NATION

PASSWORD

On Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and her Literature.

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 79807
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

On Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and her Literature.

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:56 am

Ayn Rand, the mother of objectivism, was an influential figure because of her philosophy and her literary skill among certain circles. However, I must ask, was she the acclaimed literary dame fellow Randians like Peikoff claim she was? Was she really right in her critique of social institutions and promotion of what she called "the virtue of selfishness"? And what was her problem, literarily speaking, that she failed to grasp the audiences by storm?

In my educated opinion (and for all, yes, I did read Ayn Rand before, both her novels, and her philosophical writings after Atlas Shrugged. I have never read the play Anthem, but I don't think it is necessary to read much of her work to understand that, for her first sceneplay, it was awful, given she was merely starting to be a writer in English, given her Russian-American roots), her philosophy, Objectivism, just doesn't work in the real world. Her metaphysics are simplistic, her ethics are absurd, her politics are very vague to the point of non-existence, her aesthetics and epistemology are too rigid, and her literary skill was subpar for an ESL speaker.

Let's start with her metaphysics. Or rather, on the most basic principle, as to what makes reality. For objectivist "Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears." ( Ayn Rand , "Introducing Objectivism," The Objectivist Newsletter Vol. 1 No. 8, August 1962, p. 35)
In other words, Objectivism holds that there is one reality, the one in which we live. It is self-evident that reality exists and is what it is; our job is to discover it. Objectivism stands against all forms of metaphysical relativism or idealism. It holds it as undeniable that humans have free will, and opposes metaphysical determinism or fatalism. More generally, it holds that there is no fundamental contradiction between the free, abstract character of mental life and the physical body in which it resides. And so it denies the existence of any "supernatural" or ineffable dimension for spirits or souls.

In this sense, one could say they are materialists, but let's look further as to how materialists they are. Even though they have rejected materialism in multiple readings from Peikoff and Rand as well as others, one thing stands out, that while they reject materialism as "mysticism of muscle", or, in other words, that materialists tend to view man as a machine without a mind or soul, this is not at all what materialists think, and as such, Rand tried disingenuously to detach herself from the materialistic metaphysics that her own writings were addled with. To be certain, the materialist point of view doesn't reject the mind, it merely reasons that the mind and matter are one in the same, and that the mind doesn't exist separate from the body, but that rather, the body's synapses create the mind. Hobbes was the first to posit that the mind was essentially the brain in motion when reacting to external stimuli. In other words, if everything can be explained as matter in motion, including the mental, then there is no good reason to suppose mind and matter are two fundamentally different kinds of things. Rather, it is more reasonable to suppose that if everything can be explained in material terms then everything is material. But then objectivists also reason that "What we call the mind is the set of capacities to be aware, to perceive the world, to think about it, to feel, to value, to make choices. How do these capacities arise? In many respects, the answer to that question must come from science, not philosophy. But everything we know indicates that they are the product of biological evolution and that they depend on our physical sense organs and brain, as well as on the many other support structures that the body provides." and that "What we call our spiritual needs, moreover, are not in conflict with our physical or biological needs. They are rooted in the same basic need to maintain our lives through purposeful action. Human beings lack sufficient instinctive drives to survive without thinking, learning, and making choices. Reason is our most important tool for survival. But it is a complex and highly demanding tool. According to Objectivism , our spiritual needs for values, principles, ideals, aesthetic experience, and love are requirements for the healthy functioning of a rational, volitional mode of cognition."

In this sense, she is completely basing herself from materialism. If Objectivists reject materialism, then, they are left with a contradiction and cut their own legs off, for the simple act is, if there is no contradiction between the mind and the body, then the mind must be a product of the body, for we know the body is not a product of the mind. If you reject this axiom of materialism, then we are left with an irreconcilable body and mind.

In so far as her ethics, her ethics promote something she used to call "the virtue of selfishness" -- She used her hero, John Galt, as an example of her ethics. In her philosophy, the first question "why does man need a code of values?" is answered by suggesting that men need ethics for survival of man himself. Now, while that is all good, she pushes into a weird notion of rational selfishness -- which means every action that man takes that ensures his own survival must be good. Now, you can see how this is distinctly Nietzschean in nature, that self-interest is a good thing. However, she outright dismisses Nietzsche in saying that he made it so that selfish desires is what man strives towards (which is not true, Nietzsche merely posited that we are selfish creatures no matter what we do, and that it is this selfishness that promotes our survival, because social mores promote being a good person towards your fellow man, and when you are good towards your fellow man you feel good and therefore you work to feel good about yourself by helping others and that this is what people tend to strive towards, to feel good about oneself because we're selfish creatures; he wasn't saying that this is good or bad, but rather expressing a mode of existence for men).

