Ayn Rand - Opinion? (preferably informed?)

Started by SkepticOfMyOwnMind, September 26, 2013, 12:41:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jason Harvestdancer

Quote from: "Jmpty"Ayn Rand was a clever racist

bybill kramer .
 


 
 Email
 59 Comments
 ...

Obama's book "Dreams of my Father" is like Nazi Germany, according to Ayn Rand. It's a barnyard stock-farm version of collectivism. It's for animals, not men. And anyone else who cares about their family history... according to Rand, you're a Nazi too.
Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement.  There are only individual minds and individual achievements -- and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men.

I very seriously doubt that Ayn Rand, who died in 1982, read a book published in 2004.

These many criticisms of Rand do validate my assertion that her critics are unfamiliar with her works.  Between mykcob4, jumpty, and josephpalazzo we now have three critics who have never read the source material and only know third hand criticisms.  And their criticisms, richly informed from having read criticisms instead of source material, were enough to confince Solitary that she isn't worth reading.  That's exactly what the critics want.

"Clever racist" is code for "I want to accuse you of racism but have absolutely positively nothing by which to justify my accusation."  Look at the threads about Obama and Obama/Syria to see josephpalazzo finding lots of clever racists who are using the clever code words "Obama is Bush 2.0" to disguise their racism when attacking Obama.
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

stromboli

I made myself familiar with Rand after reading her book and read up on her politics and her life. My view on her is largely literary- my degree is in English Lit- and to me she is a bombastic blowhard who over argues every point ad infinitum; a competent writer doesn't need 60 pages, a la John Galt's speech, to impart a political philosophy.

Most people I am aware of who espouse Ayn Rand from a political standpoint, are capitalists who already have their fortune, earned 90% of the time by their parents or grandparents. These are not self made entrepreneurs, as is Richard Branson or Elon Musk. Richard Branson, besides being an atheist, is a humanitarian. Elon Musk is also a humanitarian. I see nothing in Rand's work but self-involved capitalistic lust for power. Everything about her life speaks of manipulation and using the people around her to further her own ends. This is not a person who I would want as a role model for my children. You can argue Libertarian viewpoints all you want, but Rand is no way a poster child for any cause I'd be a part of.

LikelyToBreak

mykcob4, jumpty, and josephpalazzo take note of stromboli's post.  It is an example of a good refutation of Ayn Rand.  No lies, no second hand information, just the truth as stromboli sees it.  Well done stromboli!  =D>

mykcob4

Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"mykcob4, jumpty, and josephpalazzo take note of stromboli's post.  It is an example of a good refutation of Ayn Rand.  No lies, no second hand information, just the truth as stromboli sees it.  Well done stromboli!  =D>
So says the conspiracy theorist.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "mykcob4"
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"mykcob4, jumpty, and josephpalazzo take note of stromboli's post.  It is an example of a good refutation of Ayn Rand.  No lies, no second hand information, just the truth as stromboli sees it.  Well done stromboli!  =D>
So says the conspiracy theorist.

LOL.

Especially that stromboli expressed just about the same line as we did.

Jmpty

After reading " The Fountainhead" and "Anthem," I saw no redeeming value in her work that would cause me to read another word by her. That's about as in depth a review as you'll get from me, as other people are much more eloquent at summarizing her views.
???  ??

GurrenLagann

Calling Rand a philosopher is almost an insult to the word. I mostly find her work and ideas to be garbage.

Her 'focusing' concept with regards to free will: Completely fucking retarded.

Her political stances: Was a completely immoral asshole on several accounts, with the Native American quote earlier being one of the more obscene.

Overall, she is very skippable. I honestly can't see what you'd be missing. If you want to see a great atheist philosopher with great insights, forethpught and lastability, Hume is a great example.
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
[...]
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Calling Rand a philosopher is almost an insult to the word. I mostly find her work and ideas to be garbage.

Her 'focusing' concept with regards to free will: Completely fucking retarded.

Her political stances: Was a completely immoral asshole on several accounts, with the Native American quote earlier being one of the more obscene.

Overall, she is very skippable. I honestly can't see what you'd be missing. If you want to see a great atheist philosopher with great insights, forethpught and lastability, Hume is a great example.

Them fighting words.

Better watch out for the devoted fans of Rand on this forum who will no doubt accuse you of being unfamiliar with her works, and that you've never read the source material and only know third-hand criticism.

