|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 1, 2011 6:35:46 GMT -5
As for her supposed admiration for a rapist, what I keep in mind is the fact that we could look at pretty much anyone's history and find some dirt to smear them with. That's total crap. She didn't 'supposedly' admire a rapist, she openly admired a murderer for holding the very traits she insisted, in her books and philosophy, are the best for humankind- disdain for others, ruthlessness, will, childish lack of respect for moral or civil law. Ayn Rand's love for a psychopath is important because her philosophy also raised psychopathy above mental health. Sure. That's why I think the people's actual views should be reexamined. Clearly they didn't believe all people were created equal. That's the problem. The 'good' Rand did was exactly the same as the 'bad'. In both cases, she advocated thinking only of number one. Utter crap. It wasn't taken out of context, she just admired murderers for disobeying the moral laws of society. That's exactly the problem with Randroidism; it assumes that they're the same thing (or deliberately pretends them to be the same in order to justify self-interest). Kropotkin, Bakunin, John Locke, Malatesta, Max Stirner, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Henry David Thoreau, Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Emile Armand and Han Ryner. All of them better thought out than the base silliness of Rand. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 1, 2011 6:41:30 GMT -5
I know nothing about Ayn Rand, but this thread has piqued my interest, & not necessarily in a good way. Firstly, your post about the board. You talk about rationalism while taking your first negative encounter & starting to project it on more & more of the board? Plus, you're ignoring why the "one-eighty" occurred. That rapist point has been mentioned many times now, & you have not made any attempt to refute it once. You are going to continue to get more of the same if you demonstrate no more than Fanboy Knowledge about this Rand woman. I know when I see a TL;WDR post that's failing for very fundamental reasons, I don't sit there & refute each individual point AGAIN. That's a waste of my time. On that note, the other thing that piqued my interest & not necessarily in a good way, I would like to see what it is she says about rape. That's another thing. She had ridiculous views about sexuality and feminism. She thought, for instance, that all women loved men who would basically rape them. Hence the disturbing sex scenes in her books. |
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Oct 1, 2011 7:19:45 GMT -5
I know nothing about Ayn Rand, but this thread has piqued my interest, & not necessarily in a good way. Firstly, your post about the board. You talk about rationalism while taking your first negative encounter & starting to project it on more & more of the board? Plus, you're ignoring why the "one-eighty" occurred. That rapist point has been mentioned many times now, & you have not made any attempt to refute it once. You are going to continue to get more of the same if you demonstrate no more than Fanboy Knowledge about this Rand woman. I know when I see a TL;WDR post that's failing for very fundamental reasons, I don't sit there & refute each individual point AGAIN. That's a waste of my time. On that note, the other thing that piqued my interest & not necessarily in a good way, I would like to see what it is she says about rape. That's another thing. She had ridiculous views about sexuality and feminism. She thought, for instance, that all women loved men who would basically rape them. Hence the disturbing sex scenes in her books. Damn damn damn damn damn dam nmit all damn you to hell ltfred! I had purged my mind that there was actually several sex scenes in AS... you had to go and ruin a perfectly well-bleached brain by reminding me? You're a cruel man Jack Sparrow. |
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Oct 1, 2011 7:56:33 GMT -5
That's another thing. She had ridiculous views about sexuality and feminism. She thought, for instance, that all women loved men who would basically rape them. Hence the disturbing sex scenes in her books. Damn damn damn damn damn dam nmit all damn you to hell ltfred! I had purged my mind that there was actually several sex scenes in AS... you had to go and ruin a perfectly well-bleached brain by reminding me? You're a cruel man Jack Sparrow. Was it really that traumatic to you? All I could think about was "people don't take THAT much while they're naked and about bone each other's brains out!" |
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Oct 2, 2011 3:46:22 GMT -5
Aaand... this is the thread that has finally prompted me to reading Atlas Shrugged. Thus far, it's straw-manning the hell out of socialism, while portraying industrialists as these uber geniuses who are literally the only people in the world who can get shit done.
|
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Oct 2, 2011 7:49:32 GMT -5
I still remember and shake my head at all the "brother begging for money" Reardon scenes where the guy (while okay being a bit of a mooch but.. not really, not if his family was still broke) asks for money and oh sure, Reardon gives it to him, willingly, but the contempt and utter disdain for another living being is instantly obvious. That level of sociopathy makes me want to reach through the book and kill or maim Reardon...so...so...so many times.
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Oct 2, 2011 9:23:11 GMT -5
It's not gonna get any better, Haseen. The entire book is just a thin framework to support Rand's childish and sociopathic philosophies. According to her, if you are of value, then you will be wealthy and powerful, and if you are no wealthy and powerful, then not only do you have no value, but you exist only to serve those who are in any way they wish.
