[POLITICS] Why do people look down on Ayn Randian philosophies?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Agema:

trunkage:

OT: The premise of Altas Shrugged is that an architect, who deems himself special, is given a project. The people purchasing the plan didn't like what he made and went in a different direction. So the architect BURNT THE PROJECT TO THE GROUND, based on the grounds that it should be down his way.

No, that's "The Fountainhead".

"Atlas Shrugged" is where some guy called John Galt creates a perpetual motion machine, then disappears off with all the rich and talented people in the USA to a secret valley ("Galt's Gulch") and leaves society to collapse because only the immoral, greedy, thieving, big state thickos are left to run the useless, bovine herds of the irrelevant masses. In the end they have to beg him and his pals to rescue them, and the USA is saved when they comes back and install a functioning (Objectivist) society.

If you want some other shitty Objectivist fiction, you can also read the execrable fantasy works of Terry Goodkind - but I recommend you don't.

Wow, i couldn't read Atlas shurgged back in high school because it was a massive book but that summary was so bad, well the Futurama meme would work, IT GAVE ME CANCER

Back when I was a liberal, and stupid, but I'm repeating myself, I always thought that Rand made some valid points. These days, after I've turned Red, I can't say I think so anymore. Claiming that acting out of self interest and nothing but self interest is, in the end, what's best for everyone is simply incorrect. It's a fantasy. Her ideology became popular as a counter thesis to communism. An ideology that claims that the individuals has no responsibility towards anyone other than themselves and that any kind of cooperation should only be done out of personal self interest. I'm sorry, but that's a bullshit ideology. I'm an individualist in many ways but outright denying that such a thing as "responsibility towards others" should exist is not an idea on which a society can function. I doubt it's even an idea on which an individual can survive long term.

To cut Rand some slack, I still think her ideology is one of the more benign ideologies on the right. Objectivism, for all its faults, at least doesn't promote genocide and mass deportations. As a matter of fact it utterly rejects ideas like racial or sexual discrimination, which makes it better than practically anything else rightists believe. But it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work. Don't get me wrong, if the rich collectively decided pack their stuff and fuck off to their little Fantasy Wakanda in the mountains somewhere I'd be the last to stop them but I don't think that's gonna work out for them.

I'm sorry Alisa, Lenin was right and you were wrong. The "looters" and "parasites" aren't the poor, but the rich.

PsychedelicDiamond:

To cut Rand some slack, I still think her ideology is one of the more benign ideologies on the right. Objectivism, for all its faults, at least doesn't promote genocide and mass deportations.

On the contrary, Ayn Rand happily justified the mass slaughter and dispossession of the native Americans. Her argument went that they were savages who had failed to build a civilised and advanced society and - crucially - settled lifestyles and property rights, in which case they deserved to be stripped of their land by force by more advanced (i.e. more reasoned and moral) Europeans.

I would also point out that to read her gleeful, lengthy description of the deaths of her ideological enemies in the train crash in Atlas Shrugged is to observe someone with plenty of lethal vindictiveness to spare. That's notphilosophy, of course, but it speaks to her attitude, and thus the attitudes Objectivists were supposed to hold (because no-one was allowed to disagree with her).

Agema:

If you want some other shitty Objectivist fiction, you can also read the execrable fantasy works of Terry Goodkind - but I recommend you don't.

Or do. It has magic dominatrixes (and lots of em!) & is quite porny at times if you're into that kinda thing.

Rand was utterly short sighted. I'd generally consider myself to be acting in my own self interest most of the time, but it's often not to do with directly materially or sensually benefit myself. It is in my ultimate best interest to live in a society that is happier and more harmonious, and consistently acting to materially benefit myself will run counter to this ideal. Doing things which benefit other people for no immediate reward will, in theory, benefit me more in the long run, in a holistic way.

Well, at least there is one topic on this forum that most of us can agree on. Achievement unlocked

Agema:
In which case it'd be nothing special, because Nietzche got there well over 50 years earlier.

