Is Ayn Rand Relevant Anymore?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

The broad was rather insufferable and her philosophy suffered from deep epistemological flaws. Namely the fact that objectivity doesn’t exist, has never existed, cannot exist, due to the separation of minds.

There are much better advocates for capitalism. Nevertheless, her cores ideas on that subject were correct and will remain so.

The relevance of those ideas has not diminished with time, nor will it.

Theories of natural sciences, of which economics is a part, simply don’t “lose relevance”. They can only be superceded through experimentation.

It’s like asking whether the theory of universal gravitation is “outdated yet”.

This thread ought to be fairly predictable. Everyone will praise Rand except for the one or two resident liberals here. What’s the point, HH? We’re all conservatives. We’re all pro-capitalist. We all support Rand’s theories to a greater or lesser extent.

22

Until quite recently, this thread would have been very short; maybe 2 or 3 replies, maybe some insults, and that would be that.

We’re up to 21 replies. Something is happening.

23

Greenspan, a close associate of Rand’s, while testifying before congress last year admitted explicitly that their ideology of deregulation was wrong and has failed us leading to our current economic crisis. was she brilliant? yes. can brilliant people be wrong? undoubtedly.

24

[quote]jonathangalinsky wrote:
Greenspan, a close associate of Rand’s, while testifying before congress last year admitted explicitly that their ideology of deregulation was wrong and has failed us leading to our current economic crisis. was she brilliant? yes. can brilliant people be wrong? undoubtedly.

[/quote]

Alan Greenspan is a liar and is covering up for the Fed.

25

[quote]jonathangalinsky wrote:
Greenspan, a close associate of Rand’s, while testifying before congress last year admitted explicitly that their ideology of deregulation was wrong and has failed us leading to our current economic crisis. was she brilliant? yes. can brilliant people be wrong? undoubtedly.

[/quote]
That’s because Greenspan is a koolaid drinking moron who came to believe in the power of man over natural laws. His statement about regulation is just proof that he bought into the hype of central planning

Greenspan failed the American people all so he could help enrich the power elite. He became corrupted by his power.

Yay, central banking!

26

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
The broad was rather insufferable and her philosophy suffered from deep epistemological flaws. Namely the fact that objectivity doesn’t exist, has never existed, cannot exist, due to the separation of minds.[/quote]

I don’t know if said flaws are related to presuppositions or foundational issues, but to say that objectivity doesn’t exist opens a huge can of worms. Nihilism and all that. You go back to the whole 2 + 2 = 4 argument. Separate minds all you want and the answer remains the same. Objectivity exists or there could be no shared knowledge.

27

I fucking hate the federal government trying to tell me what I can and can’t do. Unfortunately it is a machine that can’t be stopped. Even if republicans do get elected do we really expect them to scrap the new healthcare plan? The federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in the economy. It’s not their job.

28

[quote]belligerent wrote:
I’m currently reading “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Leanard Peikoff. Most people are obsessed with politics, but there is so much more to Objectivism than that. The philosophy is an intellectual framework for pecieving and thinking about reality. I think it’s the most valuable invention in human history, and that Ayn Rand will be immortalized in the future.[/quote]

Like I said, I read this, and recommend it in order to fully understnad objectivism whether one agrees with it or not. I do believe this book also shows alot more similarities than differences to usual arguments against Rand. I read an article in my local paper that chastised Rand and her ideas, but the guy was misinformed. it was the typical “rand loves greed and selfishness”.

We are all selfish, and once again, semantics is of the utmost importance when explaining ideas, as is contextual reference. Rand explained the need for objectivity in both of these. Think of how most people interpret “selfishness”, its alot more negative than its literal meaning. Once you get into subjectivity in wordplay, then law and contract become null and void. See the butchering of the US constitution.

Anyways, I have read a good bit of philosophy, Plato, Nietzche, Hume, Hobbes, Rosseau…and felt that was one of the better works. Granted I am still a fledgling and have a lifetime of learning ahead of me, but at the moment Objectivism seems pretty logically sound.