She also goes on to say that looters and moochers (or people who steal and beg from others) are nothing but parasites. She, instead, advocates that her philosophy grounds itself on the principle of trade, and that trading is what holds true meaning for the rational egoist. In other words, you trade something for something. Sacrificing others for your sake, she argues, is bad, as well as others sacrificing themselves for you. It holds that, somehow, there is no conflict among rational men who do not desire the unearned, the undeserved, or the sacrificed, that they trade value for value. She further goes on to say that a trader is one that holds all men as independent equals, that they deal with men in uncoerced, voluntary, unforced exchanges, and that they are only expected to be paid for their achievements. Further, she argues, a trader is a man who doesn't shift the failure of his actions onto others. She also condemns altruism, or at least her imaginary version of it, by suggesting altruism was bad because it promoted sacrifice for others, something she couldn't stand for.

While this might sound very lofty, it is simply an impossibility. There's plenty of situations where there is a conflict of interest, even in the most free of societies and anarchist discourses they have to deal with the conflict of interests between one person and the group, or one person and another person. Further, there are conflicts of interests in society even today: business partners trying to find a fair value for their services, traders trying to find what's a fair trade, and even what the best interests are for a child as a parent while the child's own interests might conflict with what the father wants to instill in the child. These are all conflicts of interests that are unavoidable. The concept of there not being any conflict of interests between rational parties might be nice, but it is a pipe dream. There is one thing Randians might argue that puts welfare at odds with man's self-interests and that is the fact that welfare shifts the failure of the poor onto the rich, and that as such they are looting the rich men while the rich are sapped from their well-deserved wealth.

While one could argue this, this is simplifying an argument into a very reductionist and therefore false claim, as welfare, while being a form of wealth redistribution, the purpose is not to castigate the rich because they are rich, or shift the failure of the poor into the rich. It is to, rather, help the poor through the state apparatus by being more effective to administrate taxation and services than through charity, which is something even the most selfish person does because it makes them feel better about themselves. Otherwise the Rand foundation would not give scholarships through writing contests, they would ask for said scholarship recipients to take out a mortgage on their house instead. While that debunks the whole "welfare means the poor are moochers so fuck them" argument, it also pokes a big hole into Randian economics of welfare: if charity is acceptable, as scholarships are a form of charity, then the welfare state, if we take it as a massive charity system in which everyone puts in voluntarily (and this can be argued to be voluntary in a republic, as we vote officials which we believe are going to act in our own interests), then the argument that the poor are moochers falls flat, for there is no reason why the state cannot provide welfare to everyone who needs it even though we have just established that welfare can be seen as a self-interested and rational action.

Now, it might be fair for Randians to rebut that while this can be argued that it is self-interested and rational, that it'd still help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that we're placing the collective over the individual, and that if we do so, then that means we are immolating the rich upon a stone while the poor gain the benefits from immolating the rich. While this is a good rebuttal grounded in objectivism, I am afraid that the entire concept of a group is a set of self-interested individuals working towards their own interests. They're not, as Rand describes, an amorphous group that seeks to sacrifice the industrialist upon a immolation stone, but rather, they are every person who shares an interest and wants to promote their cause with others, because since the dawn of civilization people have realized that in unity lies strength. This particular strength by numbers has been the prime mover of many things, whether they were good or bad, it was always groups of people that have made the most influence, and not individuals themselves. As such, the entire concept of collectivism being bad is bunk if there is a reason to believe the agents in said collective are acting on their own interests as a group. Given that Republics work on the concept of voting for interests that benefit us, one could say that, if people voted their interests into a welfare system and politicians who actually enacted welfare reform, that welfare is the most self-interested, rational decision there is by voting, and thus, while it might conflict with the interests of the people who desire no welfare, the interests of those people would be irrelevant given that as I have established above, there being no conflict of interests is nothing but a pipe dream, an causal impossibility of sorts.