Firstly, it's not really a philosophy such as a pseudophilosophy. Basically, it seems Ayn Rand read lots of Aristotle, quite a bit of Nietzche, and has a smattering of knowledge of a few other philosophers that she evidently doesn't really understand very well. Don't get me wrong, it's potentially the best amateur philosophy ever created, but it's amateur nonetheless. In terms of philosophical rigour, it's very weak - poorly logically defended, full of flaws.

I wouldn't call it pseudo-philosophy on that count. Being a cowboy who tries to draw massive conclusions about things which you only half understand is common practice among philosophers. If Nietzsche and Quine are taken seriously in spite of their bad arguments and absurd conclusions, why not Ayn Rand? You don't have to believe a word she says, but 'pseudo-philosopher' is a strange way to put it.

Because it's a fancy way of saying "fuck you, got mine."

Haven't read Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged since they seem to be almost as reviled as the Twilight books, but the philosophy seems akin to Christianity to me; a well-meaning set of rules for life but easily co-opted by douchebags who can use it as an excuse to dump on the poor or the weak. Ms. Rand seems to have been badly scarred by some of the bigger absurdities taking place in communist Russia (and to be fair, most people were), and promotes revulsion of the masses in order to engineer 'greatness' in an elite few.

I was just watching a cinematic retrospect of Spider-Man which pointed out how strange it was that the Green Goblin in the first Raimi film cited some of the same beats out of nowhere: 'The 8 million people in this city exist for the sole purpose of elevating the exceptional few onto their shoulders'. It's just so easy for any villain in nearly any genre to pick it up and run with it and pretend it gives them some kind of depth or good reason to be the way they are.

Everybody got there before me, but might as well throw in a "cos they're bloody shite" for good measure. Doin' me part for science, sir!

Agema:

CrazyGirl17:
My biggest issue with Rand's philosophy is the rejection of altruism, which I feel goes against human nature.

Though that may be due to my own biases...

You have to be careful here, because Rand used a very strict definition of altruism, which is that it is a philosophical moral obligation to put others before oneself: you are immoral if you do not. However, when we think about altruism normally, we don't tend to think of it as a moral obligation. Altruism normally represents an attitude of concern and wishing the best for others; in terms of action an option where we might be a good person to put someone ahead of ourselves, but we're not necessarily a bad person if we don't, either.

Rand would argue that if it selfishly pleases you to and does not significantly harm yourself, help others if you want. Nevertheless, I would suggest the overall tone of Objectivism is very poorly suited and even hostile to the idea of helping others generally.

Huh, interesting. I didn't know that, but then I don't exactly have the patience to understand philosophical details.

Most of what I know of objectivism comes from Bioshock... which doesn't exactly paint a good picture of that way of thinking...

I've read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and I came away from both rather critical. Beyond the structure of her writing, which is a criticism in and of itself, I don't think she makes a compelling case. There's a saying I'm rather fond of, that goes something like this: A page of history is worth a volume of theory. And I don't think her ideas have panned out. If we look at the "great" accomplishments of history (in terms of size and impact, not morality), they are rarely accomplished by people I would describe as Randian. Sure, some of the people at the head may have been self-interested, but it required the work on the ground level of others to accomplish that. And these people are not always working for what directly benefits them the most. I have a soft spot for great man history, but even I have to admit that Augustus would have been nothing without tens of thousands of Romans, soldiers and civilians alike, working towards a common goal. Human society is sort of like a body in being a complex organism, and your muscle tissue doesn't act in a way that only benefits the muscle tissue. If all parts of your body did that, I don't know how long you'd be alive.

There's also the usual criticisms that those of us on the right have towards her, such as her seeming disregard of institutions like the family unit and the church. Also I think she puts too much emphasis on wealth as the be-all-end-all goal. To quote my econ 101 prof: "This isn't a moral system where whoever dies with the most stuff or the highest number wins."

The kindest thing I can say about objectivists that I've known is that they are utterly opposed to discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, national origin, language, etc, mostly because they view it as bad for business.

