07-03-2003 18:50									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Narz, read Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand. I always recommend it when discussions like this come up. The actual human being that Branden writes about is vastly more interesting than the iconic cult figure she became.

(Especially with those idiotic 'pronouncements': Smoking is good! Pollution is good! Men with facial hair are evil!)

Since her death, the 'official' version of Objectivism has descended into a self-parody that's genuinely funny in an unintentional sort of way. For instance, the Ayn Rand Institute has released several essays over the past year or so urging the Bush administration to make sure they kill as many Arabs as possible when they invade Iraq.

And ditto for all the other Mideast countries we invade. Needless to say, the ARI calls for invading lots of other Mideast countries. Needless to say, all of this is at the expense of the US taxpayer. Needless to say, the folks at ARI aren't exactly lining up to be in combat.

Statism is bad except when it's good.


__________________
They hate us because of our Freedom Fries.

	07-03-2003 18:55									#32
	Suffering from ads?

OK guys... you've had your fun. Stay on topic, and stop spamming this thread.

	07-03-2003 18:59									#33
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Since I haven't read any of her books, I cannot criticize her views, simply because I don't know what they are.

	07-03-2003 19:01									#34
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I read Atlas Shrugged and found it to be an interesting piece. It was clearly written during a time when fear of Communism was very high, and it puts forward several arguments against the spread of Communism and why America needs to safeguard against it.

However, much of the arguments are, I feel, just as extreme as the Communist arguments, just in a different direction. She argues against Socialism, Communism, and then goes on to attack federal government, all forms of aid, apprenticeship, positive discrimination, non-veneration of currency, and the reliance of Asian cultures on soy products (!).

Her message seems to get garbled. At times it looks to me like she is arguing against Communism, and this translates into an overemphasis on individualism... The Great Man can do it, and needs no help from anybody else and anybody who asks for any help is a Weak Fool.

Rearden asks the question "Who taught me to be the success I am?" in response to his brother asking for help and instruction.

Well, not everybody in a society can be super-men, who run super-industries, and (according to Rand) are the sole enjoyers of super-sex. Rand's proposed solution appears to be for the elite to sequester themselves away in an escapist's fantasy land in the mountains (perhaps Aquinas' "City on the hill"?) but she offers no convincing solution as to what to do with the other 99.99% of the population apart from "let them eat cake... or each other".

But on the whole, definitely a good read and entertaining for the light it casts for a bygone age. Nowadays, Communism is no longer regarded with the same feasibility as before. I would argue that the death of Communism has also led to the diminunition of Rand's works.

	07-03-2003 19:23									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I, too, liked Atlas Shrugged, especially when you compare this against her background of coming under the thumb of the Communists in Russia before she was able to defect in... 1926, I think. It's not a very well written book, but in its own odd way I find it a very passionate sort of book. Where else are you going to find a 3 page speech on the morality of money?

It is odd that people like Solzhenytsen (sp!) and Baryshinokov (sp!) get accepted by the American liberal establishment as "poor souls who needed to escape to express their art", but Rand doesn't get any of that faux sympathy, though it is more true in her case than of the other two.

She did a pretty decent job of exposing the horrors and vacuousness of communism, but did a poor job in formulating a response to it that has any basis in the world we live in. Rand's worldview doesn't include uncertainty, lack of knowledge, or the simple fact that not all people agree on the facts... I wonder if she ever gave thought to the philosophical implications of the Uncertainty Principle, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, or chaos theory?

Fortunately for her opponents, she was quite a megalomaniacal loon - in a weirdly apt analogy, sort of the Rasputin of the Right. She openly had an affair with her assistant, and convinced both her husband and his wife that it was the "right" thing to do under her philosophy of Objectivism. In the 1950s and 1960s, she had a cadre of students and syncopaths who were hers to spread the philosophy around... among whom you can include the name of Alan Greenspan. Yes, that Alan Greenspan. I don't know if you can call it a "cult", but perhaps its just how you define the word - her philosophy seems too easy to shake. But the fact that she was who she was destroyed her effectiveness, and her organization membership plummeted throughout the rest of her life.

In short: she exposed the weakness of the communists and other extreme collectives of the Left (and Right, too) but failed to come up with a comprehensive philosophy that will work in the world that we live in.