 :P

SkepticOfMyOwnMind

Examples of unhelpful comments:[spoil:3r6q59yo]
Quote from: "stromboli"Read Atlas Shrugged after being told it was Satan's plan for the future by a wacko conspiracy theorist. Led me to study her for a bit.

She was a conniving, self promoting, selfish user of people who blew through vast amounts of money and ended up on social security and medicare after lung cancer surgery, due to her heavy smoking. She was a bitch. That is all.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Very boring stuff and she was way overrated.
That is all.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Ayn Rand was nothing more than a wonk for conservatives that wanted to enslave the worker and funnel all the profits to the top 1% of the very rich. There was nothing innovative or even new about her work. Basically she copied all of her ideas from various peoples of the time. Her ANGLE was to appeal to a certain type of Anarchist, we now call them "libertarians". The idea that a person can bennifit from a governmnet but not pay for it is her basic tennet. This idea only works for the top 1%. It depends on the creativity, labor and efforts of people who work for slave wages and are foolish enough to vote against their own interst ala people who vote republican or conservative.
Sociolgy teachs that there are a limited ammount of resources. The conservatives want to concentrate those resources as much as they can to the top 1%. Since they have been successful in doing so to a great extent they resist change using propaganda, fear, and lies, to sway ignorant uninformed single issue voters to vote their way and against the interest of those voters. Denegrating education, public education, limiting access to vote, slandering minorities and portraying them as villians, usurping the constitution and the federal government, using bumper sticker mentality slogans like: "family values" and "welfare queens", slandering workers and unions, making false claims that the government is stealing your individual rights when at the same time they deny minorities gays and women their civil rights, waging a war against nature, are just some of the hallmarks of the Ayn Rand movement. It falls in lock step line with the conservatives.
Ayn Rand is a contradiction in logic. You cannot say that you are for freedom of everyone when infact you are for limiting competition, denying equal opportunity, and not paying for your share of the benefits of a government that you utilize.
It is not a philosophy of true freedom. It is a philosophy of elitism and protectionism.
Throughout my 55 years I have witnessed the Ayn Rands revising history, promoting pseudo-science and totally misleading people.
Lets just take one result of the Ayn Rands:
The Brookings institute was formed to be a think tank to address major issues of the USA and the world. It was independent of political party and it's members are experts in their field. It doesn't and never did have a political agenda. It weighs everything in accordance with TRUE science, REAL history, and the strictest interpretation of the Constitution and rule of law. It addresses everything form economics to global warming. It uses facts that are independently varified. It only offers an opinion when a conclussion can be reached. It doesn't allow for compromise. All of its results are pure and unaltered.
The Heritage Foundation (Ayn Rand was a founding member) uses spin and propaganda to usurp the Brookings Institute. It's sole purpose is damage control, to weaken and confuse the FACTS produced by the Brookings institute.
One such example is the tax base. The Brookings Institute found that the wider the tax base the better the economy. The bigger the middle class the better off the nation. The best way to acheive such a tax base was to help and promote education to lift up the poor and disadvantaged and to tax the wealthy at a fair rate more inline with fairness.
The Heritage Foundation tried to limit and obscure that finding by producing the "trickle down effect", claiming that deregulating everything would lead to greater wealth. What they didn't say is that the greater wealth only falls into the hands of the top 1%.
Scott Ryan has exposed Ayn Rand and her lack of objectivism, the fact that she is nothing more than a propagandist. The fact that she leaves out important details in her papers that would and do totally counter her philosophy and economic ideals.
He is one of many that have tested her theories and found them to be nothing more than conservative propaganda.
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
  • Did she find something exceptional for her time?
Was "I got mine, screw you" exceptional?  Not in the least.  "MINE!" is as old as hominids.  Maybe as old as brains.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "Solitary"I never read anything about her, and from reading the above two posts I won't.  8-)  Solitary

You've missed nothing.
Quote from: "stromboli"I made myself familiar with Rand after reading her book and read up on her politics and her life. My view on her is largely literary- my degree is in English Lit- and to me she is a bombastic blowhard who over argues every point ad infinitum; a competent writer doesn't need 60 pages, a la John Galt's speech, to impart a political philosophy.

