posted
Sounds like there's a story there, Puffy Treat. Care to share?
I read Anthem, but I'm putting off reading the Fountainhead until I've fortified myself with enough LeGuin and Che Guevara...
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought you were supposed to use "mysticism" in every conversation. Maybe I've been doing it wrong.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Ayn Rand had many excellent insights. However I think too many people treat her writing like dogma instead of books with many ideas, some excellent some horrifying.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When was the last time anyone heard me use that phrase? And I'm probably the closest to a die-hard Rand-worshipping Randroid on this forum.
(Actually, I'm just an Objectivist; but I suspect I'm more die-hard about it than anyone else here.)
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I think Ayn Rand had many excellent insights. However I think too many people treat her writing like dogma instead of books with many ideas, some excellent some horrifying.
Personally, while I reject certain of her conclusions that were not a part of the Objectivist philosophy she put forth ("the nature of a woman is to worship men and women should never aspire to be president", and the like), I agree with almost every single thing she's written.
Would you automatically assume that this is acceptance as dogma, rather than simple agreement with what I view as a rational exposition of ideas?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: When was the last time anyone heard me use that phrase? And I'm probably the closest to a die-hard Rand-worshipping Randroid on this forum.
(Actually, I'm just an Objectivist; but I suspect I'm more die-hard about it than anyone else here.)
I found it interesting that her views on homosexuality and gender roles were so much less radical then her views on morality. They seemed devoid of a reasonable explanation, but hey I would be interested in seeing how she justified them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa- I would not automatically assume, but I might be a bit suspicious. I think that Rand presents her philosophy in a way that it becomes immoral (by her definitions) to disagree with any part of it. I definitely think this leads to dogmatism.
This is just curiosity asking, not trying to make a point or anything, have you read My Years with Ayn Rand by Nathaniel Branden? I personally found it interesting and liked the critiques it had on her philosophy.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
She couldn't. And didn't. They were her views, but they were never put forth as part of the Objectivist philosophy.
I like Wagner's music (some of it, anyway), even though he was an anti-semite. I like 60s and 70s rock, even though most of it was done by drug addicts (okay, that's probably why it's so good, but anyway...). So I don't have a problem accepting rational argument from someone who also has irrational convictions.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I like Wagner's music (some of it, anyway), even though he was an anti-semite. I like 60s and 70s rock, even though most of it was done by drug addicts (okay, that's probably why it's so good, but anyway...).
True story, I think the Stone Temple Pilots 2nd album (Purple/12 Gracious Melodies) is their best work and one of the greatest albums of all time. But I had to say goodbye to the music when the lead singer/song writer got arrested for drug posession and went into rehab. It was a bittersweet moment for me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: One of my acquaintences has recently become a Randian...and he's been using said phrase a -lot-.
He's as subtle as a rampaging bull elephant in sharing his new beliefs.
Heh. You'll get the same thing from anyone who has adopted a radically different way of looking at the world, be it political, or religious or philosophical. Converts to an idea tend to be extremely zealous at first. They generally simmer down as time goes by.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've known some converts (including those who did not convert to my own religion) who've been able to discuss their new beliefs -without- insulting the beliefs of others.
Some. Were they just the exceptions to the rule?
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Lisa- I would not automatically assume, but I might be a bit suspicious. I think that Rand presents her philosophy in a way that it becomes immoral (by her definitions) to disagree with any part of it. I definitely think this leads to dogmatism.
It can, and it often does.
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: This is just curiosity asking, not trying to make a point or anything, have you read My Years with Ayn Rand by Nathaniel Branden? I personally found it interesting and liked the critiques it had on her philosophy.
I read it in the previous version, when it was called Judgement Day. He's made revisions that... well, they aren't entirely honest. I've also read Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand (and seen the movie).
For the sake of seeing more than one side of the story (and the fact that the Brandens wrote these books after Rand was dead made them someone one-sided), I recommend that you try reading The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. He wrote this after Rand's journals were released, and the Brandens don't come out quite as shiny clean as they do in their own books.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I've known some converts (including those who did not convert to my own religion) who've been able to discuss their new beliefs -without- insulting the beliefs of others.
