Ayn Rand's Influence on the 21st Century

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.

Ayn Rand is so popular Becuase she gives monied sociopaths a framework to rationalize their behavior. I always laugh when right wingers espouse her and evangelical Christianity in the same breath,
Because it is well known she was one of the great influences on the church of Satan and Anton Lavey.

www.patheos.com...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

See...that's what I'm seeing. The Christians who-would-be-in-charge hold her up as an example - BUT, she despised religion.
Do the modern Conservative Right-Wing voters realize this?

If her economic views were valid, it would be logically incorrect to not cede her premises (assuming they are all logically valid), simply because you disagree with her anti-religious views.

It is entirely possible to agree with another person on some issues, while disagreeing with them on other issues.

I highly recommend the biography Ayn Rand and the World She Made. It gives excellent background information about her life and explains the foundations of her beliefs. It also shows her to be incredibly hypocritical. She really was not a very happy person, especially in her later years.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Now c'mon Burd - some very sweeping generalizations, idealizations, misrepresentations and flat out exclusions in that statement.

First to address the middle class and upper middle class and their work ethic... I spent most of my working career in management and was considered upper middle classed. To be blunt, even as a working leader, I was still nowhere near as physically put upon as my subordinates. And I honestly was a "lead by example - get my hands dirty" boss. Most of my contemporaries preferred the comfort of their office chairs. But, at that level you get the "I paid my dues as I was working my way up" rationale.

That leads us to your exclusion. The working poor seem, in your eyes, to have it made. "Mcjobs" are often brought up and laughed about, by the upper middle class, and deemed as something monkeys could do. As it happens on my way to management I worked in fast food for awhile - as a short order cook. I also did landscaping ( installation not maintenance ), construction, fabrication, driving, and sheet metal processing over the years. Every single ONE of those jobs was ten times as demanding and exhausting as being the boss was. The only caveat was that, as manager I was culpable for the mistakes of everyone else. So, a bit more stress, but a far easier life with a much larger paycheck.

The Right wing notion that the poor have it easy is simply hogwash. Even the non-working poor, on benefits, live in squalor that is scarcely above third world standards. My thoughts are brought back to the plethora of politicians and celebrities who undertook the food stamp challenge. To the best of my recollection almost all of them quit early and the ONE I can recall who claimed that he made it ( if memory serves he was the Republican pushing for SNAP to be cut or lowered ) later was found out to have cheated profusely during his supposed period of living like the poor.

It's a shame that folks in the most impoverished of regions don't have lobbyists available to sneak them out for a few steak dinners each week, huh?

As for the rich leaving America? Totally irrelevant. Hell half of the Mega Conglomerates, currently gnawing on the bones of the American dream, are subsidiaries of foreign interests anyway. Those who do actually live here live in gated communities in cities like Stanford, Connecticut where they are safely tucked away from anything even remotely resembling reality. Often deliberately.

Did you know that Dick Cheney has a rider stating that if he enters a building ALL televisions in that building must be tuned to Fox news before he enters? Look it up. It's true. He's no idiot. He realizes the truth of it all - but he opts to cast a blind eye toward it and takes measures to make sure his voluntary delusions are never disturbed.

As for the rest... While the Right loves to show pie charts illustrating just how much money is spent on social programs, somehow they never produce pie charts about how much tax based revenue has dropped on the top few percent and Corporations. They've got you angry and in knots because some guy stole a sandwich - even as they appropriated and took over the entire deli right before your eyes. But, you know, that sammich guy....

Oh, and of course tax money goes to where it's needed. Would you feel more justified if, let's say, food programs were abolished and that money was used to reward the middle class with free 4K TV's for all who make above *this* much money?

Really Burd - my tendency to rant aside, claiming that the middle works any harder than the bottom does seems to come from a person who has obviously never dug a ditch.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

She's about selfishness, all the way.

She gave an extremely clear definition of selfishness in her book The Virtue of Selfishness .

That selfishness is simply rational self-interest--the motivation behind our drive to improve our lives on an individual basis, like seeking employment, or something as simple as surrounding ourselves with family and friends because we enjoy it. Both acts are examples of rational self-interest.

The difference between rational self-interest and coercion is aggression.

And she thinks religion is a horrible thing.

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?

No, you are not. I would recommend reading the core of the philosophy she developed:

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Religion is a horrible thing.

I don't disagree with that at all.

What I don't understand is how "Christians" are so on-board with her views, when they are decidedly self-absorbed views - and not in any way, shape or form WWJD-type thoughts.

Thanks for the reading recommendation. I'll get to it if I can stomach these courses I'm taking. Though I suspect at some point I will dismiss her as an abominable specimen of a human being and toss her on the pile with Beck, Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson, as well as other people I have summarily dismissed as unworthy of my (or anyone's) time, or attention.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Though I suspect at some point I will dismiss her as an abominable specimen of a human being and toss her on the pile with Beck, Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson, as well as other people I have summarily dismissed as unworthy of my (or anyone's) time, or attention.

If you actually group her with those people, you have erred in your reasoning.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

If her economic views were valid, it would be logically incorrect to not cede her premises (assuming they are all logically valid), simply because you disagree with her anti-religious views.

It is entirely possible to agree with another person on some issues, while disagreeing with them on other issues.

I've already said that there are some things I do agree with her on.
I'm taking a course about her that covers all of that stuff. I went in knowing not much about her except her name and that some factions of the USA (those with money) think she was a demigod. I wanted to know what all the fuss was about.