	07-03-2003 21:35									#36
	Increase the size of your Attachments

"I always thought there was something sexy about Emily Dickinson though."
Dude, you should read Billy Collins' poem "Undressing Emily Dickinson".


I don't think I could ever be a fan of the Randster - I'm too much of a humanist. Like petrarch, I'm the biggest humanist of our time, bar none.

monolith94
"A classic is a book that everybody talks about, but nobody likes"
-Mark Twain

	07-03-2003 21:47									#37
	Got spare money?

--"Narz, read Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand."

I've read that one, but do keep in mind the source. It's nowhere near an unbiased account.

--"For instance, the Ayn Rand Institute "

Heh. That's the problem. You can ignore them. Peikoff seems to be a complete loon. The Objectivist Center is a much better presentation of her philosophy.

--"all forms of aid, apprenticeship, "

She certainly does not argue against all forms of aid. Several times in the book the main movers help each other out. Always for their own benefit, but the help is still there. She certainly wasn't at all opposed to things like apprenticeships, either. Consider how Dagny and Fransico both got their starts. What she objects to is giving aid to people who will do nothing but waste it.

--"Well, not everybody in a society can be super-men,"

Nor is it necessary. Atlas Shrugged went to the extremes in the presentation for story purposes. There were people that were not on the super-men level that still did great (the driver of the first train of the John Galt line, for instance, as well as Dagny's assistant). The story of Atlas Shrugged was when the looters were taking over in total, though, which is why so many were portrayed at such extremes.

--"Yes, that Alan Greenspan."

He's not following her philosophy much at all, however. Unless he's trying to pull a d'Anconia, but he's been there a bit too long for that to be likely.

Wraith
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
-- Ayn Rand

	07-03-2003 22:00									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I read Atlas Shrugged over 30 years ago, and it remains my favorite book of all time.

Great as Rand's books were, as a person she was more than a little flawed. For someone whose writing glorified independent thought, she tolerated none of it in her associates. Anyone in her inner circle who disagreed with her on anything got drummed out, including Greenspan and several others who later achieved some prominence. That's why the group had become (as Clem put it) a parody of itself even while she was alive. Leonard Peikoff (whom Wraith described above ) made a career out of being Rand's chief yes-man.

quote: She openly had an affair with her assistant

You state this as fact; do you have a source? His version was that she wanted such an affair, but he refused. That seems realistic to me; she was 20 years older than him. Her version was that it was all a lie.

	07-03-2003 22:20									#39
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Rex Little ...Great as Rand's books were, as a person she was more than a little flawed. For someone whose writing glorified independent thought, she tolerated none of it in her associates. Anyone in her inner circle who disagreed with her on anything got drummed out...

So what?
That's a logical consequence of her philosophy. She was in her right to diss them, as they were in their right to oppose her. Let the strongest win.
It quite follows the logic.
Of course, anyone trying to found a society on those ideals is mad. Not that anyone didn't try. Saddam Hussein, for example, is building his state on the same idea: Let the one with most resources use them at his own will. And be prepared to be opposed.

C.

	07-03-2003 22:37									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

--"Saddam Hussein, for example, is building his state on the same idea:"

I hate it when people make blanket condemnations of things they quite clearly do not understand, but it happens rather a lot with Objectivism.
Saddam is quite clearly what Rand defined in Atlas Shrugged as a looter. He generates no wealth, he merely steals it from others. He is exactly the kind of person she despised and that her philosophy condemns.

Wraith
"A crime is the violation of the right(s) of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others- i.e., the recourse to violence- that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong). Ideas, in a free society, are not a crime- and neither can they serve as the justification of a crime. "
-- Ayn Rand

	07-03-2003 23:04									#41
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

"I hate it when people make blanket condemnations of things they quite clearly do not understand, but it happens rather a lot with Objectivism."

... which ought to tell you something about the whole philosophy. Those who disagree with it or interpret it differently are often simply dismissed as irrational or just not smart enough to understand its inherent correctness.

[edit for silly grammer mistake]

	07-03-2003 23:04									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Rex: "You state this as fact; do you have a source? His version was that she wanted such an affair, but he refused. That seems realistic to me; she was 20 years older than him. Her version was that it was all a lie."

