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: 13
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon



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


The thing about Ayn Rand (and maybe this is just me) is that sometimes the things she says sound a little bit like what you'd expect from the Oracle at Delphi - some poor woman sat in a hole, breathing hallucinogenic fumes and babbling nonsense - which is then interpreted by her followers

Every once in a while she says something almost lucid - and it sounds pretty good. But if you take everything she's said and you really start thinking about it - she sounds incoherent. And - a little desperate

Maybe, also, just a little bit like a moonstruck school girl:

For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man. “To look up” does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments. A “clinging vine” type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.

This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such—which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader.

An Answer to Readers (About a Woman President)

What a bodice-ripper


edit on 5/28/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
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?

Hey Spiramirabilis:
What you quoted isn't a judgement of your life's choices and totality of what your spirit has become because of those. Instead, what you quoted justifies doing whatever necessary when finding yourself in any given situation (which necessarily means you did not choose it, and if you did, it was probably under circumstances where you didn't understand such choices and don't remember anymore so I doesn't really count against your consciousness because what I describe is only a lawyer's trick and a loophole.)


"Do as thou wilt," isn't related to judgement, other than to say, you are here, do what you want or need to.
I put to you sincerely, that, perhaps, we all find it necessary to do such, if we've any chance at happiness.
What does that have to do with judgement, really? Other than determining what we should do right now, wherever we are, whatever the rules are, and whatever everyone else is doing that might compromise, hinder, or kill us?

Sensitivity?
Have you even read her books?

Religion is used as an opiate. And further: You are made your brother's keeper, told you must take care of others, and this is used in the politics of this given system/paradigm to make a "level playing field," and hold you back from whatever your successes could ultimately be.

The Fountainhead was about an architect who was extremely talented, naturally. He strove in his early life, and managed to get through school, with an amazing ability, only to find later in life that he would become indentured through business and law and men less than him using the current system/paradigm and religion, and their precepts as a way to make money off his hard work and achievement, all on the surface, and dishonestly, btw, to build housing projects for people at the end of the Depression.

Sensitive?
If you've seen pictures of what the great dust bowl (I refuse to capitilize such an event) and the Depression, did to the people of the Midwest who had farmed, worked hard, fed themselves and the population for years, read books like The Grapes of Wrath and understood what resulted from this, both for those Midwesterners who had owned their farmland and worked it for generations equalling a hundred or more years, and the Californians who utilized them as migrant workers, and how that gave birth, also, to unions and corporate farming that resulted in the Monsantos of today and GMO farming, and people that are not allowed to organic garden and sell their hard-won wares at local Farmer's Markets, then you'd understand the whole of this picture, and not be so flippant about it.

Whatever Rand has said since that's recorded on the internet, read her books. They represent a valid opinion and look at what resulted from politics using religion to justify the destruction of the natural creativity and rights people were born with, and destroyed for.
tetra50



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




I find she was also a callous, twisted person. She champions the "Robber Barons" (JPMorgan, for example) and blames the depression on the Government for regulation.....totally ignoring the pathetic conditions of the time, and how workhouses and laborers and children were treated. None at all.


Is that like blaming guns for going around killing people, and them evil corporations, and bankers are the root of all our woes?

Regulation, and taxation does destroy jobs that create wealth.




She's about selfishness, all the way.


Never listened to the 'liberal' platform ?

It is all about SELFISHNESS.

Free homes,free education,Free healthcare.Free EVERYTHING, and hell that minority the evil rich don't matter!

Screw them make them pay their 'fair share'.




And she thinks religion is a horrible thing


So do 'liberals' except when it comes to the middle east. Them right wing neocons running around strapping bombs on themselves ain't nothing.

Seems to me religion is a dirty word only when it comes to America, and it's politics.

Want to talk about selfishness I leave this thread with some Mencken who was alive during the time of Rand.




Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it. "Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35


en.wikiquote.org...