Now, the pending problem with this is that by doing this there is also the political view of Objectivists, namely, that government must only have powers that prevents others from using force against us, and nothing more. They also argue that welfare systems are bad because they promote the use of force by the government, therefore stripping people from the right of not being coerced something they don't want to do, and instead promote the use of charities. As I have noted above, a welfare system doesn't necessarily have to be coercive, or built from a coercive framework at all and can in fact be passed into legislation by a Republican body that is voted in to do just this at the best interest of the country as a whole and that a welfare system, if looked as a charity system, might not be bad at all. However, the concept of a minimalist government that only prevents others from using force doesn't really exist, or has existed, because the notion of "only preventing the use of force against the individual" might mean many things. Fraud, for instance, might not be forceful. You can be convinced to lose money into fraud, but we have protections against fraud because it used to be a problem because people kept getting away with it. This is another problem with the "rational egoist" character, that no human being behaves like this. Often, if people can get away with something, they will, regardless of what their motivations are. In that sense, it really doesn't matter what other people think is force or fair trade, only that one can get away with non-forceful, deceitful behavior and gain ill profits out of an unfair trade.

They are also against anti-trust laws, anti-zoning laws, etc. But for the purposes of my OP I will stick to welfare, since it is the easiest to tackle politically. And I will leave the rest of these for discussion in the following pages.

When it comes to the law, they wish there was a simplified, clear code of law without all the programmatic issues in the law and its complexity. The problem with that is that the law, when it is simple, leaves out a lot of exceptions to the rule. The main purpose of the law being programmatic is to account for reasonable exceptions, and nothing else. The reason why it is so programmatic is because very specific cases need very specific laws. And, while many parts of the law are outdated in several countries, that doesn't really require that the law be made simpler, but rather that the law code be cleaned up.

When it comes to Objectivist epistemology, their epistemology basically defines that "Anyone who claims insights that do not derive from sensory evidence and logical reasoning is, in effect, asking you to abuse your mind. Someone who claims, skeptically, that no real knowledge is possible is asking you to abandon your mind entirely. Objectivism holds that it is possible to be certain of a conclusion, and that there is such a thing as truth. But being certain depends on scrupulously following a logical, objective process of reasoning, because it is only that kind of thinking that allows us to formulate true ideas. To be objective, people must know how to define the terms they use (so they know what they mean), base their conclusions on observable facts (so their beliefs are anchored in reality) and employ the principles of logic (so that they can reliably reach sound conclusions)." While this is a good primer, it falls short on several things, namely, the limit of measurements and the limits of knowledge.

What objectivists claim is, basically, that insights not gained from evidence and logical reasoning (in other words, to rely on faith) is asking one to abuse their mind, however, they also hold that being a skeptic and have faith in nothing is to abandon one's mind. Skepticism holds that everything must be questioned and that there is no certainty in knowledge, and this is rather true, there is no certainty in knowledge. It isn't because we're irrational, on the contrary, we're rational, but up to an extent. We also cannot precisely be certain of our current knowledge because future data might make us correct ourselves or say we are wrong. To suggest that there is a certain truth is to hold an obstinate position against further data because we made our mind with prior data, and we do not have all the data at the time of making an opinion or a choice in life. Thus, our opinions, even while using the formal method ascribed by Randians of defining words, observe and draw conclusions from facts, and employ the principles of logic can be wrong with new data that comes along. To hold a position that there is an objective truth and, once found, that is the only truth there is, is infantile. In a sense, objectivists claim to be rational, while also abandoning questioning once a question is settled, which goes against skepticism and is rather counterintuitive for personal growth, rather, it stifles it by refusing to listen to opposite opinions backed with facts and data. They also hold that there cannot be contradictions in reality, that while we may have two differing opinions about the data, only one of them must be true. While this is true in some cases, that doesn't mean it is true in all cases. In some cases, both interpretations can be correct. For instance, if you have two popsicles, one made of orange, and the other one made of lemon, and you put two people to eat it, one might say the orange popsicle is better, while the other might say the lemon one is better. This discredits the "falsifiability" of their epistemology, given that under objectivist epistemology, one of the statements must be true, however it might be that both are true, depending on the subject who is experiencing it and their favorite taste being either orange, or lemon.

While their main thrust of their epistemology is a form of rationalism, that doesn't necessarily mean their rationalism is well grounded.

