I’d also say that no serious libertarian believes that a minarchist or anarchist “state” would be a utopia. There is no such thing as a utopia. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better than what we have currently and that is the point.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I’d also say that no serious libertarian believes that a minarchist or anarchist “state” would be a utopia. There is no such thing as a utopia. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better than what we have currently and that is the point.[/quote]
This is true. Libertarianism is not utopian like many people accuse it of being.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ayn Rand, Playboy Interview, 1964: who was Ayn Rand? - a biography, Playboy interview, 1964, Book hotels in Los Angeles
Setting aside the unapologetic anti-Christianity, which is not a surprise with Ms. Rand, this statement is just plain creepy. How is this statement not the starter seeds of an expression of crypto-fascism?
At any rate, a takedown of Rand’s juvenile philosophy was done years ago and stills holds up:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback
I like this line in particular:
Nor has [Rand], apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left first surprisingly resemble, then, in action, tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purpose, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitlerâ??s National Socialism and Stalinâ??s brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view from the Right, scarcely differs from the same world seen in materialist view from the Left. The question becomes chiefly: who is to run that world in whose interests, or perhaps, at best, who can run it more efficiently?[/quote]
As I admit my obvious incongruities, I accept yours as well. While I agree with and admire much of your commentary, in this case I become more convinced that you have not truly read the book. Studied it with an open but discerning mind.
I have read this review several times in the past. It always left me scratching my head. Having read the book several times, I always came away feeling as though the article and I were referencing two different sources.
BTW, the author, Whittaker Chambers, was a fascinating charter. Starting as a communist, a Soviet spy, a homosexual who loved the opportunity to go “cruising” in New York and Washington, a counter spy, defector, born again Christian, government witness in the Hiss case, etc.
He briefly wrote for the NR, really only remembered for his famous or infamous review of ATLAS SHRUGGED, “Big Sister is Watching You” which is where TB’s quote comes from. It is a terrible piece of journalism and I encourage everyone to read it in it’s entirety. I find it humorous that he equated AS to Nazism. It is really just three pages of name calling.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, the opposite would be true - graft, trickery, treachery, deceit, influence peddling, duplicity, etc. would be weeded in - not out - because these are the characteristics that would bring about success the most quickly in this cutthroat world. The “fittest” would be the ones who were the best at accomplishing these unseemly behaviors, not the other way around.
[/quote]
How do you account for “ethical” behavior seen in animals ? Things such as self-sacrifice, sharing, nurturing etc. Are these traits not proof that moral behavior DOES win in the long run?
What about the most successful businesses? Are these the ones that are deceitful and trick people? or are they not the ones that behave in the most ethical manner?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
People would deal with one another in full honesty, giving the best that they had to offer in expectation that they would receive the same. If not, they would simply refuse to deal with that person in the future. Graft, trickery, treachery, deceit, influence peddling, duplicity, etc. would be quickly weeded out in a true survival of the fittest. [/quote]
No, the opposite would be true - graft, trickery, treachery, deceit, influence peddling, duplicity, etc. would be weeded in - not out - because these are the characteristics that would bring about success the most quickly in this cutthroat world. The “fittest” would be the ones who were the best at accomplishing these unseemly behaviors, not the other way around.
Your statement is the height of naivete - and fairly stated, the Randian philosophy is exactly that: an expression of naivete and gullibility. This dog-eat-dog world of Randian fantasies wouldn’t cultivate virtue - it would reward some basest instincts of savage Man.
Virtue requires self-restraint and is based on a code of Good Behavior that is intrinsically good, even if it causes you to lose out on a buck or two. The Randian world wouldn’t encourage virtue - it punishes it and mocks it as being weak.
The more I hear libertarians talk, the more I am absolutely shocked in their real belief that if we could just cast off [insert human institution - religion, government, moral custom], Humans would set aside their savage nature and find their way to millenia of peaceful and fulfilling happiness. Randian philosophy teaches this foolish theory, and it deserves to be cast in the dustbin of history along with other discredited theories guaranteeing utopia.[/quote]
I can now state is plainly and without doubt. You have NEVER read the book. You have overplayed your hand. You have read critiques and criticisms but not the book.
Inferring that Ayn Rand was a libertarian? I expect more from you. I will let you hear it from the horses mouth:
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: â??The Moratorium on Brains,â?? 1971]
AR: All kinds of people today call themselves â??libertarians,â?? especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that theyâ??re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. Itâ??s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but donâ??t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. Thatâ??s the Libertarian movement.