Some. Were they just the exceptions to the rule?
A lot depends on what you mean by "insulting". I know that when I first became Orthodox, it took me a good year and a half before I stopped trying to convince my family that they should as well. Were they insulted? I think so. Was I meaning to insult them? Certainly not.
Also, a lot depends on the magnitude of the difference between the former views and the latter views. As well as the gap between the new views and the general consensus worldview in the surrounding society. That, I think, more than anything else, because if your views are radically different than those around you, there's more of a feeling that you need to assert your views strongly. That's not nearly as necessary if most people hold similar views.
For example, if you "get religion" in the sense of becoming heavily into charitable giving and working in soup kitchens, that's hardly going to raise eyebrows. The virtues of charity are mainstream values, to some degree or another, in our society. But if you adopt a world view that says it is absolutely vital to think with your brain, and not with your emotions, that's going to run right up against some very basic unconscious assumptions in modern western thought.
It's one of the reasons why some of the things I say are taken as so offensive by many people. In some cases, I actually intend offense. But in most, the very fact that I present a view that goes so much against the grain for some people here is seen as me being offensive.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: read it in the previous version, when it was called Judgement Day. He's made revisions that... well, they aren't entirely honest.
How do you know? I mean, if two versions differ on facts, then sure, presumably one version is dishonest. But how do you know which one?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if you adopt a world view that says it is absolutely vital to think with your brain, and not with your emotions, that's going to run right up against some very basic unconscious assumptions in modern western thought.
I disagree; I think what grates is rather the assumption on the part of Randians that only their way actually is thinking with the brain.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: read it in the previous version, when it was called Judgement Day. He's made revisions that... well, they aren't entirely honest.
How do you know? I mean, if two versions differ on facts, then sure, presumably one version is dishonest. But how do you know which one?
I own Judgement Day and The Passion of Ayn Rand. Vaillant's book pointed out contradictions between the two, and things that Nathaniel Branden changed in Judgement Day, which had clearly made him look bad in retrospect.
There were things in his book in the first place that weren't exactly as he painted them. He'd describe an event, and then draw a conclusion about it that was really unwarranted, and was clearly based on the idea that Ayn Rand was a meanie, so clearly this was bad.
I'm not going to recapitulate Vaillant's whole book, which is extremely comprehensive. It includes all of the difficulties I had with the accounts written by the Brandens. Of course, Vaillant makes some similar mistakes. Areas where he was clearly starting from the idea that Rand was virtually a saint, and wound up concluding that she must have been in the right.
Rand made some bad judgement calls, it's clear. But reading some of the notes she wrote during the whole mess changes a lot of the meaning of some of the things that happened.
I highly recommend that you read this book. Honestly. Take the Objectivist POV with a large grain of salt, if you like, but look at the facts he brings. There's substance to his critique of the Brandens.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if you adopt a world view that says it is absolutely vital to think with your brain, and not with your emotions, that's going to run right up against some very basic unconscious assumptions in modern western thought.
I disagree; I think what grates is rather the assumption on the part of Randians that only their way actually is thinking with the brain.
That's a fact that cannot be disputed, KoM. You can claim that not all of them, or even that very few of them, live up to that principle. But you can't argue with the basic fact that their "way", which is Objectivism, is thinking with the brain. Just like I could argue that you're no king of anyone, but it's still impossible to argue with the fact that your screen name on this forum is King of Men.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly can dispute it; my suggestion was actually slightly different, though. My exact words were "the part of Randians that only their way".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I certainly can dispute it; my suggestion was actually slightly different, though. My exact words were "the part of Randians that only their way".
Pardon. I misread what you wrote. However, you could not dispute what I thought you read.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, actually, I've changed my mind since my previous post, where I asserted that I could do precisely that. Now I'm not sure if I could or not, the reason being, I'm not convinced 'thinking with the brain' has been adequately defined.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:True story, I think the Stone Temple Pilots 2nd album (Purple/12 Gracious Melodies) is their best work and one of the greatest albums of all time. But I had to say goodbye to the music when the lead singer/song writer got arrested for drug posession and went into rehab. It was a bittersweet moment for me.
