Why Ayn Rand?

[happyfool]

I think its writers work to write and it s upto the reader to understand it in his/her own understanding.......

I have read Ayn Rands works and found originality in her work.....and I appreciate it....that does not mean that I follow each and every thing that she says...like every thing her work has some negative as well as positive...dont know how many of u have actually read her works but if u read it from metaphysical point of view you will immensely enjoy it but if you are sucked in her word to word meaning then you may be lost and never really understand the greatness of her work.....

See I am not religious but would like to give an example......just as Christ and Christianity are different....Ayn rands philosophy and the way she explains her philosophy.....

If peoples think that Christianity now follows what Christ had said then they are wrong just as thinking that the means of explaining the philosophy of Ayn Rand is what constitute her philosophy...

[Magnetosphere]

I'm American. I'm also a socialist.

So no, Ayn Rand doesn't much appeal to me. I think that some of her concepts, especially those that have been expounded upon by other authors, are interesting, but not particularly realistic. Truth be told, I'd rather join the CPUSA than some cult of Rand addicts.

[Philosophyking87]

I do think Rand's philosophy is ultimately unrealistic, unfeasible hogwash.
And yes, I am in more agreement with social liberalism.

[kinetickyle]

I tried and failed to read Atlas Shrugged. I did make it 500+ pages through the book before I decided that I couldn't take any more of her one-dimensional characters and their painfully awkward sex scenes. I mean, if someone can't write a halfway believable sex scene, I'm not going to be interested in any of their thoughts on how I should live my life.

In all seriousness, Rand is popular in the US with these new Tea Party conservatives, who don't speak for the majority, despite the fact that they are the loudest. I think they see Rand's work as justification for shittin' on the less fortunate.

By the way, Rand was a hypocrite, too. She spent her life fighting against social programs, and then used them as soon as she could.

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2335...n_rand_railed/

[Philosophyking87]

Indeed. Few people would say she's literarily gifted.
And I do think that seeing as most Americans are more conservative, Rand's justification of giving a shit about the less fortune really would apply to many of these people. "Self-reliance" and "every man is an island" is their motto. Quite disgusting and perhaps the fact that Ayn Rand is so popular in America is a testament to how horrible the general ideology of the country happens to be.

[kinetickyle]

Originally Posted by Philosophyking87

And I do think that seeing as most Americans are more conservative, Rand's justification of giving a shit about the less fortune really would apply to many of these people.

It's funny that you should mention Americans being more conservative. I used to apply Benjamin Franklin's self-description as an "extreme moderate" to myself. Over the past few years, I thought I was becoming more liberal, but I'm not. The political spectrum in this country has shifted so far to the right that I'm now on the left.

Maybe I should look for work overseas...

[EyeSeeCold]

I always thought her work was geared toward INTJs and ENTPs, and maybe other IJs...

[Fukyo]

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

I always thought her work was geared toward INTJs and ENTPs, and maybe other IJs...

Amusingly enough, Pod'lair has her pegged as INTP.

[why]

Originally Posted by Fukyo

Amusingly enough, Pod'lair has her pegged as INTP.

Actually, not. From the Pod'Lair vs MBTI/JCF thread, post #64:

4. Thomas hasn't gotten around to grading this list the Interns compiled yet but it is at least 85%+ clean. There are a few errors to be noted however. //(:+Y actually spotted an area of difficulty we have been having and that is filling in the Zai'nyy Females. Trying to find representatives for them in the public awareness proved problematic. In the end, it turns out than when we checked our work Ayn Rand and Uma Thurman are both Nai'xyy. Christina Ricci is also not Zai'nyy and is confirmed as actually a Nyy'zai.

So, INFJ, right? I am not well versed in Pod'Lair terminology.
I tend not to agree. Having read most of her works, both fiction and non-fiction, I think she's INTJ. I've found this thread rather interesting:
http://forum.objectivismonline.net/i...showtopic=3442

[Thaklaar]

[kinetickyle]

That comic is classic! Also, the first Bioshock game shows what happens over time in a Randian world. Not everyone gets to be a creator. Someone has to scrub the toilet. When those people are dissatisfied, they revolt.

