Obama vs Ayn Rand

“Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.” Howard Roark

“But you see, I have, let’s say, sixty years to live. Most of that time will be spent working. I’ve chosen the work I want to do. If I find no joy in it, then I’m only condemning myself to sixty years of torture. And I can find the joy only if I do my work in the best way possible to me. But the best is a matter of standards–and I set my own standards. I inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps, stand at the beginning of one.” Howard Roark

“Every form has its own meaning. Every man creates his meaning and form and goal. Why is it so important–what others have done? Why does it become sacred by the mere fact of not being your own? Why is anyone and everyone right–so long as it’s not yourself? Why does the number of those others take the place of truth? Why is truth made a mere matter of arithmetic–and only of addition at that? Why is everything twisted out of all sense to fit everything else? There must be some reason. I don’t know. I’ve never known it. I’d like to understand.”

“When facing society, the man most concerned, the man who is to do the most and contribute the most, has the least to say. It’s taken for granted that he has no voice and the reasons he could offer are rejected in advance as prejudiced–since no speech is ever considered, but only the speaker. It’s so much easier to pass judgment on a man than on an idea. Though how in hell one passes judgment on a man without considering the content of his brain is more than I’ll ever understand. However, that’s how it’s done.”
Kent Lansing The Fountainhead

“And what, incidentally, do you think integrity is? The ability not to pick a watch out of your neighbor’s pocket? No, it’s not as easy as that. If that were all, I’d say ninety-five percent of humanity were honest, upright men. Only, as you can see, they aren’t. Integrity is the ability to stand by an idea. That presupposes the ability to think. Thinking is something one doesn’t borrow or pawn.” Kent Lansing The Fountainhead

“What you feel in the presence of a thing you admire is just one word–‘Yes.’ The affirmation, the acceptance, the sign of admittance. And that ‘Yes’ is more than an answer to one thing, it’s a kind of ‘Amen’ to life, to the earth that holds this thing, to the thought that created it, to yourself for being able to see it. But the ability to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ is the essence of all ownership. It’s your ownership of your own ego. Your soul, if you wish. Your soul has a single basic function–the act of valuing. ‘Yes’ or ‘No,’ ‘I wish’ or ‘I do not wish.’ You can’t say ‘Yes’ without saying 'I.” There’s no affirmation without the one who affirms. In this sense, everything to which you grant your love is yours. Howard Roark The Fountainhead

Don’t set out to raze all shrines…you’ll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity, and the shrines are razed. Howard Roark The Fountainhead

And this one just for TB…
“I don’t see anything evil in a desire to make money. But money is only a means to some end. If a man wants it for a personal purpose, to invest in his industry, to create, to study, to travel, to enjoy luxury,he is completely moral. But the men who place money first go much beyond that. Personal luxury is a limited endeavor. What they want is ostentation: to show, to stun, to entertain, to impress others. They’re second-handers.”

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I think Das Kapital was wrong on a number of levels, but I wouldn’t sit here and claim it wasn’t important, even if Marx borrowed ideas from others; even though he wasn’t an “American” author; and even though it wasn’t completely “original.” [/quote]

x2

The same goes for “Mein Kampf”.

Original? No.

Well written? No.

Influential? Hell yes. [/quote]Kinda like toilet toilet paper which is far more useful and profound than anything from Ayn Rand.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I think Das Kapital was wrong on a number of levels, but I wouldn’t sit here and claim it wasn’t important, even if Marx borrowed ideas from others; even though he wasn’t an “American” author; and even though it wasn’t completely “original.” [/quote]

x2

The same goes for “Mein Kampf”.

Original? No.

Well written? No.

Influential? Hell yes. [/quote]Kinda like toilet toilet paper which is far more useful and profound than anything from Ayn Rand.
[/quote]

Wow.

Did Pittbull hack Tirib’s account?

[quote]JEATON wrote:
“Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.” Howard Roark

“But you see, I have, let’s say, sixty years to live. Most of that time will be spent working. I’ve chosen the work I want to do. If I find no joy in it, then I’m only condemning myself to sixty years of torture. And I can find the joy only if I do my work in the best way possible to me. But the best is a matter of standards–and I set my own standards. I inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps, stand at the beginning of one.” Howard Roark

“Every form has its own meaning. Every man creates his meaning and form and goal. Why is it so important–what others have done? Why does it become sacred by the mere fact of not being your own? Why is anyone and everyone right–so long as it’s not yourself? Why does the number of those others take the place of truth? Why is truth made a mere matter of arithmetic–and only of addition at that? Why is everything twisted out of all sense to fit everything else? There must be some reason. I don’t know. I’ve never known it. I’d like to understand.”