BlackBlade, please explain this to me. Because the lead singer of a band does drugs, his music is worthless? What if he had been arrested for a DUI and had to go to rehab for alcoholism? What if it was painkillers he was addicted to? Is it the illegality? What about gambling? What exactly is it about drugs that suddenly made his music worthless to you? What if during the making of that album he was completely sober, and only started doing drugs after it was released? Does that invalidate the music also? Do you feel that you were taken in and tricked into liking music made under the influence? Is it a moral stand against drugs and anyone who does them. If that's the case, you're going to have a hard time listening to a lot of music and watching any movies, as well as dealing with a lot of people in life. Heck, our current and former president would have to be disowned by you(maybe not such a bad thing). I'm really curious to understand your reasoning for this. It doesn't make any sense to me.
If someone tells you a true fact, that fact is still true regardless of whether that person does drugs or not. And good music is good music whether the artist does drugs or not. Or to deprive yourself of that music, which you still think is good, as a moral stand against what the artist chooses to do to their body seems even worse to me.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:True story, I think the Stone Temple Pilots 2nd album (Purple/12 Gracious Melodies) is their best work and one of the greatest albums of all time. But I had to say goodbye to the music when the lead singer/song writer got arrested for drug posession and went into rehab. It was a bittersweet moment for me.
BlackBlade, please explain this to me. Because the lead singer of a band does drugs, his music is worthless? What if he had been arrested for a DUI and had to go to rehab for alcoholism? What if it was painkillers he was addicted to? Is it the illegality? What about gambling? What exactly is it about drugs that suddenly made his music worthless to you? What if during the making of that album he was completely sober, and only started doing drugs after it was released? Does that invalidate the music also? Do you feel that you were taken in and tricked into liking music made under the influence? Is it a moral stand against drugs and anyone who does them. If that's the case, you're going to have a hard time listening to a lot of music and watching any movies, as well as dealing with a lot of people in life. Heck, our current and former president would have to be disowned by you(maybe not such a bad thing). I'm really curious to understand your reasoning for this. It doesn't make any sense to me.
If someone tells you a true fact, that fact is still true regardless of whether that person does drugs or not. And good music is good music whether the artist does drugs or not. Or to deprive yourself of that music, which you still think is good, as a moral stand against what the artist chooses to do to their body seems even worse to me.
You misunderstand, he wrote the 2nd album at the height of his drug use and its the best. When he went through rehab his ability to song write went with the drugs. I was not saying that because he does drugs I wont listen to his music, I bought their later albums even though I think they are not as well written.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Also, a lot depends on the magnitude of the difference between the former views and the latter views. As well as the gap between the new views and the general consensus worldview in the surrounding society. That, I think, more than anything else, because if your views are radically different than those around you, there's more of a feeling that you need to assert your views strongly. That's not nearly as necessary if most people hold similar views.
I wonder if there is also a component of self-selection here. That is, people with a strident personality may be more likely to be attracted to strident views or systems of belief, and so you could see the initial "convert effect" exacerbated by personality.
Not that that would prove anything one way or the other about the theories themselves, of course. One can be strident and be right.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You misunderstand, he wrote the 2nd album at the height of his drug use and its the best. When he went through rehab his ability to song write went with the drugs. I was not saying that because he does drugs I wont listen to his music, I bought their later albums even though I think they are not as well written.
Ahh...I apologize for jumping the gun there then.
It was a bit confusing though, because you posted it in response to this:
quote:I like Wagner's music (some of it, anyway), even though he was an anti-semite. I like 60s and 70s rock, even though most of it was done by drug addicts (okay, that's probably why it's so good, but anyway...). So I don't have a problem accepting rational argument from someone who also has irrational convictions.
So it seemed you were using a personal counter example to show that you didn't want to listen to the music when you found out he was on drugs. That not everyone would accept rational arguments from someone if they didn't share all their same beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: How awesome would this be?!?!?!
Actually, it'd be horrendous. For one thing, I assume that Brad Pitt would be playing John Galt. But Galt needs to be played by an unknown. We see him in the book over and over before he's "unveiled", without knowing that it's him.
