It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ayn Rand's Influence on the 21st Century

page: 12
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm voting JeanPaul for winner in the essay contest of this thread.

originally posted by: JeanPaul
Objectivism is the pseudo philosophical justification for "free market" capitalism.

Rand was anti-academic. She did not want any peer review. She could not handle criticism of her work. She considered it to be beyond improvement.


When I watch the various films and documentaries objectivists make I feel like I'm at Scientology seminar. It's, you know, that kinda vibe

It is a religion relying on unchangeable authority.


but it was obviously just more philosophical idealism.
. . .
She was so against religion because it served as the ultimate form of philosophical idealism (making up a story in your head and calling it reality) yet that's exactly what she did, created her own religion called objectivism.

It is a two-tiered religion. Atlas Shrugged makes no explicit reference to gods or religion, therefore lower tier devotees can and do integrate certain ideas into their own religio/worldviews without internal conflict.

Upper tier devotees must abandon all gods and anything else which may conflict with Objectivism, including academia.

It is religion.
edit on 28-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12


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.


The validity or truth of a claim is not dependent on the behavior of the person making the claim, that is an ad hominem.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

After reading a few things, here is my tentative conclusion:

Randism is a religious cult which thrives precisely because the cult figure is not alive to sue the followers for misrepresenting her proprietary doctrines.

Randism is an all or nothing closed philosophical system. The vast majority of "Randists" are heretics.

And when that day comes,
and the sky breaks open,
and these heretics face their beloved Ayn Rand
the outcry will be fierce,
but the wrath will be fiercer.
The heretics will get their reward,
full measure unmixed
with any altruistic mercy.


I really wish people could focus on analyzing the philosophy, or claims, that are made, instead of focusIng on the people.

It's not moral to insult people that disagree with you.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders


It makes them easy targets for liberals who refuse to be honest about their motives and use ignorance and emotional manipulation of an unsophisticated audience to further their political goals.


:-)

What's my motive BrianFlanders? Me and the rest of this unsophisticated audience are dying to know



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon


I really wish people could focus on analyzing the philosophy, or claims, that are made, instead of focusIng on the people.

It's not moral to insult people that disagree with you.

Read a bit further, where I quote the same little faux prophecy. Rand sure despised Libertarians, precisely because they only half-assed followed her religion.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena


I'm voting JeanPaul for winner in the essay contest of this thread.

Me, TOO!!!!

I thought he was great, and I'm very glad to have him on board at ATS.


as for LewsTherinThelamon, well - Ayn Rand, his darling, insulted lots and lots of people. She has a fondness for the word "monstrous."



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: olaru12


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.


The validity or truth of a claim is not dependent on the behavior of the person making the claim, that is an ad hominem.


Yeah right, I'm sure you believe all politicians even though they have proven themselves to be phony corrupt scumbags; when they look you straight in the eye and tell you that "they have your best interest at heart"

How else do we judge the character of a person if not by their previous behavior? and imo Ayn Rand was a hypocritical, elitist, POS that took advantage of the system she claimed to despise. And that fact alone shows me she didn't really believe the crap she espoused.. She played people for chumps and they ate it up. I do credit her though for being a fair novelist. I enjoyed "Atlas Shrugged"





How should we judge those that defend her?

edit on 28-5-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12


How should we judge those that defend her?


Even egoists need a mascot?

:-)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   


She's about selfishness, all the way.
And she thinks religion is a horrible thing.
I'm looking for dialogue with those who are followers, fans, or other interested parties; as we enter the pre-pre-presidential election. Am I understanding her as far as you know?

Hey Buzzywigs: I've only read your OP, and it's great, I think, in terms of generating a real discussion here about these issues, especially since Ayn may very well be the mother of Libertarianism, but before I get into that……

As to the validity of discussing such topics, I don't believe there is any, certainly not in terms of any "next election," as this is what I think must be realized about that particular thing, that is a hinge point of our democracy: the thinking that we have a voice, expressed through voting, and that we are represented by whom the majority of us elects.