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: â??A Nationâ??s Unity,â?? 1972]
AR: Iâ??d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I donâ??t think theyâ??re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt heâ??ll do), it would be a moral crime. I donâ??t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But donâ??t run for Presidentâ??or even dogcatcherâ??if youâ??re going to help McGovern.
Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: â??Censorship: Local and Express,â?? 1973]
AR: I donâ??t want to waste too much time on it. Itâ??s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians wonâ??t get. Todayâ??s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideasâ??I wonâ??t say from whomâ??is irresponsible, and in todayâ??s context, nearly immoral.
Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: â??Egalitarianism and Inflation,â?? 1974]
AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. Theyâ??re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which canâ??t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think itâ??s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.
Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: â???â?? 1976]
AR: My answer should be, â??I havenâ??t.â?? Thereâ??s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact oppositeâ??with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can findâ??and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; Iâ??m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.
Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LPâ??s â??Objective Communication,â?? Lecture 1, 1980]
AR: I donâ??t think plagiarists are effective. Iâ??ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasnâ??t my ideas badly mishandledâ??i.e., had the teeth pulled out of themâ??with no credit given. I didnâ??t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.
Q: Why donâ??t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: â??The Age of Mediocrity,â?? 1981]
AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. Theyâ??d like to have an amoral political program.
Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why donâ??t you support them? [Ibid., 1981]
AR: Please donâ??t tell me theyâ??re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. Thatâ??s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, â??The end justifies the means.â?? That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians arenâ??t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.
To be clear, I will continue listen to your views on the constitution and the founding fathers intent, however you have no fucking clue as to the beliefs and teachings of Ayn Rand.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
People would deal with one another in full honesty, giving the best that they had to offer in expectation that they would receive the same. If not, they would simply refuse to deal with that person in the future. Graft, trickery, treachery, deceit, influence peddling, duplicity, etc. would be quickly weeded out in a true survival of the fittest. [/quote]
No, the opposite would be true - graft, trickery, treachery, deceit, influence peddling, duplicity, etc. would be weeded in - not out - because these are the characteristics that would bring about success the most quickly in this cutthroat world. The “fittest” would be the ones who were the best at accomplishing these unseemly behaviors, not the other way around.
[/quote]
This is chief among the reasons why I think AS is better viewed as literature than philosophy. There’s an example in the book, where Midas Mulligan gives Francisco (I think) a loan to start his copper mine. The narrator mentions how Mulligan gives him a fair deal, charging a certain interest rate, and everyone pretends both parties drove a hard bargain. At the time, it occurred to me that if Mulligan were really driving a hard bargain, he would sign non-competition clauses with everyone that enters the Gulch so that no one else could loan money, and then opted for a percentage of Francisco’s business- say 80-95% of profits, with no possible buy-out. Enough to allow Francisco a decent living (in the Gulch), but with the vast percentage going to the money-man.
In short, Rand’s characters are fair even when they do not have to be. Therefore, because story’s settings are not very realistic, the moral lesson of the book loses some appeal in the carryover. And as a correlation of the latter, the story works better as a story than as a fable.
[quote]JEATON wrote:<<< Why do we have so many sects and denominations just in Christendom? Because there are so many different interpretations of the original works. And yes, I can argue both sides of that debate. <<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be frank, this is the problem that I have with you. I find you eager to bash fellow believers over the head with a heaping dose of legalism. I find this neither helpful or Christ-like. >>>[/quote]Lewis was a smart guy, but he wasn’t penning holy writ and he wasn’t right about everything he said. I’ll revisit this once this thread runs it’s course. I will be more than happy to hear about my un-Christlike, unhelpful legalism. I say that because I believe you are not just wrong, but a living object lesson in exactly why the church has no power in this age. I mean spiritual power. The kind of power that transforms nations. You’re the “nice” doctor who won’t tell the patient how bad it is because you really don’t think it IS that bad. Everybody just needs a kindly nudge and a hug from a weeping long faced Jesus who really hopes people will come to him. The gospel of the exalted risen Christ of God is the most startling simple life and death proposition ever. All dead then life for some.
