No we are still Apes and evolution hasn’t created Randroids:
Gary Marcus on Charles Darwin’s ‘Survival of the Fittest’ - WSJ.com
They would work, too. I did qualify my example by saying “if” the Superfriends ruled, it would be like the system of leadership in Atlas Shrugged - a fantasy world ruled by ubermensch, which doesn’t really seem like a true meritocracy to me.
You know, I’m pretty sure that idea didn’t start with Ayn Rand.
The language you quoted doesn’t say this. It says nothing about a steelworker is entitled to or what he deserves. The language you quoted just says that the reason the modern steelworker gets paid more than the medieval steel worker is that the modern steelworker is more productive (i.e., able to produce more steel). The reason that the mordern steelworker is more productive is that Hank Rearden invented a new kind of metal and devised new processes for making metal.
Also, not only does this language not say what **you **are saying above that it says, it definitely does not suppot Stranger On A Train’s idea that Rand believes “they should be happy to be serving the elite leadership and fall in line with whatever self-proclaimed visionaries demand of them.”
Can you define the terms “collectivist” and “collective” as used above? Thanks.
Is it fair to say that one should not post insults outside the Pit?
Oh, there’s no direct personal insult in what I posted.
I’m sure, however, that there are other valid explanations for the misanthropy of Ayn Rand’s philosophy than I posited there.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy is not misanthropic at all. The looters’ philosophy in AS was misanthropic.
This is supposed to be an argument that humans are different than wolves? I don’t think you’ve been paying very good attention, because you pretty much just proved the other side’s point.
Reality testing time: “the looters” and “the moochers” are part of Rand’s philosophy, not external realities. The fact that she proposes that such large categories of people exist is misanthropic.
By that definition your own political views, and those of most liberals is equally misanthropic. My own definition of misanthropic would be more along the lines of hating ALL humans or human society, not just segments of both. The Earth First types would fall into this category IMHO…but Rand (and the liberals, etc etc ;)) would not.
However, you have been freely defining things based on your own definitions this entire thread, so I guess you should just keep running with it.
-XT
Yeah, that’s got to be why she referred to the working class as being possessed of “hopeless ineptitude” and suggested they’d starve without the firm, guiding hand of the creators at the top. Yep, that’s got to be it:
Misanthropy is of course not only hatred, but also dislike and distrust of humanity, by most common definitions. I say again that concieving that most of humanity can be segmented into simplistic negative categorizations is a dislike for humanity (even if there is a special segment, perhaps “people like me” who you reserve some liking for).
You have to be able to break out of concrete thought based on the content of the book and consider Rand’s philosophy from the outside, or objectively, for a moment.
You should go back and read that quote in context…she wasn’t referring to the entire working class there.
I think at this point I’ll bow out. This is turning into the standard 'dope circle jerk type debate. If you guys want to bash on Rand then go for it…there is certainly a lot of stuff you can criticize her works for, including her writing style and philosophy. There really isn’t any need to make stuff up though…there is plenty of ammunition in what she ACTUALLY wrote, especially if her philosophy is opposed to your own.
-XT
My reading of that is different than yours. I don’t think that “the man” is “the working class.”. Rather, she is saying that those people who are hopelessly inept benefit from those who are smarter.
That is the absolute most advanced behavior and capabilities wolves are capable of.
Humans possess advanced behavior and capabilities. Extremely advanced.
You are guilty of evading reason (the preferred objectivist term).
Heh, point well taken. However, in modern times it seems to be the Objectivists (and maybe creationist Christians too) who are most ardently clinging to that idea. Most other people seem to have adjusted reasonably well to the now-standard biological concept that humans are simultaneously a unique species with unique cognitive abilities and a closely linked relative of various other species with many psychological and social traits similar to ours.
I see why the creationists reject this view, but I’m not sure what the Objectivists have against it. Maybe it’s on account of their idealization of rationality and extreme claims of individual psychological autonomy? They seem to reject the possibility that any non-rational “brute animal” characteristics are in any way fundamental to the human psyche.
?? How ya figure? Sure, liberals acknowledge that greedy and selfish and parasitic people exist, but we don’t try to argue that most of humanity is greedy and selfish and parasitic. (On the contrary: aren’t conservatives always accusing liberals of being too trusting and optimistic about human goodness?)
The reason Hentor’s calling Rand misanthropic is because she classifies almost the whole of human society as “looters” and “moochers”, save for the small band of liberated visionaries who are tasked to rescue the world.
My reading of that is different than yours. I don’t think that “the man” is “the working class.”. Rather, she is saying that those people who are hopelessly inept benefit from those who are smarter.
My reading is sopported by the fact that lots of her characters in AS were working class and yet were not hopelessly inept.
The plot of the book only works if the looters take over. That’s why there are alot of them. I don’t think this should be read as Rand saying that most people are looters or moochers.
Maybe I didn’t spend enough time on Fidonet back in the day, but there just aren’t that many Objectivists around, and in any case I’m sure many of the few who really dig Ayn Rand do have some basic understanding of biology. If you want to know who’s clinging to the notion humans are different from animals, fundamentalists are pretty much 99.9% of that group.