In so far as their aesthetics, the objectivist aesthetic dictates that the purpose of art is "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments. Man's profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a selective re-creation, it concretizes man's fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important." in the words of Ayn Rand. While it sounds lofty, and I am not aesthecisist, I can see why this might bring some issues. The school of the objectivist and art seem to be solely grounded in realism and concreteness -- that the more realistic a picture or an art project as to what reality or concrete thought is, the better the artist is at art as the purpose of art is to reimagine reality for the objectivist. Now, as I said, I am not an aestheticist or an art philosopher, but someone might be interesting in tackling the problems with this.

Now, her philosophy might be fine, for some, and I have provided plenty of background to debate on, but what about her literature? Her literature is... amateurish, at best. Her command of language in her novels and philosophy, as well as her speeches, leaves too much to be desired. She is not the best writer. She was an aspiring writer who had too many language barrier problems. Given her philosophy and her novels made her sound crazier than she was, because she used concepts and words that were simply not something that English speakers are used to. Her novels and books lack some luster, and are very ESL-like. Meaning, she never could come across clearly and so her ideas were mostly hurt by her inability to command English successfully. While this might seem like a defense for Rand, is not. She should have asked for help instead of rambling on about her issues with people in a manner that made her sound like a selfish maniac. As an immigrant, I can see why she is widely rejected, because her definitions are nonsensical and try to rewrite what the English language is and what most of the academic literature was at the time. Further, her philosophy plus her own lack of command on the language made her sound more radically black and white than she probably truly was. This is something that haunts her philosophy, and perhaps why many Randians have the radical ideas they do. While, yes, her writings were inspired by her living in the Soviet Union, and she is rather anti-authoritarian like Orwell; however, she is a more radical anti-communist, even going so far as outright reject collectivism in her writings, which as I have mentioned above, she has her issues in that regard by denying a sort of strawman and denies the realities of society and why societies were created to begin with.

Now then, I have given my opinion on her, I have the following question, NSG:

Optional: What do you think of Ayn Rand as a person?

What do you think of her metaphysics?
What do you think of her epistemology?
What do you think of her ethics?
What do you think of her politics?
What do you think of her aesthetics?
What do you think of her literary skill?

Sources:
https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/at ... aesthetics
https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/at ... istemology
https://atlassociety.org/commentary/com ... sabilities
https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/at ... t-politics
https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/0 ... hics/page1
http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/mindbody.html
https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/at ... etaphysics
http://www.slideshare.net/Anochi/opar-chapter-1-reality
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com ... ar/01.html
Last edited by Soldati Senza Confini on Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:42 am, edited 6 times in total.
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

If you think I am an asshole, good. I am having too much fun to notice anyways.

User avatar
Venerable Bede
Minister
 
Posts: 3425
Founded: Nov 18, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Venerable Bede » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:33 am

Well, her prose is dreck, I don't really see how anyone can dispute that. As for her philosophy, that narcissism is noble, and duty and civic virtue are bad, I can't say I concur, and I think others have argued it better anyhow.
Orthodox Christian
The Path to Salvation
The Way of a Pilgrim
Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age
The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. (Ecclesiastes 7:4)
A sacrifice to God is a brokenspirit; a broken and humbled heart God will not despise. (Psalm 50:19--Orthodox, Protestant 51:19)
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. (2 Corinthians 7:10)
And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? (Luke 12:13-14)

User avatar
Cattle Mutilators
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 445
Founded: Mar 15, 2005
Corporate Police State

On Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and her Literature.

Postby Cattle Mutilators » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:35 am

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:What do you think of her literary skill?

The words "truly awful" come to mind.
“Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump. It’s everyone who’s ever doubted Donald, who ever disagreed, who ever challenged him. It is the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the universe.” — Omarosa Manigault, Assistant to the President, Director of Communications for the Office of Public Liaison

Are we great yet?De Blasio 2020!
REMEMBER ATLANTA! REMEMBER SWEDEN! REMEMBER BOWLING GREEN!

User avatar
Chris Hallett
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 51
Founded: Apr 21, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Chris Hallett » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:39 am

Venerable Bede wrote:Well, her prose is dreck, I don't really see how anyone can dispute that. As for her philosophy, that narcissism is noble, and duty and civic virtue are bad, I can't say I concur, and I think others have argued it better anyhow.

Cattle Mutilators wrote:
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:What do you think of her literary skill?

The words "truly awful" come to mind.


^This.

She was a hack, as both a writer and a political theorist. Objectivism is utter garbage, truly the ideology of the dullard who cannot be bothered caring about anything, so doesn't. A person with no principles is not much of a person at all, in my mind.

