Ayn Rand's Influence on the 21st Century

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Thanks for your response.
I will read it again tomorrow and think it over.

Much of what you say (and point out as her having said), I agree with.

a reply to: TrappedPrincess

Only when I'm right.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Welcome.

I was young when I first read Rand, and at the time thought she had it all figured out. I am a different person now. Still think she was right about a lot and is worth reading.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

So do you not see any disconnect between a person that espouses a philosophy of self reliance and a worship of greed and elitism; and the fact in her later years relied on social security and medicare? She was a chain smoker and suffered the consequence, then relied on the state to take care of her. imo that's the operating system of a hypocrite and a loser if you cant live up to your own BS philosophy. I place those that defend Ayn in the same category she placed herself in; Bull**** artist completely devoid of honor, fair play and compassion. You identify with that?


You lay down with dogs, expect to get a few fleas.

www.salon.com...
reason.com...

It boils down to being able to practice what you preach; otherwise you are a fraud and charlatan.

I'll give you that Rand is complex but to introduce yourself into the thread the way you did sir was a gross display of being pompous and un-objective. You so smugly assumed that just because some people here summarized a complex subject as you put it that they must not understand said subject.

Since were speaking on opinions here I personally think that Rand intentionally sent mixed messages about who she was and what she thought. Keep it muddled and confusing if you will, so complex that the average person won't really dig into it but instead pick talking points of Rand's to champion.

But hey that's just my opinion...

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

a reply to: olaru12

None whatsoever. She paid taxes which were levied specifically to cover the cost of her future welfare expenditures.

If programs like social security are still in existence and solvent when I retire, I fully intend to use them. I have paid in to them all my life. My stance on whether or not we should have these programs is irrelevant.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: olaru12

None whatsoever. She paid taxes which were levied specifically to cover the cost of her future welfare expenditures.
.

That's what I'm saying...if she believed her own BS then she should have refused to pay taxes and suffered the consequences. But no...she punked out and bought into the socialist system like everybody else. The epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

Practice what you preach or GTFO.

a reply to: TrappedPrincess
My condemnation was aimed at members who judge in ignorance, not those with genuine interest in the topic. Don't let my coarse disposition keep you from speaking your mind.

a reply to: olaru12

I bet she paid in plenty to SS and Medicare.

She made big dough in her time.

Ironic.

I'm certainly not the most educated nor the most polished. Im drawn to philosophy for some reason and Ayn Rand appears to be someone I can relate with, at least from what I've read in this thread, which is about all I know of the woman.

I've read each comment in this thread and I'm not deterred in that belief.

I'm reminded of a television episode I once viewed, 'Friends' I believe ( not sure ), where one character wagered against another that no act could be carried out that wasn't selfish. In the episode at least, an unselfish act was unattainable. This scenario often bounces around in my head for some reason or another.

I have more thoughts but the words are fleeting. I'm unsure of the reaction I may receive if my words aren't as articulate as my thoughts. Simply put because of this thread, inspite of ( most of ) it's content, I may look to AR for enlightenment. Maybe not. I once thought I'd study as much as I could about Crowley(ism) and never got around to it. But these individuals do resonate with me for some reason.

..... I'm not sure why I even decided to comment. I just wanted to add a new perspective I suppose.

a reply to: olaru12

She, like any working person paid into SS. I don't see the problem here.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs



About halfway thru a lady says, "I read your book 15 years ago and agreed with it, but now I'm more educated..."

That's the point when the whole thing goes downhill. Seems Rand considered her own work to be the top, beyond which no further education is possible.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs


She's about selfishness, all the way.
And she thinks religion is a horrible thing.

Actually, a political philosophy that just comes right out and meets human nature head on like that is far better than what you get when you start mingling with socialists/liberals/whateveryoucallthem.

I don't know that her politics can really work in a coherent way as a system because (As I said) she is all about human nature. I don't care what people say, their actions are ALWAYS rooted in the self. Even the fireman who runs into the burning building has a fundamentally selfish motive. Seems counter-intuitive but think about it. These are people who buy into the hero worship thing. They have typically spent their entire lives conditioning themselves to believe self-sacrifice is a noble thing to do. Whether or not it is isn't the point. The point is that they get what they want out of that mentality. They feel it is a kind of immortality. To be remembered practically forever for "doing the right thing" is as close as you get.