There I go again. I just can’t shut up. I’ll try harder.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
People would deal with one another in full honesty, giving the best that they had to offer in expectation that they would receive the same. If not, they would simply refuse to deal with that person in the future. Graft, trickery, treachery, deceit, influence peddling, duplicity, etc. would be quickly weeded out in a true survival of the fittest. [/quote]
No, the opposite would be true - graft, trickery, treachery, deceit, influence peddling, duplicity, etc. would be weeded in - not out - because these are the characteristics that would bring about success the most quickly in this cutthroat world. The “fittest” would be the ones who were the best at accomplishing these unseemly behaviors, not the other way around.
Your statement is the height of naivete - and fairly stated, the Randian philosophy is exactly that: an expression of naivete and gullibility. This dog-eat-dog world of Randian fantasies wouldn’t cultivate virtue - it would reward some basest instincts of savage Man.
Virtue requires self-restraint and is based on a code of Good Behavior that is intrinsically good, even if it causes you to lose out on a buck or two. The Randian world wouldn’t encourage virtue - it punishes it and mocks it as being weak.
The more I hear libertarians talk, the more I am absolutely shocked in their real belief that if we could just cast off [insert human institution - religion, government, moral custom], Humans would set aside their savage nature and find their way to millenia of peaceful and fulfilling happiness. Randian philosophy teaches this foolish theory, and it deserves to be cast in the dustbin of history along with other discredited theories guaranteeing utopia.[/quote]
I can now state is plainly and without doubt. You have NEVER read the book. You have overplayed your hand. You have read critiques and criticisms but not the book.
Inferring that Ayn Rand was a libertarian? I expect more from you. I will let you hear it from the horses mouth:
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: �¢??The Moratorium on Brains,�¢?? 1971]
AR: All kinds of people today call themselves �¢??libertarians,�¢?? especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they�¢??re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It�¢??s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don�¢??t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That�¢??s the Libertarian movement.
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: �¢??A Nation�¢??s Unity,�¢?? 1972]
AR: I�¢??d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don�¢??t think they�¢??re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he�¢??ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don�¢??t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don�¢??t run for President�¢??or even dogcatcher�¢??if you�¢??re going to help McGovern.
Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: �¢??Censorship: Local and Express,�¢?? 1973]
AR: I don�¢??t want to waste too much time on it. It�¢??s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won�¢??t get. Today�¢??s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas�¢??I won�¢??t say from whom�¢??is irresponsible, and in today�¢??s context, nearly immoral.
Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: �¢??Egalitarianism and Inflation,�¢?? 1974]
AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They�¢??re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can�¢??t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it�¢??s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.
Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: �¢???�¢?? 1976]
AR: My answer should be, �¢??I haven�¢??t.�¢?? There�¢??s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite�¢??with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find�¢??and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I�¢??m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.
Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LP�¢??s �¢??Objective Communication,�¢?? Lecture 1, 1980]
AR: I don�¢??t think plagiarists are effective. I�¢??ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn�¢??t my ideas badly mishandled�¢??i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them�¢??with no credit given. I didn�¢??t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.
Q: Why don�¢??t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: �¢??The Age of Mediocrity,�¢?? 1981]
AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They�¢??d like to have an amoral political program.
Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don�¢??t you support them? [Ibid., 1981]
AR: Please don�¢??t tell me they�¢??re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That�¢??s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, �¢??The end justifies the means.�¢?? That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren�¢??t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.
To be clear, I will continue listen to your views on the constitution and the founding fathers intent, however you have no fucking clue as to the beliefs and teachings of Ayn Rand.[/quote]
I see your wall of text and will raise you an article in turn:
[quote]David Boaz from the Cato Institute writes:
I might begin by noting that the very notion of a conflict “between libertarians and Objectivists” is flawed, as it seems to me that all Objectivists are necessarily libertarians, though not all libertarians are Objectivists. That is, anyone who believes in individual rights, free enterprise, and strictly limited government–and I assume that includes all Objectivists–is a libertarian. An Objectivist libertarian might well not belong to any particular party and might part company with some other libertarians on a wide range of philosophical and other issues, but at the level of political philosophy Objectivists are libertarians. [/quote]
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8120
Emphasis mine.
I post this only to add to the bigger picture. I disagree with Thunderbolt’s conflation of Objectivists and Libertarians. But I also disagree with Rands own rejection of Libertarianism. As near as I can tell (being born long after the concepts had been expounded into oblivion) the Libertarian tent has a set of chairs marked ‘Reserved: Objectivists’ roped off, even if Objectivists themselves do not deign to sit in them.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Rand was a radical philosopher of the continental stripe whose fetishism of the satisfaction of terrestrial appetites as the highest good and exaltation of godless materialism have little in common with the classical liberal tradition of the West (Anglo-American thought, Scottish Enlightenment, Founding Fathers, etc.).
