Posted: 6/24/2009 5:04:42 PM EDT
 Watch all 5 parts of this one |
| She was a truly facinating person. Even though she was an Atheist and many condem her for that, many of her Objectivism principles can still coexist along side religion especially those that apply to an individuals self worth in society. Religion often trys to subjugate the indivdual, her concept of Objectivism elevates each individual and their personal merits. |
|
I am a practicing Christian and I don't consider her beliefs in conflict with my own. Many of her criticisms of religion are why I don't go to church now. Many people believe that God replaces reason, but reason was one of his greatest gifts to man. Not using reason, not being self reliant, and being codependent on a authority figure is not the point of being a Christian.
Any church that demands throwing away reason in favor of mindless obedience will never help their members understand what being a Christian is all about. |
|
Rand was very bright and a very interesting philosopher - hell, the title of my blog is based on one of her quotes: The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. But like most philosophers, she had her own problems. Another quote from someone who took the words right out of my mouth:Perhaps the biggest mistake an intellectual can make is to try to parlay his one brilliant insight into a unified theory of existence. Ayn Rand made this mistake with Objectivism. Objectivism was useful for thinking in certain limited realms, but Rand sought to apply Objectivist thinking to every aspect of the human experience, including love. The result is a sterile philosophical landscape, extending out of sight in all directions. Tellingly, Rand was unable to live according to her ideals. This is part of what makes Rand so disagreeable; the almost hysterical denial of subjectivity's inevitable, essential role in our lives. And it makes her not only disagreeable, but wrong. Objectivism, like almost all philosophies, requires that the majority of humanity be exceptional, and the Bell curve doesn't support that.
But I've read, and appreciated, a lot of her philosophical essays, and strongly recommend them to anyone who has not. Her novels? Well, I've only read Atlas Shrugged, and all I can say is that as a novelist, she SUCKED. |
|
Objectivism in no way depends on most people being exceptional. To be more specific Objectivsm's political expression Capitalism, requires only that people who initiate force are jailed and/or required to make amends.
Note that it acknowledges and plans for the fact that criminals will exist. |
|
Quoted:
Mike Wallace. What an intellectual midget. not really. the questions he's asking, the curiosity, the incredulity towards this absurd new "philosophy", sounded very representative of the audience he would have had back then. I think he was spot on the whole time. if you mean he was an intellectual midget because he wouldn't agree with your (or Ayn Rand's) ideas, or you wouldn't agree with his ideas, that wouldn't be right either. he has different ideas but he's good at what he does and this was a good interview. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mike Wallace. What an intellectual midget. not really. the questions he's asking, the curiosity, the incredulity towards this absurd new "philosophy", sounded very representative of the audience he would have had back then. I think he was spot on the whole time. if you mean he was an intellectual midget because he wouldn't agree with your (or Ayn Rand's) ideas, or you wouldn't agree with his ideas, that wouldn't be right either. he has different ideas but he's good at what he does and this was a good interview. This is the same guy who declared Vietnam unwinnable, citing the Tet offensive (which the US won, hands down) as proof. |
|
Ayn Rand......meh.
I know she's the matron of all arfcom, but meh. And her writing? God awful. Reading that shit is like swimming in wet concrete. I'll bet only a fraction of arfcommers who claim to have read Atlas Shrugged actually read the entire thing. Now cue the flames..... |
| I read Atlas Shrugged about 25 years ago, maybe more and yes, I skipped over a lot of Galt's speech but still got a lot that I live by from it. Due to current political climate I decided a re_"read" was in order and got the audio book. LISTENING to the story is MUCH more enjoyable and I feel like I am accomplishing something as I drive. Try toe audio book, you might just find it more enjoyable. |
|
Atlas shrugged was a tough read. It was an excellent book, it just requires a commitment from the reader. It will never be a book for the masses, but then again neither is her philosophy.