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

What you quoted isn't a judgement of your life's choices and totality of what your spirit has become because of those. Instead, what you quoted justifies doing whatever necessary when finding yourself in any given situation

Yes - suppose you could interpret it that way. I interpret it another way

You told me not to judge. Should I just accept Ms. Rands words and not think about what they mean? Or, If I don't agree with them, should I just keep my mouth shut?


I put to you sincerely, that, perhaps, we all find it necessary to do such, if we've any chance at happiness.

Happiness? What is that? Is it something that only some of us can have? Is it something only certain people can understand? So, true enough - as individuals we all make choices. Our choices are often selfish. Do you think her philosophy was meant to benefit you - or all of us?


Sensitivity? Have you even read her books?

I have tried 3 times to read Atlas Shrugged - and gave up each time. I own my own copy - first edition. I think I do anyhow - I may have given it away recently - accidentally. Anyhow, the only reason I wanted to read it is because once, a very good friend of mine told me I absolutely had to - that it was a mind altering, life changing book. She went on to become the poster child for Ugly Americans everywhere - and an unapologetic, capitalistic bully

I didn't read her books, but I've read a lot of Ms. Rands other writing. As I just said in another post - she doesn't always seem to understand or follow her own philosophy. Which, frankly, interests me more than her philosophy - she's a very interesting woman


The Fountainhead was about an architect who was extremely talented, naturally. He strove in his early life, and managed to get through school, with an amazing ability, only to find later in life that he would become indentured through business and law and men less than him using the current system/paradigm and religion

Very telling - everything you've written here. It's almost like you were channeling Ayn...do you see him as a victim?


Religion is used as an opiate.

Are you a Randian - or a Marxist? :-)

The rest of your post is an interesting mix of philosophies and politics - a lot like Rand. It kinda figures. There's nothing wrong with that - by the way

I'm an atheist tetra - and I have my own issues with religion. Some are the same as Rands - but not all of them

She was a lonely, bitter woman - and a cynic. She saw altruism as a weakness. But, she was sick, abandoned and alone at the end of her life - at the mercy of people who were fortunately a little warmer and fuzzier than she was

I am all about the peeps tetra50 - and that isn't going to change. We need each other - especially because we are selfish



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
Oh, so - you state your case and then "leave"? With a quote from Mencken????

You said:

Never listened to the 'liberal' platform ?

Uh, doy. Yes. Obviously.


It is all about SELFISHNESS.

Free homes,free education,Free healthcare.Free EVERYTHING, and hell that minority the evil rich don't matter!
And, uh, NO. You are totally wrong.


WHAT?

neo, I have no idea how you are equating the working poor to 'selfishness'.

Are you "rich"? Do you have more than you can possibly spend in your lifetime?
Do you think that Dollar-Hoarders are any less 'sick' than Garbage-Hoarders? Or Doll- or Newspaper- or any other kind of hoarder????? You know - the show "Hoarders" and "Hoarders: Buried Alive"......do you know those shows?

I'm thinking of pitching a new series for the A&E network: "Hoarders: Wealth Overdose."


edit on 5/28/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
General question for the anti-Rand crowd, since we have responded to your questions.

What are your thoughts on personal responsibility and, more to the point, why should someone else's lack of personal responsibility require others to take responsibility for them?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

What are your thoughts on personal responsibility and, more to the point, why should someone else's lack of personal responsibility require others to take responsibility for them?


Not my problem

:-)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You know what else H.L. Mencken said????


“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”


― H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy


OH NOEZ!!!!
*eyeroll*



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


What are your thoughts on personal responsibility and, more to the point, why should someone else's lack of personal responsibility require others to take responsibility for them?

From each according to the best of his ability.......to each according to his needs.

SOME PEOPLE are not equipped to be highly-educated. You are mistaking "lack of personal responsibility" for "lack of smarts, talent, opportunity, and education."

