lions, pretending to be something you are not generally creates unhappy outcomes.
Certainly the corrosive effects should be taken seriously, as one would take poison in the water supply seriously. I certainly respect the right of any to hold an opinion, but do not ask me to universally respect opinions. It really depends on the opinion. Earlier, due to the OP, found out that Atlas Shrugged enjoys a circulation second only to The Bible. I kept my peace but then your comment set me off reflecting about this. What is interesting about the above fact, that an anti-intellectual civilization such as America's holds the above two books in popular esteem, is very informative: Both books promote the idea of exceptionalism and both appeal to the popular mindset. In one, the exceptional is held to a requirement of service to his lesser brethren. In the other, the lesser ones are held to be ballast and clay in service of the exceptional individual. Now it is (somewhat) easy to see why The Bible enjoys wide circulation among the many (after all what sort would not be affected by the sermons of Christ or some of the Psalms?), but the wide circulation of the other is surely worth further reflection. It is as you say. One should not pretend to be a follower of Christ anymore than one should entertain grandiose notions of heroic efforts and the upholding of the heavens on one's back.You might consider taking her seriously, she has had about 10000 times more impact on American society then any other "philosopher."
I think people are a lot more like ants then lions, pretending to be something you are not generally creates unhappy outcomes.
Discounting her significance reminds me of people who called George W Bush and idiot. Who the hell are they to call one of the most successful presidents of all time an idiot. Better to realize that people who hold very different view points from your own can be extremely dangerous and influential.
- Care to go into some detail about this? + http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=... - That does not appear to offer much detail about what you think. Should I guess that you think some topics lie outwith the bounds of philosophy? + The "set"! [ bodice-rippers for the pseudo-intellectual set. example provided] - Should I guess that you think some topics lie outwith the bounds of philosophy? + No. Behold: example of a philosophical discourse on sexuality, by M. Foucault. I also posted a Zizek video and his very deep philosophical discourse on the bodily function and pubic hair structure. If you are not willing to put in the minimal effort, you should not make demands on other people's time. Philosophy means, literally, Love for Knowledge. Ayn Rand is merely a n-th rate writer and a narcissist. To call her specious notions "philosophy" is a disservice to all the serious minds that engage in that idle preoccupation.I might read that pdf at some point but I had hoped that you could just offer a quick summary of your opinions.
I never made any demands on your time. I think that the minimal effort to find out what you think would be to read your justification of your opinions rather than a discourse on sexuality by Foucault. When I want to read Foucault I can go to a library.
I would guess that Ryan actually just practices cognitive dissonance as far as it suits his own personal feelings. -Philosophies make sense when they suit the particular way that he feels about a subject. That's almost a celebrated philosophy unto itself in the US, IMO. As an aside, why was there a second page to that article?
- I find it odd the conservatives embrace Ayn Rand and Christianity.
In his views the government is a affront to religion, and it shouldn't be the main conduit for charity, the Church should. "But, b_b," you say, "he's all for government forcing religion on us vis-à-vis his social agenda." Yeah, logic doesn't matter to these people. Anyone to whom logic mattered wouldn't be a disciple of Ayn Rand, independent of their views on religion.
- “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
"Good on him", only if what he is now espousing is the truth and not just him realizing he may have a shot at the VP spot and needs to avow himself of saying that his greatest influence in life is an extremely vocal russian atheist. I'd have more respect if he had stuck to his guns and admitted the truth, Ayn Rand was extremely influential in shaping his political world view. I've watched the video where he adorns praise on her for shaping his decision to enter politics. What's changed? Opportunity, that's what, certainly not Rand and probably not him.