Men who care about mens rights are themselves feminists. Smash the patriarchy for the good of all mankind!

User avatar
Saiwania
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11829
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Democratic Socialists

Postby Saiwania » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:54 am

It is a trap that you can easily fall into if you become tired of your charity being abused by others and want life to revolve around only you the individual and don't want for example, your community or local government to share in the allocation of resources. You want it all and believe that your taxes will only be wasted.

User avatar
Philjia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6761
Founded: Sep 15, 2014
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Philjia » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:00 am

A terrible writer who endorsed the worst kind of conservatism. While I have no love for right wing politics, I can generally understand those that propose the idea of a hierarchical society where each member has specific social obligations to the other. Rand's ideals which demanded that self interest is the only positive motivation is the "fuck you, got mine" attitude common that has caused so much damage to the US and UK from around the 1980s onwards.
I voted Green.
Manic Street Preachers wrote:Motown! Motown Junk! I laughed when Lennon got shot!

⚧ Gender and sex aren't the same thing. ⚧
Liberal social democrat. Keynesian. Egalitarian, pro LGBT rights and gay marriage, pro gay adoption, pro EU, atheist, pro free speech and expression, pro legalisation of prostitution and soft drugs (Strictly for the safety of those involved, you understand), and pro choice. Anti authoritarian, anti bigotry, anti radfem, anti bullshit. White gynephiliac cishet male.

User avatar
Gravlen
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9776
Founded: Jul 01, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Gravlen » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:11 am

Image


I'm miffed at her for giving stupid ideas to gullible politicians, and for contributing to make the world a worse place to live.

I'm happy about Bioshock though, her greatest achievement.
EnragedMaldivians wrote:That's preposterous. Gravlens's not a white nationalist; Gravlen's a penguin.

Unio de Sovetaj Socialismaj Respublikoj wrote:There is no use arguing the definition of murder with someone who has a picture of a penguin with a chainsaw as their nations flag.

User avatar
Venerable Bede
Minister
 
Posts: 3425
Founded: Nov 18, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Venerable Bede » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:12 am

Philjia wrote:A terrible writer who endorsed the worst kind of conservatism. While I have no love for right wing politics, I can generally understand those that propose the idea of a hierarchical society where each member has specific social obligations to the other. Rand's ideals which demanded that self interest is the only positive motivation is the "fuck you, got mine" attitude common that has caused so much damage to the US and UK from around the 1980s onwards.

Rand wasn't conservative by any stretch, even though her ideology is right-wing.
Orthodox Christian
The Path to Salvation
The Way of a Pilgrim
Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age
The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. (Ecclesiastes 7:4)
A sacrifice to God is a brokenspirit; a broken and humbled heart God will not despise. (Psalm 50:19--Orthodox, Protestant 51:19)
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. (2 Corinthians 7:10)
And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? (Luke 12:13-14)

User avatar
Dumb Ideologies
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30697
Founded: Sep 30, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Dumb Ideologies » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:26 am

Gravlen wrote:

I'm miffed at her for giving stupid ideas to gullible politicians, and for contributing to make the world a worse place to live.

I'm happy about Bioshock though, her greatest achievement.


That takes me back...greatest NSG meme of all time.
〜〜〜^〜〜〜
Life is too important to be taken seriously
NSG's preeminent progressivist social democratic queer British cultural nationalist
TET's puppycat, anglo angel, and gulag delivery truck driver
Pax DIabolica
〜〜〜^〜〜〜

User avatar
Alvecia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11731
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Father Knows Best State

Postby Alvecia » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:28 am

I always think back to that quote from John Rogers(?)
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

I read Atlas Shrugged once. I was rather unmoved.
British
Atheist
IT Support

Allanea wrote:The plural of anecdote is not data.
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
Val Halla
Post Czar
 
Posts: 39014
Founded: Oct 09, 2014
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Val Halla » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:28 am

Everything I've heard of her seems to point to her being a terrible writer and person
Punk, real, student, pretty awesome
Cadonica wrote:Weeaboo confirmed. For the love of everything western, I'll just send you to Japan with no return ticket.

Lordieth wrote:We're getting you your own threat level. We're on Defval 4.


