Ayn Rand - Everybody - Yes, Everybody - Put In Their 2 Cents Right Here. :)

Darrell Cody
Posts: 23
Joined: 2013-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Ayn Rand - Everybody - Yes, Everybody - Put In Their 2 Cents Right Here. :)

So, being new to RRS and an admirer of how much Ayn Rand has done to bring people to the conclusion that God does not exist, but they do, I would like to know what everybody here thinks of Ayn Rand, and we can all start singing in the following way (And in your way, please say your peace, but we all know that there are strong feelings about her, so please, let's keep it all non-angry and fun on this thread.  We get enough anger from the religious people.)

3 things if you care to say:

1 - What you think of her effect on Atheism?

2 - What you think of her fiction, especially Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (read it and get back to us if you haven't - it's good!  All her heroes are atheists too.)

3 - What you think of her philosophy.

4 - What you think of her movement today.

(PS - No one smart cares about her personal scandals so please, let's keep it rational here.)

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13050
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I didn't know she was an

I didn't know she was an atheist. I guess any idiot can get some things right.
Economically, politically, and psychologically: she was ignorant and had crackpot ideas which had negative merit.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15595
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ayn was as utopian in

Ayn was as utopian in blanket solutions as any other political or religious label. This is the danger in utopia thinking. The idea that "if you just do it my way all the time, things will work out".

 

I don't give a shit that she was an atheist. She still suffers from what our species suffers from far too often. The failure to understand  that life is messy and that what may work for one at one moment in time may not work for others. Evolution is diverse, not monochromatic. So to foster more harmony between humans, it isn't that we should get  rid of labels or insist on one way. We should in my estimation allow for differences like evolution requires, and simply shift our priorities away from labels and direct them to our common condition. That does not require monochromatic thinking of any ilk. It simply means that our common ground should be a priority while allowing for differences to occur.

 

Ayn fell for the same utopia think as Stalin and the Imams of Iran and the Christians of the dark ages. "If you just do it my way".

FYI former vice president republican candidate  Paul Ryan praised her and he was not an atheist.

Bottom  line. Ayn was an idiot falling for the same stupid idea that patterns long term because they benefit self will work for everyone. She projected herself on others as well as any theist and was just as damaging to society as any theist.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
not gonna read those books

not gonna read those books and it has nothing to do with ideological bias.  i was a huge stephen king fan in high school.  then during college i took a break from fiction.  after college i devoured fiction for two years and got a real education: hemingway, fitzgerald, steinbeck, flannery o'connor, eudora welty, hardy, trollope, george eliot, charles bukowski, john fante, dos passos, dostoevsky, voinovich, john le carre, and, too a lesser degree, kerouac and marquez (i loved them when i read them but they haven't grown with me, especially kerouac). 

then i went back to king a bit and i won't say he's bad, but i realized one thing: novels shouldn't be that freaking long.  if a novel pushes 400 pages or more, chances are it's a bad novel.

i believe hers push a thousand.

then again, she was russian.  most russian writers have that problem, including dostoevsky.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15595
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:not gonna read

iwbiek wrote:

not gonna read those books and it has nothing to do with ideological bias.  i was a huge stephen king fan in high school.  then during college i took a break from fiction.  after college i devoured fiction for two years and got a real education: hemingway, fitzgerald, steinbeck, flannery o'connor, eudora welty, hardy, trollope, george eliot, charles bukowski, john fante, dos passos, dostoevsky, voinovich, john le carre, and, too a lesser degree, kerouac and marquez (i loved them when i read them but they haven't grown with me, especially kerouac). 

then i went back to king a bit and i won't say he's bad, but i realized one thing: novels shouldn't be that freaking long.  if a novel pushes 400 pages or more, chances are it's a bad novel.

i believe hers push a thousand.

then again, she was russian.  most russian writers have that problem, including dostoevsky.

It was not about where she was born. It was about taking a pattern and falsely projecting it on a diverse evolution.

What Marx speculated was not that different than Jefferson. What happened was that the powers that be at the time took what he said and turned it into propaganda to replace one monopoly with another. Neither Marx or Jefferson valued monopolies of power.

All human interactions in any form are done by humans, be they political, religious or business. Anyone of those or combo of those can go off the rails without a system of checks and balances.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It was not

Brian37 wrote:

It was not about where she was born. It was about taking a pattern and falsely projecting it on a diverse evolution.

well, if you'll look closely at what i said instead knee-jerking into politics and evolutionary psychology as usual, you'll see i was purely discussing her literary merits and mentioned russia only because her novels seem overlong and russian writers typically write overlong novels.  i was being a bit tongue in cheek.  i did not even infer anything about her ideology having to do with her origin.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Neither Marx or Jefferson valued monopolies of power.

 

of course he did!  marx was not a democrat in any sense of the word and he openly sneered at the idea of popular democracy.  he continually said that the proletariat was "the only revolutionary class" and therefore they and only they had the right to power.  the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie are basically disenfranchised in marxist political theory.  it may have been lenin who ran amok with the term "dictatorship of the proletariat," but that doesn't changed the fact that marx coined it, and coined it in earnest.

about the only thing marx and jefferson have in common is their love of revolution.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
My favorite Ayn Rand novel

My favorite Ayn Rand novel is We the Living it is much shorter than Atlas Shrugged of The Fountainhead (still slightly over iwbiek's 400 page test, but hey she was Russian). It was also written before she had really formulated her philosophy. I think fictionwise Atlas Shrugged suffered from her tangents which often didn't fit smoothly into the storyline.

Philosophically, I generally agree with her position on economics and think her portrayal of cronyism and the inherent dangers of it is fairly accurate. While the system hasn't collapsed as fast as it has in her books, anyone who pays attention should be able to tell that cronyism has become increasingly powerful in the US and has been costing our country a lot of money for companies that are incompetently ran. 

I disagree with her ethics. On a philosophical level I disagree with her conclusion that ethics can or should be arrived at objectively. Nor do I see production as inherently moral or immoral. I believe that the concept of morality itself is rather overrated and don't see a reason for any universal acceptance of any morality.  

I am constantly amused at how much hatred is aimed towards her by people who have obviously never read any of her works. I don't consider myself an objectivist, but I share enough of a basis with them that we are usually on the same side of most arguments. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:My

Beyond Saving wrote:

My favorite Ayn Rand novel is We the Living it is much shorter than Atlas Shrugged of The Fountainhead (still slightly over iwbiek's 400 page test, but hey she was Russian). It was also written before she had really formulated her philosophy. I think fictionwise Atlas Shrugged suffered from her tangents which often didn't fit smoothly into the storyline.