At the end of the day, the way I judge philosophy is how it has impacted the world.

Agema:
I would also point out that to read her gleeful, lengthy description of the deaths of her ideological enemies in the train crash in Atlas Shrugged is to observe someone with plenty of lethal vindictiveness to spare.

It's been years since I've read the book and yet I can never forget that particular part of the book whenever it gets brought up. She's very clearly happy when all these "parasites" with the wrong ideas end up getting killed.

Just to elaborate further on what I was talking about with Rand/Hickman. Here's the newspaper account of the murder.

"It was while I was fixing the blindfold that the urge to murder came upon me," he continued, "and I just couldn't help myself. I got a towel and stepped up behind Marion. Then before she could move, I put it around her neck and twisted it tightly. I held on and she made no outcry except to gurgle. I held on for about two minutes, I guess, and then I let go. When I cut loose the fastenings, she fell to the floor. I knew she was dead. Well, after she was dead I carried her body into the bathroom and undressed her, all but the underwear, and cut a hole in her throat with a pocket knife to let the blood out."

"Then he took a pocket knife and cut a hole in her throat. Then he cut off each arm to the elbow. Then he cut her legs off at the knees. He put the limbs in a cabinet. He cut up the body in his room at the Bellevue Arms Apartments. Then he removed the clothing and cut the body through at the waist. He put it on a shelf in the dressing room. He placed a towel in the body to drain the blood. He wrapped up the exposed ends of the arms and waist with paper. He combed back her hair, powdered her face and then with a needle fixed her eyelids. He did this because he realized that he would lose the reward if he did not have the body to produce to her father."

"Hickman packed her body, limbs and entrails into a car, and drove to the drop-off point to pick up his ransom; along his way he tossed out wrapped-up limbs and innards scattering them around Los Angeles. When he arrived at the meeting point, Hickman pulled Miriam's [sic] head and torso out of a suitcase and propped her up, her torso wrapped tightly, to look like she was alive-he sewed wires into her eyelids to keep them open, so that she'd appear to be awake and alive. When Miriam's father arrived, Hickman pointed a sawed-off shotgun at him, showed Miriam's head with the eyes sewn open (it would have been hard to see for certain that she was dead), and then took the ransom money and sped away. As he sped away, he threw Miriam's head and torso out of the car, and that's when the father ran up and saw his daughter-and screamed."

Nasty huh?

Ayn's thoughts on this?

"the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should."

Sound familiar, droogs?

CrazyGirl17:
My biggest issue with Rand's philosophy is the rejection of altruism, which I feel goes against human nature.

Though that may be due to my own biases...

That's because altruism is probably the most important thing humans do. Like, we literally got where we are because of our more altruistic nature then most other animals. We got here by working together, we worked together well enough for us to be able to become greedy assholes who want to take as much for ourselves as we can. Not totally but we do too much of it.

jademunky:

Agema:

If you want some other shitty Objectivist fiction, you can also read the execrable fantasy works of Terry Goodkind - but I recommend you don't.

Or do. It has magic dominatrixes (and lots of em!) & is quite porny at times if you're into that kinda thing.

I'm going to have to go with Agema, really just because I've always found Terry Goodkind to be totally shit. Though I haven't read anything by him in at least 15 years, on account of it being so shit, so maybe he got better at it?

OT: Pretty sure it's because she is/was (is she dead? Don't care and can't be bothered to check) just an unfortunate stain on life's sofa. Like, a sofa that had a few tiny red wine stains on it, which you thought you could probably put a cushion or throw over the top of, but then someone's colostomy bag leaked on it and now you're stuck with it, a shitty, smelly sofa that reminds you of Ayn Rand.

Pseudonym:

I wouldn't call it pseudo-philosophy on that count. Being a cowboy who tries to draw massive conclusions about things which you only half understand is common practice among philosophers. If Nietzsche and Quine are taken seriously in spite of their bad arguments and absurd conclusions, why not Ayn Rand? You don't have to believe a word she says, but 'pseudo-philosopher' is a strange way to put it.