Some people are simply not up to the task.
Because some people are simply not up to the task.

edit on 5/28/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

We may have a disconnect here. Are you limiting your argument purely to the "working" poor, or are you including the scores of people who do nothing while living a subsidized life off the tax payers' earnings?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You mean like disabled veterans, the elderly, the mentally disabled and other assorted unfortunate people?

Or are you talking about Walmart people?




posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

In my experience and opinion, it is all mixed in. It is a generational fault. The 'scores' of people who 'do nothing' are products of the households and economy in which they grew up.

There's an old story:
You can fish people out of the rapids, dry them off, give them a cell phone and a meal, and send them on their way. OR, you can fish them out, TEACH THEM how to SWIM, and be self-sufficient and capable of managing their lives, OR, you can GO UPSTREAM and find whoever is throwing them OFF THE BRIDGE to begin with and annihilate THOSE people!

Which is the real problem, burd?
Answer: The people throwing them off the bridge to begin with.
THAT is where it starts. All the rest is bandaids.


And here's another:
A person is standing on a beach that is covered in stranded starfish. One by one, the person picks them up and chucks them back into the water. Another person comes up to the first person and says, "Why do you bother? There are too many of them. It doesn't matter and won't make a difference! "

And the first person leans over and picks up another stranded starfish and throws it into the surf.
Then he or she turns to the other person and says,

"It mattered, and it made a difference, to that one."



edit on 5/28/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
There's an old story:
You can fish people out of the rapids, dry them off, give them a cell phone and a meal, and send them on their way. OR, you can fish them out, TEACH THEM how to SWIM, and be self-sufficient and capable of managing their lives, OR, you can GO UPSTREAM and find whoever is throwing them OFF THE BRIDGE to begin with and annihilate THOSE people!

Which is the real problem, burd?
Answer: The people throwing them off the bridge to begin with.
THAT is where it starts. All the rest is bandaids.


OK, sounds good. While we're heading upstream on that witchunt, I can only assume our services won't be needed to fish out those tossed over the upstream bridge during our journey? They'll drown, but that isn't my problem because I'm off to play White Knight against boogeymen that have cost me far less money and time than the folks who have stood around blaming everyone except themselves for their life of shortcomings and disappointments.

See, your "real problem" isn't the same as my "real problem." My real problem is politicians that tax me so others can benefit from the compensation of my own labors. So be warned, I very well might stop at the first bridge I see, and chuck rocks at the politicians standing there yelling at me to save the folks in the water until they've dispersed, and then go back to work knowing I'll finally get to actually keep a reasonable amount of my own money.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

...or are you including the scores of people who do nothing while living a subsidized life off the tax payers' earnings?

How many - exactly (or even more or less) is scores? No system is going to change the fact that some people won't play by the rules. Wall Street - anyone?

This is what I always wonder when we have these good proletariat versus human garbage chats

Our system and our economy don't make a place for everyone. They just don't. We don't even pretend that they should

I always hear about how ordinary folk should be left alone to decide to how they want to give - that they resent not being given the right of first refusal. They resent taxation that goes towards people they see as unworthy of their charity - which kinda brings me back to...how is charity supposed to work again?

How Darwinian do you really think society should be? Should we just put people that for one reason or another can't compete or contribute on an ice floe and wave bye bye?

Socialism doesn't work - I get that. But, neither does Ayn Rands vision for a brighter future. The people that embrace her ideas more or less prove to me that this idea that people will take care of the weakest among us is untrue

So - the weakest among us have no place in society. Which works until the mighty have fallen - and then, I suppose - they're deserving of a bailout?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua

If they paid into the system for their lives and are simply looking towards what was promised to them by the system, I have no beef with them. ...but most of what I see revolves around the disability known as "lazy mooch" and oftentimes their "unfortunate" streak has been greatly impacted by their own "unfortunate" decision to blow their money on some personal vice. I'd like that opportunity, but I can't afford it in my current taxed to hell situation and my childrens' clothing, feeding, and sheltering is MY responsibility, so I tend to make good choices. Those who are destitute due to their own choices, whether unfortunate or otherwise, shouldn't be the concern of those of us with self control and a work ethic.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

1. I'm very pro Social Darwinism, but no, you don't put people on ice floes. That said, you don't mandate their feeding and sheltering from the paychecks of those of us working, either. I don't have a solution, but I don't consider it something for "society" to solve anyway. You get yourself into the mess, you get yourself out of the mess (or not, it's the individual's call, really.)

