No wonder you must have hated her, as she chose not to acknowledge you.
Unless you’re Rand and Branden’s secret get…
Because she didn’t say you were to be self-centered and all powerful. She said that you should live your life how you see fit and now how others do. Not once did she ever say that you don’t care about other people or you walk over them to get your way. What she didn’t want was for people to tell you how you had to help other people if you wanted to at all, it was supposed to be a choice.
Why is it that people who don’t like Rand’s writing always say all she wanted was selfesness, I never got that from her writting. Personally I could care less if she was a biker chick slut whore from down under, I got what I needed from her writtings not what she personally did in life.
The libertarians/objectivist schism is exactly like the People’s Front of Judea vs. the Judean People’s Front, a disctinction without a difference made by a bunch of hopeless losers.
Many Americans have a strong libertarian streak (I do), but I organize with a real political party (Democrats), just as my politically active conservative libertarian friends organize with Republicans. Yes, the Libertarian Party has a political organization, but it is laughably inept and will never go anywhere, kinda like the People’s Judean Front. (NO! the Judean People’s Front you git!) They are such purists that organizing is almost a contradiction of their core beliefs. (Just as an aside, in politics you get nowhere without organizing. Without organizing, it is merely a cocktail party for people who don’t really do more than vote.)
Both libertarians and objectivists have a philosophy. The question is whether either is very good as a philosophical system.
Ayn Rand was one of the most tedious writers ever to grace bookstore shelves. The fact that she put her serious political philosophy in the form of fiction was, to put it generously, novel. (Pun intended.) Real political philosophers don’t set up thousand page straw men arguments. To read really great political philosophy, start with Aristotle (Plato if you insist), Machiavelli (Discourses, not the Prince (Prince is a light read)), Hobbes, Locke, Hegel etc.
If you don’t have time to read the greats, download an encyclopeadia article on each of their political works. (Aristotle wrote in every field of knowledge, but for here, stick with The Politics, and possibly the Constitution of Athens).
Plato invented Western philosophy and people who like to see the world in black and white will be greatly intrigued by his approach, but probably not the substance. He was a fun and lively writer.
Aristotle was probably the smartest cookie who ever lived (including Newton and Einstein). Most of the works attributed to him are probably notes from students who attended his lectures. The Politics is beautifully clear. His casual acceptance of slavery must be regarded as a product of the ancient world.
Machiavelli invented the modern nation state. The Discourses will give an excellent insight into the nature of republics. Machiavelli is widely excoriated for The Prince, which is a manual of ruthlessness, and should not be considered his real contribution, although it is what he is famous for.
**
The all Catholics are Libertarians,. as are most members of Greenpeace, many vegetarians, and for that matter the vast majority of people I’ve met. Not many people will say that it is ok to initiate force or fraud.
**
It is called Objectivism not Randian philosophy.
**
So Objectivism is a subset of all sorts of different things?
**
Please let the rest of us know how you came to discover that there was but one criterion for being a Libertarian.
**
I cannot find any definition of libertarian as being “one who is against the initiation of force or fraud.” You’re making up your own definition of libertarian and expecting the rest of us to buy it. Nice try though.
Marc
libertarian:
n.
-
One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
-
One of believes in free will.
**
Which is relevant how?
**
Didn’t Plato’s Republic have a lot of fictional characters and situations? Isn’t it also believed that Plato wrote about Atlantis to show how the negative side of humanity can bring down an advanced civilization?
Marc
Not so the Catholics, as I’ve mentioned above. Nor Greenpeace, which I’ve found to be much in favor of force when it is used against business. I would not be surprised to find many vegetarians were libertarians.
**
Yes.
OK, here comes. “Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation of force.” When you ask a libertarian what he means by calling himself a libertarian, this is the definition that he will routinely give you.
But suppose we accept your definition instead. What difference does it make? I am dead sure that Objectivists believe in free will (“Man is a creture of volitional consciousness”) and I’m pretty sure that they advocate maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. So by that definition too, Objectivists would be a subset of libertarians, given that not all who believe in free will or want to maximize individual rights and minimize the role of the state are Objectivists.
I really don’t think anyone asked nor cares abour your sophomoric epitomes of western philosophy. This thread is devoted to one purpose: flaming Ayn Rand. If you want to teach a Philo 101 class, please do it elsewhere.