Most people I am aware of who espouse Ayn Rand from a political standpoint, are capitalists who already have their fortune, earned 90% of the time by their parents or grandparents. These are not self made entrepreneurs, as is Richard Branson or Elon Musk. Richard Branson, besides being an atheist, is a humanitarian. Elon Musk is also a humanitarian. I see nothing in Rand's work but self-involved capitalistic lust for power. Everything about her life speaks of manipulation and using the people around her to further her own ends. This is not a person who I would want as a role model for my children. You can argue Libertarian viewpoints all you want, but Rand is no way a poster child for any cause I'd be a part of.
Quote from: "Jmpty"After reading " The Fountainhead" and "Anthem," I saw no redeeming value in her work that would cause me to read another word by her. That's about as in depth a review as you'll get from me, as other people are much more eloquent at summarizing her views.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Calling Rand a philosopher is almost an insult to the word. I mostly find her work and ideas to be garbage.

Her 'focusing' concept with regards to free will: Completely fucking retarded.

Her political stances: Was a completely immoral asshole on several accounts, with the Native American quote earlier being one of the more obscene.

Overall, she is very skippable. I honestly can't see what you'd be missing. If you want to see a great atheist philosopher with great insights, forethpught and lastability, Hume is a great example.
[/spoil:3r6q59yo]
Examples of helpful comments:[spoil:3r6q59yo]
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"
Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"I've been an atheist for several years now, but I used to spend a lot of my time learning about different philosophies and religions. I'm pretty settled on atheism, but I still find several atheist philosophies interesting.

I would like to know, from those who read Ayn Rand's work, what you think of her philosophy. Here are some of my questions.

I've read most of her stuff, though it's been awhile. I've become less enamored of her work in the last twenty years, but I think I can still be fair.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"*Did she find something exceptional for her time?

She put some ideas into a framework that most people weren't familiar with.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"[/li]
[li]Does her work seem dated, or does it remain relevant?

Her novels are more outdated than her nonfiction.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"[/li]
[li]How much of her language suggests inherent problems with her ideas, and how much just fits with the times?

She was fond of using peculiar defintions (which philosophers are wont to do) that were very easy to take out of context. To be fair, she was clear about what she meant in her work; but if you call selfishness a virtue and altruism a sin, you're begging to be taken out of context. That's not the only problem, but I would say it's the content of her work more than the times.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"[/li]
[li]What would you say are the key points of her philosophy?

Reality is real, we perceive something that exists, consciousness is the faculty by which we do so. She makes a lot of hay from the Law of Identity. From this she derives some epistemology. She concludes that survival is a basic instinct, reason is how humans survive, so reason is the highest good and morality can be derived by reason. Choosing not to think is very bad. Freedom is necessary. Selfishness is defined as pursuing rational self-interest, so it's good. Capitalism is the best economic system. Altruism is defined as self-sacrifice with no benefit to yourself, so it's bad.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"[/li]
[li]Is John Galt's speech worth reading?

You'll only know once you've read it. The book is huge, I'm sure you can wade through just the speech.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"[/li]
[li]Should I read the entirety of Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, etc.?

If you like the speech, you'll like those.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"[/li]
[li]How similar are her opinions to those of more modern atheist authors like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris?

Not very, they're all rationalists, but Hitchens and Harris fall within mainstream economic and political views.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"[/li]
[li]Do her expressed views and reasons seem exceptionally natural or fantastic? Why?

Thinking she can derive an 'ought' from an 'is' is a basic mistake. Her terms are confusing. She was unaware that altruism is an evolved trait intrinsic to human nature, or that her heroes came off as intellectual sociopaths.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"[/li]
[li]If you've watched Atlas Shrugged Parts 1 or 2, how do those compare to the book?

I saw the first one. I thought it was reasonably close.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"[/li]
[li]Which of Ayn Rand's concerns turned out to be well-founded, and which turned out to be irrelevant or wrong? How and why?

We've managed to muddle along on our middle path (so far, at least) without falling into communistic dystopia.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"Edit: Please post enough information to prove that you read at least some of her work.

I hope that was helpful.
Quote from: "ParaGoomba Slayer"Writer posted a YouTube video

Writer posted a YouTube video

Not a big fan of her Objectivism thing, but I like these 2 speeches.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Jmpty's post pretty well validates The Whit's assertion.  "A clever racist" is the type of code which those saying they are really talking in code which infuriates me.  She said what she said, and regardless of her hypocrisy, claiming she is speaking in code is bullshit.  

