Guin wrote:
The influence is well documented, and is not debatable at all.
A 1991 Survey by the Book-of-the-Month Club and the Library of Congress’ Center for the Book asked respondents to “name a book that had made a difference in their lives”. Number one was The Bible. Number two was Atlas Shrugged.
:rolleyes:
All that means is that these things have something in common. Baseball, football, soccer and ping pong are all sports. That’s it. It does not mean that baseball players are also football or soccer players.
In the same way, we can group racism, communism, fascism and Rand’s philosophy together, insofar as they all had major political influence (again, being generous in the case of Rand). No reasonable person would interpret this as a statement that Rand’s worldview was communist, fascist or racist.
Naturally, and I never claimed otherwise. (The statement regarding politics came from sleestak, after all.) However, that objection is irrelevant to the question of whether my statement regards “Objectivism” (a horribly misnamed worldview, IMO) as being communist, fascist or racist. According to the basic rules of logic, it does not.
Yes, but sleestak’s claim (to which Guin was responding) spoke specifically of political influence, and that’s a much more difficult claim to substantiate.
If not a political influence, then what type of influence? The book is basically a novelization of Rand’s political philosophy.
So? Do you see many Randians in government? (Yes, we know Greenspan) Does she have an influence on actual policy?
Not that I’m aware of.
I also resent the implication that because I disagree with her, don’t like her, and don’t think she was very profound or wise, that I didn’t “get” her. I did. I just didn’t like it.
Guinastasia is correct.
Rand may have intended her works to be political in nature, and she may have influenced many people, but this still doesn’t mean that she’s had substantial political influence. There’s a huge logical step that’s missing – namely, evidence that the multitudes whom she influenced actually had a noticeable effect on political policy.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JThunder *
**
:rolleyes:
All that means is that these things have something in common. Baseball, football, soccer and ping pong are all sports. That’s it. It does not mean that baseball players are also football or soccer players.
In the same way, we can group racism, communism, fascism and Rand’s philosophy together, insofar as they all had major political influence (again, being generous in the case of Rand). No reasonable person would interpret this as a statement that Rand’s worldview was communist, fascist or racist.**
JT, lets assume someone made a statement like the following:
“JT’s philosophy is about as valid as the Nazis, wife beaters and murderers…”
Do you really think that the statement has no bias? You linked Rand to Communism, Fascists and slavery. You did not link her to Freedom, Liberty and Justice which she stood up for.
You purposely compared Rands philosophy to, and I quote:
You tried to use guilt by association to make Rand look bad. I called you on it and you tried to duck it by making up some BS arguement.
JT, why do you only meantion Communism, Fascism and Slavery when you bring up Rand’s philosophy? Why don’t you compare her philosophy to other ideals like Democracy, freedom and liberty?
I know why. It’s because you’d rather slander Rand than discuss real issues.
Slee
D’OH, I didn’t close all the tags.
Sorry,
Slee
sleestak, did you put any thought into what you just said? Any thought whatsoever?
To use your own example, suppose that someone had said “JT’s philosophy is about as valid as the Nazis, wife beaters and murderers…” Would this person be calling me a Nazi? Or a wife beater? Or a murderer?
Obviously not! That person would simply be saying, well, that my philosophy was as valid as Nazism, wife beating and murder. It would not, by any remote stretch of earthly imagination, amount to accusing me of those misdeeds – and I would never, in a million years, pretend that it did. I might take offense at this disagreement with my worldview, but I would never claim that this person was accusing me of such heinous acts.
Can you not see the extreme illogic of what you just said?
Oh, for crying out loud!
It’s because you – sleestak – said that Rarn’s philosophy should be commended for its (alleged) political influence. I cited communism, fascism and slavery to demonstrate that political influence is not necessarily a good thing. That is the point which I was trying to make, which other readers understood, and which apparently continues to escape you.
Did Rand champion democracy, freedom and liberty? Surely so – but that was not (repeat: NOT) the issue at hand.
So again, let’s emphasize this point. Do you believe that having political influence is necessarily a good thing? If so, how do you explain communism, fascism and racism? If not, what does that say about your defense of Rand’s worldview?
JT,
You really don’t get it do you? You keep associating Rands ideas with the worst philosophies in the world (Communism - 20 million plus killed, Fascism 6 million jews killed and slavery, well I don’t know how many died or lived life in that hell but it is a big number)
You keep equating Rands world view with the nastiest pograms on earth then claim that you don’t mean any bias. Bullshit buddy. You admit that Rand stood for freedom, liberty and democracy. If that is the case why are you not contrasting Rands ideas with those of Thomas Jefferson or good old Abe?
It’s called a cheap shot. While you may not believe it, the implication of a statement means as much, or maybe more, than the actual words. Your post implied that Rands beliefs were on the same scale as Lenin or Hitler.
<Rhetorical>Oh, BTW, did you stop beating your wife yet? </Rhetorical>
Slee
I enjoyed The Fountainhead but probably not for the reasons Ayn Rand want me to…
It’s been ten years since I read it, but I remember vivid descriptions of architecture… I also liked the fact that the main character didn’t give in to pressure to change his designs.
God, I hope I’m remembering this right. Sometimes being an avid reader is not a good thing; mixing 'em up is easy.
sleestak, just because Rand’s philosophy is based on capitalism it doesn’t mean that her philosophy is such a wonderful thing. I’d rather live under moderate European democratic socialism than Rand’s ideal extreme-capitolist nightmare.
Right field. Definitely right field.
Because such a comparison (not a contrast, BTW) would not help to support his POINT, which was that political influence IS NOT ALWAYS A GOOD THING. That point should have been obvious from his first post and has been explained multiple times since then, so I don’t know why you are having such difficulty with it. It does no credit to Rand to demonstrate such a lack of critical reasoning skills in your defense of her.
sleestak, continue the hijack over here.
sleestak, it appears that the simple, elementary logic of this position continues to be lost on you. As Lamia said, the point should have been obvious to you from the very beginning, and this lack of rudimentary reasoning skills speaks poorly of Rand devotees.
The accusation is NOT that Rand was a communist, a fascist, or a racist. In fact, I respectfully challenge you to find any statement in this thread where such statements were made.
Rather, the accusation is that political influence is not necessarily good. To demonstrate this, I cited the heinous philosophies in question. This is not the same as saying that Ayn Rand advocated or practiced those philosophies.
Is this clear to you yet? Or shall you continue with this rapid, irrational train of thought?
Many Republicans are at least Rand-ish. Certainly, Ronald Reagan was.
Well, we have at least proven that Rand’s impact has been to cause the creation of several SDMB threads, including a BBQ Pit thread!
It may not be what the Objectivists are seeking, but it’s something 