Here is the very cover blurb on Nathaniel's biography My Years with Ayn Rand:

"The shocking story of the intimate relationship between a literary genius and a young man 25 years her junior - a relationship that over 18 years went from student and teacher, to friends, to colleagues and partners, to lovers, and ultimately, to adversaries. A memoir that reveals the truth behind the myths. A story only one man can tell."

Not so fast! His wife Barbara had a few words of her own.

	07-03-2003 23:50									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

:shudder: Devil incarnate

	08-03-2003 00:06									#44
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ayn Rand is the most overrated, selfish ***** in the history of the world.

	08-03-2003 00:33									#45
	Remove this text

"Several times in the book the main movers help each other out. Always for their own benefit, but the help is still there."

Oh how selfless of them...
What's her opinion of the christmas spirit?

	08-03-2003 01:03									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Rand is a joke; a sort of illiterate and illegtimate dumbed down version of Nietzsche (who would have hated her).

They say that complete selfishness is rational and altruistic behaviour is irrational. How are we supposed to understand this assertion?

If it pertains to the rationality of means rather than ends then it is clearly false since we may need to use altruistic means to achieve selfish ends.

If it pertains to ends, then it isn't clear what it means. Wanting to have your cake and eat it too is an irrational end (because it is contradictory) but being altruistic doesn't suffer from this contradiction [the pseudo argument about me always acting in my own interests notwithstanding, for the fact that I act according to the interests I have does not logically entail that these interests are selfish - I can have unselfish interests].

I don't think intelligent Randians make the foregoing logical errors, but they base their doctrine on unsubstantiated claims about human nature.

What the Randians say is that selfishness is acting in accord with our true nature, which is intrinsically selfish. If you ask for some proof of this claim (metaphysical or scientific) none is forthcoming, Thus if we disagree, we have no reason to believe them.

	08-03-2003 01:30									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

--" Those who disagree with it or interpret it differently are often simply dismissed as irrational or just not smart enough to understand its inherent correctness. "

I'm accusing him of ignorance, not idiocy. The most superficial reading of her writings will show the error. The problem is that Objectivism is not now (and never has been) a popular philosophy. University philosophers in particular have a hatred for it. Most of what people think they know about it is incorrect, thanks the willful misinterpretations these people spew.
I will admit that Rand didn't always help the matter. She liked to use words whose meanings had drifted over time, but she pretty much always spurned the changed meanings. This confuses a lot of people.
Note that selfishness is probably the prime example of this. Rand acknowledged that the popular meaning of the word (irrational egoism) was not what she meant by it.

--"What's her opinion of the christmas spirit?"

Depends what your motives are. If it makes you happy, then go for it. If you feel under some sort of obligation to others, well, you're not.
And it isn't about selflessness, as I've mentioned. Do things for yourself, for your own reasons, that please you. Don't do things because you think other people expect it of you.

--"a sort of illiterate and illegtimate dumbed down version of Nietzsche"

Actually, she quite hated Nietzsche and would be extremely offended to be compared to him. Her entire philosophy is pretty much a refutation to Nietzsche and those who came after him. They don't agree on much outside of there not being a god and that Plato and Kant are both idiots.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ob...er/SH4intro.asp

Wraith
"The moral cannibalism of all hedonist and altruist doctrines lies in the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another. "
-- Ayn Rand

	08-03-2003 01:47									#48
	Increase Your PM Length

Objectivism is not a popular doctrine with University Philosophers because it just ignores the last 100 years worth of arguments in ethics. It doesn't matter whether or not Rand liked Nietzsche, I severely doubt she understood him anyway.

Anyway, enough of all this rubbish. You prove to me why I ought to believe in Objectivism.



Oh God! I just looked at your link. I recommend that everyone go and have a good laugh. Anyone who has ever read Nietzsche knows that of all philosophers he is probably the least suitable for a point by point analysis. To merely say that N thinks that war is good is about the most ham fisted simplifcation of his views on the matter.

And wow, they have a 3 to 1 "disagreement ratio". Does anyone but me think that this is a silly way to compare philosophers?

	08-03-2003 01:54									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Yeah, it is kinda silly to call Rand anti-Nietszchean. She follows him greatly (especially which her Great Man that makes the New Morality kick).