I've read it twice, and my impression is that the society model she holds up as ideal is what you would get if you went into your average kindergarten classroom, removed the teacher, and told the kids they could do anything they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Oct 2, 2011 21:06:59 GMT -5
I've read it twice, and my impression is that the society model she holds up as ideal is what you would get if you went into your average kindergarten classroom, removed the teacher, and told the kids they could do anything they want. I don't know, I suspect that the kindergarten class would show a higher level of maturity and social responsibility. A lot of them believe in sharing and playing nice and will only begrudgingly ostracize the ones that don't. |
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Oct 2, 2011 23:32:03 GMT -5
I've read it twice, and my impression is that the society model she holds up as ideal is what you would get if you went into your average kindergarten classroom, removed the teacher, and told the kids they could do anything they want. I don't know, I suspect that the kindergarten class would show a higher level of maturity and social responsibility. A lot of them believe in sharing and playing nice and will only begrudgingly ostracize the ones that don't. This is true, they'd have to be pretty bratty mean kindergarteners to be at the Randian level |
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Oct 2, 2011 23:47:21 GMT -5
Everytime I get into an argument with my parents or any authority figure that I really hate at the moment, I automatically think like a Rand-ian protagonist.
Mainly
"I don't need to listen to your crap!"
"Oh they'll fire me eh? Well, if I can't join em, I'll beat em!"
"Listen to the boss? I AM DAMN FUCKIN' BOSS!"
"I'll don't need anyone to hire me! I'm my own man! I hire myself and grind your whole company into dust!"
No really that's some of the thoughts I've expressed when dealing with authority figures I didn't like; that I am entitled to what I make, have no boss except myself, and anyone who thinks that they have power over me will be on my list of people to be reduced to a worthless crying nobody.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adeimantus on Oct 13, 2011 16:42:37 GMT -5
Wow, it’s certainly been a while, and I have had plenty of time to think on some of the arguments presented. I don’t know how often I will be responding, if at all, since college-hunting season has opened for me, but I wanted to respond to some of the previous contentions. First of all, the charge that Rand admired a serial killer. I would first direct you to this excellent thread on just this topic at: boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=604618 See BrainGlutton’s post on the third page for an excellent explanation of Rand’s position on “altruism” if you’d like, as a bonus. From the information I have been able to find, it sounds to me like Rand was doing precisely what sugarfreejazz says she isn’t- identifying qualities she finds positive and bemoaning the fact that they were wasted in a murderer. And that was before someone supplied me a link to a forum with the complete passage from the journal entry about Hickman- pay special attention to the passages that are underlined: www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria/3129566-post120.html As you can see, it is abundantly clear that Rand admires certain characteristics- independence, a lack of reliance on the group, fearlessness, ego- but she considers Hickman to be an example of good qualities gone to waste and used for evil. She says outright: “He is a monster in his cruelty and disrespect of all things.” She wrote the entry as she was sketching out plans for a story, and the hero, modeled on Hickman was to be, “Very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.” So it is apparent that Rand is not in the least admiring murder, cruelty, or heartlessness. Her admiration is for qualities, and her ire towards society is well-expressed in the statement ‘[the reaction to] this case is not moral indignation at a terrible crime. It is the mob's murderous desire to revenge its hurt vanity against a man who dared to be alone. It is a case of "we" against "him."’ I’ll admit, hearing those particular passages offered out of context threw me for a loop. But the power of Did The Research triumphs! I am personally satisfied that the charge that Rand “admired a serial killer” fails- she admired certain qualities, and further acknowledges that the man may not actually be all that she is envisioning- but it is what she is envisioning, not the actual man, who is detestable, that matters. Also, my previous defense still stands. It’s not in the least a red herring. It would be fallacious to pick a single event or comment from a person’s past and try to go from that to the total refutation of everything they later said. We could do the same with anyone, including many who are greatly admired. Furthermore, a person’s thinking changes over time- Rand’s obviously did, as I recall her not being so friendly to Niesztche later on. It is valuable to understand the dynamic evolution of an individual’s thinking and beliefs. So this was fun. I got what I wanted- I learned something. Next time I want to try and formulate a better explanation of “rational selfishness.” Everything hinges on that one idea, and I think a misunderstanding of it is the primary source of contention here, so if I can, I’ll try and get on that later. So to that end, can anyone tell me what you believe is meant by that statement and what you believe follows? |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 16:46:48 GMT -5
How does your interpretation of how she defines selfish mesh with "The moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness." This is a direct question and I expect an answer. Hey! You ignored my question. Still ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by Adeimantus on Oct 13, 2011 16:47:59 GMT -5
Not ignored. I haven't forgot.
|
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Oct 13, 2011 17:29:01 GMT -5
Aaand... this is the thread that has finally prompted me to reading Atlas Shrugged. Thus far, it's straw-manning the hell out of socialism, while portraying industrialists as these uber geniuses who are literally the only people in the world who can get shit done. I went the short route and skim-read the Wikiquote page. To be fair, the Wikiquote page is kinda skewed towards stuff actually worth quoting, instead of, say, basic exposition, but even so, I'm guessing that this is not a novel that has much, if any, small talk. In fact, it's probably all, erm, big talk. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Oct 13, 2011 19:25:44 GMT -5
Wow that's a wall of text that says absolutely nothing
|
|