[gilliatt]

First thing, let's respect everyone's 1st amendment. I would fight to the death that everyone on these threads have that right. I disagree with about everything that is said on this thread..
Glorifying collectivism, that A is not A, to defeat reason as all cost etc,etc, it is just not my school of thought. I lthink what we are looking at here is the intellectual bankruptcy of our government schools.(Government schools,the recipe for totalitarianism.) They, the schools, are at war with reason, with capitalism and the individual. It is the state vs the individual story that has been going on for I don't know how long.

You can say a man has lived that laughed at college professors, laughed at the elite and one man that stands up for Ayn Rand. You can call me names, call me a fool, but now is the time to check your own premises. If you do, you will find that the ideal society had once been almost within our reach. It was the intellectuals who destroyed it, and who committed suicide in the process. but the future belongs to a new type of intellectual, a new radical: the fighter for capitalism.

"You cannot debate a fool, only a rational human being"

[Dr. Manhattan]

I went through a period where I read a lot of her work. It is very intuition oriented and too often cryptic. Nearly all of her philosophy is conveyed through story form which I distrust. She was more literary to me than technical and practical. A lot of people I've encountered take her work very seriously though.

[burtstanton]

She is someone I want to slap. It's appealing.

[zackp24]

“Rand was broken by the Bolsheviks as a girl, and she never left their bootprint behind. She believed her philosophy was Bolshevism’s opposite, when in reality it was its twin. Both she and the Soviets insisted a small revolutionary elite in possession of absolute rationality must seize power and impose its vision on a malleable, imbecilic mass. The only difference was that Lenin thought the parasites to be stomped on were the rich, while Rand thought they were the poor.”
— How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon: The Perverse Allure of a Damaged Woman

[Zensunni]

Originally Posted by Lear

An excellent observation, Cassandra.

My ex-compatriot, Citizen Murdoch, has a fairly large hand in providing a platform for many of those loud, stupid people on Fox News and through his press mastheads. His Australian mastheads are of a broadly similar, small-c conservative bent, but he doesn't have a mainstream television outlet here.

I read somewhere recently that MSNBC is styling itself as a liberal counterweight to Fox. Any observations?

I also read somewhere that an astonishing number of younger Americans regard Jon Stewart's Daily Show as their prime source of news. I think Stewart is very clever and I enjoy the show, but it's a comedy for goodness sakes.

In Australia we currently have a Prime Minister who is what my American cousins would, I believe, refer to as a 'policy wonk'. He is a well-educated career diplomat with a fondness for technical terminology. Recently the tabloid Australian media kicked up such a fuss about his manner of speaking (anti-intellectualism) that his minders had him trying to sound like The Crocodile Hunter — which was a dismal failure. Anti-intellectualism is alive and well in Australia.

YouTube - The Front Fell Off - Oil Tanker

YouTube - The Front Fell Off - Oil Tanker

[Dr. Manhattan]

Hahaha

[Sanctum]

I dislike Ayn Rand. She isn't a gifted fictional writer. And she's caught seeing herself as a "philosopher" when all her philosophies are just other famous philosophies like Existentialism and giving it a new name. Ayn Rand is taboo to me. She get so much credit for nothing in my opinion.

[Words]

Her philosophy is actually pretty... Introverted Thinking. (Definitely not existentialism) That is, she stresses so much on individual rationality and the promotion of it's supposed universality within individuals. And is much more appealing to me innately than any of the other prevalent applied social philosophies out there such as the sharing of egotism in the form of nationalism(which is basically worshiping irrationality), or other forms of smaller tribalism which nourishes the circle and kills everyone who is not a member of it. Still, I think it's too much of an extreme. Te has a sense of objective social-understanding that Ti lacks.

[travelnjones]

Let me preface this by saying I am pretty conservative and generally in agreement with her ideas. Sorry i just don't care about, or even believe in, other people.



Her books are sort of in the philosophical vein of "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" in that they are a mix of philosophy and story. Her word play is weak at best so the story part sucks. You can decide for yourself about the philosophy.




I think her ideas appeal to many conservative Americans because they represent a pretty well thought out counterpoint to left wing ideas. Also the previously stated individualism.