Anyway, moving on. Selfless love does not exist. Why? Because love makes us feel something. It gives us pleasure to feel love for someone else. We like that. It is inherently selfish. As is charity. How do you feel about yourself when you give to someone who is in need? The dishonest liberal will tell you he gets nothing out of it. He will tell you that the stingy rich guy should be ashamed of himself for not being selfless. Meanwhile, the dishonest liberal is quietly wallowing in his selfish self-righteousness. He knows no one has a clue because he's managed to create a narrative that doesn't obviously expose his particular brand of selfishness to the casual observer. He's only too happy to take a cheap shot at the rich guy who is a little more honest about the fact that he's fundamentally a selfish being.

The big government liberal is thinking about the benefits he will personally get from the policies. And as a side benefit, he gets to mentally masturbate over contributing his moral support to helping others.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah, but isn't that the thing. It's the smaller business owners that get the raw end of the deal having to deal with the burdens of bureaucracy, wouldn't you say? A Simpsons anecdote comes to mind:

Smithers, why haven't I heard of this "the Leader"?
He's as rich and wicked as I, but he seems to enjoy tax-exempt status.

- *Chuckles* Actually, sir, with our creative bookkeeping and corporate loopholes, we only pay three dollars a year.

*Gasps* You're right. We're getting screwed.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Compassion, a universal emotion hard wired into the human animal. Do you think it exists as a modern liberal fluke? Nope. It exists because as animals we are rather weak and the fact that we are the apex predator on this planet has nothing to do with selfishness and everything to do with the fact that we had the capacity to work as a group.

This natural mutual consideration and concern is what probably gave rise to the need to communicate, which led to the ability to speak, which led to everything that allows you to currently believe that being selfish is natural when, in fact, the premise is antithetical to the survival of the species.

I think it's a little bit of both. I just read BrianFlanders post and I agreed, to a certain extent. Then I read yours and I also agreed.

a reply to: CheckPointCharlie

Well, I'm glad you did participate, and I will hope to see your thoughts after you have done some more study into her ideas and views!

a reply to: BrianFlanders

I don't care what people say, their actions are ALWAYS rooted in the self.

Even the fireman who runs into the burning building has a fundamentally selfish motive.

Seems counter-intuitive but think about it. These are people who buy into the hero worship thing. They have typically spent their entire lives conditioning themselves to believe self-sacrifice is a noble thing to do.

Whether or not it is isn't the point. The point is that they get what they want out of that mentality. They feel it is a kind of immortality. To be remembered practically forever for "doing the right thing" is as close as you get.

Yes, and.....

so?

Does that make the fireman evil? Does that make him not compassionate?
What is wrong with "doing the right thing", exactly? (AND I AM NOT TALKING about suicide bombers who do the WRONG THING - namely, kill people. I am talking about those who takes risks to HELP people. Just so we're clear there. HELPING SOMEONE is NEVER WRONG.)




What is wrong with wanting to be remembered? We ALL have egos. We ALL look at the world from behind our own eyes.

If a person does whatever it is they feel is what they need to do - how does that make them "noble" or "ignoble"? Is amassing $500 Billion and hoarding it off-shore more significant than saving a child, or a cat, or an old man from a burning building?

I mean - if we're talking about the human species.

I see no argument against her arguments here, only curse vitriol and ad hominem about a woman no one here has ever met. That says more about you than it does about her. Discuss her works, not the rampant fear of your own imaginings, derive your own conclusions instead of resorting to baseless accusations against her character, and you'll be denying ignorance.

Edit: I apologize. I never read past the first page. My apologies. Now about that objectivism.

a reply to: Aphorism

I see no argument against her arguments here, only curse vitriol and ad hominem about a woman no one here has ever met. That says more about you than it does about her.

Discuss her works, not the rampant fear of your own imaginings, derive your own conclusions instead of resorting to baseless accusations against her character, and you'll be denying ignorance.

Oh, wow.
I AM discussing her works. And I have several legitimate arguments against her arguments.

Her works are eccentric, loquacious, and neurotically self-centered.



What exactly is your argument AGAINST the arguments against her that are in this thread?

Edit: I apologize. I never read past the first page. My apologies. Now about that objectivism.

Oh. Okay.

So. Thanks for your amendment.