“When facing society, the man most concerned, the man who is to do the most and contribute the most, has the least to say. It’s taken for granted that he has no voice and the reasons he could offer are rejected in advance as prejudiced–since no speech is ever considered, but only the speaker. It’s so much easier to pass judgment on a man than on an idea. Though how in hell one passes judgment on a man without considering the content of his brain is more than I’ll ever understand. However, that’s how it’s done.”
Kent Lansing The Fountainhead

“And what, incidentally, do you think integrity is? The ability not to pick a watch out of your neighbor’s pocket? No, it’s not as easy as that. If that were all, I’d say ninety-five percent of humanity were honest, upright men. Only, as you can see, they aren’t. Integrity is the ability to stand by an idea. That presupposes the ability to think. Thinking is something one doesn’t borrow or pawn.” Kent Lansing The Fountainhead

“What you feel in the presence of a thing you admire is just one word–‘Yes.’ The affirmation, the acceptance, the sign of admittance. And that ‘Yes’ is more than an answer to one thing, it’s a kind of ‘Amen’ to life, to the earth that holds this thing, to the thought that created it, to yourself for being able to see it. But the ability to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ is the essence of all ownership. It’s your ownership of your own ego. Your soul, if you wish. Your soul has a single basic function–the act of valuing. ‘Yes’ or ‘No,’ ‘I wish’ or ‘I do not wish.’ You can’t say ‘Yes’ without saying 'I.” There’s no affirmation without the one who affirms. In this sense, everything to which you grant your love is yours. Howard Roark The Fountainhead

Don’t set out to raze all shrines…you’ll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity, and the shrines are razed. Howard Roark The Fountainhead

And this one just for TB…
“I don’t see anything evil in a desire to make money. But money is only a means to some end. If a man wants it for a personal purpose, to invest in his industry, to create, to study, to travel, to enjoy luxury,he is completely moral. But the men who place money first go much beyond that. Personal luxury is a limited endeavor. What they want is ostentation: to show, to stun, to entertain, to impress others. They’re second-handers.”

[/quote]

I don’t know how you got production and achievement so intermingled, they are not the same thing.

There is a reality that people seem to be oblivious to, and that is that unabashed individual greed puts people in a rat race, which they are unhappy about. People don’t always have the option of, “doing something else.”

You talk about slavery and freedom, you don’t see that greed leads to slavery.

Strong Word from Jesus Christ:

[quote]Then He said to them, “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions.”(Luke 12:15 NASB)[/quote]Ayn Rand was on every level a God hating anti Christian pagan who has no place in the heart of a believer. Her popularity among so called Christians nowadays goes right along with the rest of the church’s grotesque apostasy. Pitbull must have hacked my account for this post too I suppose. You make it real tough, but I’m not givin up on you JEATON.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I think Das Kapital was wrong on a number of levels, but I wouldn’t sit here and claim it wasn’t important, even if Marx borrowed ideas from others; even though he wasn’t an “American” author; and even though it wasn’t completely “original.” [/quote]

x2

The same goes for “Mein Kampf”.

Original? No.

Well written? No.

Influential? Hell yes. [/quote]Kinda like toilet toilet paper which is far more useful and profound than anything from Ayn Rand.
[/quote]

That is just unfair, almost nothing is as useful and profound as toilet paper.

By that metric, 90 of everything ever written is garbage.

Come to think about it, by any other metric too, but still.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Strong Word from Jesus Christ:

While I agree with most of what you wrote, Ayn Rand was not about greed the way you understand it.

She was about selfactualization.

You can give, but she rejects that you must at gunpoint.

At least this part is entirely compatible with Christianity.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/27/1124666/-The-Paul-Ryan-Ayn-Rand-Satanism-Connection-Made-Simple[/quote]

See, if you are willing to present a well rounded argument as to why Ayn Rand is satanic, I would be interested in reading that.

What you posted here contains no arguments, just some quotes with more or less well done observations, I in part agree with but satanic?

Being anti religion and superstition as a whole cannot be really enough to be satanic, there obviously must be more to it.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I think Das Kapital was wrong on a number of levels, but I wouldn’t sit here and claim it wasn’t important, even if Marx borrowed ideas from others; even though he wasn’t an “American” author; and even though it wasn’t completely “original.” [/quote]

x2

The same goes for “Mein Kampf”.