Jmpty wrote in part:
QuoteFor anyone confronted with an Ayn Rand sycophant, there's really no need to debate them on their adolescent beliefs. Simply direct these people to her essay "Racism" (not linked to because I could only find it available on rightwing and white supremacist websites like Stormfront).
I had no trouble finding her essay.  

Here is her essay from the well known rightwing white supremacist website YouTube if you want to listen to it.
[youtube:3r6q59yo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdeI9NfbfT8[/youtube:3r6q59yo]

If you would like to read it, it is here at: //http://alexpeak.com/twr/racism/

While I don't agree with all of Ayn Rand's views, I hate how many represent those views.  And it doesn't matter if she was a rightwing racist with sexist views, what she wrote or said should stand on their own merit.  The rest are just ad hominem attacks which seeks to discredit what is said by discrediting the speaker.  

I am not against those who disagree with Ayn Rand's views in expressing their thoughts.  But, resorting to lying, race bating, and ad hominem attacks, I am against.

Back to the subject, sort of, people can and should learn from different philosophers and philosophies.  No one has ever and I doubt ever will, have all of the answers to all of the issues.  We can learn much from people with differing views, but not if we go into discussions with them having closed minds.  As atheists we often complain about the lack of valid logic arguments amongst the religious.  But, some atheists see no problem with using the same logically invalid arguments when it comes to politics.  Not only is it seen through easily by most, but just angers those who you might want to sway.  

That's the way I see it.
[/spoil:3r6q59yo]

Quote from: "stromboli"I made myself familiar with Rand after reading her book and read up on her politics and her life. My view on her is largely literary- my degree is in English Lit- and to me she is a bombastic blowhard who over argues every point ad infinitum; a competent writer doesn't need 60 pages, a la John Galt's speech, to impart a political philosophy.
Stromboli, about the language issue:
[/li][/list]

Simply put, language evolves to be more straightforward and succinct over time. It shouldn't be surprising that a book from 50+ years ago explained something in 60 pages that only needs 20. Additionally, Ayn Rand didn't have access to automated spell-checkers, readability analysis tools, or a search engine thesaurus.

Jmpty, your last comment was badly formatted. Would you please fix the formatting, separating the quotes into BBCode quote blocks?
[spoil:3r6q59yo]
Quote from: "Jmpty"Ayn Rand was a clever racist

bybill kramer .
 


 
 Email
 59 Comments
 .


If by clever you mean she was able to dupe racists into thinking their racism isn't racism. Ayn Rand was a racist in the same way Glenn Beck is a racist.

She knew she couldn't argue against the fundamental evil that is racism, so she attempted to cloak white supremacy in an economic philosophy and people like her have found it useful to do the same thing ever since.

She was the Glenn Beck/Karl Rove/Lee Atwater of her time, trying to use language to justify a white supremacist ideology. Her ideas are still popular with many, including her namesake Rand Paul.

For anyone confronted with an Ayn Rand sycophant, there's really no need to debate them on their adolescent beliefs. Simply direct these people to her essay "Racism" (not linked to because I could only find it available on rightwing and white supremacist websites like Stormfront).
.



Here are some excerpts from her essay:


Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism... Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes.  It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

the celebrity who starts his autobiography with a detailed account of his family history -- all these are samples of racism, the atavvistic manifestations of a doctrine whose full expression is the tribal warfare of prehistorical savages, the wholesale slaughter of Nazi Germany, the atrocities of today's so-called "newly-emerging nations."

 Obama's book "Dreams of my Father" is like Nazi Germany, according to Ayn Rand. It's a barnyard stock-farm version of collectivism. It's for animals, not men. And anyone else who cares about their family history... according to Rand, you're a Nazi too.
Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement.  There are only individual minds and individual achievements -- and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men.

 The Civil Rights movement wasn't a group achievement. It was an achievement thanks to men like LBJ, a paternalistic achievement by Great Men, not the barnyard beasts... according to Ayn Rand.
Observe the hysterical intensity of the Southern racists; observe also that racism is much more prevalent among the poor white trash than among their intellectual betters.

 "Poor white trash?" Totally not racist, right Ayn?
There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism.

 There's your Glenn Beck: disguising rightwing racism as an economic philosophy.
It is capitalism that gave mankind its first steps toward freedom and a rational way of life.  It is capitalism that broke through national and racial barriers, by means of free trade.
 