She is really just a Marxist, and shares all the assumptions of a Marxist - she just happens to take the side against the proletariat.
Rand is the literature of adolescents. Rand gives young people a sense of anti-autoritarianism and radical chic, and convinces them that they have discovered “philosophy” at a young age.
Rand - who simply recycled the fable of the Golden Goose in her works - isn’t to be taken seriously. [/quote]
Translation: Rand’s ambiguous acceptance/promotion of materialism and a rejection of the idea of religion are in contradiction with the basic political philosophies that led to the creation of this country and which she claims to further through Objectivism. She writes in a manner that easily provokes the inherent revolutionary attitude present in almost all youth, which allows her to easily dupe these impressionable youths into thinking that her philosophy is something more than it really is.
Not that hard Lifticus. [/quote]
While all of this is true, what she rages against is pop philosophy too, but, unlike her neo Aristotelian empiric rationalism etatist “altruism” is almost entirely based in wishful thinking.
Of course one can look down on her for appealing to 16 year olds “who think that they have discovered philosophy” but that intellectual snobbery simply lets 16 year olds fall prey to the prevailing ideas of the day which are definitely not Randian and almost as a rule utter horseshit.
ALso, of course her characters appear to be flat and unconvincing caricatures and one find it deplorable, but these days all you need to do is turn on your television and, voila, Mooch parades wherever you look.
My favorite is Barney Frank.
[quote]Otep wrote:<<< But I also disagree with Rands own rejection of Libertarianism. As near as I can tell (being born long after the concepts had been expounded into oblivion) the Libertarian tent has a set of chairs marked ‘Reserved: Objectivists’ roped off, even if Objectivists themselves do not deign to sit in them.[/quote]Very good (I like your nimble “pen” btw) only I would say that they ARE sitting in them while protesting that they’re not.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
As I have said before, ATLAS SHRUGGED is my all time favorite book. I discovered it around 16 years ago and have read it around 10 times since then.
I am doing so again and am blown away as usual. It is though she had a crystal ball. It could have been written today.
This is usually where the bashing begins and HH and I are left to defend, but I bring it up in hopes that someone might be encouraged to pick it up. It is layered like an onion. Each time I do I pick up something new.[/quote]
One very interesting aspect of her philosophy is not (just) the philosophy itself but that VERY few people know of any other 20th century or current philosopher. Her philosophy is a philosophy of the future simply because no other is known.
After the economy collapses and we have to rebuild, her ideas will be more incorporated into the society to come, simply by default. The philosophy of altruism will be seen as a dead end and the philosophy of rational selfishness will finally predominate (as it should).
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I see things haven’t changed at all since the last time I was here.[/quote]
I share your frustration.
[/quote]
You know it’s funny. I read Atlas Shrugged about 15 or 16 years ago, when I was a sophomore in high school. I didn’t think much of it then and Rand has never really been on my radar as a result. I never knew there were so many people infatuated with her until I started coming onto this forum. Personally, I think it’s a bad sign when a book like that doesn’t have any noticeable impact on a very impressionable, politically-astute 15 year old.[/quote]
You read it ONCE, when you were 15, which was many years ago. So…somehow you can now pass judgment on a philosophy you grazed over years ago? Uh…yeah…
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Pardon me, but pray tell what has religion ever done to bring peace and order to anything? [/quote]
Completely irrelevant to the issue I raised, and sloppily done. There are plenty of “religion = bad, m’kay” threads available - help yourself to the search function.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
As I admit my obvious incongruities, I accept yours as well. While I agree with and admire much of your commentary, in this case I become more convinced that you have not truly read the book. Studied it with an open but discerning mind. [/quote]
There aren’t any incongruities on my part to accept with respect to this issue. As for reading the book, I read Atlas Shrugged years ago, when I was 18 (or thereabouts). I wasn’t impressed. I found it to be a predictable pop thriller-type novel that had too many diversions into long-winded sermons. It was trite, and way too long.
As for studying it - of course I haven’t studied it. You study the Federalist Papers. you study Nichomachean Ethics. You don’t study Atlas Shrugged. It doesn’t have layers, it isn’t complex, it isn’t subtle. No one should study it - it’s a giant waste of time.