Original? No.

Well written? No.

Influential? Hell yes. [/quote]Kinda like toilet toilet paper which is far more useful and profound than anything from Ayn Rand.
[/quote]

I laughed heartily at this.

Her influence among professing Christians is absolutely Satanic. By Satanic, I do not mean overtly and self consciously promoting the advancement of the Devil’s interests. Those ideas are most evil and dangerous that are closest to the truth while still being lies. This http://atheists.org/ is not nearly as Satanic as this http://biologos.org/
2nd Corinthians 11:13-15 (ESV (which is growing on me))

The former is obvious and no real threat to the church. Those aren’t the people I’m after. It’s the smiling, beguiling servants of that false “angel of light”, bible in hand and talkin about Jesus who are the most insidious, corrosive and corrupting of all the people on earth. Theistic evolutionists aren’t the only ones. I’m just using them as one example. There’s plenty more. What’s really telling is that Rand is far closer to the atheists. She WAS an atheist and a cheap peddler of all that was opposed to the gospel and people in this modern world can claim Christ out of one side of their mouth and her godless self exalting paganism out of the other.

This is why our country is almost dead and the western world is swirling down a toilet of death, debt and debauchery. The church, who is commanded by Jesus Himself to be the exposing light and preserving salt of the earth is in shameless wanton whoredom with the world she’s supposed to be an alien ambassador to. It seems that ancient Israel hasn’t taught us much after all.

Dead, deceived, defeated, worldly, heretical “christians” are faaaaar more useful to Satan than all the Dawkins, Dennets, Harris,s and Hitchens of the world combined. Rand is one of his more clumsy weapons that does seem to have it’s uses among some of the more untutored souls with the name of Jesus on their lips. Many will grow to put away her poisons. Many will not.

Regardless of what JEATON may think? This post is NOT an attack on him as an individual.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Strong Word from Jesus Christ:

While I agree with most of what you wrote, Ayn Rand was not about greed the way you understand it.

She was about selfactualization.

You can give, but she rejects that you must at gunpoint.

At least this part is entirely compatible with Christianity. [/quote]

The real problem with Rand is that she is the ultimate victim of the straw man attack.

People will put great effort in creating a false narrative of what she supposedly said and believed and then proceed to attack this construct with the ferocity of a fur trader bashing a baby harp seal. TB is one of the worst offenders in this aspect that I have ever witnessed. He is a very intelligent man, and in his areas of expertise I am loath to challenge him. However, in the topic of Rand, I assure you he know somewhere between jack and shit about the woman and her works. AND, I have said again and again, THERE ARE PLENTY OF REAL, LEGITIMATE, TRUE REASONS TO CRITICIZE RAND. Unfortunately, few bother to actually read and think for themselves.

I, too, found Rand’s work very compelling when I read it during college. (I’m 47 now.)

But it’s true that she was an atheist and also slept around on her husband. Certainly not the appropriate poster girl for the Conservative GOP.

I’m in a super hurry. I have never seen this video before ten seconds ago, so for what it’s worth.

[quote]JEATON wrote:
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give.
[/quote]

This is why I can’t read Rand, let alone respect her. She makes up a conflict or creates an argument that does not exist like some cult leader to create an us vs them environment.

Who exactly was taught this? The Renaissance humanists already dealt with the subject of human potential. Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man outlines our capacity for achievement. Giving is seen as a virtue, in those who have achieved. Also, giving can be seen as an achievement or the reason for achievement. A person goes to medical school and becomes a doctor, an achievement, because they want to help (a form of giving) people. Rand states the obvious when she says that someone needs to have achieved something in order to give something.

The man who donates his paycheck to charity with the result that his kids go hungry is not considered a giving, generous, virtuous person, but an irresponsible idiot, a villain even.

Rand was a capitalist in a very pure sense , the Right like to think of themselves in the same sense but in fact they are what Rand railed against

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Her influence among professing Christians is absolutely Satanic. By Satanic, I do not mean overtly and self consciously promoting the advancement of the Devil’s interests. Those ideas are most evil and dangerous that are closest to the truth while still being lies. This http://atheists.org/ is not nearly as Satanic as this http://biologos.org/
2nd Corinthians 11:13-15 (ESV (which is growing on me))

The former is obvious and no real threat to the church. Those aren’t the people I’m after. It’s the smiling, beguiling servants of that false “angel of light”, bible in hand and talkin about Jesus who are the most insidious, corrosive and corrupting of all the people on earth. Theistic evolutionists aren’t the only ones. I’m just using them as one example. There’s plenty more. What’s really telling is that Rand is far closer to the atheists. She WAS an atheist and a cheap peddler of all that was opposed to the gospel and people in this modern world can claim Christ out of one side of their mouth and her godless self exalting paganism out of the other.

