Ayn Rand for Dummies

Great Debates
81

Nzinga, I think the point is that some people don’t want you to read it. It contains Incorrect Thoughts, and if you read it on your own, without one of the Enlightened to explain to you what you should think about it, the danger exists that you might not come to the correct conclusions about it.

It is rather like the Roman Catholic position on the Bible before the translation of Scripture into the vernacular languages. It works out better if some official designate reads the dangerous work in question, and tells you what you need to know and think. There are fewer questions that way, and much less danger that you might accept that which you should reject, and reject that which you should accept.

Regards,
Shodan

82

:confused: Do you have any idea where you are?!

83

It has been broken down several times already. Of course the message in the book is the thing that attracts the most attention. But few people bothered to ask you what the problem was. It could have been several things. Storylines, dialogue, characters, psychology, literary motifs, politics, even some railroad matter or mettalurgical issue. I don’t know what’s in your head so yes, in future please clarify if you want to be understood. If someone really wants to read a book but doesn’t quite know what to make of it, that prompts me to ask why he wants to know. I maintain that the book will not necessarily make you any smarter.

Perhaps you did not forsee your question would start such a discussion, but that’s not my fault. And in fact it only makes matters more interesting, don’t you think?

84

Ha. I meant, I opened the thread in MPSIMS.

I think the thing I should explain is that I really do have a great ability to understand things. I’m not illiterate. But it really does help if I get things broken down for me in a way that I can share in the knowledge.

It is like how I have no grasp of math and can’t really understand the universe the way I want to, but I do appreciate Sagan* trying to break it down for me.

*ok, ok. Bill Nye, too.

85

For lucid explanations of hard science I recommend the late Isaac Asimov. He wrote many dozens of popular-science books, most of them pitched to teenage readers.

86

You are no better at translating my point then you are at describing Rands philosophy. Perhaps you should quit while you are behind?

Well, let’s see how this amazing insight works, ehe?

Jesus: “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”

Reverse: “Don’t ask and it will not be given to you; Do not seek and you shall not find; do not knock and the door will not be open to you”

The reverse does not in fact accurately reflect Rand’s philosophy. buzz Wrong answer

Jesus: “What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul.”

Reverse: “What shall it deficit a man if he looses the whole world but gains his soul”

Since she didn’t believe in the soul, I’m not seeing the reverse working here either. buzz Wrong answer.

Jesus: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Reverse: “Do to others what you would not have done to yourself”

Again, the reverse doesn’t work, since it’s only the idiots understanding of Rand’s philosophy. buzz Wrong again.

Jesus: “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Reverse: “For anyone who exalts himself will be exalted, and anyone who does not will be humbled”

Again, this doesn’t really fit. Rand’s philosophy is one of personal achievement…of doing and being the best one can. It’s not about exalting ones self (or about being humble or humbled either). Again, it doesn’t work.
And on and on. Honestly, discounting the obscure camels through the eye of needles type quotes, the ones that can actually be compared and reversed don’t indicate that one can simply reverse them and gain an insight into Rand. Not that I figured you’d have such an insight, based on your posts in this thread and in the past, but I just figured I’d point that out by showing a few comparisons. Since you said we could take ANY Jesus quote, reverse it and there you go…instant insight.

But you clearly don’t even understand her philosophy enough to make a meaningful post on the subject in this thread, so why do you suppose your insight here should be taken seriously? I’m a fan of her’s, but I’m not attempting to fawn all over her works as if it’s the greatest literary composition of all times, or has all the answers to life. They were good books and I enjoyed them…and there was a deeper philosophy behind her words than the dismissive hand waving of the ignorant that I was seeing in this thread, especially on the first page. That some have used her works to justify themselves and their actions is no different than the millions who have used the Bible or Koran to justify their own twisted actions…and it shows that, like most of the dopers in this thread, THEY didn’t understand her basic philosophy either.

-XT

87

Or for that matter, the words “selfish” and “altruistic.”

88

Absolutely true.

I find the Ayn Rand cult of personality a little disturbing.

89

But you don’t find it disturbing that the quote you used in your post is wrong, and has already been addressed in this very thread, yet you missed it? I find THAT more than a little disturbing…and that my militant lack of surprise is, well, unsurprising as well…

-XT

90

Isn’t there some Objectivist board you’d rather post on, then?

The reality is that many people, perhaps most who know of Rand, think she’s was a loon with strange ideas and a complete lack of understanding of human nature.

To top it off she’s a terrible writer. She’d have been better off just writing a book about here beliefs instead of couching it in bad fiction.

So don’t be surprised when detractors such as myself, show up in Rand threads to tell people what they think.

91

Too funny. You’re quite the militant supporter of Rand, I can see. Zealots can never be reasoned with.

92

IOW, you don’t get it. Well, that too is militantly unsurprising. Sad, but unsurprising. Or, to put it in a context you’d understand…

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

93

IOW, you’re a militant zealot Randist. No more, no less.

I get it just fine, thanks. You’re not really any different that the couple of Randist friends I have. They think and react the same way whenever someone besmirches Rand in any way.

94

But what if “needless” ornamentation DOES serve the needs of the poor? Yes, if your only concern is keeping the rain off your head, a bare concrete slab is as good as a tile roof. But most human beings want more out of life than the barest necessities of survival. They want the space were they live to have some elements of beauty and joy. If the measure of a work of architecture is how well it serves the *human *needs of its occupants, then most modern architecture is, objectively speaking, a failure. (And this is coming from someone who loves modern architecture. My dream home is Case Study House #22.) There’s nothing “objective” about Roark’s aesthetics.

95

And you base that one what, exactly? The same kind of comprehension issues you showed by quoting “Ayn Rand is a philosopher whose defenders always insist has been grossly misrepresented, even though they cannot explain how” in a thread where there have been several posts contradicting this trite piece of bullshit already?

Did you read tea leaves to determine this, or have you been into the goat entrails again?

-XT

96

That style of architecture does have a name: Brutalism.

97

Obscure ? *obscure *? I’m not even a Christian, and I can quote that one word for word. And it’s not like it’s the one and only time the J man rails against material wealth and the evils thereof.

Then again, I must confess I have a fondness for that particular line. Or rather, not the line in and of itself, rather the mental gymnastics religious capitalists tend to go through to dismiss it. The “Needle’s Eye was a specific door in Jerusalem, hard to get your tall camels through, but it could be done” interpretation ? Priceless.

98

Wicked, cynical LOL! Thanks for that quote. Sounds like something straight out of Heinlein’s The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.

99

Nope.

From The Fountainhead:
–Peter Keating: coerced into one occupation (architecture) at the expense of his passion (painting), always does what everyone else wants, takes credit for the work of others, even sells out the one person he loves in favor of one who might advance him. Ultimately ruined. – The very essence of “Screw you pal, I got mine.”
–**Howard Roark:**Follows his passion, endures the derision of others, never sells out, never rats out, never back-stabs; ultimately successful on his own merits.

She’s an edgier version of the Moody Blues: “Do what makes you happy, do what you know is right.” She’s just a big old kitten. Sort of.

100

I can read. And despite the fact that I pay no particular attention to you, it is my impression that you often show up in Rand threads and defend her. I could be wrong as I’m not really inclined to look into it. That would mean giving you more attention than you really deserve.

And what you call “contradicting”, I call horseshit tossed around by Rand supporters.

Rand was a two-bit hack. And the kind of devotion people give here and her crackpot ideas borders on religious fervor. It is truly amazing how otherwise smart people can believe the shit she wrote.