From Library Journal
The problem with Rand is easily detectable by careful listeners of this production: a good essayist with a flair for the dramatic turn of phrase, she wasted her obvious writing skills in an effort to support outlandish personal opinions cloaked in the guise of logic.
An absolutist thinker, she devotes one whole essay to an effort to persuade us that we really should see things as black and white, with no shades of gray. Born in Soviet Russia, Rand so despised socialism and collectivist thinking that she leapt to the furthest extreme possible to become the champion of unbridled capitalism, the rights of the individual at the expense of the community, and the diminution of all regulation by the state, with the exception of a judicial system and the control of crime.
Among the sadly dated ideas she conveys are the attitude that homosexuals are mutant symptoms of a sick society and the belief that anyone with an interest in internationalism is a “one world” proponent. To use one of her own favored words, Rand’s political and social philosophy is critically “muddled.” C.M. Herbert’s voice is efficient and cold, making it a perfect choice for the narration of this author’s work. Recommended only as documentation of an anomaly in the history of ideas. Mark Pumphrey, Polk Cty. P.L., Columbus, NC
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Your post makes no sense at all, once more.
Aren’t you an older guy? You sound as if man can persue happiness or anything more then just mere existance from living in a cave.
We need others for everything, as our feelings and moods are largely social technique.
Even a loner needs others to feel that he’s alone.
And that has zero to do with Collectivism but simple Biology.
Wow, are you confused! According to your logic, we should all live like ants in an ant colony.
Does an artist painting a picture paint said picture for their own enjoyment? Or to please others? Compare an Ibsen play with some sitcom and you’ll have your answer.
[/quote]
No, didn’t say anything about ants. It’s always black or white for you.
Either Ant or Atlas.
And art can be done for numerous reasons. But seldom for your own private, exclusive entertainment. Show me one artist who’s not a money whore, if he can be one. Please. Just one.
And writing is probably nothing but masturbating through appreciation.
[quote]Kainjer wrote:
From Library Journal
The problem with Rand is easily detectable by careful listeners of this production: a good essayist with a flair for the dramatic turn of phrase, she wasted her obvious writing skills in an effort to support outlandish personal opinions cloaked in the guise of logic.
An absolutist thinker, she devotes one whole essay to an effort to persuade us that we really should see things as black and white, with no shades of gray.
Born in Soviet Russia, Rand so despised socialism and collectivist thinking that she leapt to the furthest extreme possible to become the champion of unbridled capitalism, the rights of the individual at the expense of the community, and the diminution of all regulation by the state, with the exception of a judicial system and the control of crime.
Among the sadly dated ideas she conveys are the attitude that homosexuals are mutant symptoms of a sick society and the belief that anyone with an interest in internationalism is a “one world” proponent.
To use one of her own favored words, Rand’s political and social philosophy is critically “muddled.” C.M. Herbert’s voice is efficient and cold, making it a perfect choice for the narration of this author’s work. Recommended only as documentation of an anomaly in the history of ideas. Mark Pumphrey, Polk Cty. P.L., Columbus, NC
[/quote]
This shit is fucking stupid. The more I read the arguments of her detractors the more I can see that she’s correct, or at least a whole lot closer to correct than anyone else.
[quote]Kainjer wrote:
From Library Journal
…the rights of the individual at the expense of the community, and the diminution of all regulation by the state, with the exception of a judicial system and the control of crime.
[/quote]
How does one have a right ‘at the EXPENSE of the community’? Your rights exist by the definition of what you are. “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
There is no such things as rights at the expense of someone else. Does your right to exist come at the expense of the community? Does your freedom come at that expense?
The author of that crap is simply evil…and you are dumb enough to swallow it undigested.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I just finished the Fountainhead a few days ago. What a poorly written piece of crap. Lame plot, stilted dialogue, unsympathetic hero, ridiculously poor villains…
How could anyone take her seriously as an author or philosopher?
I’ve never read her fiction but I agree with her philosophy. It just seems immoral to you because your standard of morality is corrupt.[/quote]
It is not immoral. It is childish. She displays little understanding of peoples motivations.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Your post makes no sense at all, once more.
Aren’t you an older guy? You sound as if man can persue happiness or anything more then just mere existance from living in a cave.
We need others for everything, as our feelings and moods are largely social technique.
Even a loner needs others to feel that he’s alone.
And that has zero to do with Collectivism but simple Biology.
This is all self interest. Rand is simply stating that self interest motivates us and to condem this is to condem man’s instinct and natural tendancies. There is absolutly nothing wrong with being driven by your own self interests.
Weather this be money, the ability to support your family, or the satisfaction you get from helping others, it is all self interest.
Collectivism is built on altruistic principles that cannot be attained without force. We are told to strive towards altruism and it is simply not possible. It’s not in our genetic makeup.[/quote]
You are repeating her nonsense but it has no basis in fact. People share and care for each other naturally. The concepts of love and affection are totally missing from that pile of trash the Fountainhead.
Real life motivations are so much more complex than her writing.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Kainjer wrote:
From Library Journal
…the rights of the individual at the expense of the community, and the diminution of all regulation by the state, with the exception of a judicial system and the control of crime.
How does one have a right ‘at the EXPENSE of the community’? Your rights exist by the definition of what you are. “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
There is no such things as rights at the expense of someone else. Does your right to exist come at the expense of the community? Does your freedom come at that expense?
The author of that crap is simply evil…and you are dumb enough to swallow it undigested.
[/quote]
Howard Roarke destroyed a building at the expense of the community simply because he didn’t like it. He was the hero of her story.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You are repeating her nonsense but it has no basis in fact. People share and care for each other naturally. The concepts of love and affection are totally missing from that pile of trash the Fountainhead.