Many folks also seem to mistake who Jon Gault as a character is supposed to represent. He is intended to be some sort of inventor turned entrepreneur ala Henry Ford. I know a large number of management types who flock to Rand thinking it was written for them. I have felt they have a personal belief that management is a higher class of individuals. I sort of surmise that they feel justified by Rand.

[snafupants]

Rand's ethical call to arms smacked of a poor man's Nietzsche from the limited clips I've seen.

[travelnjones]

Roughly similar yes. There are some themes of being ultimately rationally driven and that acting for the self is the most rational thing you can do.

I guess the difference would be with Nietzsche there is almost a fascist drive to assure the weak fail for the greater good. Rand seems to have a more capitalist get out of these peoples way as they are helping all of us through invention and business.

While I can understand people not liking it. I don't really get people here reacting so negatively to it. It's thought and if you see some of the interviews with Rand you can see she is basically one of us . She seems to have accepted a few points as her starting point and pretty logically arrived at objectivism. It's pretty evident that she early on rejected communism and socialism took most of their tenants as in correct. Then worked out from there.

Honestly I agree about socialism. I just see there world as being filled with useless manipulators who use their charisma to get what they want. I would much rather these people starve to death on the street and not be part of society. Yet in some socialist systems they flourish, i see that as a negative. I like cash and a price being a price, I want to be rewarded fairly for my work and to purchase items at a value set by scarcity. I don't want people coming in and using their personal charm fucking up that system. I can see why Rand could be attractive.

[snafupants]

Originally Posted by travelnjones

Roughly similar yes. There are some themes of being ultimately rationally driven and that acting for the self is the most rational thing you can do.

I guess the difference would be with Nietzsche there is almost a fascist drive to assure the weak fail for the greater good. Rand seems to have a more capitalist get out of these peoples way as they are helping all of us through invention and business.

While I can understand people not liking it. I don't really get people here reacting so negatively to it. It's thought and if you see some of the interviews with Rand you can see she is basically one of us . She seems to have accepted a few points as her starting point and pretty logically arrived at objectivism. It's pretty evident that she early on rejected communism and socialism took most of their tenants as in correct. Then worked out from there.

Honestly I agree about socialism. I just see there world as being filled with useless manipulators who use their charisma to get what they want. I would much rather these people starve to death on the street and not be part of society. Yet in some socialist systems they flourish, i see that as a negative. I like cash and a price being a price, I want to be rewarded fairly for my work and to purchase items at a value set by scarcity. I don't want people coming in and using their personal charm fucking up that system. I can see why Rand could be attractive.

That synopsis sounds more like John Stuart Mill/Adam Smith and utilitarianism/fiscal jingoism than Nietzsche's subtly life-affirming iconoclasm to me. Nietzsche, to my mind, opposed governmental and religious fascism, so that term appears ungainly as used above.

[travelnjones]

Ok then lets call it a eugenics of thought instead of fascism then.

[snafupants]

Originally Posted by travelnjones

Ok then lets call it a eugenics of thought instead of fascism then.

And we can succinctly call this genius INTJ syndrome.

[Ptah]

I could be accurately called an Objectivist (as in: my own personal philosophy closely although not exactly accords with Rand's, as explicitly expressed), so... That said, I can't whatsoever abide her attempts at fiction; godawful tripe. That opinion stands in sharp contrast to my evaluation of her philosophical work; just the dose of the cold, hard reality the people of this world need, and need right now more than ever.

I often summarize Ayn Rand's upshot in my own terms, like so: "Wake the fuck up, already." If you get that, you don't need to read her philosophical works. If you don't, reading them isn't likely to do much for you.

[snafupants]

Rand's perhaps undue commercial resurrection might have something to do with that movie that recently came out, Atlas Shrugged. In the United States, she's not a terrifically popular topic of conversation. I think her relevance is limited to pretentious academics and other poseurs who hardly grasp Nietzsche but wish to be taken seriously.

[Meer]

Lol.

[snafupants]

More like Ayn Bland. Man I got her good. Right guys? Up top for the high five? *Alone*

[travelnjones]

Well here is actually a pretty exciting version of her Anthem story

YouTube

YouTube

[ProxyAmenRa]

I have never heard of her until reading this thread. I require something to listen while running so I just bought the audio books of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I will tell you what I think of them when I am done.