Philosophically, I generally agree with her position on economics and think her portrayal of cronyism and the inherent dangers of it is fairly accurate. While the system hasn't collapsed as fast as it has in her books, anyone who pays attention should be able to tell that cronyism has become increasingly powerful in the US and has been costing our country a lot of money for companies that are incompetently ran. 

I disagree with her ethics. On a philosophical level I disagree with her conclusion that ethics can or should be arrived at objectively. Nor do I see production as inherently moral or immoral. I believe that the concept of morality itself is rather overrated and don't see a reason for any universal acceptance of any morality.  

I am constantly amused at how much hatred is aimed towards her by people who have obviously never read any of her works. I don't consider myself an objectivist, but I share enough of a basis with them that we are usually on the same side of most arguments. 

I started Atlas Shrugged a long time ago and never finished it. I was not sure exactly where the dilemma over the railroads was going to lead, but had some ideas. I may actually get around to picking it back up one of these days, but my reading list is pretty backed up at the moment.

I have looked through some of her quotes on Goodreads, and have found some that I have liked and some that I have not.

But, for us unenlightened folks on here, can anyone really sum it up in say, a couple of sentences ?

I know that I have browsed through some of the sites with links and have read a couple of things about Objectivism on the Web, and I THINK that I have a semi-basic understanding of it, but was wondering if there was a simple laymen way of summing it up ?

For instance, if someone asked me to sum up Utilitarianism, I could simply say that it is more or less wanting to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number (not that I am a Utilitarian neccessarily, but that was one of the first thoughts that popped into my head). Now of course, the greatest good for the greatest number and taking whatever action needed to spread pleasure over pain is not necessarily all that encompasses Utilitarianism, that would be the easiest definition that I could fit for someone that was not going to spend a lot of time dealing with it.

Is there any quick definition of Objectivism for semi-busy and semi-lazy people ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
In a nutshell

harleysportster wrote:

I started Atlas Shrugged a long time ago and never finished it. I was not sure exactly where the dilemma over the railroads was going to lead, but had some ideas. I may actually get around to picking it back up one of these days, but my reading list is pretty backed up at the moment.

I have looked through some of her quotes on Goodreads, and have found some that I have liked and some that I have not.

But, for us unenlightened folks on here, can anyone really sum it up in say, a couple of sentences ?

I know that I have browsed through some of the sites with links and have read a couple of things about Objectivism on the Web, and I THINK that I have a semi-basic understanding of it, but was wondering if there was a simple laymen way of summing it up ?

For instance, if someone asked me to sum up Utilitarianism, I could simply say that it is more or less wanting to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number (not that I am a Utilitarian neccessarily, but that was one of the first thoughts that popped into my head). Now of course, the greatest good for the greatest number and taking whatever action needed to spread pleasure over pain is not necessarily all that encompasses Utilitarianism, that would be the easiest definition that I could fit for someone that was not going to spend a lot of time dealing with it.

Is there any quick definition of Objectivism for semi-busy and semi-lazy people ?

From the author herself,

Ayn Rand wrote:

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.

Basically, man survives primarily through the capacity to reason- either through the use of their own reasoning or from surviving off of the reasoning of others. Each of us being stuck in our own minds, the rational thing to do is to pursue your own happiness- since Ayn equated production and achievement as the main sources of happiness, a person selfishly pursuing their own happiness would necessarily help those around them. She combined this idea with the "non-aggression principle" common in libertarian thought- basically the idea that for society to work the members of that society must agree not to initiate violence or coercion towards others in society. 

So whereas a utilitarian seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, the objectivist expects each person to seek the greatest good for themselves and would consider it immoral to expect or force another person sacrifice their happiness for yours.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4885
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
One of those people who you

One of those people who you either like or dislike. I didn't really care for much of what she put out. There were glimmers of brilliance but over all I find her boring.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13050
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I haven't read her fiction

I haven't read her fiction because I've read a bunch of her nonfiction. As an avid reader and author, I know that any fiction written by someone will be coloured by their beliefs. As her beliefs are largely batshit insane, there's no way I could make it through her fiction novels.
Length isn't an issue for me. King sucks because he sucks, not because his books are too long. Great screenwriter, bad author.
^My opinion.
If the author is good then the length is irrelevant in my experience.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Basically, man survives primarily through the capacity to reason- either through the use of their own reasoning or from surviving off of the reasoning of others. Each of us being stuck in our own minds, the rational thing to do is to pursue your own happiness- since Ayn equated production and achievement as the main sources of happiness, a person selfishly pursuing their own happiness would necessarily help those around them. She combined this idea with the "non-aggression principle" common in libertarian thought- basically the idea that for society to work the members of that society must agree not to initiate violence or coercion towards others in society. 

So whereas a utilitarian seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, the objectivist expects each person to seek the greatest good for themselves and would consider it immoral to expect or force another person sacrifice their happiness for yours.  

 

Thanks for summing that up for me. It gives me a good reference starting point if I want to delve deeper.

While I can not say that I fully agree with her idea (but I don't  agree with the concept of utilitarianism either) I am a little baffled by some of the Anti-Ayn Rand sentiment that I have heard from some people. (I am not talking about on this thread, I am talking about people that seem downright passionately aggressively against her). But then again, I don't know if that stems from something in her life or her philosophy.

I am really not that informed on Ayn Rand to say one way or the other at this point.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Have read most her books

 

liked them well enough when younger but found them unacceptable later on.The idea of the lonely entrepreneur of improbable integrity riding the train all night, head filled with whirling visions of expansion and profit and Reardon Metal were all a bit much for me. Of course, I found it all very profound when I was a lad. There are things about objectivism that resonate with me, however. 

I think her portrayal of the motivations of ordinary people in Atlas Shrugged was deeply flawed. Market forces are far more complicated than she asserted. Human feelings for each other and for their kids really are what govern society. Medicare and welfare and taxes are not evil. Nor do the masses have zero respect for people who get things done, especially if they display altruism.

Unless it's Gina Rinehart, the Australian mining tycoon and world's richest woman. She's always struck me as a boxed character from Shrugged. Minus the personal integrity...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-05/rinehart-says-aussie-workers-overpaid-unproductive/4243866

 

 

 

  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: King sucks

Vastet wrote:
King sucks because he sucks, not because his books are too long. Great screenwriter, bad author. ^My opinion. If the author is good then the length is irrelevant in my experience.

I would have to agree with the Stephen King assessment.

I have tried to plod through some of his books when I was younger and I've found that his early fiction was pretty good. I enjoyed the Shining, and a few others.

But around the mid-80s or so, his work just really started to suck.