Her premises may be "logically valid", but they are utterly devoid of any semblance of being part of a SOCIETY, of a healthy recognition that we all rely on one another - that we are a social species, you know......'social cohesion'. She openly disdains "the common good."

ANyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I wanted to bring her to light for those wrestling with value judgments in terms of our country's upcoming "election."

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

If you actually group her with those people, you have erred in your reasoning.

No, I have not. I have grouped her (preliminarily) with those people because so far, what I've gleaned is that she shares basic characteristics with them that I have rationally decided are unfit role models. She might surprise me in the end, but so far I find her dastardly.

I gave them all a chance - and I'm giving her one, now.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What I don't understand is how "Christians" are so on-board with her views, when they are decidedly self-absorbed views - and not in any way, shape or form WWJD-type thoughts.

I don't think being in favor of voluntary human interaction and the non-aggression principle is anti-christian.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

I don't think being in favor of voluntary human interaction and the non-aggression principle is anti-christian.

What? What are you talking about?

Perhaps it's you who hasn't read enough of her, or you have neglected to comprehend her dazzling disregard for ANYONE except herself. It is passive-aggression. Maybe you don't understand that? SHE is anti-Christian. Totally anti-christian.

Why are you attacking me, by the way?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Why are you attacking me, by the way?

You started the thread. You invited people who favor her to comment.

Having said that.

If it had been up to her, the whole Rand phenomenon would have died with her. The foundation that was started while she lived fell to pieces in short order.

She was anti-academic. So who is funding the current educational efforts to keep her as a figurehead for "progress"? Who benefits from the fact that she is a figurehead rather than a dead author?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Her premises may be "logically valid", but they are utterly devoid of any semblance of being part of a SOCIETY, of a healthy recognition that we all rely on one another - that we are a social species, you know......'social cohesion'. She openly disdains "the common good."

That's because she saw first-hand the damage that the "common good" does to a society. It turns a country into a third-world, hell-hole.

The "common good" winds up trying to force round pegs into square holes, because you have no choice when dealing with whole groups but to make gross over-generalizations about what you perceive people need, want, or value.

And, ironically, the "common good" is always enforced by violence.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What? What are you talking about?

Her economic views were not contradictory to Christ's teachings.

She was a Libertarian, and both concepts--voluntary human interaction and the non-aggression principle--are at the core of Libertarian economics.

Perhaps it's you who hasn't read enough of her, or you have neglected to comprehend her dazzling disregard for ANYONE except herself. It is passive-aggression.

And what lead you to this conclusion? Are you talking about her personal life or her philosophy?

Maybe you don't understand that? SHE is anti-Christian. Totally anti-christian.

Yes, she was a very open critic of religion, but that doesn't logically follow your argument that her economic views are antithetical to Christian teachings because...

What I don't understand is how "Christians" are so on-board with her views, when they are decidedly self-absorbed views - and not in any way, shape or form WWJD-type thoughts.

You are confusing rational self-interest with narcissism or being "self-absorbed."

Have you ever sought employment to better your personal, financial position? If you have, then you are guilty of rational self-interest and are just as "self-absorbed."

Why are you attacking me, by the way?

There is a difference between logically analyzing someone's argument, and positing a counter-argument, and ad-hominems.

Don't become so emotionally involved in your own arguments that any counter-argument is mistook as an attack against your identity. Not once during our discourse have I attacked you in any way.

You know for a thread with only 17 flags it's getting pretty deep and intellectual in here. I think a lot of people are over complicating this. She was an author who hung around some pretty dastardly fellows not unlike many authors of the time or any time really.

Like her, hate her she is dead therefore doesn't have anything else to contribute. I personally think she allowed herself or more like her words to be pimped out by/for the power players of the time. She enjoyed the company of powerful men and her own fame. She towed the party line and contributed in her way to social engineering and she was rewarded in doing so.

She was and still is viewed as an intellectual and a lot of what she said is beneficial for the current establishment and powers that be. It is these reasons that a lot of folk do not care for her and make her a hard person to defend despite some good ideas she dropped here and there.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What I don't understand is how "Christians" are so on-board with her views, when they are decidedly self-absorbed views - and not in any way, shape or form WWJD-type thoughts.

I don't think being in favor of voluntary human interaction and the non-aggression principle is anti-christian.

And therein lies the irony and hypocrisy inherent in modern Christianity; it is very agressive and If ATS is any indication of non-aggressive Christians; turning the other cheek is in short supply. But personally...I wouldn't have it any other way! I have my own hypocrisy issues to deal with.

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

She was and still is viewed as an intellectual and a lot of what she said is beneficial for the current establishment and powers that be. It is these reasons that a lot of folk do not care for her and make her a hard person to defend despite some good ideas she dropped here and there.

"Tools" to be used. Even the most undesirable can offer "tools" to be used.

The responsibility belongs to the one using the "tool".

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What I don't understand is how "Christians" are so on-board with her views, when they are decidedly self-absorbed views - and not in any way, shape or form WWJD-type thoughts.

I don't think being in favor of voluntary human interaction and the non-aggression principle is anti-christian.

And therein lies the irony and hypocrisy inherent in modern Christianity; it is very agressive and If ATS is any indication of non-aggressive Christians; turning the other cheek is in short supply. But personally...I wouldn't have it any other way!

I would argue that Christianity has proven to be extremely aggressive since it's rise in power (the dark ages), and not just recently.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

And, ironically, the "common good" is always enforced by violence.

Really?

Hmmm. I disagree. I have a family. We care about each other's well-being. There is NO VIOLENCE enforcing that. We make choices and "sacrifices" in order to keep 'the whole' functioning.