Got a cite for that? Not saying I know you’re wrong, but I don’t recall her saying empathy was bad. Pity, yes. She wasn’t big on charity, that’s for sure.
Not in so many words, no. She used the word “pity,” which I think is the only way she understood empathy.
ETA, Nietzsche was much the same, by the way, and he was a big influence on Rand.
I think Lenin was more of an influence, in a backhanded way. Her childhood experiences instilled a obsessive loathing for everything remotely communist or collectivist, and she sought to fill that out into a philosophy.
Selfishness isn’t a virtue, even less a philosophy, its a character defect. And for monkeys, its a dead end, the monkey survives because the group survives, one monkey is a dead monkey.
Rand glorifies the rational mind, and achieves the impossible, she exaggerates its importance. One might think such a wondrous thing couldn’t be overblown, but she did it. She managed to make a fanaticism out of reason, based on an unyielding and relentless materialism. Rather like Lenin.
Rand uses selfishness to mean “rational self-interest”.
Whether or not that really is a character flaw is something I suppose people who want to can debate.
It’s not in my rational self-interest to debate that.
Within the context of Objectivist values, that relationship was inevitable . . . and so were its ultimate consequences.
Way I read it, it started out even weirder than that: She gathered the three of them in a room and gravely announced that she had decided she and the protege should have an affair for the good of the Movement.
But I don’t recall where I read that.
Well, I very much doubt Alfred Adler meant “interested in his fellow men” in a purely intellectual sense, nor in a purely utilitarian sense.
Judgment Night.
So which books of hers have you actually read?
ETA (too late): Actually, never mind. No need to hash the usual stuff in this thread. Needless to say, you’re as wrong as hell, and I doubt you’ve read a word she wrote. Rand very much wants the monkey group to survive, she just has different ideas about what’s best for the monkey group than you do. She shows how your ideas lead to the destruction of the group.
“Very different” meaning completely self-serving.
I’m a Rand rookie, is what she proposing closest to social-capitalism?
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
Seems like wankery.
She was pretty much completely laissez faire.
Go read Atlas Shrugged.
An all time masterpiece of wankery.
. . . which is a typical response from those incapable of understanding it.
Contrary to what some people would like to think, Rand’s attitude wasn’t “I’ve got mine, screw you.” It was more like “I’ve got mine, let me show you or inspire you to get your own.” She was extremely supportive of her followers, especially young people, who were trying to survive in a hostile society. And of course that society would consider her a sociopath, i.e. someone who opposes the values of that society . . . whether for good or evil. Her detractors could see that she was opposed to many of the values of that society, and that’s all they cared about. This - and only this - was her link to Hickman. They were both branded as “outsiders,” regardless of ethical considerations.
You know, when when the rare topic comes up in which I’m actually a subject-matter expert (or something close to it), my posts in the thread tend to be somewhat long, and filled with relevant information. This is, I think, the way it works for most people.
So, it’s strange to me that Rand Rover hasn’t said anything about Ayn Rand. I’m really not trying to cast aspersions or subtly imply anything – it’s just weird is all.
First, :rolleyes:.
Second, I don’t think I’m necessarily a subject-matter expert on Ayn Rand or her philosophy (that’d be panache45). I’ve just read several of her books (and was doing so when it came time to pick a username) and I like certain aspects of her philosophy. Which of course means I’m an evil evil person who should be killed horribly as an example to others.
Third, if LHOD wants to actually debate any of the assertions in his OP, then he’s perfectly free to make an argument for those assertions. If he does so I will respond in detail. He doesn’t appear to want to. So, I’ve simply pointed out that he’s failed to make an argument for his assertions, which is all I need to do at this point.
Finally, I don’t think we need to rehash the same old stuff again, so I’m not responding at length to anything about Rand other than what’s on-topic for this thread.