Sure. And I can tell you the universe is just the dream of a big fat toad and that means it's immoral to eat cheese, because reasons. But I don't think that justifies calling myself a philosopher just because it's making claims about metaphysics and ethics.

There's a reason (almost) no-one teaches Objectivism in philosophy classes in university: it's not worth the effort. It reminds me of the story of someone reviewing a piece of work and commented that it was half good and half original: it's just the half that was good was not original and the half that was original was not good.

CM156:
It's been years since I've read the book and yet I can never forget that particular part of the book whenever it gets brought up. She's very clearly happy when all these "parasites" with the wrong ideas end up getting killed.

Quite so. It's a staggering mis-step, really, suggesting all the "parasites" deserve to die. I've never encountered an Objectivist who hasn't tried to fudge it away because it's such an embarrassment to Rand and Objectivism.

Baffle2:
I'm going to have to go with Agema, really just because I've always found Terry Goodkind to be totally shit. Though I haven't read anything by him in at least 15 years, on account of it being so shit, so maybe he got better at it?.

I read the first three. By that point I decided that Goodkind was not only a mediocre writer of unoriginal tripe (which I could just about tolerate), but a misogynist as well. Seriously, all his books seem to involve a load of dreadful women, most of whom fall in love with the hero (which I find inexplicable as he has the charisma of a lump of coal) and merit death.

Beyond that, I followed him only via a fantasy book review site that had a whole section devoted to how awful Goodkind was. I think the site has since been retired, but it was as hilarious as it was merciless. There's the fantastic moment the hero breaks the jaw of a 7-year-old because "the thing" rose up in him. What "the thing" is (righteous anger?) is anybody's guess; and it might have been extremely bratty and spoilt 7-year-old, but even still, holy fuck...

Because she was a shameless hypocrite, fraud, scam artist and was basically the Donald Trump of her time.

Also she collected social security, and her husband pension under a alternate name and used it for hip surgery I think it was, again under alternate name, because it was bad for her image to take Government hand outs

Agema:
Sure. And I can tell you the universe is just the dream of a big fat toad and that means it's immoral to eat cheese, because reasons. But I don't think that justifies calling myself a philosopher just because it's making claims about metaphysics and ethics.

There's a reason (almost) no-one teaches Objectivism in philosophy classes in university: it's not worth the effort. It reminds me of the story of someone reviewing a piece of work and commented that it was half good and half original: it's just the half that was good was not original and the half that was original was not good.

I think a lot of issues come from the fact that the term "philosophy" is defined generally very broadly. But I do agree that it's not a useful philosophy, just like anyone who insists solipsism is correct and that's the end of the debate.

Quite so. It's a staggering mis-step, really, suggesting all the "parasites" deserve to die. I've never encountered an Objectivist who hasn't tried to fudge it away because it's such an embarrassment to Rand and Objectivism.

I've met at least one who was unapologetic as to what they think should happen to all "parasites"

CM156:

Agema:
Sure. And I can tell you the universe is just the dream of a big fat toad and that means it's immoral to eat cheese, because reasons. But I don't think that justifies calling myself a philosopher just because it's making claims about metaphysics and ethics.

There's a reason (almost) no-one teaches Objectivism in philosophy classes in university: it's not worth the effort. It reminds me of the story of someone reviewing a piece of work and commented that it was half good and half original: it's just the half that was good was not original and the half that was original was not good.

I think a lot of issues come from the fact that the term "philosophy" is defined generally very broadly. But I do agree that it's not a useful philosophy, just like anyone who insists solipsism is correct and that's the end of the debate.

Quite so. It's a staggering mis-step, really, suggesting all the "parasites" deserve to die. I've never encountered an Objectivist who hasn't tried to fudge it away because it's such an embarrassment to Rand and Objectivism.