I don't believe I have even finished any of the garbage that he put out in the 1990s. I would start on them, and they would bore me to tears before I was halfway through (and all of them seemed to want to start including characters from the Dark Tower in them) and I just found them terrible.

I did not even TRY to finish the Dark Tower series after Wizard and Glass, and when someone told me how it finally wrapped up, I was glad.

When I am in the mood for good horror, I generally grab Brian Keene or Bentley Little.

Another one that I felt was way over rated when he came out was Dean Koontz. All of his heros are all the same carbon copy idealized good guys, all of his villains are the same psychological carbon copy bad guys, and even when he includes supernatural elements in his work, it still just doesn't seem to work.

Granted Bentley Little and Brian Keene are not literary giants, but when I want to pass a couple of hours on an entertaining read and am in the mood for horror, I generally turn to writers like that.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15595
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

I started Atlas Shrugged a long time ago and never finished it. I was not sure exactly where the dilemma over the railroads was going to lead, but had some ideas. I may actually get around to picking it back up one of these days, but my reading list is pretty backed up at the moment.

I have looked through some of her quotes on Goodreads, and have found some that I have liked and some that I have not.

But, for us unenlightened folks on here, can anyone really sum it up in say, a couple of sentences ?

I know that I have browsed through some of the sites with links and have read a couple of things about Objectivism on the Web, and I THINK that I have a semi-basic understanding of it, but was wondering if there was a simple laymen way of summing it up ?

For instance, if someone asked me to sum up Utilitarianism, I could simply say that it is more or less wanting to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number (not that I am a Utilitarian neccessarily, but that was one of the first thoughts that popped into my head). Now of course, the greatest good for the greatest number and taking whatever action needed to spread pleasure over pain is not necessarily all that encompasses Utilitarianism, that would be the easiest definition that I could fit for someone that was not going to spend a lot of time dealing with it.

Is there any quick definition of Objectivism for semi-busy and semi-lazy people ?

From the author herself,

Ayn Rand wrote:

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.

Basically, man survives primarily through the capacity to reason- either through the use of their own reasoning or from surviving off of the reasoning of others. Each of us being stuck in our own minds, the rational thing to do is to pursue your own happiness- since Ayn equated production and achievement as the main sources of happiness, a person selfishly pursuing their own happiness would necessarily help those around them. She combined this idea with the "non-aggression principle" common in libertarian thought- basically the idea that for society to work the members of that society must agree not to initiate violence or coercion towards others in society. 

So whereas a utilitarian seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, the objectivist expects each person to seek the greatest good for themselves and would consider it immoral to expect or force another person sacrifice their happiness for yours.  

 

You are never going to get it. You should have a centerfold of her on your wall and I also bet you have mirrors on your bedroom ceiling.

She was an idiot. Anyone who talks in terms of utopian scripts no matter their label is a fucking idiot. Life is messy and diverse. You stupidly like her fall for "one size fits all".

And as far as "non-aggrssion" that is bullshit too because there will always be assholes who you cant deal with rationally.

She was not a psychologist, she was not a scientist she was a pundit. Some of what she said might apply well under the right conditions, but life is not stagnant nor should it be treated as such which you and she and politics and religion and "philosophies" far too often do which divides humanity more.

If you treat what she says as gospel then you are no better than a theist to me.

Ayn Rand is nobody's god no one should be worshiped like you are worshiping her. That is the type of fucking crap that gets humans in trouble.

Ideas are not things, reality goes beyond our own personal wishes.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15595
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I am

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am constantly amused at how much hatred is aimed towards her by people who have obviously never read any of her works. I don't consider myself an objectivist, but I share enough of a basis with them that we are usually on the same side of most arguments. 

Ok, so if one cant build a car, then that means they should let their brains fall out and assume it runs on pixy dust? Or can one drive a car and know it does not?

Once again, life is not a fucking script, which is what humans far too often within politics and religion and "philosophies" treat it as such.

She fails with her logic because she assumes like anyone else left or right, that pattern's are stagnant and that life is stagnant.

"Maximize benefit and minimize harm" Sounds nice. But you are still stuck with the conflict OF how a diverse society should do that. And in evolution "caring" is local, in that we care about ourselves first, so this attitude is a blanket statement ignoring that people will divide out of self interest first and that benefit may come at the expense of others. Same stupid reason you think taxes are robbery.

 

There is a real world and a real diverse reality which includes being selfish at certain times and then being selfless at certain times because evolution displays both behaviors. Ayn was not an evolutionary biologist either. Any idea can be monopolized and manipulated and twisted. She failed, like any theist or nationalist to take this into account. Just like you are now.

You like she did stupidly treat life as a clinical script just as monochromatic as any type of fascism I have seen by states or theocracies.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15595
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

It was not about where she was born. It was about taking a pattern and falsely projecting it on a diverse evolution.

well, if you'll look closely at what i said instead knee-jerking into politics and evolutionary psychology as usual, you'll see i was purely discussing her literary merits and mentioned russia only because her novels seem overlong and russian writers typically write overlong novels.  i was being a bit tongue in cheek.  i did not even infer anything about her ideology having to do with her origin.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Neither Marx or Jefferson valued monopolies of power.

 

of course he did!  marx was not a democrat in any sense of the word and he openly sneered at the idea of popular democracy.  he continually said that the proletariat was "the only revolutionary class" and therefore they and only they had the right to power.  the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie are basically disenfranchised in marxist political theory.  it may have been lenin who ran amok with the term "dictatorship of the proletariat," but that doesn't changed the fact that marx coined it, and coined it in earnest.

about the only thing marx and jefferson have in common is their love of revolution.

Humn, thanks for the information. But sounds similar to the same selfish class entitlement someone else here advocates.

And this same person also thinks that I advocate simply a different class monopoly. Which causes his stupid kneejerk reaction when I say is that it takes all of us. No class should ever be entitled to a monopoly of power.

Quote:
marx was not a democrat in any sense of the word and he openly sneered at the idea of popular democracy.

Well I don't advocate one either, simple voting can be a form of fascism itself. It would be mob rule by vote. The constitution provides protection of dissent and voting is only a guide, not always a mandate. There would be no need for our system of oversight and separate powers and Supreme Court and First Amendment saying "The right to petition the government for a redress of grievance".

But some here think because they have rights still fall for the same stupid sense of entitlement they falsely accuse us of. "Life is not a script, and it takes all of us" does not mean "nanny state". Our system is a system of checks and balances subject to review and no one, not even the voters have absolute power, nor should anyone. Class and private sector as well.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: She was an

Brian37 wrote:
 

She was an idiot. Anyone who talks in terms of utopian scripts no matter their label is a fucking idiot. Life is messy and diverse. You stupidly like her fall for "one size fits all".