Edit: It is not like I can get anymore radical than I am. lol

[Reluctantly]

IMO, Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't a philosophy for all kinds of people, but a philosophy for the prototypical INTJ type.

I don't have the same emotional attachment that she does, so every appeal that she makes, the way she puts reason above sentiment, is opposite to what motivates me...go figure. The motivation behind my psychological reason is completely different. I don't see compassion as a weakness, but a motivating factor, but one I get to choose and why.

ITT she's a pretentious and clueless cunt.

Edit: Course, I'm oversimplifying, but I don't want to go into detail unless someone wants me to.

[Reluctantly]

I might have been a little unfair. Ayn Rand could just as easily be an ISTJ...

[Doc Norad]

I find her books to be inspirational, but I care nothing for her philosophy of objectivism. Her books are similar to the Bible: there's a lot of good lessons to be gained from them but, unfortunately, some people decide to follow them to the letter.

I'm a little disappointed in these responses. It seems that most of the people who denounce her have never read her books. I would think that many INTPs can relate to the protagonists (although Ayn Rand and all of her protagonists are unequivocally INTJs, save Howard Roark who is an INTP). They are intelligent and capable individuals who refuse to violate their own visions and principles. Some of those principles aren't so realistic, but I admire the extreme self-discipline and borderline-fanaticism.

I definitely agree that the sex scenes are preposterous with the characters always diving into a long philosophical debate afterwards, but anybody who genuinely thinks the scene in The Fountainhead is rape doesn't understand the relationship.

[Affinity]

I for one enjoyed The Fountainhead and agree for the most part with her philosophical views.

[Reluctantly]

Originally Posted by Doc Norad

I'm a little disappointed in these responses. It seems that most of the people who denounce her have never read her books. I would think that many INTPs can relate to the protagonists (although Ayn Rand and all of her protagonists are unequivocally INTJs, save Howard Roark who is an INTP). They are intelligent and capable individuals who refuse to violate their own visions and principles. Some of those principles aren't so realistic, but I admire the extreme self-discipline and borderline-fanaticism.

I see terrible flaws in her philosophy. I don't have to have read her books thoroughly when I see basic problems with how she is constructing her philosophical blueprint.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...ism_essentials

Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

What is Objective Reality?
What is Reason?
Are ethics always about self-interest?
Does capitalism always increase our individual freedoms?

Metaphysics

"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are—and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it." Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural—and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.

This is just silly. In an interpersonal level, people can create their own reality to some degree. But even with science, we create and invent the world by transforming what we think we know about it into other things. A real Objectivist wouldn't dismiss possibilities that can't be disproven. These are just assumptions pegged to the word objectivism.

Epistemology

"Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge." Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

Man's reason can also create facts about reality just by formulating an awareness of it. And knowledge can be independent of reason, such as knowing a name or having an intuitive understanding of various human experiences like sadness or happiness. She's ignores important philosophical musings just for the sake of making her shit smell like roses.

Human Nature

Man is a rational being. Reason, as man's only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual's choice. "Man is a being of volitional consciousness." "That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character."Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).

This is fine, except she ignores the dual existence of environmental determinism combined with free will. There are environments that hinder the free will of a living being. Rejecting it to support her philosophy sounds pretentious.

Ethics

"Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

This starts off fine, but then a claim is formed that morality does not at all consist in living for others or for society and that we should only be concerned about oneself. I get it, but she ignores how human beings collectively seek each other out and play out roles in doing so to help each other; sometimes to achieve great things individually or just seek certain kinds of pleasure and contentment, it means working together and living for more than just ourselves. Do we just ignore sociology because it's convenient for her philosophy?

Politics

"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force—i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current "mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

I'd hate to come into her philosophical world as destitute. Capitalism puts value on an individual human being and it works best for those that have a high enough value in it. If you have a low value, sorry, you can beg Ayn Rand to get what you need or encourage her to help you raise your value, but she and anyone else can deny you and you're not allowed to ever stand up to them with force. Actually, this is why people use force to begin with.

[InvisibleJim]

Why not?