I espcially agree with her notion that every man needs a philosophy by which to live his life, and objective code of ethics. The lack of which creates internal strife and discord.

Nominal Prospect, I generally enjoy the terse nature of your posts, I am curious however to what these epistemological flaws are?

29

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
She has many relevant ideas but she arrives at them in a backwards manner.

Mostly I do not agree with her philosophy of objectivism because there is no solid ground to base it on – even axiomatically it is untenable.

She can offer no philosophical proof that even though we must accept existence, identity, and conscious as axiomatic concepts that are true by definition that they must naturally lead to “objectively based reality”.

Most likely reality is split in two: that which we can judge objectively via observation (quantitatively) or that which we can judge subjectively via our values (qualitatively). Most disagreements start with that knowledge that comes from subjective judgments.

If all knowledge were objectively based then we would have no cause to argue and if there wasn’t at least some knowledge that could be known objectively then we would have nothing to argue over.[/quote]

If existence, consciousness, and identity are axioms, then reality exists independently of man’s mind and is therefore objective. Man’s choice is whether to think objectively or not - if he choses not to do so, it is not a failure of reality to exist as it is.

30

Alan was in Ayn’s inner circle. Alan’s purpose was to crash the system, to ‘stop the motor of the world’. For this reason, Reagan dramatically increased the national debt and started us on the path we’re on. Alan’s job was to create the biggest bubble in history.

In effect, she made Alan Greenspan into John Galt/Francisco D’Anconia.

31

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Alan was in Ayn’s inner circle. Alan’s purpose was to crash the system, to ‘stop the motor of the world’. For this reason, Reagan dramatically increased the national debt and started us on the path we’re on. Alan’s job was to create the biggest bubble in history.

In effect, she made Alan Greenspan into John Galt/Francisco D’Anconia.[/quote]

What evidence is there to suggest that Greenspan is anything more than a pragmatist who only believes in capitalism on a “philosophical” level, i.e. totally divoreced from real-life actions? Seems to me that he took the job that Galt refused. And let’s not forget that Rand died before his appoitnment to the Fed Chairmanship.

32

headhunter- i’m assuming that’s sarcasm…otherwise you’re into some o.d. conspiracy theorizing.

33

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
<<< In an objectivist world, they are free to disagree and leave each other alone >>>[/quote]

This will very often not be the case in disagreements.

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
<<< (if each ones actions do not infringe the freedom to action of the other), >>>[/quote]

A whole universe of subjectivity has just been introduced in the absence of a supra human source and definition of morality and freedom which Rand could not suffer to exist.

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
<<< or settle the disagreement through an objective, third party such as the judicial system or arbitrator. >>>[/quote]

Whatever that is minus a supra human court beyond which there is no appeal.

Rand was one of these people with some really solid ideas and no epistemological basis in their own definition of reality for believing them.

34

[quote]belligerent wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Alan was in Ayn’s inner circle. Alan’s purpose was to crash the system, to ‘stop the motor of the world’. For this reason, Reagan dramatically increased the national debt and started us on the path we’re on. Alan’s job was to create the biggest bubble in history.

In effect, she made Alan Greenspan into John Galt/Francisco D’Anconia.[/quote]

What evidence is there to suggest that Greenspan is anything more than a pragmatist who only believes in capitalism on a “philosophical” level, i.e. totally divoreced from real-life actions? Seems to me that he took the job that Galt refused. And let’s not forget that Rand died before his appoitnment to the Fed Chairmanship.[/quote]

The fact that he was in her circle, went to her home, had long discussions with her suggests what happened. Remember, reality can’t contain contradictions – either he completely betrayed the principles about which he was very passionate, or he decided to act upon his principles.

Hmmm…

35

[quote]jonathangalinsky wrote:
headhunter- i’m assuming that’s sarcasm…otherwise you’re into some o.d. conspiracy theorizing. [/quote]

I have read Rand for 30 years, know how her mind works. Remember, she hated philosophy that accomplished nothing. Read her ‘Philosophy: Who Needs It?’.