Actually, Plato employed almost exclusively real people as the subjects for his dialogues. Unless, of course, you actually believe that Socrates himself was a complete fiction. In the Symposium alone he brings in Socrates, Alcibiades, Agathon, and Aristophanes. All of whom, excluding Socrates, are verifiably real. Likewise in the Republic.
As for the story of Atlantis, he spins that yarn within the context of a greater cosmological myth in the Timaeus and Critias dialogues. Both of whom, by the way, were real people. Critias was an especially hated member of The Thirty, the post-Peloponessian Spartan oligarchy. Scholars today honestly don’t know whether Plato himself would have believed the story or not. It is a very interesting question, for one of Plato’s most amusing rhetorical techniques is to tell a story to persuade his readers when he can supply little hard logic.
MR
If I read my SDMB playbook correctly, arl now goes by the name erislover, I’m pretty sure
Regarding the boringness of Rand…
Raise your hand if you cheated and skipped forward during the long-ass speech at the end of Atlas Shrugged.
::raises hand::
The speech was the most redeeming part of the entire novel. Well, when I was a moody, elitist teen-ager at least.
It’s not self-important enough?
The best reason I know to hate Ayn Rand is that she is worshipped at Microsoft. A while back when Amazon.com started releasing book sales statistics broken down by companies, it showed that Microsoft employees bought more Ayn Rand books than any other author. The Ayn Rand Institute has established a “Moral Defense of Microsoft” campaign. Apparently the objectivists think Microsoft is the new symbol of their philosophy. I guess they think that unfettered greed is a good thing.
I raise my hand too.
I did go back and read Galt’s speech after finishing the novel. I wanted to know what he said, but I wanted to continue the flow of the narrative more.
I got halfway through the book before saying “I get the fucking point” and stopped reading it. I moved on to her non fictional works.
Marc
Maybe they just think Microsoft is getting the proverbial shaft from a morally bankrupt set of laws.
I see no reason why people insist on grouping Objectivists with Libertarians, except that they seem to lie on the same political lines when it comes to social responsibilities and share some economic ideals.
Objectivism is a philosophy about man. It ideas on a large scale can be applied to economics and politics. Libertarianism is strictly politics based on not much at all.
Of course, any deep analysis of Rand will reveal it isn’t based consistenly on reason either, but what are ya gonna do.
I must confess, however, that I didn’t skip a beat in any of Atlas shrugged.
Ugh…I did a bit of web surfing…what a pretentious, bitter, self-centered anal retentive harpy!
I’m going to have to take a look at The Fountainhead, just for reference, so I know what I’m talking about. Glorifying rape? That people who are have nots are basically untalented leeches? Her idea of the Perfect Man is one who never notices others around him, never cares about others, only out for himself?
Yet, I’m scared to read it. Yep-I don’t want to fall into her trap.
Methinks the chick would have been a goldmine for a shrink…
All I can say about Rand is to try being a politically liberal Rush fan. There’s a large subset of Rush fans who, like Neil Peart in the '70s, worship Rand (2112 was dedicated to her “genius” :rolleyes:).
Her “philosophy” flies against everything I believe, and having the company of fellow Rush fans who blindly make googly eyes about her ideas make me want to just listen to the old Rush instrumentals. (Fortunately, Peart outgrew her and stopped ripping off her work sometime in the late '70s).
Well, Nathaniel Branden certainly, uh, “mined” her.
As for Rush, I was under the impression that they are still fairly libertarian. And “Tom Sawyer” seemed rather Rand inspired, and was from 1981, I think.
If you’re ever in need of common relief, drop over to the online reader reviews at amazon.com for Atlas Shrugged. Here are a few gems:
Good. I’m glad we got that misconception cleared up.
In some cases, twenty years of schooling just isn’t sufficient.
For your own good and the good of the community, would you please go stick your head in a bucket of icewater.
Rand herself was arrogant and deluded. To understand her success, all you need to realize is that she’s not selling reason, she’s hawking cheap emotional satisfaction. Hey, reader, it’s ok to greedy and self-centered! As a matter of fact, it’s good! Anyone who acts out of compassion is inferior to you! In fact, they might just as well be shot! Anything that goes right in society happens because those few of us who are superior made it work! Anything that goes wrong is the fault of the big bad government! If it weren’t for us, society would collapse! And so on.
“comic relief”, that is. The communists who run the government are responsible for that mistake.