[yogurtexpress]

I've read Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. There's no denying that her work leaves a lasting impression on anyone who's read it, but I'm not sure that's a good thing. As it stands today, she's kind of alienated from both literary and philosophical circles, and for good reason. In terms of literature, I found The Fountainhead to be very well-written, and it seemed at this stage Rand didn't start pushing her ideology (because she hadn't fully developed it yet) so much as trying to write a good story. The big speech at the end by Howard Roark, I found to be fucking ridiculous, however, because it never seemed to justify the fact that he blew up someone else's building (spoiler). Ayn Rand lives in some weird fantasy world where highly intellectualized historical/philosophical arguments can sway an entire courtroom (I wonder if this is common for all INTJs..)

Atlas Shrugged, I found to be 1,168 pages of pure propaganda and shit. This was supposed to be her magnum opus, but I found it to be a big step down from The Fountainhead in every way: the plotline was borderline ridiculous, the characters were caricatures this time around rather than fully-developed beings, and her basic argument didn't make a whole lot of sense. She tried to say, "Since A = A" (Aristotle's viewpoint), then all is objective, therefore Objectivism is objective." Uh, bullshit. Did this bitch know anything about logic? You can't say your philosophical system is objectively true just because you say it's true. This is the main flaw in a lot of her writing: continuously sucking the dick of the system she thought up rather than providing substantial arguments to make it applicable in society. Reading Atlas Shrugged sometimes feels like reading a little crayon-book made by a child called "Fuck you, I'm right, everyone else is wrong." I get the sense that Ayn Rand is the kind of person who would masturbate to her own reflection in the mirror, and be proud of it too.

[gilliatt]

z

[Philosophyking87]

Originally Posted by ProxyAmenRa

I have never heard of her until reading this thread. I require something to listen while running so I just bought the audio books of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I will tell you what I think of them when I am done.

Edit: It is not like I can get anymore radical than I am. lol

Ironically enough, Ayn Rand is the epitome of what it is to be an INTJ in the modern world. Her philosophy, "Objectivism," is nothing more than the expression of thought most INTJs find natural, and her various books (literary works) are nothing more than the explication of her views.

To sum her up, here's a few thing she advocated:

* laissez-faire capitalism
* each person's independence (i.e. "individualism" over collectivism, which Rand thought is "evil")
* ethical egoism (the view that what's right is whatever makes the individual happy, or that which is exclusively conducive to one's self-interest)
* The importance of reason and rationality
* An end to altruism (she utterly loathed the idea of helping others for the sake of helping others)

Based on your many somewhat anti-egalitarian comments, I'd think you would find her works rather pleasurable. She's every INTJ capitalist's dream come true.

Enjoy.

[You might also want to try out some Nietzsche, if you have not yet done so. His master/slave morality would likely appeal to you. He's a much more refined version of Rand, and he was also likely an INTJ (one of the most profound, up there with Hawking).]

[ProxyAmenRa]

I have finished reading Atlas Shrugged. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The main reason being is that the capitalists aren't the antagonists. I absolutely love the concept of the minds who create wealth in society going on strike. Rand did well in conveying the importance of the entrepreneur.

Hank Readen, nearly every single sentence he spoke I was thinking before I read the sentence. How sad? Am I that one dimensional also?

All I can say about Rand's philosophy as espoused in the novel, is that the underlying methodology is not presented clearly. Very hard to make a sound argument establishing the ought from the is. Her assaults on mysticism and irrationalism were sound.

[MichiganJFrog]

I tried to get through The Fountainhead once, but couldn't make it any further than 50 pages or so. I know Howard Roark is said to be an INTP, but I just thought this guy was made out of wood, or stone, or something. I think we have more of an emotional inner life than that.

I played in this band a few times with a singer who said he read The Fountainhead every year, as a kind of ideological touchstone. All of his songs sounded the same, which is to say they all sounded like knockoffs of

Watching the Detectives

Watching the Detectives

.