I've met at least one who was unapologetic as to what they think should happen to all "parasites"

Sadly I too have met plenty of people like that. It really isn't all that uncommon in wealthy republican districts tbh. The healthcare debate has brought a lot of these people that believe these terrible things to the surface. Of course they change their tune the second something terrible happens to themselves or their loved ones(only as it applies to them however, as they see themselves as the exception), but everyone else can go die quietly somewhere where they cannot be seen or heard as far as they are concerned. When you live in a wealthy area, you interact with these people on a daily basis and as far as their concerned, they would rather us build an impenetrable wall around where they work, live and entertain themselves and keep all " the less fortunate" away from them with deadly force if necessary so they do not have to see them or be bothered by them at all.

I think that is what some do not understand. Just like Trump builds walls around his golf courses to only allow the wealthy in, and keep everyone else out of sight, even on public lands he wasn't supposed to do so, his wall is not actually to keep out the " criminals", it is to keep out those less fortunate. He knows damn good and well the wall does nothing to deter actual criminals who will just find a way around it, this wall only stops suffering families and those too weak to travel further. He too wants to wall off the wealthy from everyone else and let everyone else go die quietly where he won't be bothered by them as well. He doesn't come out and blatantly say everyone outside his walls should just "die", however, he knows many will and isn't the least bit bothered by it. That is just how people with this mindset think.

Can we talk about the only reason she got notoriety?

She hated Communism.

I mean, I totally understand hating the Soviet system. But she forgot the number one lesson from the Russian Revolutions. Making a totally new system defeats the safe guards the old system leading to way more problems

trunkage:
Can we talk about the only reason she got notoriety?

She hated Communism.

I mean, I totally understand hating the Soviet system. But she forgot the number one lesson from the Russian Revolutions. Making a totally new system defeats the safe guards the old system leading to way more problems

Making a new system only defeats the safeguards if you fail to build the safeguards in to the new system to begin with. A system is only as good as it's design.

Lil devils x:

trunkage:
Can we talk about the only reason she got notoriety?

She hated Communism.

I mean, I totally understand hating the Soviet system. But she forgot the number one lesson from the Russian Revolutions. Making a totally new system defeats the safe guards the old system leading to way more problems

Making a new system only defeats the safeguards if you fail to build the safeguards in to the new system to begin with. A system is only as good as it's design.

This is totally true.

This issue was that we didn't know the emergent safeguards of Capitalism. For example, the work done on pricing and how that relays way more information than just a number to the market than we realised before 1919

Smithnikov:

Ayn's thoughts on this?

"the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should."

Sound familiar, droogs?

I can only wonder what her thoughts on it would have been, had she been the victim. Rather different, I imagine. But this is what you expect from psychopaths- and that's what Rand was. And she has become a rallying point for other psychopaths desperate to normalize their mental illness and dupe us into willingly being their victims.

Silentpony:
Because she was a shameless hypocrite, fraud, scam artist and was basically the Donald Trump of her time.

Also she collected social security, and her husband pension under a alternate name and used it for hip surgery I think it was, again under alternate name, because it was bad for her image to take Government hand outs

I'm not really a fan of her's but I've gotta white knight for her here. She did pay into those programs, they were not just handouts.

jademunky:

Silentpony:
Because she was a shameless hypocrite, fraud, scam artist and was basically the Donald Trump of her time.

Also she collected social security, and her husband pension under a alternate name and used it for hip surgery I think it was, again under alternate name, because it was bad for her image to take Government hand outs

I'm not really a fan of her's but I've gotta white knight for her here. She did pay into those programs, they were not just handouts.

..And she utilized the same hospitals and physicians she thought should have the right to turn her away. Her seeing doctors as slaves that should not be bound by ethics to treat her, yet she deemed it necessary to use that to her advantage when she was the one in need of assistance. If the physicians that treated her adhered to her ideology, she would not have been able to seek treatment as she was relying on doctors that accepted government funding rather than the private, wealthy physicians that you paid out of pocket for at the time. In her world, the physicians that were willing to take the government payments she required would not exist.

I'll answer.

Because So-Called 'Progress' without thought of the ramifications of your self-serving actions to the overall world is the very antithesis of reason.