2. Bailouts SUCK. Those so-called "too big to fails" should be decaying skeletons pushing up wildflowers right now. The government shouldn't even have the capacity to bail out an industry or business. They should look at corporate debts and recoil in horror, realizing that their tax payer funded coffers are far too meager and thin to ever even consider assisting a corporation. The government's involvement in a failing corporation should start and stop with managing the public auction to generate funds for any back taxes or public debts that company owed immediately before it clutched its chest and fell to the ground.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


I don't have a solution

No - you don't. Nobody does


Those so-called "too big to fails" should be decaying skeletons pushing up wildflowers right now.

I wasn't talking about too big to fails - at least not exclusively


You get yourself into the mess, you get yourself out of the mess (or not, it's the individual's call, really.)

Since 2008, do you have any idea how many people I have known personally that have changed their minds on that one? Sometimes life makes decisions for you that you would never make yourself

How the mighty have fallen means something different to them now. They have a fresh perspective on the haves and the have nots - and how that isn't always about personal responsibility



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Why is it, I wonder, that I worked 60 out of 68 years of my life, always looking for better and better ways of improving my situation and yet, when it came to paying my taxes, I never really minded? I paid them not just for people who, for one reason or another needed a handout for welfare or health care... I also paid for water treatment, garbage collection and lots of other infrastructure I like.

Something I don't want to see is bodies floating down a river or dead people on a sidewalk.

Truth be told, looking after those in need is worth every penny of my taxes that went out to them. You wouldn't believe the amount of money I've paid for unemployment insurance and never drew a dime for myself and don't even get me going on health care...

Yes, I started working at 7yo for nickels and dimes (literally), haying, milking, hoeing and baling (even stooking, if you know what that is). I've cleaned out pigpens and drove tractors for neighbour farmers before I was old enough to get interested in girls. When I got paid, it got taxed... always.

When I did get interested in girls, I didn't fool around and got married straight out of High school and you know what came next... better work for better pay because I needed a roof and food on the table for my growing family. The more they needed from me, the more I provided by working harder, right up to getting a really great job that I kept for over 30 years.

I know this'll freak the neoliberals here out, but it was a union job and, wow, did that ever make me feel good because I knew if I kept my nose clean, I'd be able to keep it. Today I've a nice little pension so my kids won't have to worry about me and my wife and that, friends, is a happy state of affairs.

Now, tell me, if I had rolled that Massey Ferguson when I was a pre-teen and wound up quadriplegic, do you think I'd deserve being tossed off that goddamned bridge and into the rapids?



edit on 28/5/15 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
...OR, you can GO UPSTREAM and find whoever is throwing them OFF THE BRIDGE to begin with and annihilate THOSE people!


Killing politicians can be the new national pastime.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua



I know this'll freak the neoliberals here out, but it was a union job and, wow, did that ever make me feel good because I knew if I kept my nose clean, I'd be able to keep it. Today I've a nice little pension so my kids won't have to worry about me and my wife and that, friends, is a happy state of affairs.

Now, tell me, if I had rolled that Massey Ferguson when I was a pre-teen and wound up quadriplegic, do you think I'd deserve being tossed off that goddamned bridge and into the rapids?

I applaud you.
You paid your dues, and did your part, and built up something for your family.

And NO - YOU WOULD NEVER deserve being thrown off that bridge.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join