What part of my philosophy has anything to do with "one size fits all"?  

 

Brian37 wrote:

And as far as "non-aggrssion" that is bullshit too because there will always be assholes who you cant deal with rationally.

So you should kill people just because they are irrational? I disagree. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
 

She was an idiot. Anyone who talks in terms of utopian scripts no matter their label is a fucking idiot. Life is messy and diverse. You stupidly like her fall for "one size fits all".

What part of my philosophy has anything to do with "one size fits all"?  

Based on the limited amount of information that I have read on here and in front of me, it seems like objectivism would be the exact opposite of one size fits all.

If Objectivism puts the self in highest regard and judging what the above Rand quote states, it would appear that Objectivism is really not too concerned with "the all".

But then again, I could be reading into it all wrong

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4885
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am constantly amused at how much hatred is aimed towards her by people who have obviously never read any of her works. I don't consider myself an objectivist, but I share enough of a basis with them that we are usually on the same side of most arguments. 

Ok, so if one cant build a car, then that means they should let their brains fall out and assume it runs on pixy dust? Or can one drive a car and know it does not?

Once again, life is not a fucking script, which is what humans far too often within politics and religion and "philosophies" treat it as such.

She fails with her logic because she assumes like anyone else left or right, that pattern's are stagnant and that life is stagnant.

"Maximize benefit and minimize harm" Sounds nice. But you are still stuck with the conflict OF how a diverse society should do that. And in evolution "caring" is local, in that we care about ourselves first, so this attitude is a blanket statement ignoring that people will divide out of self interest first and that benefit may come at the expense of others. Same stupid reason you think taxes are robbery.

 There is a real world and a real diverse reality which includes being selfish at certain times and then being selfless at certain times because evolution displays both behaviors. Ayn was not an evolutionary biologist either. Any idea can be monopolized and manipulated and twisted. She failed, like any theist or nationalist to take this into account. Just like you are now.

You like she did stupidly treat life as a clinical script just as monochromatic as any type of fascism I have seen by states or theocracies.

Sweet post.

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3758
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't think she understood

I don't think she understood how the rich usually get rich and stay rich: Taking advantage of limited natural resources to create monopolies and taking advantage of oversupply of labor to make obscene profits. It's often more luck than hard work or entrepreneurship that leads to business success. Basically taking advantage of the system.

She did get it right about moochers in society dragging it down. But the moochers aren't just welfare queens. It's also land owners, government contractors, government unions, politicians, etc.. Basically people that have no interest in competing fairly in the free market. Government has become a tool to transfer wealth from those that produce and innovate to those that don't.

It is ironic how many atheists tend to fall into the political/economic camps of either Ayn Rand or Carl Marx or something close to them. But both of them seem to promote a philosophy that is like a religion. Utopia can be achieved by accepting doctrines which should be taken on faith and not scientific proof. The adherents often have a fanatical devotion and demonize those not with them as the unenlightened ones or devils.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15595
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
 

She was an idiot. Anyone who talks in terms of utopian scripts no matter their label is a fucking idiot. Life is messy and diverse. You stupidly like her fall for "one size fits all".

What part of my philosophy has anything to do with "one size fits all"?  

 

Brian37 wrote:

And as far as "non-aggrssion" that is bullshit too because there will always be assholes who you cant deal with rationally.

So you should kill people just because they are irrational? I disagree. 

 

"you want to rob me" is nothing but a childish way of saying "only when I get what I want in voting" that is most certainly "one size fits all", otherwise you would say such childish things. You simply cant get over the fact that others compete politically. Boo hoo and too bad.

Quote:
So you should kill people just because they are irrational? I disagree.

You know damned well what I meant so don't even fucking go there.

You fail and she failed to see that life is not a script and you do treat it as such. She did too. There are always unintended things that happen in life and slapping simple idealism and thinking one pattern, which is what a philosophy is, projecting it on others in a complex society is where ANYTHING can go off the rails.

Keep living in your bubble, like she did.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13050
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Utopia is impossible, and

Utopia is impossible, and nothing lasts forever. The first step to figuring out solutions for problems is acknowledging this.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15595
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I don't think she

EXC wrote:

I don't think she understood how the rich usually get rich and stay rich: Taking advantage of limited natural resources to create monopolies and taking advantage of oversupply of labor to make obscene profits. It's often more luck than hard work or entrepreneurship that leads to business success. Basically taking advantage of the system.

She did get it right about moochers in society dragging it down. But the moochers aren't just welfare queens. It's also land owners, government contractors, government unions, politicians, etc.. Basically people that have no interest in competing fairly in the free market. Government has become a tool to transfer wealth from those that produce and innovate to those that don't.

It is ironic how many atheists tend to fall into the political/economic camps of either Ayn Rand or Carl Marx or something close to them. But both of them seem to promote a philosophy that is like a religion. Utopia can be achieved by accepting doctrines which should be taken on faith and not scientific proof. The adherents often have a fanatical devotion and demonize those not with them as the unenlightened ones or devils.

Wow, I wish you would take the words above to heart because the way you have talked in the past you support the very pratfalls you rightfully mentioned above.

But there is one aspect you missed. You cannot apply life outside a lab as if everything can be stuck in a lab. Everyday mundane life is messy. I wish we could apply natural science to everything, and certainly we do have more understanding and a future of increasing understanding of life. But we have never been a rational species, no individual ever is on every subject all the time. We did not evolve to be Spock every second of our lives.

Understanding evolution explains why you cant stick everything in a lab. Humans still ultimately will do what they do regardless of what we personally wish should happen.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I don't think she

EXC wrote:

I don't think she understood how the rich usually get rich and stay rich: Taking advantage of limited natural resources to create monopolies and taking advantage of oversupply of labor to make obscene profits. It's often more luck than hard work or entrepreneurship that leads to business success. Basically taking advantage of the system.

She did get it right about moochers in society dragging it down. But the moochers aren't just welfare queens. It's also land owners, government contractors, government unions, politicians, etc.. Basically people that have no interest in competing fairly in the free market. Government has become a tool to transfer wealth from those that produce and innovate to those that don't.

It is ironic how many atheists tend to fall into the political/economic camps of either Ayn Rand or Carl Marx or something close to them. But both of them seem to promote a philosophy that is like a religion. Utopia can be achieved by accepting doctrines which should be taken on faith and not scientific proof. The adherents often have a fanatical devotion and demonize those not with them as the unenlightened ones or devils.