You see, I don't believe there is any point, whatsoever, in discussing any political evidentiary, as I don't believe it plays any part any longer in where we are headed, no matter IF or HOW we vote. Politics has now become total theater, no more, no less. My belief is that long before you vote, the Military Industrial Complex has already decided the next presidency, as well as the political sway of Congress…..

It's just all theater to keep to you waylaid….if you're even still paying attention.

However, I will discuss Ayn Rand as a classic American author, and perhaps, as a person. Just as I would like to discuss with someone familiar with her works, Anais Nin…..

As per your quote, are you understanding her? Having said all I have, and asked that question, I do realize she may have played a major part in how we got to our present predicament, where nothing is real…. However, she existed in the same environs, so let's review what she stood for, knowing that, to begin with, and that in her time, it may not have been any different.

For the sake of argument, let's assume it wasn't. You say, about her writing, and what she stood for and believed in:



I know that many members here are fans of hers, and in my awareness they (you) are Conservatives and Libertarians. Perhaps I am mistaken, but - there are also many of them (you) who are very devout Christians. Currently I am taking a course at aynrand.org, a freshly hatched open education site that proffers deep-level understanding of what she stood for. She was very much against Christianity and faith of any kind.


It's not that simple, though. What she saw happening, and if you've really read Atlas Shrugged and the FountainHead, then you understood her point of view, for as an author she is considered a "classic American author," because she expressed so well the situation in that time, and what it meant for people on a "big picture scale." What I mean by that is, she spoke of the use of religion as a psychological opiate, where people with usual psychoanalytically
identifiable problems took control using religion as a tool to do so.

What I mean by that is using religion as a tool to better your own position by your particular complex, whatever it may be. Such as the idea that if Christ sacrificed for us, then it was Howard Roark's job (the architect in these novels)because his talent was God given (under those definitions of life we accept through religious teachings) to take care of those born weaker, and without talent, then him…..


That is the crux of the point of both novels. Not that she favored big business, but that she understood in our laissez-faire (Ihands-off) economy (defining our version of CAPITALISM), what it took to make that fly, and what the underpinnings of it were: but the underpinnings, philosophically, are still a true question.

And that is the question that fuels our current existence, and defines it, though many may not recognize it.

I will stop there, as this, really defines Ayn Rand's writing to me. One side that believes one thing is winning. One side that believes something else, isn't. It's that simple.

And Ayn saw all that, and wrote to address it, in the only way she could hope to make a difference. I hope you see her through that lens, instead, and understand a little more who she was and what she stood for, and how she managed through her writing to explain an economic quandary that defines our lives to this day……
tetra
when i voted last, ten years or more ago, Buzzywigs, I was an Independent. Before that, I was a Democrat, and her writing is more closely associated with Republicans, so that gives you an idea of my processing of her and her writing.
Please, don't be so hard on her. She expresses a view that is valid and needs to be heard……

ETA: as I have read a small part of JeanPaul's mentioning objectivism and capitalism: yes. Absolutely. But you must see that Ms. Rand is speaking to a time that is no longer, a choice that is no longer, and the use of a belief system in a way she found abhorrent, whether you believed in God and adhered to those principals or not, and mostly if you did, what happened in those times vis a vis her novels, and what got us to our current state, was an insult to your personal, godp-given and human rights given, integrity…..

This is what she stood for: Government had no right in your bedroom, your mind, your finances (within a certain definition and law)
which was designed to provide our freedom from what I've already discussed…..that is the only thing taxation was supposed to represent and provide!? Government had no right to dictate your scope of success and limit it, for a level playing field, if you were born with an ability that others didn't possess, to force you to provide for their existence, and/or manipulate the playing field of your particular situation (life/biology/perception of your historical assay) in order to keep their control over you and everyone else, a continuing saga, so a few could benefit, and the majority would suffer, all for the ideal of "collectivism," which raises the monster of sacrifice for the "greater good…." which leads to a multi-vehicle crash of unbelievable proportions…..pls forgive the apt metaphor.
edit on 28-5-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I think I've pretty much expended all I've got to offer.

As you know, I have some small expertise in religion, enough to recognize one when I see it.