She is a very interesting person, and I have to admit that though I loved the book I really knew very little of her. Hell, I didn't even know she was Russian. |
|
Quoted:
Atlas shrugged was a tough read. It was an excellent book, it just requires a commitment from the reader. It will never be a book for the masses, but then again neither is her philosophy. She is a very interesting person, and I have to admit that though I loved the book I really knew very little of her. Hell, I didn't even know she was Russian. I've just started and only through almost 200 pages, but it does require your attention. She is almost too detailed in the writing (I had a hard time visualizing some sections), but the dialogue sequences have been excellent IMO and have kept me reading longer than usual. |
|
Quoted:
Perhaps the biggest mistake an intellectual can make is to try to parlay his one brilliant insight into a unified theory of existence. Ayn Rand made this mistake with Objectivism. Objectivism was useful for thinking in certain limited realms, but Rand sought to apply Objectivist thinking to every aspect of the human experience, including love. The result is a sterile philosophical landscape, extending out of sight in all directions. Tellingly, Rand was unable to live according to her ideals. This is part of what makes Rand so disagreeable; the almost hysterical denial of subjectivity's inevitable, essential role in our lives. And it makes her not only disagreeable, but wrong. Objectivism, like almost all philosophies, requires that the majority of humanity be exceptional, and the Bell curve doesn't support that.
But I've read, and appreciated, a lot of her philosophical essays, and strongly recommend them to anyone who has not. Her novels? Well, I've only read Atlas Shrugged, and all I can say is that as a novelist, she SUCKED. How did Rand not live by her own principles? Her philosophy does not apply only to exceptional people, it has greatly influenced my life, and I am not exceptional in any way. |
|
Quoted:
Atlas shrugged was a tough read. It was an excellent book, it just requires a commitment from the reader. It will never be a book for the masses, but then again neither is her philosophy. She is a very interesting person, and I have to admit that though I loved the book I really knew very little of her. Hell, I didn't even know she was Russian. You have to tackle Atlas like you tackle the Bible, it is definitely tedious, but the nuggets and gems of wisdom are priceless. If you read nothing else in the book read the dialogues by Francisco on Money, John Galt's Speech, and Francisco talk on relationships. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Perhaps the biggest mistake an intellectual can make is to try to parlay his one brilliant insight into a unified theory of existence. Ayn Rand made this mistake with Objectivism. Objectivism was useful for thinking in certain limited realms, but Rand sought to apply Objectivist thinking to every aspect of the human experience, including love. The result is a sterile philosophical landscape, extending out of sight in all directions. Tellingly, Rand was unable to live according to her ideals. This is part of what makes Rand so disagreeable; the almost hysterical denial of subjectivity's inevitable, essential role in our lives. And it makes her not only disagreeable, but wrong. Objectivism, like almost all philosophies, requires that the majority of humanity be exceptional, and the Bell curve doesn't support that.
But I've read, and appreciated, a lot of her philosophical essays, and strongly recommend them to anyone who has not. Her novels? Well, I've only read Atlas Shrugged, and all I can say is that as a novelist, she SUCKED. How did Rand not live by her own principles? For one thing, she espoused free love, but when the man she was sleeping with spread some of his own "free love" around, she pissed all over him and ruined him. Her philosophy does not apply only to exceptional people, it has greatly influenced my life, and I am not exceptional in any way.