Who do you think was the bad guy in her books? She spent little time criticizing welfare queens- really she portrayed them as helpless children, perhaps condescending but hardly the major problem. The people she criticized and portrayed as villains were government contractors, unions, politicians and those who got wealthy off of political connections. 

Nor was she a supporter of utopia. In Atlas Shrugged the protagonists built a utopia (Galt's Valley) but ultimately left the valley to rebuild the real world- an anti-utopian message. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"you want to

Brian37 wrote:

"you want to rob me" is nothing but a childish way of saying "only when I get what I want in voting" that is most certainly "one size fits all", otherwise you would say such childish things. You simply cant get over the fact that others compete politically. Boo hoo and too bad.

No because I continue to allow you to rob me on a daily basis. I just kindly ask that you stop. I have never made any aggressive move to force you to stop, simply used the power of persuasion to try to convince you that what you are doing is immoral.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
So you should kill people just because they are irrational? I disagree.

You know damned well what I meant so don't even fucking go there.

You fail and she failed to see that life is not a script and you do treat it as such. She did too. There are always unintended things that happen in life and slapping simple idealism and thinking one pattern, which is what a philosophy is, projecting it on others in a complex society is where ANYTHING can go off the rails.

Keep living in your bubble, like she did.

 

Under what circumstances is it ok to initiate violence? My answer is none. What is yours?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15595
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Utopia is

Vastet wrote:
Utopia is impossible, and nothing lasts forever. The first step to figuring out solutions for problems is acknowledging this.

Yep, but even you suggested in another thread a blanket solution in suggesting we always make it a crime or sue for false advertisement. And I explained that can be used against us, not because we are wrong, but because they will. Never give anyone the ability to gain absolute power.

If life is messy and diverse, which it is, none of us can create a utopia. So to achieve what you say to a greater degree, then you can only treat things as case by case and protect dissent.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15595
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"you want to rob me" is nothing but a childish way of saying "only when I get what I want in voting" that is most certainly "one size fits all", otherwise you would say such childish things. You simply cant get over the fact that others compete politically. Boo hoo and too bad.

No because I continue to allow you to rob me on a daily basis. I just kindly ask that you stop. I have never made any aggressive move to force you to stop, simply used the power of persuasion to try to convince you that what you are doing is immoral.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
So you should kill people just because they are irrational? I disagree.

You know damned well what I meant so don't even fucking go there.

You fail and she failed to see that life is not a script and you do treat it as such. She did too. There are always unintended things that happen in life and slapping simple idealism and thinking one pattern, which is what a philosophy is, projecting it on others in a complex society is where ANYTHING can go off the rails.

Keep living in your bubble, like she did.

 

Under what circumstances is it ok to initiate violence? My answer is none. What is yours?

Oh ok, so you advocate moral absolutes then. Thanks for proving my point. Sports alone would prove you wrong. Rival teams study each other to get on the field to gain an advantage before they get behind.

 

Empathy leans to what you say. But again, point of view and evolution doesn't give one shit what you are I think. Long term evolution is going to occur.

 

You fail to take into account, and at the same time live in a bubble, that reactionary laws  presume innocence which appeals to the empathy side of evolution. But the same tea party crap and kneejerk reaction to Obama's second term is the presumptive side of our species, the presumption of guilt.

 

Evolution is not stagnant and while the kind side of evolution leads us to "benefit of the doubt" which I agree with. Life is messy, and we also presume guilt too. That is why case by case seems to be our best option. Something no party dogma or religious dogma has.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15595
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am constantly amused at how much hatred is aimed towards her by people who have obviously never read any of her works. I don't consider myself an objectivist, but I share enough of a basis with them that we are usually on the same side of most arguments. 

Ok, so if one cant build a car, then that means they should let their brains fall out and assume it runs on pixy dust? Or can one drive a car and know it does not?

Once again, life is not a fucking script, which is what humans far too often within politics and religion and "philosophies" treat it as such.

She fails with her logic because she assumes like anyone else left or right, that pattern's are stagnant and that life is stagnant.

"Maximize benefit and minimize harm" Sounds nice. But you are still stuck with the conflict OF how a diverse society should do that. And in evolution "caring" is local, in that we care about ourselves first, so this attitude is a blanket statement ignoring that people will divide out of self interest first and that benefit may come at the expense of others. Same stupid reason you think taxes are robbery.

 There is a real world and a real diverse reality which includes being selfish at certain times and then being selfless at certain times because evolution displays both behaviors. Ayn was not an evolutionary biologist either. Any idea can be monopolized and manipulated and twisted. She failed, like any theist or nationalist to take this into account. Just like you are now.

You like she did stupidly treat life as a clinical script just as monochromatic as any type of fascism I have seen by states or theocracies.

Sweet post.

 

Thank you, my goal is to make Beyond Saving my slave and force him to work at social services handing out food stamps.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3758
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Wow, I wish

Brian37 wrote:

Wow, I wish you would take the words above to heart because the way you have talked in the past you support the very pratfalls you rightfully mentioned above.

I don't think so. The problem is most people want big government when is passing out free stuff to them, then they are libertarian when society requires they give back to society. Take you and Vastet for example, you're socialist when it comes to the rich and productive paying lots in taxes as socially responsible. But then you're a libertarian when it comes to forcing the poor to be socially responsible with behaviors like limiting family size, getting job training and not spending welfare benefits on drugs. So you're a Carl Marx socialist when it comes to getting stuff and an Ayn Rand libertarian when it comes to giving back. How convenient for you.

Brian37 wrote:

But there is one aspect you missed. You cannot apply life outside a lab as if everything can be stuck in a lab. Everyday mundane life is messy. I wish we could apply natural science to everything, and certainly we do have more understanding and a future of increasing understanding of life. But we have never been a rational species, no individual ever is on every subject all the time. We did not evolve to be Spock every second of our lives.

Understanding evolution explains why you cant stick everything in a lab. Humans still ultimately will do what they do regardless of what we personally wish should happen.

So if we follow your line of reasoning, science and reason shouldn't be used to reduce or eliminate cancer because biological systems are way too complicated. We should have non-scientists using philosophy and wish thinking to decide how to cure and prevent cancer. We should have appeal to emotion rather than reason to decide how to approach the problem.

Yet this is exactly how we approach the problems of poverty, violence and war because most peoples' reasoning on politics and economics is about the same as the same as their reasoning on religion. You believe that continually raising taxes to pay for irresponsible behavior of non tax payers is sustainable. Ayn Rand to her credit didn't ignore this obvious fact.