No, it is a takedown of Rand’s adolsecent philosophy, and the comparison to Nazism is not far-fetched. Both Nazism and Randian philosophy order society around the worshipped “strong” and condemn the “weak” as being leeches; Nazism just matured enough to get very specific about who the weak leeches were that deserved to be culled from the society of the strong. Both have echoes of Nietzsche’s superman.
It’s only “terrible” because it insults your precious tome of “wisdom” - but that isn’t good enough for a criticism of the critique.
“Self-esteem is reliance on oneâ??s power to think. It cannot be replaced by oneâ??s power to deceive. The self-confidence of a scientist and the self-confidence of a con man are not interchangeable states, and do not come from the same psychological universe. The success of a man who deals with reality augments his self-confidence. The success of a con man augments his panic.” | Return of the Primitive, 181
[quote]JEATON wrote:
I can now state is plainly and without doubt. You have NEVER read the book. You have overplayed your hand. You have read critiques and criticisms but not the book.
Inferring that Ayn Rand was a libertarian? I expect more from you.[/quote]
Well, I did the read the book. And, self-identified libertarians cite Rand as a leading light - I didn’t just make that up. Go back a page or two and read John S.'s post - a self-described libertarian and Ron Paul acolyte, he said Rand was the reason he effectivly became an atheist free-marketeer. And, I didn’t say Rand herself was a libertarian. Improve your reading comprehension.
Although, I don’t get too worked up over the taxonomy of her followers. Objectivists? Ok, it’s a formal title, if they want one. Libertarians? Rand may have discounted libertarians, but a great many libertarians hail her as their champion, and that’s probably the best broad label.
Conservative? Oh, hell no. There’s nothing conservative about Rand or her philosophy. There’s nothing of Hume, Burke, or John Adams in her philosophy. Anyone who calls themselves a conservative and at the same time shouts hosannahs about Rand should have his/her head examined.
I know enough of Rand to know that she is a wasted investment. I understand her beliefs just fine - and they are ill-formed, frivolous, immature, too uncomplicated for a complicated world, and in some cases, downright dangerous.
Atlas Shrugged is a hulking book that takes a thousand pages to say what it could say in ten. There is no deeper meaning to her thoughts, and her philosophy stands in direct contrast to the great thinking of other great Western political philosophers. There are better books to read, and God know there are far better books to “study”.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
How do you account for “ethical” behavior seen in animals ? Things such as self-sacrifice, sharing, nurturing etc. Are these traits not proof that moral behavior DOES win in the long run?[/quote]
Sometimes “ethical” behavior helps you succeed, and sometimes it doesn’t. The point of ethics is that there exists a rule that is intrinsically good that should be followed even if it hinders your success. Animals don’t have ethics.
Is this a serious question?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“Self-esteem is reliance on oneâ??s power to think. It cannot be replaced by oneâ??s power to deceive. The self-confidence of a scientist and the self-confidence of a con man are not interchangeable states, and do not come from the same psychological universe. The success of a man who deals with reality augments his self-confidence. The success of a con man augments his panic.” | Return of the Primitive, 181[/quote]I am simply being honest here and do not intend this as the insult that it may come off as.
This quote is NOT profound. It is a series of wholly arbitrary personal assumptions that add up to pretty much nothing. I am being totally serious and non sarcastic. I do not see the “OOOO” and AHHH" worthy, goose bump inducing profundity.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This quote is NOT profound. It is a series of wholly arbitrary personal assumptions that add up to pretty much nothing. I am being totally serious and non sarcastic. I do not see the “OOOO” and AHHH" worthy, goose bump inducing profundity.
[/quote]
I completely agree, and I, too, am not being snarky about it. I am always more than a little puzzled at the quotes Randians provide as profound statements on the world. They are usually pretty bland and mediocre, not especially clever or moving. Yet Randians post clips of text or quotes as if they are some deep, original explanation worthy of awe. I don’t get it. Even if you agree with the substance of the quote, it ain’t all that impressive.
Hmmm…I think I’m going to review a book I read long ago, when I was 15 or 18, or so. It’ll not be just any book – it’ll be a book about life, philosophy, metaphysics, ethics and so on because I was certainly able to form educated and informed judgments back then and I also remember every detail of the book.
Maybe my expert opinion will get published in the Huffington Post!! Oo-rah!!