[gilliatt]

Nonsense! This is not right. I hear a lot of unintelligible verbiage that conveys nothing clearly except a moral threat on Ayn Rand's character. These are sounds, vibrations. It is not on what is said, but on how it is said, tone of voice, no evidence whatsoever. This, the United States was built on "Capitalism", self interest, rugged individualism. Capitalism, it works, its the truth. Same with reason. I realize the whole plan on the other side is to destroy capitalism, reason etc and replace it with mysticism, some slave pen etc. Folks, there is a war going on in America, maybe the whole earth. It is not political or anti-capitalist war. This war "The professors' war against America", is deeper, its the assault against the founding philosophy of this country that is now being conducted by our government universities. It is radicals, leftists, even moderates on the faculties. There are exceptions, not all. These professors are teaching anti-reason, self-sacrifice, anti-man, anti-life, Kant, Hegel, Marx,....'you can't know anything, there is no certainty, society knows best, can't question the consensus etc. no historical truth, so they just create their own truth.' "The age of individual achievement has passed" they say. Anyway, it is all about 'the collective, the common good, the public good, government censorship.' This is really exciting stuff!!! All I can say is the students need an alternative to this form of brain washing, Objectivist colleges/universities where they learn reason, positive human values, how to think for themselves would be a positive. Note: history of dictatorships failed 100%, paper/fait money failed 100%, welfare state failed 100%, government schools failed 100%, government intervention/controls/regulation failed 100%, entitlement programs failed 100%. I could go on forever!!



Ayn Rand lived by her philosophy. I realize she made some errors, but she practiced what she preached. epistemologically and morally. A point I want to make I don't believe anyone on this site can judge Ayn Rand and reach an objective views of her. Why do I say this? Because you are living in a Kantian world, an anti-value culture and you see everything as opposite. You have to know, what is objectivity? What do you believe is possible to a man or woman? What kind of soul do you think it takes to write "Atlas Shrugged"? So, as a Kantian you can't possible judge an Objectivist. Can a irrational man judge a rational man. I don't think so!! The end.

[Pilot the Cannibal]

I have read all of Ayn Rand's books, and anyone with a brain can see that she had a remarkable writing talent and was an incredible woman. However, anyone who simply blindly follows every single one of her doctrines is going against the whole point of the books. Ayn Rand was able to think for herself. She wants you to be able to think for yourself, as well. The books encourage readers to value their own, reasoning mind above all else; and that is why all of the "cults" that have formed around Randism are so laughably ironic. To agree with her views because they are well reasoned and intelligent is fine; to agree with her views because you think she is "the greatest writer ever" is pure stupidity. Maybe she was the greatest writer ever (obviously this is subjective, so there's no real point in discussing it) but that doesn't mean that every opinion she has ever held, ever, is correct. (For example; just because she is a great writer that smokes doesn't mean that you should smoke, too, and just because she hates certain individuals doesn't mean that you have to hate them, also.) Every evaluation and opinion that you form should come from your own logical conclusions; not somebody elses'.

Ayn Rand was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of her time. She encouraged her readers to relinquish assertions based on simple faith or societal pressures, and preached reason and the power of the individual above all else.

Naturally, everybody formed a cult.

[snafupants]

Originally Posted by Pilot the Cannibal

I have read all of Ayn Rand's books, and anyone with a brain can see that she had a remarkable writing talent and was an incredible woman. However, anyone who simply blindly follows every single one of her doctrines is going against the whole point of the books. Ayn Rand was able to think for herself. She wants you to be able to think for yourself, as well. The books encourage readers to value their own, reasoning mind above all else; and that is why all of the "cults" that have formed around Randism are so laughably ironic. To agree with her views because they are well reasoned and intelligent is fine; to agree with her views because you think she is "the greatest writer ever" is pure stupidity. Maybe she was the greatest writer ever (obviously this is subjective, so there's no real point in discussing it) but that doesn't mean that every opinion she has ever held, ever, is correct. (For example; just because she is a great writer that smokes doesn't mean that you should smoke, too, and just because she hates certain individuals doesn't mean that you have to hate them, also.) Every evaluation and opinion that you form should come from your own logical conclusions; not somebody elses'.

Ayn Rand was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of her time. She encouraged her readers to relinquish assertions based on simple faith or societal pressures, and preached reason and the power of the individual above all else.

Naturally, everybody formed a cult.