Her philosophy is every bit as naive and facile as Karl Marx's.,,, it's just at the other end of the ideological spectrum. |
|
Quoted:
Atlas shrugged was a tough read. It was an excellent book, it just requires a commitment from the reader. It will never be a book for the masses, but then again neither is her philosophy. She is a very interesting person, and I have to admit that though I loved the book I really knew very little of her. Hell, I didn't even know she was Russian. I'm really struggling with it, and have for over a year. I got a good way into it and it was just so dry I am having a hard time picking it up again. I read a few pages and put it back down.. People tell me I am just about to get to the good part,.... I hope so. |
|
Quoted:
For one thing, she espoused free love, but when the man she was sleeping with spread some of his own "free love" around, she pissed all over him and ruined him. Her philosophy is every bit as naive and facile as Karl Marx's.,,, it's just at the other end of the ideological spectrum. Rand immigrated to the US and was married three years later. She remained married for 50 years until her husbands death. Even in the Donahue interview she talks about how she is not the same since her husbands death. Who are you talking about? Care to elaborate on what parts of her philosophy you consider facile? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Atlas shrugged was a tough read. It was an excellent book, it just requires a commitment from the reader. It will never be a book for the masses, but then again neither is her philosophy. She is a very interesting person, and I have to admit that though I loved the book I really knew very little of her. Hell, I didn't even know she was Russian. I'm really struggling with it, and have for over a year. I got a good way into it and it was just so dry I am having a hard time picking it up again. I read a few pages and put it back down.. People tell me I am just about to get to the good part,.... I hope so. I just finished it. It can be very repetitive and dry. Honestly I just skimmed through the romantic stuff and the repetitious philosophy stuff. Definitely worth reading though & uncanny how much it resembles current events. |
|
Quoted:
She was a truly facinating person. Even though she was an Atheist and many condem her for that, many of her Objectivism principles can still coexist along side religion especially those that apply to an individuals self worth in society. Religion often trys to subjugate the indivdual, her concept of Objectivism elevates each individual and their personal merits. Yes indeed. I consider myself about an 80% objectivist. Of course, if I think that following and having faith in Christ is in 'my own best interest', I guess that would be ok with her too...not that I'd need her approval. Hax |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Atlas shrugged was a tough read. It was an excellent book, it just requires a commitment from the reader. It will never be a book for the masses, but then again neither is her philosophy. She is a very interesting person, and I have to admit that though I loved the book I really knew very little of her. Hell, I didn't even know she was Russian. I'm really struggling with it, and have for over a year. I got a good way into it and it was just so dry I am having a hard time picking it up again. I read a few pages and put it back down.. People tell me I am just about to get to the good part,.... I hope so. Atlas Shrugged is a brick. Twice on my first time through I had to put it down and take a break to refocus. Right around the halfway mark it picks up a lot. If you make it to the part where Rearden gets his gold brick then you'll make it all the way. |
|
Who can know the unknowable? I do not possess the ability (or handicap as it were) to comprehend the dronelike mind of the libertard. Some of us, either consciously or subconsciously are out to destroy themselves, or at least harm themselves, I feel.
I place libertards in this category, along with those who smoke cigarettes in excess or have copious butt secks with young sodomites in a post AIDS world. Can you imagine a species that refuses the act of defending themselves? You must imagine it, because your will not see it in a zoo or on a hike with the chillrens. It is now extinct. The world is a better place for it, too. Darwin, whose theory of evolution is pointed to as a way of downing religion, was actually a practicing Christian. Think of that when you see libtards advertising on their cars with their "fish decals." Maybe there is a higher being, and maybe there isn't. I try to be sure that my belief in God influences my life in a positive way when I can. In any event, to be so brazen as to both proclaim there is no afterlife, at the same time contributing to their own demise while in this one really tells you all you need to know about the modern pacifistic, illogical, asinine individuals who brought us Obongo. They are doomed. I pray that they don't take the rest of us with them, or permit our enemies to conquer us. |
|
Rand was a modern day Rene Descartes. She sought to make human reason the ONLY source of discovering truth.