This is why our country is almost dead and the western world is swirling down a toilet of death, debt and debauchery. The church, who is commanded by Jesus Himself to be the exposing light and preserving salt of the earth is in shameless wanton whoredom with the world she’s supposed to be an alien ambassador to. It seems that ancient Israel hasn’t taught us much after all.

Dead, deceived, defeated, worldly, heretical “christians” are faaaaar more useful to Satan than all the Dawkins, Dennets, Harris,s and Hitchens of the world combined. Rand is one of his more clumsy weapons that does seem to have it’s uses among some of the more untutored souls with the name of Jesus on their lips. Many will grow to put away her poisons. Many will not.

Regardless of what JEATON may think? This post is NOT an attack on him as an individual.

[/quote]

But by that measure almost everything in todays culture is satanic.

What is it that makes her stand out?

Her, um, influence?

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give.
[/quote]

This is why I can’t read Rand, let alone respect her. She makes up a conflict or creates an argument that does not exist like some cult leader to create an us vs them environment.

Who exactly was taught this? The Renaissance humanists already dealt with the subject of human potential. Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man outlines our capacity for achievement. Giving is seen as a virtue, in those who have achieved. Also, giving can be seen as an achievement or the reason for achievement. A person goes to medical school and becomes a doctor, an achievement, because they want to help (a form of giving) people. Rand states the obvious when she says that someone needs to have achieved something in order to give something.

The man who donates his paycheck to charity with the result that his kids go hungry is not considered a giving, generous, virtuous person, but an irresponsible idiot, a villain even. [/quote]

That is a strawman.

There is a direct quote from Ayn Rand where she say that if you want to give, give.

If you are forced to give at gunpoint, like in, I dont know, social security, universal healthcare, welfare programs, food stamps… that is not really you being free to give that is you being treated as a beast of burden by other people.

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Strong Word from Jesus Christ:

While I agree with most of what you wrote, Ayn Rand was not about greed the way you understand it.

She was about selfactualization.

You can give, but she rejects that you must at gunpoint.

At least this part is entirely compatible with Christianity. [/quote]

The real problem with Rand is that she is the ultimate victim of the straw man attack.

People will put great effort in creating a false narrative of what she supposedly said and believed and then proceed to attack this construct with the ferocity of a fur trader bashing a baby harp seal. TB is one of the worst offenders in this aspect that I have ever witnessed. He is a very intelligent man, and in his areas of expertise I am loath to challenge him. However, in the topic of Rand, I assure you he know somewhere between jack and shit about the woman and her works. AND, I have said again and again, THERE ARE PLENTY OF REAL, LEGITIMATE, TRUE REASONS TO CRITICIZE RAND. Unfortunately, few bother to actually read and think for themselves. [/quote]

I know.

It gets hilarious when they attack her attack on “altruism”.

If you look up Auguste Comtes definition of altruism she was spot on and everyone else is dead wrong.

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I, too, found Rand’s work very compelling when I read it during college. (I’m 47 now.)

But it’s true that she was an atheist and also slept around on her husband. Certainly not the appropriate poster girl for the Conservative GOP.[/quote]

This brings to mind another curious phenomenon.

Take, for example, Tiribulus and his love for John Calvin. I have shared my opinion of Calvin as a mass murderering piece of filth that should occupy the lowest level of hell. His crimes against humanity are such that I personally cannot separate the man from his teachings. Tirib, on the other hand, has the ability to recognize the demonic acts of the man yet still hold his teachings in the highest regard.

Rand taught that man has the right, even the moral obligation, to live life to his own purpose. And, in doing so, he is likely to be of greater benefit to his fellow man, even if he has no obligation to do so. Yet she had an affair with Nathaniel Brandan, who she patterned John Galt after, having told her husband of her desire and intent before hand. She aged poorly, and with her harsh Russian accent she presented poorly in her later life as she began to appear on television shows such as Phil Donahue. Having never caused the death of untold numbers of people that did not agree with her, I can separate the individual flaws from the overall message and find certain benefits therein. Tirib finds her Satanic with no redeeming qualities.

Interesting, huh.