No joke. Rand's Objectivism is a religion.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12


imo Ayn Rand was a hypocritical, elitist, POS that took advantage of the system she claimed to despise.

She had every right to author the books and articles that she did. She had every right to receive benefits.

I think what is still not quite understood is that she did not approve of anyone using her work as a political agenda. She didn't. People who do use her for their own political agendas are in violation of her own wishes.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Because politics and religion, she saw, were undeniably linked as philosophical considerations, and used to imprison people even more….
tetra
edit on 28-5-2015 by tetra50 because: comma, punctuation: very important



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena
dp

edit on 28-5-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: olaru12


How should we judge those that defend her?


Even egoists need a mascot?

:-)



IMHO, it isn't your right to judge that, anyhow, anymore than it's mine. Judgement isn't yours. It belongs to someone else, which in this thread, I am not mentioning, but we all know……

Perhaps if more realized the judgement didn't belong to them, we'd be in a better spot, now….
tetra



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: tetra50

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: olaru12


How should we judge those that defend her?


Even egoists need a mascot?

:-)



IMHO, it isn't your right to judge that, anyhow, anymore than it's mine. Judgement isn't yours. It belongs to someone else, which in this thread, I am not mentioning, but we all know……

Perhaps if more realized the judgement didn't belong to them, we'd be in a better spot, now….
tetra


And therin lies part of the problem....Ayn Rand didn't have any problem judging people from her elitist and lofty philosophical constructs.
I find it astonishing that she is now a hero to the T Party; that take such pride in being "grass roots" and the everydayman political alternative. The irony borders on the surreal....

www.csmonitor.com...


edit on 28-5-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: tetra50

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: olaru12


How should we judge those that defend her?


Even egoists need a mascot?

:-)



IMHO, it isn't your right to judge that, anyhow, anymore than it's mine. Judgement isn't yours. It belongs to someone else, which in this thread, I am not mentioning, but we all know……

Perhaps if more realized the judgement didn't belong to them, we'd be in a better spot, now….
tetra


And therin lies part of the problem....Ayn Rand didn't have any problem judging people from her elitist and lofty philosophical constructs.
I find it astonishing that she is now a hero to the T Party.

www.csmonitor.com...



You are right.

But we live in a time and place where both points of view don't seem to be represented: as in, there's the politics of the situation: how her work was/is used to support the elitist view over the rest of the "common man," which I don't think she intended at all.

Her said, Philosophical constructs, which she expressed so well she is considered amongst the literary greats of this century, and IMHO should be considered when considering her "philosophical constructs," expressed something more than objectivism, while that may be part of what she wrote. She also represented the construct of Humanism, and Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs, and how religion played a part, politically, in manipulating that, as in : Are you your brother's keeper?

Have you read the books, Olaru?
edit on 28-5-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50


Judgement isn't yours


"the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

Ayn would disagree with you. The world is my oyster - she would say. Do as thou wilt

She did a fair amount of judging her own self - while we're at it

:-)

Who knew you Randians were so sensitive?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50


Because politics and religion, she saw, were undeniably linked as philosophical considerations, and used to imprison people even more….

Because at the point in which people quit thinking and become followers, that's when they become vulnerable to enslavement.

One article I read, which is linked to in one of my posts, describes her little group of disciples, Collective, I think it was called, left me with the impression of the classic Greek schools of Philosophy.

She was definitely a philosopher in her own right. There seemed to be a disconnect when it came to the idea that the best of philosophical schools should produce thinkers more advanced that the teacher.

I just would like to add that Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon still hold high rank in my pantheon of heroes. John Galt, not so much, after all, "Who is John Galt?"



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50




Have you read the books, Olaru?


Yes, as an undergrad at a liberal arts Univ. I found her style pedantic and filled with needless description. I liked her plays and one of her quotes that has stayed with me is classic.




When I die, I hope to go to Heaven, whatever the Hell that is.






posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena


No joke. Rand's Objectivism is a religion.


Rand's objectivism is a philosophy, it is a petty attempt at poisoning the well to call it a religion.


Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.


I am having trouble figuring out which tenet of objectivism is, uh, objectionable?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join