	08-03-2003 02:00									#50
	Suffering from ads?

Objectivism is to Philosophy a bit like Pseudoscience is to science- it occasionally borrows some of the vocabulary to create some sort of ad hoc, muddled mess of a philosophy apparently without any arguments presented for it other than random blind assertions. There's no real critique of anything, no attempts to move forward, just repeated, unfounded dogma that's so divergent from actual human experience it seems entirely meaningless, a thought-excercise about a potential world with creatures so different from us we can barely comprehend them.

The tragic thing is that there are thoroughly readable and intelligent libertarian philosophers like Hayek and Nozick that provide insightful critiques of communitarianism and liberalism. Why stick to Rand?

	08-03-2003 02:43									#51
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

"Don't do things because you think other people expect it of you."

GEE REALLY? Wow I never knew that Ayn Rand could be so enlightening on topics adressed in Saved by the Bell and other after-school specials!

Say I have the opportunity to sacrifice myself to save the person I love the most. It will not make me happy, as I will die, but yet it will at another. Would Ann Rand advocate making this decision or no?

BTW I was discussing philosophy with my roomate and he said I hold some views similar to Hume... what's this guy about then?

	08-03-2003 02:44									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Buck Birdseed The tragic thing is that there are thoroughly readable and intelligent libertarian philosophers like Hayek and Nozick that provide insightful critiques of communitarianism and liberalism. Why stick to Rand?

My thoughts exactly, even though I dislike Hayek's "it is so" method of argument. I've always been an admirer of Nozick's even though I disagree with his politics. Do you know that he was immensely rich?

Anyway, Noam Chomsky came up with a wonderful one line refutation of Libertarianism.

"If someone tells me he will shoot me unless I give him all my money, according to Libertarians he has not violated my right to choose."



[This is a considerably more damaging objection than it looks].

	08-03-2003 02:48									#53
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by monolith94 BTW I was discussing philosophy with my roomate and he said I hold some views similar to Hume... what's this guy about then?

Hume thinks that our general views about the world and science cannot be justified by rational argument. In other words our belief in things like induction and the continuity of time and space is a product of a human propensity rather than engagement with facts. In even simpler terms - to be human is to be to a large degree inescapably irrational.

In ethics Hume has a similar view: our moral principles are based on a natural "sympathy" we have with other people, which again is not provable or disprovable by reason.

Then along comes Kant who attempts to refute Hume, rather in the manner of one who attempts to kill a housefly with a field howitzer.

	08-03-2003 02:48									#54
	Remove this text

that's hysterical!

	08-03-2003 02:51									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Actually, in defence of Rand she did write one good paper called something like "The Monument Builders". It's about the propensity of public officials to waste funds by building monuments to themselves. I think she's onto a powerful truth about the psychology of local politicians here.

	08-03-2003 02:52									#56
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by monolith94 that's hysterical!

You try finding anything funny in Kant's monolithic "Critique of Pure Reason".

	08-03-2003 03:01									#57
	Inflate your Upload Space

agathon - it was a cross-post - I meant to point out that Chomsky's refutation of liberterianism was hysterical. I ended up REALLY cracking up the way you described Kant trying to take out Hume!
The more I hear about this Hume guy, the more I like him. The idea of irrationality is one that OBSESSES me.

My roomate and I were discussing Hume as relevant to Meno and Socrates. Basically talking about what the intelligble place was, and how I personally believe an 'intelligible place' is not really sensible.
It's all quite complicated. Apart from what I perceive to be his argument of nature over nurture, I quite like Socrates, though. I'm more of a nurture over nature guy, myself.

	08-03-2003 03:12									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yeah, the Chomsky thing is pretty funny. It's even funnier if you sit down with a Libertarian book and try to work out some way for them to get out of it because there doesn't seem to be one.

I mean, they can say it's wrong if someone beats you over the head and takes your wallet, but they can't if he gives you the choice because it isn't coercive (as libertarians define it).

	08-03-2003 03:18									#59
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

This is why you need to carry your own gun, so you can make the robber 'choose' .

	08-03-2003 03:20									#60
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

yeah - basically the impression I'm getting is that Randism is a purely hypothetical idea, and can only exist in a hypothetical world. I want REAL solutions!