 

You can't be convinced otherwise by reason or the fact of massive deficits. You believe what you want to believe based on faith and your mind can't be changed by facts. And then you critisize the religious for their way of thinking.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Oh ok, so you

Brian37 wrote:

Oh ok, so you advocate moral absolutes then. Thanks for proving my point. Sports alone would prove you wrong. Rival teams study each other to get on the field to gain an advantage before they get behind.

?!?!? What do sports have to do with initiating violence? NAP has nothing to do with gaining an advantage, obviously I have no problem with that- it solely has to do with initiating violence. So when exactly is it ok to initiate violence in your point of view?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Empathy leans to what you say. But again, point of view and evolution doesn't give one shit what you are I think. Long term evolution is going to occur.

I don't give one shit about evolution. I don't think we should create government based on what we think evolution would have us do. Evolution doesn't have a mind, point, goal or even guarantee our survival as a species. We should create government based on what we believe is best for us.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Evolution is not stagnant and while the kind side of evolution leads us to "benefit of the doubt" which I agree with. Life is messy, and we also presume guilt too. That is why case by case seems to be our best option. Something no party dogma or religious dogma has.

I don't think we should presume guilt and I certainly do not desire to live in a society with laws that presume guilt. Evolution did not lead us to "benefit of the doubt", smart men thought about it, argued about it and wrote books and were able to successfully persuade enough people that it was a good foundation to build a legal system on. People are not born with that idea. (Much like Ayn Rand thought about, argued about and wrote books about objectivism which you derisively claim isn't consistent with "evolution". How do you decide which ideas are consistent with it and which are not? And why is your opinion about whether or not it is relevant?) 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15595
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Oh ok, so you advocate moral absolutes then. Thanks for proving my point. Sports alone would prove you wrong. Rival teams study each other to get on the field to gain an advantage before they get behind.

?!?!? What do sports have to do with initiating violence? NAP has nothing to do with gaining an advantage, obviously I have no problem with that- it solely has to do with initiating violence. So when exactly is it ok to initiate violence in your point of view?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Empathy leans to what you say. But again, point of view and evolution doesn't give one shit what you are I think. Long term evolution is going to occur.

I don't give one shit about evolution. I don't think we should create government based on what we think evolution would have us do. Evolution doesn't have a mind, point, goal or even guarantee our survival as a species. We should create government based on what we believe is best for us.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Evolution is not stagnant and while the kind side of evolution leads us to "benefit of the doubt" which I agree with. Life is messy, and we also presume guilt too. That is why case by case seems to be our best option. Something no party dogma or religious dogma has.

I don't think we should presume guilt and I certainly do not desire to live in a society with laws that presume guilt. Evolution did not lead us to "benefit of the doubt", smart men thought about it, argued about it and wrote books and were able to successfully persuade enough people that it was a good foundation to build a legal system on. People are not born with that idea. (Much like Ayn Rand thought about, argued about and wrote books about objectivism which you derisively claim isn't consistent with "evolution". How do you decide which ideas are consistent with it and which are not? And why is your opinion about whether or not it is relevant?) 

And "smart men" get things wrong too. Which is why your masturbating over Rand as if she started a religion is just as absurd.

 

"Fuck you I got mine" is your philosophy and hers and I have no want or desire to subscribe to such nonsense.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Thank you, my

Brian37 wrote:

Thank you, my goal is to make Beyond Saving my slave and force him to work at social services handing out food stamps.

Good luck with that. I have to warn you though that I am a terrible nightmare of an employee, you should be careful what you wish for. I would kind of like to be your employee for a bit Brian, it would be fun.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15595
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXE wrote:The problem is

EXE wrote:
The problem is most people want big government when is passing out free stuff to them

You mean like tax breaks for GE and EXXON we pay for? You mean like the middle class and working poor bailing out the banks and car companies and housing loan industry?

Don't lecture me about handouts when the robbery is top down.

You want to cut out the middle man? SO DO I!

 

You forget that conditions depend on those with the most power and money being responsible which they have not been. You are an idiot just like an abusive husband blaming the wife for his abuse.

 

You want the middle man out? SO DO I. But it is a two way street which is the part idiots like you forget.

 

You want people like me off your back, then stop supporting crap that explodes the pay gap and cost of living. That will give you the "less government" you say you want. That will cut out the middle man you say we should not have.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And "smart

Brian37 wrote:

And "smart men" get things wrong too. Which is why your masturbating over Rand as if she started a religion is just as absurd.

 Of course they do, that is why I don't think even smart men should be trusted with police power. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

"Fuck you I got mine" is your philosophy and hers and I have no want or desire to subscribe to such nonsense.

That at least is somewhat related to her philosophy in that it isn't particularly concerned that certain members of society will be economic failures. It is a philosophy that accepts that not everyone is equally talented and not everyone is going to experience the same success. Indeed, it looks at the failure of companies as a good thing because when one company fails a better company takes over. Which, by the way, makes your previous description that it treats life like a script and expects everyone to do everything the same way absurd. Objectivism makes no pretense that everyone will succeed or is even capable of success (I happen to believe that most everyone is capable, but I am not objectivist. I guess it is a failing of mine that I give people too much credit).  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:EXE wrote:The

Brian37 wrote:

EXE wrote:
The problem is most people want big government when is passing out free stuff to them

You mean like tax breaks for GE and EXXON we pay for? You mean like the middle class and working poor bailing out the banks and car companies and housing loan industry?

Don't lecture me about handouts when the robbery is top down.

You want to cut out the middle man? SO DO I!

 

You forget that conditions depend on those with the most power and money being responsible which they have not been. You are an idiot just like an abusive husband blaming the wife for his abuse.

 

You want the middle man out? SO DO I. But it is a two way street which is the part idiots like you forget.

 

You want people like me off your back, then stop supporting crap that explodes the pay gap and cost of living. That will give you the "less government" you say you want. That will cut out the middle man you say we should not have.

 

 

In case you didn't notice in his first post on this thread EXC specifically pointed out the problem of handouts to large companies inferring that it was as big or bigger problem than "welfare queens" and I interpreted it as suggesting that Ayn Rand somehow missed that point. I then replied pointing out that the main bad guys in her books were companies exactly like GE and the banks that were bailed out profiting more off of government aid than production. In fact, "bailouts" was one of the things that happened in the book Atlas Shrugged and was portrayed very negatively. It was precisely the culture of political favors, tax preferences, and federal grants that Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged to critique. 

And of the three of us in this discussion, I am pretty sure you are the only person who voted for politicians that supported the bailouts so blaming either me or EXC for that is rather ridiculous. Both EXC and I have been very consistent advocates against bailouts. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: I

harleysportster wrote:

 

I don't believe I have even finished any of the garbage that he put out in the 1990s. I would start on them, and they would bore me to tears before I was halfway through (and all of them seemed to want to start including characters from the Dark Tower in them) and I just found them terrible.