LOVEWHOYOUARE~
WOMAN

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-6.88&soc=-8.87

I am an anarcho-socialist

Pro: LGBTQ+ equality, class abolishment, social justice, community, gender neutral equality movements

Meh: MRAs, feminism

Anti: Conservatism, nationalism, racism, Blair, Trump, Clinton, May, Bojo, capitalism, queerphobia, -ERFs
I'm female, btw. Call me such.

⚣ ⚢ ⚧ Proud sponsor of the gay agenda. ⚧ ⚢ ⚣

User avatar
Risottia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 48409
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Risottia » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:46 am

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:Ayn Rand, the mother of objectivism, was an influential figure because of her philosophy and her literary skill among certain circles. However, I must ask, was she the acclaimed literary dame fellow Randians like Peikoff claim she was?

Her fans acclaim her, but this doesn't make her widely acclaimed.

Was she really right in her critique of social institutions and promotion of what she called "the virtue of selfishness"?

No. As shown by the fact that when she got old and poor she whined for welfare.


Optional: What do you think of Ayn Rand as a person?

A selfish hypocrite.

What do you think of her metaphysics?

Does not qualify as such.

What do you think of her epistemology?

Nothing but first-year trivialities.

What do you think of her ethics?

Unexistant.

What do you think of her politics?

Hypocritical, nonsensical claims to get her some quick fame and some sale figures.

What do you think of her aesthetics?

Again first-year trivialities.

What do you think of her literary skill?
[/quote]
Unexistant.
Last edited by Risottia on Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.

User avatar
Risottia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 48409
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Risottia » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:48 am

Alvecia wrote:I always think back to that quote from John Rogers(?)
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

I read Atlas Shrugged once. I was rather unmoved.

Basically, you shrugged.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.

User avatar
Alvecia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11731
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Father Knows Best State

Postby Alvecia » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:07 am

Risottia wrote:
Alvecia wrote:I always think back to that quote from John Rogers(?)

I read Atlas Shrugged once. I was rather unmoved.

Basically, you shrugged.

TIL I'm Atlas
British
Atheist
IT Support

Allanea wrote:The plural of anecdote is not data.
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 77115
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Ethel mermania » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:58 am

I read atlas shrugged and the fountainhead a long time ago. I will give it to max for the best quote about the experience of reading atlas shrugged. Cornered in a room and yelled at, really nicely sums up the one big assault on the senses it was.. I don't remember fountainhead as well, but I remember thinking it was a better story. So much for the writing.

Politically I am a big believer in enlightened self interest. So ultimately even the reasons charity, welfare, education is done is more for the doer, that the doee, isnt that selfishness?

I prefer local control to remote centralized control. I like strong female leads who like sex yet are dynamic human beings. I think people act in their own interests, and work hardest when their benifit is in the game......

I don't go to the extremes Ann goes too, and I think I am a better writer... (no its not ego, I think most of y'all are better writers than her too). But I do see some similarities of belief.

And I don't consider it a philosophy, I consider it a political position.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Community Values
Minister
 
Posts: 2056
Founded: Nov 14, 2015
Capitalizt

Postby Community Values » Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:37 am

If she was a NSG poster, I would be DEATed for what I would say.

There's nothing I like about here. Except maybe, some sort of appreciation for her semblance of libertarian principles.
Last edited by Community Values on Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Minister
 
Posts: 3135
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Northern Davincia » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:10 am

She was a brilliant woman. Beyond that, Ayn Rand was a gateway philosopher; someone who could guide people along a bigger path once they understood the basics.
Right-Libertarian, Minarchist, Laissez-faire Capitalist

User avatar
Kanzaki Ranko
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 60
Founded: Oct 30, 2015
Capitalizt

Postby Kanzaki Ranko » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:13 am

Atlas Shrugged was one of only two books I was unable to finish due to simply how it was written, completely ignoring the content within. That's basically my view of her writing.
さあ、一緒に狂いましょう。

User avatar
Braecland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 686
Founded: Apr 23, 2016
Capitalizt

Postby Braecland » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:17 am

I find her work and ideals interesting, there are elements of Objectivism that I can agree with.

Aside from that, I read some of Atlas Shrugged, it was incredibly boring, drawn out and full of waffle. The characters became more unbelievable and ridiculous at every page.