36

[quote]jonathangalinsky wrote:
Greenspan, a close associate of Rand’s, while testifying before congress last year admitted explicitly that their ideology of deregulation was wrong and has failed us leading to our current economic crisis. was she brilliant? yes. can brilliant people be wrong? undoubtedly. [/quote]

Yep, Greenspan sold out. Old news, my friend.

37

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Alan was in Ayn’s inner circle. Alan’s purpose was to crash the system, to ‘stop the motor of the world’. For this reason, Reagan dramatically increased the national debt and started us on the path we’re on. Alan’s job was to create the biggest bubble in history.

In effect, she made Alan Greenspan into John Galt/Francisco D’Anconia.[/quote]
Damn

38

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Whether or not you agree with Rand, Irish, She is relevant as her views impact a great multitude of people. I mean I could say Islam is not relevant, but alot of the world would care to say otherwise whether I agree or not. Cheers.[/quote]

What great multitude of people is that? Pseudo-intellectual high school juniors? Which of her books has anyone here read? Anthem and that’s it, right? Read her non-fiction, it is harder to swallow than Marx.

39

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Whether or not you agree with Rand, Irish, She is relevant as her views impact a great multitude of people. I mean I could say Islam is not relevant, but alot of the world would care to say otherwise whether I agree or not. Cheers.[/quote]

What great multitude of people is that? Pseudo-intellectual high school juniors? Which of her books has anyone here read? Anthem and that’s it, right? Read her non-fiction, it is harder to swallow than Marx.[/quote]

According to a 1991 survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club, Atlas Shrugged was second to the Bible as the book that made most difference in American readers’ lives.[5] Modern Library’s 1998 three-month online poll of the 100 best novels of the 20th century[49][50] found Atlas rated #1 although it was not included on the list chosen by the Modern Library panel of authors and scholars.[51] The list was formed on 217,520 votes cast.[52]

In 1997, the libertarian Cato Institute held a joint conference with The Atlas Society, an Objectivist organization, to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged.[53] At this event, Howard Dickman of Reader’s Digest stated that the novel had “turned millions of readers on to the ideas of liberty” and said that the book had the important message of the readers’ “profound right to be happy.”[53]

The C-SPAN television series American Writers listed Rand as one of twenty-two surveyed figures of American literature, though primarily mentioning The Fountainhead rather than Atlas Shrugged.[54]

Rand’s impact on contemporary libertarian thought has been considerable, and it is noteworthy that the title of the leading libertarian magazine, Reason: Free Minds, Free Markets is taken directly from John Galt, the hero of Atlas Shrugged, who argues that “a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”

Conservative commentators Neal Boortz[55], Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh[56] have offered high praise of the book on their respective radio and television programs. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas cites Atlas Shrugged as among his favorite novels.[57]

The award-winning 2007 dystopian video game BioShock was heavily influenced by this book, with the in-game location Rapture being a version of Galt’s Gulch,[58] a character named Atlas,[59] and the name of another character, Andrew Ryan, being a play on Ayn Rand’s name.[60]

You might want to expose your ignorance a little at a time, rather than spring it on us with your second post.

40

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Whether or not you agree with Rand, Irish, She is relevant as her views impact a great multitude of people. I mean I could say Islam is not relevant, but alot of the world would care to say otherwise whether I agree or not. Cheers.[/quote]

What great multitude of people is that? Pseudo-intellectual high school juniors? Which of her books has anyone here read? Anthem and that’s it, right? Read her non-fiction, it is harder to swallow than Marx.[/quote]

Read her fiction and non fiction, alot more than Anthem. As I have mentioned before, I have read a fair amount of other philosophy to compare to, Im not the kool aid drinking type, there are even ideas of Rand I disagree with.

How about you enlighten us with your reading list then oh sagacious prophet?