That assertion either underestimates the erstwhile intellectual milieu () or overestimates Rand's prominence. From the scant screeds and quotes and scribblings that I've been exposed to, Rand comes off as a poor man's (woman's?) Nietzsche. Rational egoism is a solipsistic and morally compassless ideology. Rand's fervor for rational egoism and free market capitalism perhaps stems from a misinterpretation of Adam Smith's oft quoted, and more oft bungled, invisible hand metaphorical bit, with some overwrought exegesis of Nietzsche and Zeno thrown into the confused metaphysical stew. That, or daddy issues.

[gilliatt]

Laissez-faire capitalism. Ayn Rand said she was a 'radical for laissez-faire capitalism. I wonder how many people know the origin of the term Laissez-faire? Laissez-nous faire. It means "Let us the hell alone". It was true in the seventeenth century and it is true today. Anyway the story: Back in the days, 1700's in France under King Louis XIV that held total power over everyone's life, property, jobs, etc, his chief advisor, Mr Colbert, one of the first modern statists. Colbert believed that government regulations/controls could create national prosperity & that higher tax revenues could cause economic growth (government intervention), a general increase in wealth by encouragement of industry. 'sounds like an analogy of the present'. They put on countless government controls and regulations that choked business activity and caused dismal failure.
One day Mr. Colbert met with a group of manufacturers and asked the question, 'what can I do for you people'? A manufacturer named Legendre answered: "Laissez-nous faire" ("Let us alone").

[snafupants]

Originally Posted by gilliatt

Laissez-faire capitalism. Ayn Rand said she was a 'radical for laissez-faire capitalism. I wonder how many people know the origin of the term Laissez-faire? Laissez-nous faire. It means "Let us the hell alone". It was true in the seventeenth century and it is true today. Anyway the story: Back in the days, 1700's in France under King Louis XIV that held total power over everyone's life, property, jobs, etc, his chief advisor, Mr Colbert, one of the first modern statists. Colbert believed that government regulations/controls could create national prosperity & that higher tax revenues could cause economic growth (government intervention), a general increase in wealth by encouragement of industry. 'sounds like an analogy of the present'. They put on countless government controls and regulations that choked business activity and caused dismal failure.
One day Mr. Colbert met with a group of manufacturers and asked the question, 'what can I do for you people'? A manufacturer named Legendre answered: "Laissez-nous faire" ("Let us alone").

[MENTION=4468]gilliatt[/MENTION]

The manufacturers would of course want unfettered access to all of industry's and capitalism's exploitative perks. Why would a restaurant owner want ADA regulations, which ultimately cost money? Why would Walmart want tariffs on their imports? Why would investors desire a capital gains tax? What would venture capitalism look like without any safeguards? Does approving a labor union sound like a swell idea to a business owner who makes the most profits when costs are low and efficiency is high? Do regulations help or hinder society, commercial exploitation, average folk, business folk, and quality of life matters? How are people in foreign countries treated as a result of domestic capitalistic enterprise? Yes, I can imagine an unethical business owner squealing for fewer regulations, which doesn't mean it's right, or beneficial to the sustainability of average folks' already dismal quality of life.

Spoiler:

Look, the chairman of some company might wax poetic about the wellbeing of the community in which the company does business, but the position as chairman depends on cold numbers, profits and market share.

[snafupants]

Originally Posted by gilliatt

Nonsense! This is not right. I hear a lot of unintelligible verbiage that conveys nothing clearly except a moral threat on Ayn Rand's character. These are sounds, vibrations. It is not on what is said, but on how it is said, tone of voice, no evidence whatsoever. This, the United States was built on "Capitalism", self interest, rugged individualism. Capitalism, it works, its the truth. Same with reason. I realize the whole plan on the other side is to destroy capitalism, reason etc and replace it with mysticism, some slave pen etc. Folks, there is a war going on in America, maybe the whole earth. It is not political or anti-capitalist war. This war "The professors' war against America", is deeper, its the assault against the founding philosophy of this country that is now being conducted by our government universities. It is radicals, leftists, even moderates on the faculties. There are exceptions, not all. These professors are teaching anti-reason, self-sacrifice, anti-man, anti-life, Kant, Hegel, Marx,....'you can't know anything, there is no certainty, society knows best, can't question the consensus etc. no historical truth, so they just create their own truth.' "The age of individual achievement has passed" they say. Anyway, it is all about 'the collective, the common good, the public good, government censorship.' This is really exciting stuff!!! All I can say is the students need an alternative to this form of brain washing, Objectivist colleges/universities where they learn reason, positive human values, how to think for themselves would be a positive. Note: history of dictatorships failed 100%, paper/fait money failed 100%, welfare state failed 100%, government schools failed 100%, government intervention/controls/regulation failed 100%, entitlement programs failed 100%. I could go on forever!!