There've been fan "casting calls" for Atlas Shrugged in the past. You can probably search for them. I would be surprised if either Brad or Angelina ever showed up on any of them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you haven't read what her concepts were, you aren't really in a place to have an opinion, though, are you?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn: from what I've read of your posts, you are diametrically opposed to Rand.
In fact, if you dug her up and put her in the same room as you, it would cause a matter-antimatter explosion and destroy the universe.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ayn Rand was just a much more boring version of Nietzche. Their mutual anti-humanist views combined with their mutually inflated egos would have made them perfect for each other. Maybe the rest of the world might have been spared them.
Isn't it funny how atheists create their own religions?
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: If you haven't read what her concepts were, you aren't really in a place to have an opinion, though, are you?
I am. I skimmed through them a bit. Someone, a teacher of science, who didn't really teach us much science gave me one of her books ages ago... Also there are websites devoted to her where you can read some of her thoughts... And you can hear echoes of that sort of thought in other people... Righ on her website it says, "My philosophy in essence is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the more purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." Recenetly I read a book about Mao. Sounds too much like what he believed, that people just exist to hold up people like him and that he could do whatever he wanted to do to make himself happy with no regard for other people. I just dont' agree with that concept at all... I have every right to disagree with a concept, and perhaps upon learning more about it I can change my mind, but I simply HATE laissez-faire capitalism. It has cost too many problems in the past. You have got to have some balance in things.
quote:Syn: from what I've read of your posts, you are diametrically opposed to Rand.
In fact, if you dug her up and put her in the same room as you, it would cause a matter-antimatter explosion and destroy the universe.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Ayn Rand was just a much more boring version of Nietzche.
Ayn Rand was nothing like Nietzche. That you'd say such a thing means that you either have no clue what Neitzche wrote or no clue what Rand wrote. Or both, more likely.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Their mutual anti-humanist views
How you can call Objectivism "anti-humanist" is beyond me. It's positively Orwellian.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Isn't it funny how atheists create their own religions?
Isn't it funny how adolescents speak about things they clearly know nothing about?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heinlein said that boys should be kept in a barrel until they're 18.. then you open the barrel, if you like what you see you let him out. If not, you seal the barrel back up.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Righ on her website it says, "My philosophy in essence is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the more purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." Recenetly I read a book about Mao. Sounds too much like what he believed, that people just exist to hold up people like him and that he could do whatever he wanted to do to make himself happy with no regard for other people.
Puritan women at the end of the 19th century wanted to ban smoking because it was a pleasurable activity, and they were opposed to it on that basis. The American Cancer Association wants to ban smoking because it kills. By your "logic", the ACA is just puritanism rewarmed.
The truth is in the details, Synesthesia. You can simplify anything to a point where it's similar on the surface to anything else. That's silly. Anarchists don't want kings. The Founding Fathers of the United States didn't want kings. Therefore, the Founders were anarchists. Hell, that's probably an argument the royalists used. But it's ridiculous.
Objectivism does indeed say that I live for my own sake alone. But it never, ever, ever says that anyone else is there for my sake. On the contrary. Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If so, perhaps you'll recall the oath that people took to join the rebellion of the productive people:
quote:"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
And that's what you compare to Mao's belief
quote:that people just exist to hold up people like him and that he could do whatever he wanted to do to make himself happy with no regard for other people.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I just dont' agree with that concept at all...
Neither did Rand. It's easy to disagree with something that was never claimed in the first place.
I applaud you for rejecting that concept. Mao's concept.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I have every right to disagree with a concept, and perhaps upon learning more about it I can change my mind, but I simply HATE laissez-faire capitalism.
Perhaps you've never actually encountered it. Perhaps you'd feel otherwise if you did. And perhaps you might want to go to the library and find a book called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and see (a) what Rand really wrote about the concept, and (b) what the concept really is. And why you might just feel a little different about the real thing than you do about the current protectionism of the US government, which gives special perks to corporations.
I saw a great line in today's newspaper. It said that libertarians (little "L") view conservatives as trying to be everyone's daddy and liberals as trying to be everyone's mommy. Well, guess what? We're grownups. We don't need people acting either way. The so-called "capitalists" you look down upon... I don't just look down upon them: I abominate them with all my soul.