 Of slaves from Africa to the colonies, Ayn?
It is capitalism that abolished serfdom and slavery in all the civilized countries of the world.  It is the capitalist North that destroyed the slavery of the agrarian-feudal South in the United States.


 No Ayn, it was the government that abolished the capitalist slave trade. And in many ways, not even the US government at that, although I'm sure Rand would have found the religious beliefs underpinning much of the abolition movement to be revolting and fascistic.
The persecution of Negroes in the South was and is truly disgraceful... Today, that problem is growing worse...

 Diversified schools are much worse than slavery, according to Ayn Rand.
This accumulation of contradictions, of short-sighted pragmatism, of cynical contempt for principles, of outrageous irrationality, has now reached its climax in the new demands of the Negro leaders... Racial quotas have been one of the worst evils of racist regimes.  There were racial quotas in the universities of Czarist Russia, in the population of Russia's major cities, etc.


 The totalitarianism and fascism Ayn Rand escaped from was bad, but these demands by blacks are the "climax" of it all. Blacks in the Civil Rights movement who were fighting for equality and diversity in schools... they're not just like the worst racist totalitarian regimes, they're much much worse - according to Ayn Rand. That sounds like a sensible, totally not racist basis upon which to form a political philosophy, right?
It does not merely demand special privileges on racial grounds -- it demands that white men be penalized for the sins of their ancestors. It demands that a white laborer be refused a job because his grandfather may have practiced racial discrimination.

 OK Ayn, we've heard that one before. The poor white people are being persecuted by decent folks demanding our schools be diversified. And the Civil Rights movement will prevent whites from getting jobs they deserve. We get it. We've heard that before from the White Citizens Councils.
That absurdly evil policy is destroying the moral base of the Negroes' fight.  Their case rested on the principle of individual rights. If they demand the violation of the rights of others, they negate and forfeit their own.

 If blacks demand diversified schools, they forfeit their rights? Wow. Gee, I wonder where that kind of nonsensical hatred for blacks comes from?
A man's rights are not violated by a private individual's refusal to deal with him.  Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine -- but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law.

 Obviously Rand Paul read this essay and agrees. But actually, you're wrong Ayn. When restaurants kick blacks and Jews out of their establishments, that is an infringement of rights. And we're not dialing the clock back on that one no matter how much your namesake Rand Paul wants to.
the Negroes -- are now in the vanguard of the destruction of these rights.


 Sound the Tea Party trumpets. The blacks are leading the charge in taking away your rights... according to the Ayn Rand sycophants.
There's no reason to engage a Tea Partier or a Libertarian in a discussion as to the legitimacy of Ayn Rand's thinking.

Just point them to her hateful ignorant essay on racism and tell them to get back to you. It's just white supremacy disguised as an economic philosophy. That's all it is. It's just rightwing strategists doing what they always do, using the things they know they're guilt of (racism) to demonize their opponents - destroying language so that it's that much more difficult to have a reasonable discussion.

Ayn Rand's thinking is merely a dog whistle for racists. It's just a philosophy for people who are tired of being called racists because their beliefs are racist. It has been for decades, and it's time to stop pretending it's anything else.
[/spoil:3r6q59yo]

For Example:[quote]text[/quote]
[quote="Author Name"]text[/quote]
I first assume that knowledge is not inherently connected to anything but its physical structure and physical processes that interact with the container of knowledge.

This means that "knowledge" could be an inaccurate term, describing a much more complex system.
This means that the difference between humans and machines could be completely irrelevant for the area of artificial intelligence.
This means that anything we consider true, even our most precious notions, can always be wrong.

Colanth

Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"For a good indication of whether or not the critic has read the original source material instead of third hand criticism, look for phrases such as "a wonk for conservatives" or "I got mine, screw you"
Sorry, but I was forced to read Rand by my father (who also escaped from Communism, but disagreed with Rand), and all I got from her works was "I got mine, screw you".  Maybe because that's how she thought, and it showed in her works.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Jmpty

Skeptic of my own mind, if you don't like my posts, don't read them. Who are you to judge what is "helpful?"
???  ??

lumpymunk

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"Did she find something exceptional for her time?