I did not even TRY to finish the Dark Tower series after Wizard and Glass, and when someone told me how it finally wrapped up, I was glad.

yeah, when i was 14 i started reading the dark tower series and i thought it was fucking awesome (i also loved lord of the rings in those days) and all the nods to it in his other books i thought were cool too.  the first novel, the gunslinger, i still think was good...but only the original version, before he went the george lucas route and "revised" it for continuity.  then when the last one came out 7 years ago or so i went back and read them all, and it fuckin' depressed me.  this is what i idolized as a teenager?  i really wish i could go back to 15/16 year-old me, smack him on the back of the head, and say, "read kafka, you fuckwit!  oh, and try to fuck more girls!  trust me, they'll do it!"

however, even the second time around, i thought wizard and glass was a fuckin' great novel.  probably the best of the bunch.  i recall i also loved hearts in atlantis, his collection of novellas.  yes, some of it included dark tower shit, but the title story didn't.  it just concerned a bunch of kids in the '60s who played hearts so much they flunked out of college and got drafted to go to vietnam.  very well done.  the main story, low men in yellow coats, was made into the hearts in atlantis film with anthony hopkins, which i think was actually good.  the film got rid of all the dark tower baggage and just made it about the government trying to capture a man with telepathic powers during the cold war, which completely improved the story.

dolores claiborne is good too.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:however, even

iwbiek wrote:

however, even the second time around, i thought wizard and glass was a fuckin' great novel.  probably the best of the bunch.  i recall i also loved hearts in atlantis, his collection of novellas.  yes, some of it included dark tower shit, but the title story didn't.  it just concerned a bunch of kids in the '60s who played hearts so much they flunked out of college and got drafted to go to vietnam.  very well done.  the main story, low men in yellow coats, was made into the hearts in atlantis film with anthony hopkins, which i think was actually good.  the film got rid of all the dark tower baggage and just made it about the government trying to capture a man with telepathic powers during the cold war, which completely improved the story.

dolores claiborne is good too.

Hearts in Atlantis was one that I never got to. I did read Dolores Claiborne and thought that one was pretty decent. I felt like I HAD to read Wizard and Glass, due to the fact that the Drawing of the Three left me hanging. Hehe, I too can tell a difference between 1990's version of me and now. I think one thing that finally caused me to lose interest in Dark Tower, was that he simply took too many years between in each book. To quote Roland, "The World Had Moved On" by the time the next ones came out.

A friend of mine said the last few just felt frenzied and hurried. It was almost like King just wanted to get them out of the way or something.

I have no way of knowing, since I didn't read them.

I got hooked, many years ago, on the Wheel of Time series, but found they were a bit too long and had too many characters. I was a bit young and dumb at that time though.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
harley, you should read

harley, you should read stephen king and peter straub's the talisman, mainly so you can read the sequel, black house, which features an intellectual biker gang who brew their own beer.  the sequel brings some dark tower shit in, but i heard that was on peter straub's insistence.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:harley, you

iwbiek wrote:

harley, you should read stephen king and peter straub's the talisman, mainly so you can read the sequel, black house, which features an intellectual biker gang who brew their own beer.  the sequel brings some dark tower shit in, but i heard that was on peter straub's insistence.

That's actually been recommended to me by a couple of people before as something that I would enjoy.

An intellectual biker gang that brews their own beer ? Sounds like some dudes that I know Smiling

Surprisingly enough to a lot of people, they see the real-deal bikers (not the people covered in Harley-Davidson logos and wannabe posers) and they think of real deal bikers as cave-men dudes that just go about beating up people, terrorizing neighborhoods and all the other stereotypes, and they are a bit shocked when they discover that we are not retarded cavemen.

I think of a fellow that we all call Knuckledragger. (Yeah that is his actual nickname). The guy has read more books than I could ever hope to, and almost quote every single law as it pertains to motorcycles back to back, and has two degrees in English and History.

He also is a heavily bearded, heavily-tattooed, cigar chomping, beer drinking dude that may be in his late 50s, but can swing fists like no one I have ever seen.

There is another fellow that everyone calls, The Goon. (I have known him to actually live up to that nickname if you piss him off). But most people would never guess that he incessantly reads and can be like a riding encyclopedia when it comes to almost any socio-economic issue.

NO ONE would guess that guys like these are also the most open-handed, big hearted and generous people that I know.

Characters like that are often the rule rather than the exception.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:harley, you

iwbiek wrote:

harley, you should read stephen king and peter straub's the talisman, mainly so you can read the sequel, black house, which features an intellectual biker gang who brew their own beer.  the sequel brings some dark tower shit in, but i heard that was on peter straub's insistence.

 

The Talisman is my favorite book ever. Reading it at 12 years old was a bad idea, though. Cried my eyes out when...well, you know, the thing happened.

Love Straub's stuff too. Koko, Shadowland and Julia are my faves. 

 

 

Oh wait, this is about Rand ? Bye !

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:Love

Antipatris wrote:

Love Straub's stuff too. Koko, Shadowland and Julia are my faves. 

 

I have heard the Talisman is good from enough people that I am going to have to check it out. (Even before I get to Atlas Shrugged).

I've never read much of Straub, except for Ghost Story. I don't remember much about the book and only vaguely remember the movie. It seemed like I remember thinking they were pretty good at the time, but it has been a long time ago.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:That's

harleysportster wrote:

That's actually been recommended to me by a couple of people before as something that I would enjoy.

An intellectual biker gang that brews their own beer ? Sounds like some dudes that I know Smiling

Surprisingly enough to a lot of people, they see the real-deal bikers (not the people covered in Harley-Davidson logos and wannabe posers) and they think of real deal bikers as cave-men dudes that just go about beating up people, terrorizing neighborhoods and all the other stereotypes, and they are a bit shocked when they discover that we are not retarded cavemen.

I think of a fellow that we all call Knuckledragger. (Yeah that is his actual nickname). The guy has read more books than I could ever hope to, and almost quote every single law as it pertains to motorcycles back to back, and has two degrees in English and History.

He also is a heavily bearded, heavily-tattooed, cigar chomping, beer drinking dude that may be in his late 50s, but can swing fists like no one I have ever seen.

There is another fellow that everyone calls, The Goon. (I have known him to actually live up to that nickname if you piss him off). But most people would never guess that he incessantly reads and can be like a riding encyclopedia when it comes to almost any socio-economic issue.