Real life motivations are so much more complex than her writing.[/quote]
Sharing and caring for someone is still self interest. What she has coined Objectivism is really just Libertarianism. What she coins Self Interest is really just liberty.
Self interest can be helping others if that’s what make you feel good. Self interest can be giving up your liberty and joining some socialist commune if that’s what you want to do. It is not moral for someone to decide who should get the fruits of my labor, just as it would not be moral for someone to decide who can stay in my forth bedroom.
It is not moral to force me to support someone whom I have never met. People should be left alone to do as they please as long as they are not harming someone else.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You are repeating her nonsense but it has no basis in fact. People share and care for each other naturally. The concepts of love and affection are totally missing from that pile of trash the Fountainhead.
Real life motivations are so much more complex than her writing.
Sharing and caring for someone is still self interest. What she has coined Objectivism is really just Libertarianism. What she coins Self Interest is really just liberty.
Self interest can be helping others if that’s what make you feel good. Self interest can be giving up your liberty and joining some socialist commune if that’s what you want to do. It is not moral for someone to decide who should get the fruits of my labor, just as it would not be moral for someone to decide who can stay in my forth bedroom.
It is not moral to force me to support someone whom I have never met. People should be left alone to do as they please as long as they are not harming someone else.[/quote]
Explain to me how Howard Roarke was right to destroy the works of others because it didn’t fit his vision.
His selfish act directly harmed others and yet he was her hero.
Her philosophy is so extreme it is ridiculous it doesn’t even stand up in her own fiction much less the real world.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You are repeating her nonsense but it has no basis in fact. People share and care for each other naturally. The concepts of love and affection are totally missing from that pile of trash the Fountainhead.
Real life motivations are so much more complex than her writing.
Sharing and caring for someone is still self interest. What she has coined Objectivism is really just Libertarianism. What she coins Self Interest is really just liberty.
Self interest can be helping others if that’s what make you feel good. Self interest can be giving up your liberty and joining some socialist commune if that’s what you want to do.
It is not moral for someone to decide who should get the fruits of my labor, just as it would not be moral for someone to decide who can stay in my forth bedroom.
It is not moral to force me to support someone whom I have never met. People should be left alone to do as they please as long as they are not harming someone else.[/quote]
Objectivism is NOT libertarianism. The latter originated as spinoff of the former. Rand was vehemently opposed to libertarianism because it approximates her political views without having in place the necessary epistemiological and metaphysical foundations.
Atlas Shrugged rocked. I just wish there were some “secret agents” still around to knock some sense into Washington. (Obama is a damn socialist. ok got that out sorry.)
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Kainjer wrote:
From Library Journal
…the rights of the individual at the expense of the community, and the diminution of all regulation by the state, with the exception of a judicial system and the control of crime.
How does one have a right ‘at the EXPENSE of the community’? Your rights exist by the definition of what you are. “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
There is no such things as rights at the expense of someone else. Does your right to exist come at the expense of the community? Does your freedom come at that expense?
The author of that crap is simply evil…and you are dumb enough to swallow it undigested.
Howard Roarke destroyed a building at the expense of the community simply because he didn’t like it. He was the hero of her story.[/quote]
He designed the building at the price of having the building be built with no changes in the design. The contract was violated.
Actually, he was setting the evil dude (Toohey) up. Roarke knew that Toohey and his minions could not resist the desire to deface Roarke’s building. Roarke WANTED the trial, to put his philosohy before the public and say to them: “Choose.”
See? Rand is much more subtle and you have to really think about what she says. As a clue, she has Wynand and Dominique spot Roarke’s work at once, when he gave it to Keating.
Objectivism is NOT libertarianism. The latter originated as spinoff of the former. Rand was vehemently opposed to libertarianism because it approximates her political views without having in place the necessary epistemiological and metaphysical foundations.
[/quote]
Libertarianism did not spin off from Obvectivism. Libertarianism existed for 100 years before Ayn Rand was even born. Well 50 anyway.
Libertarian foundations are absolutly metaphysical. You’ll have to explain to me why they are not. As for epistemology I would agree from what I have read of early Libertarians. It is interesting to read about, but at the end of the day it is all guess work to me. How can you study how knowledge is formed without using knowledge from sources or origins you don’t understand? Chicken and the egg to me but then again I haven’t spent much time thinking about it.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I just finished the Fountainhead a few days ago. What a poorly written piece of crap. Lame plot, stilted dialogue, unsympathetic hero, ridiculously poor villains…
How could anyone take her seriously as an author or philosopher?[/quote]
That’s the thing, I feel like I oughta read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead, but they’re both so long that if they’re horrible it’s gonna be a tremendous waste of time. Guess I’ll do it some day.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I just finished the Fountainhead a few days ago. What a poorly written piece of crap. Lame plot, stilted dialogue, unsympathetic hero, ridiculously poor villains…
How could anyone take her seriously as an author or philosopher?[/quote]
You have to understand her as a reaction to her times mainstream.
Objectivism is NOT libertarianism. The latter originated as spinoff of the former. Rand was vehemently opposed to libertarianism because it approximates her political views without having in place the necessary epistemiological and metaphysical foundations.
Libertarianism did not spin off from Obvectivism. Libertarianism existed for 100 years before Ayn Rand was even born. Well 50 anyway.
Libertarian foundations are absolutly metaphysical. You’ll have to explain to me why they are not. As for epistemology I would agree from what I have read of early Libertarians. It is interesting to read about, but at the end of the day it is all guess work to me. How can you study how knowledge is formed without using knowledge from sources or origins you don’t understand? Chicken and the egg to me but then again I haven’t spent much time thinking about it.[/quote]
Classic liberals claim that people have been endowed with inalienable rights by God and that those rights can be deducted by reason from the basic premises that you own yourself and have the right to stay alive.