It wasn't the intent to "find something" but to integrate and present a complete worldview and philosophy for living.  She actually never accomplished this by herself in her lifetime, because it was never her goal to be regarded as a philosopher.  Instead she wanted to deliver a plot and theme that SHOWED people and gave them a sense of what her philosophy would look like in action in the minds and hearts of her main characters (referred to as her "sense of life").  She wanted to create achievable heroes (as opposed to heroes like Superman, etc...) for all people at all levels of ability.  Ayn Rand wanted to be a writer, and in that she succeeded.

It wasn't until as recent as 1991 that Leonard Peikoff actually compiled the body of work (using old lecture material) contained in Ayn Rand's fiction and non-fiction into a comprehensive presentation of Objectivism.  If you want to cut to the chase just read Leonard Peikoff's, "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand"

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"Does her work seem dated, or does it remain relevant?

Depends on which context you ask the question in.  In Academia her work has never been relevant, but in the general population and in politics her work remains relevant.  In the general population her fiction is often cited as among the most influential books published in the 20th century.  In politics republicans and libertarians are drawn to the political/free-market portions of her ideas.  The reason they are attracted to it is because Christianity is incompatible with (and fails to advocate) Capitalism.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"How much of her language suggests inherent problems with her ideas, and how much just fits with the times?

Being of Russian descent her language was a barrier that a lot of people can't work past when they're exposed to her writing.  A lot of the things she wrote in her non-fiction contain words like "evil" and "altruist" and seemingly sexist references to "Men" or "Man" etc... a lot of words are commonly misunderstood or misrepresented when people talk about Objectivism.  Selfishness is a big one too.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"What would you say are the key points of her philosophy?

Instead of copy/pasting this I think a link would serve best.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... vism_intro


Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"Is John Galt's speech worth reading?

John Galt's speech takes place at the climax of Atlas Shrugged.  It would be of no benefit at all to read John Galt's speech for the first time without reading the book and understanding the plot of the book.  Further, your understanding and comprehension of it would be better if you understand some of the non-fiction first.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"Should I read the entirety of Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, etc.?

If for no other reason than the fact that many millions of other people have been exposed to them, and to better satisfy your own obvious curiosity.  In my opinion these are literary classics, and reading books is good for you. :)

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"How similar are her opinions to those of more modern atheist authors like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris?

In both cases Ayn Rand would have argued that neither of these men are completely consistent in their worldviews, but you can easily point out similarities.  Sam Harris recently published some blog posts about self-defense and concealed carry... and Objectivism would identify with this because of the right to self-defense.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"Does sexism taint her philosophy much, is it salvageable, or is it not really sexist? Why?

Again, this is one of the language barriers that most people are more willing to use as ammunition to dismiss her than attempt to understand.  All instances of "Man" specifically are really about "Man-kind."  She did this intentionally because she viewed feminism as a form of collectivism.  Individualism was enough for her, and while perhaps a little disconnected from the reality of society it reveals she was ahead of her time in her view of men and women as equals, as individuals.  This is where the fiction can help.  Understanding the relationships between the romanticized characters in her novels I think gives a better insight into the issue.  There weren't stereo-typically female roles or male roles, and in a way she does depict a "glass ceiling" atmosphere around Dagney Taggart at Taggart Transcontinental as she highlights how incompetent the decision makers above her are throughout Atlas Shrugged.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"Do her expressed views and reasons seem exceptionally natural or fantastic? Why?

I'm pretty bias on this one.  

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"If you've watched Atlas Shrugged Parts 1 or 2, how do those compare to the book?

They really can't compete unfortunately.  As the book as spread viral over the course of 50+ years and continues to sell more copies every year... the movies fail to deliver the same impact.  There is too much important character development that the movies simply don't have room for.  As a long time Objectivist I wanted the movie version to be more in the format of how "Roots" was done.  I think that given the time constraints on movie production it is impossible to do the book justice... and the box office sales and reviews are showing that.  Overall it is positive though because it gives exposure to Objectivism and has drawn a lot of curiosity.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"Which of Ayn Rand's concerns turned out to be well-founded, and which turned out to be irrelevant or wrong? How and why?

Given how rampant Crony Capitalism is now, the concerns she depicted in Atlas Shrugged about the sway of politicians to lend favors arbitrarily directly correlates to the governments ability to pick and choose winners and losers depending on who receives bail-outs, or who is except from the expensive health-care legislation.

Her depiction in Atlas Shrugged of how a "state of emergency" can be manipulated by politicians to grab power directly correlates to the over-reaction of the country to terrorism and the patriot act.