Ayn Rand lived by her philosophy. I realize she made some errors, but she practiced what she preached. epistemologically and morally. A point I want to make I don't believe anyone on this site can judge Ayn Rand and reach an objective views of her. Why do I say this? Because you are living in a Kantian world, an anti-value culture and you see everything as opposite. You have to know, what is objectivity? What do you believe is possible to a man or woman? What kind of soul do you think it takes to write "Atlas Shrugged"? So, as a Kantian you can't possible judge an Objectivist. Can a irrational man judge a rational man. I don't think so!! The end.

Sure capitalism works, for a few people. Capitalism, as conceived by Adam Smith, ideally facilitated the protection of the rich and their property, via government intervention, from the jealous poor. Given enough time, and with the limited safeguards against exploitation which free market capitalism promises, exploitation and misery are invariably increased for one slice of the population (i.e., the many) whereas quality of life increases for a chosen few (i.e., plutocrats). The United States was originally constructed as a plutocracy con oligarchy, or what Robert Dahl's characterizes as a polyarchy in which citizens are given merely the semblance of power (e.g., electoral college) but the rich hold dominion. Thomas Jefferson, today viewed as one of the more humanitarian founding fathers, disdainfully called the populace the herd while seeking to disenfranchise average people as much as possible. Read The Wealth of Nations and Jefferson's journals, it's there for all to see.

[ProxyAmenRa]

Originally Posted by snafupants

Sure capitalism works, for a few people. Capitalism, as conceived by Adam Smith, ideally facilitated the protection of the rich and their property, via government intervention, from the jealous poor. Given enough time, and with the limited safeguards against exploitation which free market capitalism promises, exploitation and misery are invariably increased for one slice of the population (i.e., the many) whereas quality of life increases for a chosen few (i.e., plutocrats). The United States was originally constructed as a plutocracy con oligarchy, or what Robert Dahl's characterizes as a polyarchy in which citizens are given merely the semblance of power (e.g., electoral college) but the rich hold dominion. Thomas Jefferson, today viewed as one of the more humanitarian founding fathers, disdainfully called the populace the herd while seeking to disenfranchise average people as much as possible. Read The Wealth of Nations and Jefferson's journals, it's there for all to see.

Adam Smith conceived capitalism? Right... I want the title of the publication, the author, page number and paragraph number.

I want clear reasons based in sound logical analysis that substantiates your position that free market-capitalism causes exploitation and misery. So far the evidence is entirely against you.

[snafupants]

Originally Posted by ProxyAmenRa

Adam Smith conceived capitalism? Right... I want the title of the publication, the author, page number and paragraph number.

I want clear reasons based in sound logical analysis that substantiates your position that free market-capitalism causes exploitation and misery. So far the evidence is entirely against you.

You expect evidence of me, but provide none of your own. I'd like clear reasons based on sound logical analysis please. Reading my posts would reveal that I don't actually believe Adam Smith created or inaugurated anything resembling capitalism. Our culture calls popular economic and political practices capitalism and democracy (although they're lies and increasingly the same thing), and I didn't want to deviate too greatly from comfortable lexicon.

Did you read the rest of the sentence you fondly quoted? Therein I delineate the ilk of "capitalism" that Adam Smith actually precipitated. Allow me to refresh your evidently dodgy memory on what I said earlier (see spoiler). I could conceive of democracy and completely fail at aptly characterizing or comprehending true democracy, spreading democracy, and implementing democracy. I still conceived of democracy, thanks for playing.

Spoiler:

Capitalism, as conceived by Adam Smith, ideally facilitated the protection of the rich and their property, via government intervention, from the jealous poor.