Car companies were aware of Climate Change way before any of us had any idea. They buried the lead because it would be bad for profits. Now the ice caps are melting, parts of the world are quickly becoming too hot for human life, and those waters are arising.

Big Pharma pushed and pushed for opioids to become more common place. How did that work out for us? Well, last year Opioid overdoses killed more people than car accidents.

But who cares? Those CEOs are at the top of their industry. They are the elite. They are the ones without peers. Silly thoughts like Morality should not shackle such ambition. Nevermind the stats that show with the increase of Opioids' proliferation into the mainstream, so did a noticeable spike in crime. Men like Anthony Rattini are men of vision, and should not be subject to any petty laws we have no matter what he has done.

It's sanctimonious self-aggrandizing drivel that is on par with Manifest Destiny and The White Man's Burden. "We're so great that it would be a crime to restrain ourselves with thoughts of others over our current wishes!"

Great. Obtain all that wealth. And let some guy who is just literally stronger than you come to your house and take it from you. Obviously, there's no mortality so there's nothing wrong with it. He is the superior man. If you worked so hard for it and you didn't protect it, you obviously didn't deserve it, right?

I mean, it's only logical. If there's no moral right and wrong, we can do anything! Including taking the spoils of your work, because why the hell shouldn't i?!

Also, can we talk about Altas Shrugged movie? How it's probably the Antithesis of Objectivism?

Lil devils x:
..And she utilized the same hospitals and physicians she thought should have the right to turn her away. Her seeing doctors as slaves that should not be bound by ethics to treat her, yet she deemed it necessary to use that to her advantage when she was the one in need of assistance. If the physicians that treated her adhered to her ideology, she would not have been able to seek treatment as she was relying on doctors that accepted government funding rather than the private, wealthy physicians that you paid out of pocket for at the time. In her world, the physicians that were willing to take the government payments she required would not exist.

If I were a marxist who grew up in a capitalist society, would it be hippocritical of me to make the best of it and work within a system I did not create and get a paid job? Society told her that she had no choice but to pay into social security and do things in a certain way.

I happen to think this highlights just how good an idea such government programs are and it undermines objectivism but does not leave her personal integrity in shambles.

jademunky:

Lil devils x:
..And she utilized the same hospitals and physicians she thought should have the right to turn her away. Her seeing doctors as slaves that should not be bound by ethics to treat her, yet she deemed it necessary to use that to her advantage when she was the one in need of assistance. If the physicians that treated her adhered to her ideology, she would not have been able to seek treatment as she was relying on doctors that accepted government funding rather than the private, wealthy physicians that you paid out of pocket for at the time. In her world, the physicians that were willing to take the government payments she required would not exist.

If I were a marxist who grew up in a capitalist society, would it be hippocritical of me to make the best of it and work within a system I did not create and get a paid job? Society told her that she had no choice but to pay into social security and do things in a certain way.

I happen to think this highlights just how good an idea such government programs are and it undermines objectivism but does not leave her personal integrity in shambles.

Its more that she thought such programs were morally repugnant, and weak. If you're not rich enough to afford treatment, its because you're too weak to be rich and strong. And yet she was more than willing to spend Government money on herself, anonymously, when it suited her, all the while decrying those who did and calling for the termination of such programs.

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

jademunky:

Lil devils x:
..And she utilized the same hospitals and physicians she thought should have the right to turn her away. Her seeing doctors as slaves that should not be bound by ethics to treat her, yet she deemed it necessary to use that to her advantage when she was the one in need of assistance. If the physicians that treated her adhered to her ideology, she would not have been able to seek treatment as she was relying on doctors that accepted government funding rather than the private, wealthy physicians that you paid out of pocket for at the time. In her world, the physicians that were willing to take the government payments she required would not exist.

If I were a marxist who grew up in a capitalist society, would it be hippocritical of me to make the best of it and work within a system I did not create and get a paid job? Society told her that she had no choice but to pay into social security and do things in a certain way.