As the incentive for young people to become doctors continues to decline, since being a doctor isn't really a profitable career choice... but has become enslavement to legal pressures, insurance companies, and political pressures... healthcare will continue to decline in quality as it rises in price.  This will be the equivalent of "the men of the mind going on strike" or simply opting not to be doctors anymore.

Now... tell me a little about why you're curious for opinions on Ayn Rand?  You'll find (as you have here) that most of those who are vocal are critics of Ayn Rand.

SkepticOfMyOwnMind

#42
Quote from: "Jmpty"Skeptic of my own mind, if you don't like my posts, don't read them. Who are you to judge what is "helpful?"
If my judgments aren't applied to any legal process that could affect your rights or the expression thereof, what do you care how I judge your posts?

That aside, I wrote the OP. I requested information about Ayn Rand's writings based on factual evidence from her works. You're allowed to post what you want, but it would be courteous to post your genuine opinion, along with factual evidence to back it up. It would also be courteous for you to make your writing more readable instead of placing the burden on your readers. When you place the burden on your readers, you also decrease the chance that they'll understand you.

Quote from: "lumpymunk"Given how rampant Crony Capitalism is now, the concerns she depicted in Atlas Shrugged about the sway of politicians to lend favors arbitrarily directly correlates to the governments ability to pick and choose winners and losers depending on who receives bail-outs, or who is except from the expensive health-care legislation.

Her depiction in Atlas Shrugged of how a "state of emergency" can be manipulated by politicians to grab power directly correlates to the over-reaction of the country to terrorism and the patriot act.
This is consistent with Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 and reality, which makes Rand's book seem more interesting. It's also evidence that you paid some attention to her works. Thank you for your reply, lumpymunk.

Quote from: "lumpymunk"Instead of copy/pasting this I think a link would serve best.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... vism_intro
I think I get the first three at a basic level, with potential, yet addressable caveats. The capitalism part may demand a much more stringent emphasis on individualism than most corporations have - potentially converting "normal" corporations with investors into cooperatives where each individual truly works for their own benefit. As-is, corporate executives have excessive amounts of unearned power and wealth. They use this wealth to turn the lower class into de facto slaves to the upper class, so the poor never (or rarely) have the opportunity to work for their own benefit.

Quote from: "lumpymunk"Again, this is one of the language barriers that most people are more willing to use as ammunition to dismiss her than attempt to understand.  All instances of "Man" specifically are really about "Man-kind."  She did this intentionally because she viewed feminism as a form of collectivism.  Individualism was enough for her, and while perhaps a little disconnected from the reality of society it reveals she was ahead of her time in her view of men and women as equals, as individuals.  This is where the fiction can help.  Understanding the relationships between the romanticized characters in her novels I think gives a better insight into the issue.  There weren't stereo-typically female roles or male roles, and in a way she does depict a "glass ceiling" atmosphere around Dagney Taggart at Taggart Transcontinental as she highlights how incompetent the decision makers above her are throughout Atlas Shrugged.
English-speakers from older times often express sex-neutral ideas in sexist language, so I understood that could be the case here. I'm glad to hear she wasn't sexist against women, and that is further confirmed by her views on abortion given in ParaGoomba Slayer's posted videos (yes, people, some women are sexist against women).

Quote from: "lumpymunk"I'm pretty bias on this one.
I think I know what you mean, and I will reword the question to accommodate that. Do you think Ayn Rand's ideas fit well with the natural state of the world (are practical), or do you think her ideas are difficult to apply or unfinished?

Quote from: "lumpymunk"In my opinion these are literary classics, and reading books is good for you. :)
I was the kid who got awkward stares for beating all the other smart kids at reading comprehension tests.  8-)

Quote from: "lumpymunk"It wasn't until as recent as 1991 that Leonard Peikoff actually compiled the body of work (using old lecture material) contained in Ayn Rand's fiction and non-fiction into a comprehensive presentation of Objectivism.  If you want to cut to the chase just read Leonard Peikoff's, "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand"
I'm partway through The Virtue of Selfishness, and I intend to read more Ayn Rand books if I feel like it's worth my time.

Quote from: "lumpymunk"As the incentive for young people to become doctors continues to decline, since being a doctor isn't really a profitable career choice... but has become enslavement to legal pressures, insurance companies, and political pressures... healthcare will continue to decline in quality as it rises in price.  This will be the equivalent of "the men of the mind going on strike" or simply opting not to be doctors anymore.
Couldn't machines like IBM's Watson pick up the weight?