Obligatory pro/anti stuff:
PRO: Individualism, classical liberalism, free market capitalism, libertarianism, secularism, egalitarianism, meritocracy, humanism, Royalism, Euroscepticism, freedom of expression, British values, MLK, Israel, Russia (not in Ukraine), Syria, Kurdistan, YPG, Peshmerga

ANTI: Collectivism, communism, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, anarchism, racism, religious fundamentalism (mainly Islamic), identity politics, social engineering, SJWs, feminism, BLM, Antifa, EU, multiculturalism, mass immigration, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia, Iran, FSA, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Anime

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
- Winston Churchill

User avatar
Dumb Ideologies
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30697
Founded: Sep 30, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Dumb Ideologies » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:18 am

A consolidated volume of her writings would be best titled Fifty Shades of Cray
〜〜〜^〜〜〜
Life is too important to be taken seriously
NSG's preeminent progressivist social democratic queer British cultural nationalist
TET's puppycat, anglo angel, and gulag delivery truck driver
Pax DIabolica
〜〜〜^〜〜〜

User avatar
Braecland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 686
Founded: Apr 23, 2016
Capitalizt

Postby Braecland » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:18 am

Kanzaki Ranko wrote:Atlas Shrugged was one of only two books I was unable to finish due to simply how it was written, completely ignoring the content within. That's basically my view of her writing.

Yeah I didn't finish it either, I thought it was crap.

Obligatory pro/anti stuff:
PRO: Individualism, classical liberalism, free market capitalism, libertarianism, secularism, egalitarianism, meritocracy, humanism, Royalism, Euroscepticism, freedom of expression, British values, MLK, Israel, Russia (not in Ukraine), Syria, Kurdistan, YPG, Peshmerga

ANTI: Collectivism, communism, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, anarchism, racism, religious fundamentalism (mainly Islamic), identity politics, social engineering, SJWs, feminism, BLM, Antifa, EU, multiculturalism, mass immigration, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia, Iran, FSA, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Anime

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
- Winston Churchill

User avatar
NewLakotah
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1396
Founded: Feb 18, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby NewLakotah » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:27 am

Ayn Rand as a theorist and in depth narrative author, is quite good. Generally speaking the objectivist worldviews, from a political standpoint, is one that would be the most logical, in a perfect world. However, its not, therefore objectivism is really just a passing thought.

As for her books. Atlas Shrugged as an intriguing book, that was dulled by its long slow narrative, that many people would just not be willing to go through. However, I did enjoy Fountainhead and Anthem a lot.

As for her philosophical ideas, generally I don't follow much of. I did read here objectivist philosophical beliefs, and while I do feel that some parts had many merits. Again, it can exist only in theory and not in practice. It relies on the idea that people inherently will try to do good. Which I think can easily be proven wrong as soon as you open any history book up.

The other biggest issue that most people bring up, is that most people fall far to the left or right of her beliefs. Either they believe in a more liberal socialist view, one that she grew up in and detested, plainly. But also the social conservatives and the conservatives with the big military spending, which she also opposed, leaving only a sliver of people who fall in between. Generally speaking, I would consider myself an objectivist, in a perfect world, however, I must lean more to the left, due to the actual practice and the reality of the real world.
"How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right." ~~ Black Hawk, Sauk

"When it comes time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home." ~~ Tecumseh

Free Leonard Peltier!!

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50137
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Gauthier » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:10 am

An opportunistic hypocritical hack who preached an every-man-for-himself self-aggrandizement as something to be praised.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Sanctissima
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6447
Founded: Jul 16, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Sanctissima » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:23 am

I'm not a huge fan.

She was a god awful writer and her political ideology was just the polar opposite of Communism. Instead of extreme collectivism, it was extreme individualism. Nonsense all around.

User avatar
Liriena
Post Czar
 
Posts: 39899
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Liriena » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:24 am

Terrible prose, fake philosophy. Sad!

Seriously, though, her bad writing asides, she wasn't even a decent philosopher in her own right. Her writings were little more than angry strawmen-filled rants in favor of sociopathy.
The Fabulous Pope of NS


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, idealism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism

⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

Next

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aevaelon, Amuaplye, Angleter, Bing [Bot], Cuprum, Empire of Narnia, Ethel mermania, Exabot [Bot], Frieden-und Freudenland, Galloism, Hirota, Izweababa, Kannap, KMS Prinz Eugen, New haven america, Ostroeuropa, Pulau Pinang, Solocon, Talvezout, Telconi, The Cyring Baina, The East Marches II, The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord, Tinhampton, Trotskylvania, United Muscovite Nations

Remove ads