NO ONE would guess that guys like these are also the most open-handed, big hearted and generous people that I know.

Characters like that are often the rule rather than the exception.

 

that doesn't surprise me at all.  it's similar with farmers, though they're usually not as educated because they haven't had access to the resources, but they're damn sure not dumb.  i remember during breaks from working in the tobacco fields as a teenager, while chain-smoking, swilling busch, and eating vienna sausages, i used to discuss things like the history of the holy roman empire with my dad and his buddy.  all that guy ever watched was PBS.

i haven't met that many bikers in my life, but the only one i ever met who struck me as an ignorant asshole was a hardcore fundy in a christian bikers' club.  he really was a bully, and i was a christian then so i actually wanted to like him.

king and straub must have done some research with actual bikers.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:I have

harleysportster wrote:

I have heard the Talisman is good from enough people that I am going to have to check it out.

funnily enough, most king fans seem to hate the talisman, if that tells you anything.  maybe because it actually requires a little effort ("little" being the operative word).

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:funnily enough,

iwbiek wrote:

funnily enough, most king fans seem to hate the talisman, if that tells you anything.  maybe because it actually requires a little effort ("little" being the operative word).

If most king fans hate the Talisman, then I take it that it is highly reccomended. Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i haven't met

iwbiek wrote:

i haven't met that many bikers in my life, but the only one i ever met who struck me as an ignorant asshole was a hardcore fundy in a christian bikers' club.  he really was a bully, and i was a christian then so i actually wanted to like him.

Generally speaking, the riding clubs, christian motorcycle clubs, police riding clubs, AMA sanctioned clubs are the very worst.

They generally seemed comprised of a lot of fake posers that "wish" they could fit into the status of bikers and know that they can not and never will. So, alot of them throw on some leather, get a couple of tats, and go around playing "I want to be a bully/badass" and in general give everyone a bad name.

Even worse, are some of these assholes that will actually get a chance to hang around the real clubs, and ultimately end up getting their asses handed to them for crude/stupid behavior, and then proceed to go around the uninformed riders and talk about "back in the days when I was in a biker gang". These are usually the ones that will talk about all of the "friends" that they have in a club and throw club names around. Two things that no one would ever do if they had actually ever granted anyone any respect.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13050
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yep, but even

Brian37 wrote:
Yep, but even you suggested in another thread a blanket solution in suggesting we always make it a crime or sue for false advertisement

Nothing utopian or irrational about it. Only your response is irrational.

It CANNOT be used against us, and you've yet to demonstrate how it could be.

Instead you'd like to let the entire world lie about their products and services. If you had your way, you'd be dead by now because the FDA wouldn't have saved your life a million times over.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I tried to get into King

 I tried to get into King but never could, although I like some of the old King movies. The Wheel of Time series is a good example of an excellent story that was dragged out too long. After the sixth or seventh book I gave up on it, Jordan was trying to do too much with too many characters and the main plot was just dragging on too slow. And now he is dead so some other author is finishing the series.

I have to agree with iwbiek, most of the really great books I have read are under 500 pages and I prefer books even shorter than I can finish in one sitting or at least over the course of a lazy weekend- there is something to be said for authors that can write really good short stories. Hemingway, Poe, London, Archer, Chekhov etc. Too many writers today seem to think that bigger is better, it isn't.    

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm of the opinion that Ayn

I'm of the opinion that Ayn Rand (and most of the contemporary libertarians) was a bit too much of a purist... insofar as that historically, livable wages tend not to occur organically, and I'll make the point that no one has freedom or liberty if they don;t have acess to health care... But the fundamental principles I find to be sound. In a purist sense, I would say that Ayn Rand will accord George Orwell... two distinctly different classes of people with only a sliver of a middle class to serve as a social barrier.

 

The greatest amount of freedom and liberty for the greatest amount of people --again, in my opinion-- requires a certain amount of capital regulation.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Darrell Cody wrote:So, being

Darrell Cody wrote:

So, being new to RRS and an admirer of how much Ayn Rand has done to bring people to the conclusion that God does not exist, but they do, I would like to know what everybody here thinks of Ayn Rand, and we can all start singing in the following way (And in your way, please say your peace, but we all know that there are strong feelings about her, so please, let's keep it all non-angry and fun on this thread.  We get enough anger from the religious people.)

3 things if you care to say:

1 - What you think of her effect on Atheism?

I've got no idea. But maybe my opinion is valuable, because it's independent. I haven't heard any of her scandals, except that towards the end of her life she had lots of very devoted and uncritical followers.

Darrell Cody wrote:
2 - What you think of her fiction, especially Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (read it and get back to us if you haven't - it's good!  All her heroes are atheists too.)
No idea either... but I thought it was a joke. Businessmen as heroes against the evil big government? Only as long as they can't afford to buy a politician. Then they quickly switch sides. Cronyism is more powerful than any proud independent capitalist philosophy. If one businessman resists the temptation, another will buy the government and win over him. Hell, right now it looks like my president will face a charge of high treason, because just before the end of his term he released about a half of prison population into the winter, among them all his rich buddies who got into jail for being too successful... pardon, stealing the taxpayer money. Cronyism rules.

Darrell Cody wrote:
3 - What you think of her philosophy.
It's not a real philosophy at all. A pseudo-philosophy, in fact an ideology of sorts. A true philosophy is global, it strives to explain the whole of human life, but ideology is a one-way road. What Ayn Rand wrote is more like the call of businessmen "Everyone has a philosophy, we want a philosophy too, a philosophy of business!"

Actually, that about objectivism which is a valid philosophy, the epistemology, like classification of concepts and so on, she only adopted that from other philosophies without change. It's unclear why she had to do so, possibly to borrow some credibility for the later ethics. The ethics seems simplistic and incomplete. What's left of it, if man's survival is ensured? What is the method of choosing values besides survival and why should we choose those suggested by her?
As for freedom, does she even define it? What is the limit of freedom and individual rights? Is there any? Is there a concept of duties at all? Rights without duties, that's suspicious.

So overall, it seems to me this is an ideology put together from copied older epistemology and very simplistic ethics. It's tailored to the needs and cultural feelings of the time, I mean, it's designed to piss off the Communists and get back at them for driving her out of Russia. If Communism is like a religion, then Objectivism is not atheism, it's Satanism, the anti-religion with a naked woman instead of altar and whiskey and sausage instead of mass wine and cracker.

Darrell Cody wrote:
4 - What you think of her movement today.
I don't know, it's in America. I don't even know what European libertarians think about them. It seems to me her "philosophy" would be nice 150 years ago when we still had all the oil and coal.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.