Quote from: "lumpymunk"Now... tell me a little about why you're curious for opinions on Ayn Rand?  You'll find (as you have here) that most of those who are vocal are critics of Ayn Rand.
I follow many atheist pages on Facebook, some of which occasionally post a meme describing Ayn Rand as an atheist. I hadn't looked into Ayn Rand more thoroughly before, but the little I've learned indicates that she deeply considered the implications of a naturalistic, atheistic worldview with regard to politics and morality. Her approach, while not strictly mathematical or scientific, indicates a deeper understanding of social interaction between individuals in a manner consistent with game theory.

I don't know for sure whether that's the case, but I would like to find out. If her work does indeed follow that pattern, then I may be interested in reading, outlining, and possibly expanding upon it.
I first assume that knowledge is not inherently connected to anything but its physical structure and physical processes that interact with the container of knowledge.

This means that "knowledge" could be an inaccurate term, describing a much more complex system.
This means that the difference between humans and machines could be completely irrelevant for the area of artificial intelligence.
This means that anything we consider true, even our most precious notions, can always be wrong.

JamesTheUnjust

My problem with Ayn Rand is that she has a simplistic world view.

She believes in these imaginary groups of classes where in she labels the groups she politically disagrees with as "leeches", and those that agree as some sort of innovative minds. Her philosophy is extreme and broad in it's approach to world problems, believing that every problem can be solved by capitalism and free markets, much in the way that Marxism believes that all problems can be solved with communism. It just doesn't work that way in the world. Sometimes it is in fact, true that a sector of the economy will run more effective if there is less government intervention. But sometimes it's the exact opposite, and the market produces huge volumes of waste and unethical practices that a consumer has no way out of dealing with, unless a governing body does something. It's a balancing act to find out how much the government should or shouldn't be involved, but to always have one solution or another is just plain idiotic, and this seems to be Rands approach to things.

For all of her fancying herself as a great intellectual she tended to be very broad and unimaginative for my taste. Yes, she understood some concepts that most people couldn't but then again, she also feel victim to becoming a dogmatist that believed she had the final ideology to all of humanities problems, just like a fucking religious fanatic. Her fanaticism and pathological rationalizing of her own sociopathic tendencies are what I think turn most people off her work.

I'm not saying Rand was wrong about everything or that her being a bit of cunt is an argument against her work. I'm just saying that she wasn't really much of a philosopher. More than anything, she just made a blind dogma in her own image that demanded belief in her creeds, and called it a philosophy.

stromboli

Quote from: "JamesTheUnjust"My problem with Ayn Rand is that she has a simplistic world view.

She believes in these imaginary groups of classes where in she labels the groups she politically disagrees with as "leeches", and those that agree as some sort of innovative minds. Her philosophy is extreme and broad in it's approach to world problems, believing that every problem can be solved by capitalism and free markets, much in the way that Marxism believes that all problems can be solved with communism. It just doesn't work that way in the world. Sometimes it is in fact, true that a sector of the economy will run more effective if there is less government intervention. But sometimes it's the exact opposite, and the market produces huge volumes of waste and unethical practices that a consumer has no way out of dealing with, unless a governing body does something. It's a balancing act to find out how much the government should or shouldn't be involved, but to always have one solution or another is just plain idiotic, and this seems to be Rands approach to things.

For all of her fancying herself as a great intellectual she tended to be very broad and unimaginative for my taste. Yes, she understood some concepts that most people couldn't but then again, she also feel victim to becoming a dogmatist that believed she had the final ideology to all of humanities problems, just like a fucking religious fanatic. Her fanaticism and pathological rationalizing of her own sociopathic tendencies are what I think turn most people off her work.

I'm not saying Rand was wrong about everything or that her being a bit of cunt is an argument against her work. I'm just saying that she wasn't really much of a philosopher. More than anything, she just made a blind dogma in her own image that demanded belief in her creeds, and called it a philosophy.

^ well put. I have seen Rand characterized as a capitalist, a Nazi, a Libertarian, a racist and a number of other labels. My overall take on her is much like the above. She simplistically characterizes issues as black and white that aren't, and is totally unsympathetic to any competing view. I don't think her "philosophy" is dangerous, just incomplete and self centered.