I happen to think this highlights just how good an idea such government programs are and it undermines objectivism but does not leave her personal integrity in shambles.

In addition to what Silentpony stated above, It wasn't just that she used the services because they existed, it was also that according to her own beliefs, if she could not afford to use the private doctors that actually existed at the time she utilized public care, then under her proposed beliefs, she deserved to not receive care at all. It isn't like the private doctors she could pay out of pocket for the best care didn't exist, they did, it was that she was too weak, poor and disabled to afford to be able to use them, she herself was then one of " the parasites" that she thought deserved to die at that point. If the private doctors did not exist, there would be a case made for her using the system she riled against, but they certainly did and she chose to cower and use the doctors and care she publicly condemned in secret while telling others that they should be forced to die instead of use them themselves.

Baffle2:

jademunky:

Agema:

If you want some other shitty Objectivist fiction, you can also read the execrable fantasy works of Terry Goodkind - but I recommend you don't.

Or do. It has magic dominatrixes (and lots of em!) & is quite porny at times if you're into that kinda thing.

I'm going to have to go with Agema, really just because I've always found Terry Goodkind to be totally shit. Though I haven't read anything by him in at least 15 years, on account of it being so shit, so maybe he got better at it?

Prolly not. It's been at least that long for me as well but he strikes me as the type that equates change with weakness.

My guess is that her philosophy was more of an excuse for rich twats to stay rich twats, and feel better about themselves.

Here's what Murray Rothbad, an right wing, ancap, libertarian, Austrian School etc. economist had to say abouy Randroids:

If the glaring inner contradictions of the Leninist cults make them intriguing objects of study, still more so is the Ayn Rand cult ... [f]or not only was the Rand cult explicitly atheist, anti-religious, and an extoller of Reason; it also promoted slavish dependence on the guru in the name of independence; adoration and obedience to the leader in the name of every person's individuality; and blind emotion and faith in the guru in the name of Reason.[105]

trunkage:
Can we talk about the only reason she got notoriety?

She hated Communism.

Eh, that wouldn't be enough. Plenty of vocal writers hated communism, especially around that time, in the US, but only Rand got this kind of recognition. Cause she went a step further and renounced any kind of community as counter-productive.

Smithnikov:

Ayn's thoughts on this?

"the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should."

Truly, she was ahead of her time and knew that... We. Live. In a society.

Lil devils x:

In addition to what Silentpony stated above, It wasn't just that she used the services because they existed, it was also that according to her own beliefs, if she could not afford to use the private doctors that actually existed at the time she utilized public care, then under her proposed beliefs, she deserved to not receive care at all.

But surely you can see the philosophical distinction between how things should ideally be and how things actually are. That she, as a person, caved to the perfectly reasonably desire for help when shit got too rough doesn't necessarily negate her fantasy where everyone is so super-heroic (in the classical sense) and self-sufficient that oh my god I don't even know what I am defending anymore please disregard.......

It isn't like the private doctors she could pay out of pocket for the best care didn't exist, they did, it was that she was too weak, poor and disabled to afford to be able to use them, she herself was then one of " the parasites" that she thought deserved to die at that point. If the private doctors did not exist, there would be a case made for her using the system she riled against, but they certainly did and she chose to cower and use the doctors and care she publicly condemned in secret while telling others that they should be forced to die instead of use them themselves.

See this is where you and I differ.

I see someone who made some political niche-fetish-porn who suddenly found herself in Homer Simpson Stonecutter territory. Only instead of choosing to say things like "Helping others makes our own lives better and makes us better people...." other things were said.

Silentpony:

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

The hiding it, if true, totally does.

The using it, after being forced to pay for it for a large portion of her life does not.......necessarily. Even if one is officially against it.

trunkage:
Also, can we talk about Altas Shrugged movie? How it's probably the Antithesis of Objectivism?

It's hilarious, and the fact that there are 3 of them with plummeting budgets and popularity is, basically, a scathing indictment of it in the eyes of its own philosophy.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here