Ayn Rand's Secret Agents

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]GDollars37 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?

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]

When people don’t study philosophy, they tend to think with the herd (Read what Zap wrote). If they somehow disagree with the herd at some time, they don’t know how to formulate an opposing opinion. They then begin to think of ALL philosophy as just a bunch of meaningless shit…which was the goal of our elitist leaders anyway. People are much easier to demoralize/rule when they are nihilists. That’s why American culture is rife with nihilism.

As Ms. Rand points out, this leads to extremism, scapegoatting, and breakdown. Eventually people are valueless creatures who embrace violence as the best way to interact with others. When you don’t know the difference between right and wrong, then you don’t care when you see others carted off to Auschwitz, or the Gulag Archipelago.

42

“Why won’t any men fuck me? I guess it is because they are weak.” – Ayn Rand

43

I don’t get the hate. Atlas shrugged is a great read, and the basic premise behind the story rings true. Especially given we may have a ‘looter’ president after this election.

44

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
GDollars37 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?

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.

When people don’t study philosophy, they tend to think with the herd (Read what Zap wrote). If they somehow disagree with the herd at some time, they don’t know how to formulate an opposing opinion.

They then begin to think of ALL philosophy as just a bunch of meaningless shit…which was the goal of our elitist leaders anyway. People are much easier to demoralize/rule when they are nihilists. That’s why American culture is rife with nihilism.

As Ms. Rand points out, this leads to extremism, scapegoatting, and breakdown. Eventually people are valueless creatures who embrace violence as the best way to interact with others.

When you don’t know the difference between right and wrong, then you don’t care when you see others carted off to Auschwitz, or the Gulag Archipelago.
[/quote]

When people get overly attached to another’s thinking they tend to view others as herd animals and themselves as independent while in fact they are the ones that refuse to think and analyze, they simple accept anothers thoughts. Quite sad.

45

[quote]Gael wrote:
“Why won’t any men fuck me? I guess it is because they are weak.” – Ayn Rand[/quote]

Ms Rand was married for many years. She also had a very long affair (while both were married) with a follower named Nathaniel Brandon.

Maybe you and Irish could play ‘swords’, fascinated with Ms Rand’s sex life, as you both are.

46

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

When people get overly attached to another’s thinking they tend to view others as herd animals and themselves as independent while in fact they are the ones that refuse to think and analyze, they simple accept anothers thoughts. Quite sad. [/quote]

Far better to admire than a philosopher and adopt most of her philosophy, than wallow in nihilism.

You don’t even bother to try in the least to figure out her philosophy. Nihilism.

47

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

When people get overly attached to another’s thinking they tend to view others as herd animals and themselves as independent while in fact they are the ones that refuse to think and analyze, they simple accept anothers thoughts. Quite sad.

Far better to admire than a philosopher and adopt most of her philosophy, than wallow in nihilism.

You don’t even bother to try in the least to figure out her philosophy. Nihilism.

[/quote]

Dude, her philosophy is incredibly shallow and transparent. Did you actually struggle to understand it?

48

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

When people get overly attached to another’s thinking they tend to view others as herd animals and themselves as independent while in fact they are the ones that refuse to think and analyze, they simple accept anothers thoughts. Quite sad.

Far better to admire than a philosopher and adopt most of her philosophy, than wallow in nihilism.

You don’t even bother to try in the least to figure out her philosophy. Nihilism.

Dude, her philosophy is incredibly shallow and transparent. Did you actually struggle to understand it? [/quote]

I wrote an explanation of points in her book, points that you asked for clarification. Did you read it?

Philosophy actually is a simple subject until you reach the modern Analysts, and their tearing apart of words and language structure. As in mathematics, it looks a helluva lot harder than it really is, until you get into the Positivists and the Analysts.

You would not read Plato’s Republic by skimming (as you did wrt Rand) then pronounce it crap. Why don’t you give even a modicum of the same respect to Rand? Are you afraid she’s right? Its beginning to sound that way.