Humans have 3 ways of discovering truth, they are: Reason, also known as logic, intellect, deduction, etc. this is sourced in the mind. Experience, also known as observation, experimentation, induction, etc. this is sourced in the senses Intuition, loosely considered the emotions, conscience, feelings, sense of "rightness", etc. this is sourced in the soul. Each one has it's proper role in discovering truth, and each one leads to problems when it is improperly applied. To determine abstract mathematical truth, I don't trust my intuition (feelings), I trust my reason, although experience might give me some help. 2 + 2 = 4, To determine scientific truth, I don't trust my reason (like Aristotle did), I trust my experience. I observe and directly experiment. My reason comes along side to interpret my experience, such as applied mathematics. To determine morality, I don't appeal to my reason nor my experience, but to my intuition, my conscience. I know in my soul that butchering and eating a baby is wrong. So how do we work out the proper balance for these three? In addition to confusing the roles of each category, a greater problem arises when one exalts one area absolutely over the others. Rand (and Descartes) fell into this trouble by exalting reason as the ONLY way to discover truth. Obi-Wan exalts intuition over the others (trust your feelings, Luke) and modern culture exalts "science" as the source for all truth. The deepest problem is even if each is properly applied, we humans to not have perfect access to each, so they are not infailable. Something may make perfect rational sense to me and still be false. My senses can be fooled, and my feelings are often misplaced. So where do we lok for Ultimate Truth? That would be the Creator. Each of the three areas of inquiry, if studied honestly, will lead us to Him. |
|
Quoted: Rand was a modern day Rene Descartes. She sought to make human reason the ONLY source of discovering truth. Humans have 3 ways of discovering truth, they are: Reason, also known as logic, intellect, deduction, etc. this is sourced in the mind. Experience, also known as observation, experimentation, induction, etc. this is sourced in the senses Intuition, loosely considered the emotions, conscience, feelings, sense of "rightness", etc. this is sourced in the soul. Each one has it's proper role in discovering truth, and each one leads to problems when it is improperly applied. To determine abstract mathematical truth, I don't trust my intuition (feelings), I trust my reason, although experience might give me some help. 2 + 2 = 4, To determine scientific truth, I don't trust my reason (like Aristotle did), I trust my experience. I observe and directly experiment. My reason comes along side to interpret my experience, such as applied mathematics. To determine morality, I don't appeal to my reason nor my experience, but to my intuition, my conscience. I know in my soul that butchering and eating a baby is wrong. So how do we work out the proper balance for these three? In addition to confusing the roles of each category, a greater problem arises when one exalts one area absolutely over the others. Rand (and Descartes) fell into this trouble by exalting reason as the ONLY way to discover truth. Obi-Wan exalts intuition over the others (trust your feelings, Luke) and modern culture exalts "science" as the source for all truth. The deepest problem is even if each is properly applied, we humans to not have perfect access to each, so they are not infailable. Something may make perfect rational sense to me and still be false. My senses can be fooled, and my feelings are often misplaced. So where do we lok for Ultimate Truth? That would be the Creator. Each of the three areas of inquiry, if studied honestly, will lead us to Him. Quality post. Even if I do not really grasp your conclusion.  |
|
Quoted:
Rand was a modern day Rene Descartes. She sought to make human reason the ONLY source of discovering truth. Humans have 3 ways of discovering truth, they are: Reason, also known as logic, intellect, deduction, etc. this is sourced in the mind. Experience, also known as observation, experimentation, induction, etc. this is sourced in the senses Intuition, loosely considered the emotions, conscience, feelings, sense of "rightness", etc. this is sourced in the soul. Each one has it's proper role in discovering truth, and each one leads to problems when it is improperly applied. To determine abstract mathematical truth, I don't trust my intuition (feelings), I trust my reason, although experience might give me some help. 2 + 2 = 4, To determine scientific truth, I don't trust my reason (like Aristotle did), I trust my experience. I observe and directly experiment. My reason comes along side to interpret my experience, such as applied mathematics. To determine morality, I don't appeal to my reason nor my experience, but to my intuition, my conscience. I know in my soul that butchering and eating a baby is wrong. So how do we work out the proper balance for these three? In addition to confusing the roles of each category, a greater problem arises when one exalts one area absolutely over the others. Rand (and Descartes) fell into this trouble by exalting reason as the ONLY way to discover truth. Obi-Wan exalts intuition over the others (trust your feelings, Luke) and modern culture exalts "science" as the source for all truth. The deepest problem is even if each is properly applied, we humans to not have perfect access to each, so they are not infailable. Something may make perfect rational sense to me and still be false. My senses can be fooled, and my feelings are often misplaced. So where do we lok for Ultimate Truth? That would be the Creator. Each of the three areas of inquiry, if studied honestly, will lead us to Him. I respect your logic, but you are off the mark. Would you say that believing in God is a logical choice for you, or would you say you believe in God only because of your emotions? Here is a snippet on what Rand believes about truth [Consider the catch phrase:] “It may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” What is the meaning of the concept “truth”? Truth is the recognition of reality. (This is known as the correspondence theory of truth.) The same thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time and in the same respect. That catch phrase, therefore, means: a. that the Law of Identity is invalid; b. that there is no objectively perceivable reality, only some indeterminate flux which is nothing in particular, i.e., that there is no reality (in which case, there can be no such thing as truth); or c. that the two debaters perceive two different universes (in which case, no debate is possible). (The purpose of the catch phrase is the destruction of objectivity.) I also disagree with you, I believe that humans are perfectly capable of perceiving their world and understanding the truths contained in it. Otherwise you and I would not exist today |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
For one thing, she espoused free love, but when the man she was sleeping with spread some of his own "free love" around, she pissed all over him and ruined him. Her philosophy is every bit as naive and facile as Karl Marx's.,,, it's just at the other end of the ideological spectrum. Rand immigrated to the US and was married three years later. She remained married for 50 years until her husbands death. Even in the Donahue interview she talks about how she is not the same since her husbands death. Who are you talking about? Care to elaborate on what parts of her philosophy you consider facile? She had an affair with her prized student, guy by the name of Branden, I think. I believe she informed her husband of her desire and he gave his consent. Branden was also married and I don't think his wife was as thrilled with the idea. I love reading Ayn and agree with most of her philosophy, the affair situation I conclude to just be a woman going crazy, it happens. |
|
Quoted:
We need someone like her now! Oh, I bet she would smack the living shit out of many libtards today. Verbally, I mean. I watched the documentary/biography on her recently (get it on Netflix. It's good). It was mentioned that when she would speak at a college or whatever, she would stay all night talking with the audience. She'd field questions and not only would she answer them, she would explain why the person asked the question, and why the person's premises were wrong in the first place. I would love to see video of some of that. She was hella smart. I do wish she had worked on losing the Russian accent. I mean, heck, she moved to the US in her early 20s (IIRC). |
|
Originally Posted By KC-130 FLT ENG:
Ayn Rand......meh. I know she's the matron of all arfcom, but meh. And her writing? God awful. Reading that shit is like swimming in wet concrete. I'll bet only a fraction of arfcommers who claim to have read Atlas Shrugged actually read the entire thing. Now cue the flames..... I've read it six times. Cover to cover. Here's the deal. You are RIGHT. Atlas Shrugged is not exactly a great novel....but you are looking at it in the wrong context. Atlas Shrugged is marketed as a novel and for a very good reason. Have you ever READ philosphical texts??? Some can be EXTREMELY dry to say the least. It's like reading technical manuscripts on the properties of composites. BORING!!! What Ayn Rand did was follow the example of Plato, millenia ago. Instead of writing a dry philospical texts ( which she was capable of ) she wrote "Dialogues". These are sort of like "morality plays" which put CHARACTERS through philosphical exercises. Part of the excercise consists of the players "espousing" their founding beliefs and acting out a series of decisions, events and consequences based on those founding beliefs. These thought exercises allow people to compare their own thoughts and experiences with those of the characters in order that someone may learn more about themselves from the work. Very effective and hell of a lot more easy to digest than textbook style works. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For one thing, she espoused free love, but when the man she was sleeping with spread some of his own "free love" around, she pissed all over him and ruined him. Her philosophy is every bit as naive and facile as Karl Marx's.,,, it's just at the other end of the ideological spectrum. Rand immigrated to the US and was married three years later. She remained married for 50 years until her husbands death. Even in the Donahue interview she talks about how she is not the same since her husbands death. Who are you talking about? Care to elaborate on what parts of her philosophy you consider facile? I love reading Ayn and agree with most of her philosophy, the affair situation I conclude to just be a woman going crazy, it happens. Here is a summary of the affair: After several years, Rand's close relationship with the much younger Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the consent of their spouses.In 1964, Branden entered into an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. The Brandens hid the affair from Rand and lied about it. Though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended, Rand terminated her relationship with both Brandens when she discovered their dishonesty. As a result, NBI closed. She published a letter in The Objectivist repudiating Branden for dishonesty and other "irrational behavior in his private life. She had an affair with her prized student, guy by the name of Branden, I think. I believe she informed her husband of her desire and he gave his consent. Branden was also married and I don't think his wife was as thrilled with the idea. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For one thing, she espoused free love, but when the man she was sleeping with spread some of his own "free love" around, she pissed all over him and ruined him. Her philosophy is every bit as naive and facile as Karl Marx's.,,, it's just at the other end of the ideological spectrum. Rand immigrated to the US and was married three years later. She remained married for 50 years until her husbands death. Even in the Donahue interview she talks about how she is not the same since her husbands death. Who are you talking about? Care to elaborate on what parts of her philosophy you consider facile? I love reading Ayn and agree with most of her philosophy, the affair situation I conclude to just be a woman going crazy, it happens. Here is a summary of the affair: After several years, Rand's close relationship with the much younger Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the consent of their spouses.In 1964, Branden entered into an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. The Brandens hid the affair from Rand and lied about it. Though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended, Rand terminated her relationship with both Brandens when she discovered their dishonesty. As a result, NBI closed. She published a letter in The Objectivist repudiating Branden for dishonesty and other "irrational behavior in his private life. She had an affair with her prized student, guy by the name of Branden, I think. I believe she informed her husband of her desire and he gave his consent. Branden was also married and I don't think his wife was as thrilled with the idea. Those of you into Rand, should read Judgement Day by Nathniel Branden. He discusses the entire issue. Look. Ayn Rand was human and she was not without faults. Like all philosophers she had her querks....but the main basis for her philosophy isn't negated by it as her intention was to promote individual liberty. Thomas Jefferson wasn't exactly part of the moral majority....nor was Ben Franklin....should we now disregard the Constitution or the Bill of Rights because they were philandering assholes???? HELL NO!!! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For one thing, she espoused free love, but when the man she was sleeping with spread some of his own "free love" around, she pissed all over him and ruined him. Her philosophy is every bit as naive and facile as Karl Marx's.,,, it's just at the other end of the ideological spectrum. Rand immigrated to the US and was married three years later. She remained married for 50 years until her husbands death. Even in the Donahue interview she talks about how she is not the same since her husbands death. Who are you talking about? Care to elaborate on what parts of her philosophy you consider facile? I love reading Ayn and agree with most of her philosophy, the affair situation I conclude to just be a woman going crazy, it happens. Here is a summary of the affair: After several years, Rand's close relationship with the much younger Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the consent of their spouses.In 1964, Branden entered into an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. The Brandens hid the affair from Rand and lied about it. Though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended, Rand terminated her relationship with both Brandens when she discovered their dishonesty. As a result, NBI closed. She published a letter in The Objectivist repudiating Branden for dishonesty and other "irrational behavior in his private life. She had an affair with her prized student, guy by the name of Branden, I think. I believe she informed her husband of her desire and he gave his consent. Branden was also married and I don't think his wife was as thrilled with the idea. Those of you into Rand, should read Judgement Day by Nathniel Branden. He discusses the entire issue. Look. Ayn Rand was human and she was not without faults. Like all philosophers she had her querks....but the main basis for her philosophy isn't negated by it as her intention was to promote individual liberty. Thomas Jefferson wasn't exactly part of the moral majority....nor was Ben Franklin....should we now disregard the Constitution or the Bill of Rights because they were philandering assholes???? HELL NO!!! Totally agree with you. |