Greed and guilt. The conservatives who steal from us to feed their greed and the liberals who steal from us to feed their guilt. Both of them suck.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ayn Rand and Nietzche both had a grotesque cult of the "above-man" or übermensch, Nieztche used the term, Ayn Rand, to my knowledge, did not, but the idea is still present in her view of the glories nature of selfishness. Nietzche's übermensch would worship at Ayn Rand's alter of selfishness.
"How you can call Objectivism "anti-humanist" is beyond me." Objectivism is based on the subjugation, either willful or careless, of the mass of humanity to some bizarre ideal of the selfish capitalist. Liberalism and humanism stress the importance of enlightened self-interest, responsible capitalism, Objectivism dispenses with the enlightened aspect.
"Isn't it funny how adolescents speak about things they clearly know nothing about?" I understand just fine, but, like the vast majority of people, am moraly repulsed.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa... You're asking Syn to fundementally change her world view. I just don't think it's going to happen. She's a commie (No offence, Syn, that's just how I've interpreted your posts.) Nothing anyone can say will change that.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not a commie... Mostly I am trying to find some middle ground between caring for the individual and the whole society... But, I do not think I am a communist at all.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: No, I'm not a commie... Mostly I am trying to find some middle ground between caring for the individual and the whole society... But, I do not think I am a communist at all.
I never claimed you were. I don't think I said anything that could be construed that way, but if I did, I apologize and withdraw it. And ask that you tell me what it was so that I can be more careful in the future.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Syn: Who cares for the individual or society? Society is just a bunch of individuals making their own choices.
I think you mean The Government. And they don't care about anyone but themselves. They're a cold, heartless corporation who call themselves President and Congress instead of CEO and Board of Directors. We are the stockholders who have a very dilutted voice in what's going on, with little regard for the rights of the minorities.
All you have to do is look at how the government treats gay families to know what a cold and hateful thing they are.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Ayn Rand and Nietzche both had a grotesque cult of the "above-man" or übermensch, Nieztche used the term, Ayn Rand, to my knowledge, did not, but the idea is still present in her view of the glories nature of selfishness. Nietzche's übermensch would worship at Ayn Rand's alter of selfishness.
How very childish. "I don't actually know if Rand said what I'm claiming she said or not, but I'm sure she meant it."
You'd fit in very well in the word of Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron", Pelegius. Keeping those with ability down because their talent is offensive to those who lack it. It's really nauseating. The vast majority of people would still be grubbing in the dirt and living in caves without the contributions of people of ability.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "How you can call Objectivism "anti-humanist" is beyond me." Objectivism is based on the subjugation, either willful or careless, of the mass of humanity to some bizarre ideal of the selfish capitalist.
Again, the sound we're all hearing is the buzzing of a self-important adolescent who is attributing false claims to someone else. Objectivism is nothing of the sort. It's about every single person in the world living for the sake of life. Striving to be the best they can be.
Objectivism is about the basic fact that you aren't entitled to my life or my property or my earnings just because you're a corporation and have political friends. And that you aren't entitled to my life or my property or my earnings just because you're poor and don't have health insurance.
Objectivism says that if you're a corporation or a poor person and you want what's mine, you're entitled to ask me for some of it. And that I can give it or not, as I see fit. Not as you see fit. And not as others see fit.
It's about the benevolence of the giver; not the entitlement of the taker.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Liberalism and humanism stress the importance of enlightened self-interest, responsible capitalism, Objectivism dispenses with the enlightened aspect.
Your sort of liberalism stresses the idea that people are owned by society, which can dispose of them and theirs as it sees fit.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Isn't it funny how adolescents speak about things they clearly know nothing about?" I understand just fine, but, like the vast majority of people, am moraly repulsed.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lisa... You're asking Syn to fundementally change her world view. I just don't think it's going to happen. She's a commie (No offence, Syn, that's just how I've interpreted your posts.) Nothing anyone can say will change that.
If every collectivist was a commie, we'd be in even worse shape than we already are.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
That's probably true.