Personally speaking, the antogonists (like Ellsworth Toohey) in her novels are bumbling caricatures of people, and the opposing views they represent are presented in the form of strawmen arguments. Conversly, her protagonists are very romanticized individuals with few complexities and even fewer flaws. In short, Ayn Rand didn't successfully present Objectivism as a serious philosophy, and didn't make the arguments for it in a serious manner. There's more selling than convincing there. The Fountainhead is a pretty good read, though. I think it makes for an effective self-help book. Part of the problem with Objectivism IMHO, is that it creates a false duality of human behavior and then builds an argument upon this assumption. Rand pushes that selfishness is virtuous, whereas altruism is evil. However, it doesn't take much contemplation to realize that all human interaction is comprised of actions that can best be described to have selfish and altruistic components. Furthermore, some apparently altruistic behavior can be done for selfish reasons, whereas the opposite is also true. Objectivism is simplistic, and it is difficult to apply an 'objective' logical structure to problems in any consistent fashion. You have to assume initial conditions that requires over-simplification of problems. In fact, I'd say that Objectivism in practice is really Objectivism in-the-eye-of-the-beholder, which is actually a very subjective application.
EDIT: I should have said "almost all" or something of that sort. Accidental absolute.
Can you tell us some examples of initial conditions that require the oversimplification of problems?
Do you help organize a neighborhood watch? How to vote on a millage for a park in your neighborhood? Do you leave an inheritance to family, or give it to a cause, or both? Do you pick up trash on the sidewalk? The most selfish, or least altruistic approaches aren't clear.
Am I correct to think that you mean to say Ayn Rand has a clear idea of the correct action in such situations? That these problems can not be solved only by considering only whether a suggested solution is selfish or altruistic? If I am correct to say that then does this not beg the question?
- I'm sorry if I don't understand but aren't these examples of problems rather than examples of initial conditions that require the oversimplification of problems?
They are both, I suppose. I'm not sure that she would. I don't know. I gave them as examples where altruistic and selfish components are muddled, and the interpretation would differ between people.Am I correct to think that you mean to say Ayn Rand has a clear idea of the correct action in such situations? That these problems can not be solved only by considering only whether a suggested solution is selfish or altruistic?
- They are both, I suppose.
- I gave them as examples where altruistic and selfish components are muddled, and the interpretation would differ between people.
As I think about it more I think that an egoist would have a clear answer about what to do when faced with such problems. You seem to be saying though that this is the result of an oversimplification such as the initial condition suggested above. What I don't understand is how that is part of the problem in your opinion. When I read what you are saying it seems that you want to argue that problems are not as simple as egoists see them and that you support this by listing problems that you think are more complicated. That you perceive some problems to be more complicated is entailed in your initial stated opinion but it doesn't help me to understand why these problems are more complicated or demonstrate that they really are.
- As I think about it more I think that an egoist would have a clear answer about what to do when faced with such problems.
Let's be clear, that I'm talking about Objectivism, not Egoism. Egoism can incorporate relativism. Critical to my point, Objectivism suggests that there is a reality independent of perspective, and that knowledge of this reality is attainable (according to Ayn Rand), via the virtue of selfishness. But, if you were equating Egoism with Objectivism, I'd be curious as to what some of those clear answers to the problems I proposed might be; and, more importantly, what would be the rationale (satisfying the virtue of self-interest)?
I agree that Rand makes a convincing case that an individual is best and happiest when realized. I don't find much fault in that. But she does suggest a very particular brand of self-realization, which isn't easy to put to practice in a consistent manner. There are also the economic philosophies of the books, (and in many ways her social philosophy is an economic one), and there are some solid critiques there too. But, I agree; if it's worth strongly disagreeing, it's worth explaining why. Rand offered something unique (in addition to some good reading), and she deserves credit for that.
You can read a pretty straight forward account of objectivism here. There's also some that claim that she lived off of government assistance at the end of her life and was thereby a hypocrite. Both alpha0 and JakobVirgl seem to have strong feelings on Rand as a "philosopher", perhaps either of you could explain the failings you see in calling objectivism a philosophy?
I think honesty is one of the over-rated virtues. (or at least I say I do).