Perhaps Sartre was right…sigh…

49

“Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”
The Fountainhead, 1943

“Great men can’t be ruled.”
The Fountainhead, 1943

“Kill reverence and you’ve killed the hero in man.”
The Fountainhead, 1943

“It had to be said: the world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrifice.”
The Fountainhead, 1943

“I swear - by my life and my love for it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Atlas Shrugged 1957

“To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.”
“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It

“Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”
For The New Intellectual

http://www.quotationspage.com/special.php3?file=w980201

Trolling HH, Zap?

50

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

When people get overly attached to another’s thinking they tend to view others as herd animals and themselves as independent while in fact they are the ones that refuse to think and analyze, they simple accept anothers thoughts. Quite sad.

Far better to admire than a philosopher and adopt most of her philosophy, than wallow in nihilism.

You don’t even bother to try in the least to figure out her philosophy. Nihilism.

Dude, her philosophy is incredibly shallow and transparent. Did you actually struggle to understand it?

I wrote an explanation of points in her book, points that you asked for clarification. Did you read it?
…
[/quote]

As I said it is simplistic. You must have a simple mind to be impressed. I just don’t know how you could see it as complicated!

51

[quote]AynRandLuvr wrote:
“Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”
The Fountainhead, 1943

“Great men can’t be ruled.”
The Fountainhead, 1943

“Kill reverence and you’ve killed the hero in man.”
The Fountainhead, 1943

“It had to be said: the world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrifice.”
The Fountainhead, 1943

“I swear - by my life and my love for it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Atlas Shrugged 1957

“To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.”
“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It

“Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”
For The New Intellectual

http://www.quotationspage.com/special.php3?file=w980201

Trolling HH, Zap? [/quote]

No matter how many times you repeat nonsense it is still nonsense.

The world is perishing? Really?

52

Mike Mentzer was a fan of hers, so she must be legitimate…j/k

53

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Gael wrote:
“Why won’t any men fuck me? I guess it is because they are weak.” – Ayn Rand

Ms Rand was married for many years. She also had a very long affair (while both were married) with a follower named Nathaniel Brandon.[/quote]

LOL @ HH for praising a woman for having an affair.

54

I’m with Zap, here. If her freedoms are absolute, so is my right to whack anybody over the head with this. I find here and her followers incredibly childish. Man is capable of heroic things and mean cruel things. Through social rules we try to minimize the latter without unduly constrain the former.

It is imperfect, but improving it is tinkering, not the baby/bathwater method.

TQB

55

[quote]TQB wrote:
I’m with Zap, here. If her freedoms are absolute, so is my right to whack anybody over the head with this. I find here and her followers incredibly childish. Man is capable of heroic things and mean cruel things. Through social rules we try to minimize the latter without unduly constrain the former.

It is imperfect, but improving it is tinkering, not the baby/bathwater method.

TQB[/quote]

I don’t know enough about her philosophy, but I do know that while it was about self interest, that ended with interfering with the other persons self interest.

I watched an interview with her, where a person stood up, claimed to be a follower at one point, then proceeded to attack her. Then she sat down with a nice smug look on her face.

Ayn Rand had a great opportunity to come back and debate, and instead wasted it on claiming that it was her time, and others should not be speaking about opposing philosophies.

That was not very smart.

I am planning on reading that tiny book, Atlas Shrugged.

From what little I know about her philosophy, I kind of agree with it to a point, but think it goes too far. If nobody had any character flaws, I think it would work perfectly.

56

[quote]TQB wrote:
I’m with Zap, here. If her freedoms are absolute, so is my right to whack anybody over the head with this. I find here and her followers incredibly childish. Man is capable of heroic things and mean cruel things. Through social rules we try to minimize the latter without unduly constrain the former.

It is imperfect, but improving it is tinkering, not the baby/bathwater method.

TQB[/quote]

Did you read ANY of the quotes the guy posted? And you believe THIS? Hopeless. Hit yourself with the club and make yourself smarter.

57

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
AynRandLuvr wrote:
“Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”
The Fountainhead, 1943

“Great men can’t be ruled.”
The Fountainhead, 1943

“Kill reverence and you’ve killed the hero in man.”
The Fountainhead, 1943

“It had to be said: the world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrifice.”
The Fountainhead, 1943

“I swear - by my life and my love for it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Atlas Shrugged 1957

“To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.”
“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It

“Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”
For The New Intellectual

http://www.quotationspage.com/special.php3?file=w980201

Trolling HH, Zap?

No matter how many times you repeat nonsense it is still nonsense.

The world is perishing? Really? [/quote]

If you can refute any of the above, I would read it gladly.
(to borrow from Ms. Rand)

58

[quote]TQB wrote:
I’m with Zap, here. If her freedoms are absolute, so is my right to whack anybody over the head with this. I find here and her followers incredibly childish. Man is capable of heroic things and mean cruel things. Through social rules we try to minimize the latter without unduly constrain the former.

It is imperfect, but improving it is tinkering, not the baby/bathwater method.

TQB[/quote]

What kind of stupidity is this? The central theme of Rands’ philosophy is that one man don’t have the right to use to use physical force against another. Again, the more you argue against her, the more you prove her correct.

59

[quote]The Mage wrote:
TQB wrote:
I’m with Zap, here. If her freedoms are absolute, so is my right to whack anybody over the head with this. I find here and her followers incredibly childish. Man is capable of heroic things and mean cruel things. Through social rules we try to minimize the latter without unduly constrain the former.

It is imperfect, but improving it is tinkering, not the baby/bathwater method.

TQB

I don’t know enough about her philosophy, but I do know that while it was about self interest, that ended with interfering with the other persons self interest.

I watched an interview with her, where a person stood up, claimed to be a follower at one point, then proceeded to attack her. Then she sat down with a nice smug look on her face.

Ayn Rand had a great opportunity to come back and debate, and instead wasted it on claiming that it was her time, and others should not be speaking about opposing philosophies.

That was not very smart.

I am planning on reading that tiny book, Atlas Shrugged.

From what little I know about her philosophy, I kind of agree with it to a point, but think it goes too far. If nobody had any character flaws, I think it would work perfectly.[/quote]

Actually it was a very sound tactic because she knew better than to bother arguing with her detractor. If you are a position where you’re exposed to the same utterly stupid arguments over and over again, the best way to deny the opposing argument is not to participate in the debate at all.

60

[quote]The Mage wrote:
TQB wrote:
I’m with Zap, here. If her freedoms are absolute, so is my right to whack anybody over the head with this. I find here and her followers incredibly childish. Man is capable of heroic things and mean cruel things. Through social rules we try to minimize the latter without unduly constrain the former.

It is imperfect, but improving it is tinkering, not the baby/bathwater method.

TQB

I don’t know enough about her philosophy, but I do know that while it was about self interest, that ended with interfering with the other persons self interest.

I watched an interview with her, where a person stood up, claimed to be a follower at one point, then proceeded to attack her. Then she sat down with a nice smug look on her face.

Ayn Rand had a great opportunity to come back and debate, and instead wasted it on claiming that it was her time, and others should not be speaking about opposing philosophies.

That was not very smart.

I am planning on reading that tiny book, Atlas Shrugged.

From what little I know about her philosophy, I kind of agree with it to a point, but think it goes too far. If nobody had any character flaws, I think it would work perfectly.[/quote]

Ms. Rand thought of herself as an artist. Would Da Vinci debate the merits of his work with idiots?

She also was a craftsman of the written word and was not an eloquent speaker. Each word in her books is there on purpose. She’d spend days over a single page. Atlas Shrugged took almost a decade to write. She did not debate her work after such efforts.

Read ‘We the Living’ first.