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: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
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.


Okay, reviewing......

I need to respond to this 'assessment.' I DO NOT DISAGREE with her that religion is bad. I share her "anti-religious views".
But I DO NOT AGREE that humans, who live in a society, have no responsibility to anyone but themselves.

I am an agnostic anti-theist, so your allegation that "I simply disagree with her anti-religious views" is invalid.

Just wanted to make that point. It is the people who support her ideas AND SQUAWK about God and Jesus and so on who have the disconnect. Not me. I'm a person who believes in everyone contributing - "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need."

She blatantly opposes that, as well as religion/faith. So, you see, I agree with her that the Abrahamic religions are destructive. I do NOT agree with her that John Stuart Mill and Emmanuel Kant were "wrong."


edit on 5/27/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)


Edit to add quotes:

J S Mill:

All honour to those who can abnegate for themselves the personal enjoyment of life, when by such renunciation they contribute worthily to increase the amount of happiness in the world


Kant:

The priniciple of one's own happiness is the most objectionable of all...because this principle supports morality with incentives which undermine it and destroy all of its sublimity.


She disagrees with these.
Just saying.
edit on 5/27/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

This is a quote from the salon article you linked:


Rand is perhaps the only virulently anti-Christian writer that Republicans nonetheless routinely feel comfortable heaping praise upon.

In a charming 1964 interview with Playboy, Rand described the crucifixion of Jesus in terms of “mythology,” and submitted that she would feel “indignant” over such a “sacrifice of virtue to vice.”

That Christians are called to care for the most vulnerable of God’s people was, to Rand, manifest proof that the religion has nothing constructive to add to human life: After all, in her philosophy, “superiors” have no moral obligations to those weaker or more vulnerable than they. According to Rand, the Christian moral imperative to serve the needy is a “monstrous idea.”


Again, just pointing out what her attitude was.
And wondering why Republicans and Christian Conservatives think she rocks.





I am neither a Conservative nor a Christian nor a Republican - I actually care about people. And SHE DOES NOT. She believes It is a "monstrous idea" to serve the needy. I don't.
Call me crazy, but that's my opinion as a middle-aged American who pays attention.




edit on 5/27/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs



In a charming 1964 interview with Playboy, Rand described the crucifixion of Jesus in terms of “mythology,” and submitted that she would feel “indignant” over such a “sacrifice of virtue to vice.”

There you have it in a nutshell.

Question: Where do the Christian doctrine of God's sacrifice and Rand's teachings meet?

Answer: In the selfish ego.

Even though Objectivism starts with "no god", and Christianity starts with "because god", directly contradicting each other; yet, a certain Christian concept brings them together: "all for me"

Evidence: While talking with a Christian about the movie "Passion of the Christ", and watching the facial expressions it was clear what the heart of that Christian's religion was when he sighed out, "and it was all for me." His face turned up, eyes glistening, beatific touch to the lips.

So if your religion teaches you that your eternal well being is the center of the universe, isn't it reasonable to see a bit of cherry picking into a self centered ethic, to reinforce the center of the universe?

So what really did she even think about society?

A great deal may be learned about society by studying man; but this process cannot be reversed: nothing can be learned about man by studying society—by studying the inter-relationships of entities one has never identified or defined.

Society-Ayn Rand Lexicon

edit on 27-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


I am neither a Conservative nor a Christian nor a Republican - I actually care about people. And SHE DOES NOT. She believes It is a "monstrous idea" to serve the needy. I don't.
Call me crazy, but that's my opinion as a middle-aged American who pays attention.


That is not entirely correct.

Charity is not a "monstrous idea," but forced charity is.


I'm a person who believes in everyone contributing - "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need."


My gripe with this philosophy is that, typically, people want to force others with the threat of violence, to live in the society that they want.

There is absolutely no reason as to why the individual shouldn't have communities that use economic and government models that they want to choose to live under.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon




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



"Always"?

One of the quickest ways of losing credibility is by speaking in "absolutes"

In defense of my Christian friends....I can't think of any of them that use violence in doing the Lords work for the "common good" of the community.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12


One of the quickest ways of losing credibility is by speaking in "absolutes"

Thank you. Luckily I was able to still edit a word. From "heart of the Christian's religion" to "heart of that Christian's religion".



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12


"Always"?


Show me one state that has used that style of rhetoric that wasn't authoritarian.


One of the quickest ways of losing credibility is by speaking in "absolutes"


If you drink an entire 8 ounce glass of liquid ricin in under 60 seconds, you will absolutely die.

Sorry, but knowledge isn't subjective.


In defense of my Christian friends....I can't think of any of them that use violence in doing the Lords work for the "common good" of the community.


The individual lending a helping hand, voluntarily to another, isn't the type of "common good" rhetoric that I was talking about--and I am sure you know that and are just being intellectually dishonest here.

I was talking about killing all of the Jews for the common good.

Or taking all the guns for the common good.

Or censoring the media for the common good.

Or having your political opponents assassinated for the common good.

Or "redistributing the wealth" for the common good.

There are a whole host of examples of government arousing the interest of idiots with chicanery and double-speak.
edit on 27-5-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon


There is absolutely no reason as to why the individual shouldn't have communities that use economic and government models that they want to choose to live under.

That's just it. There is no place for Sociology or Political Science in Rand's proprietary Objectivism. It is not a community centered system. It is individual centered.

Example: I am Epicurean ( not a good one ). There are standards of conduct fitting for an individual but not for a society.

1) Avoid romantic involvement and marriage.
2) Avoid politics.

If everyone were Epicurean there would soon be no society.

Objectivism can also work as a personal ethic, but if everyone were objectivist there would be no society. Objectivism as a personal ethic relies upon a pre-existing society. Objectivism cannot build it's own society. Not one that will last anyway.
edit on 27-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon


That is not entirely correct.

Charity is not a "monstrous idea," but forced charity is.

I'm just quoting the article.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So have you figured it out yet?

I do believe that I pretty much handed you the key in my previous post.

Multiple foundations wielding millions upon millions of dollars all attempting to indoctrinate a form of hedonism upon society. Society will crash without the Stoics and Platonists and Aristotelians and those pious to the gods.

Once everyone is hedonist, there will be no hardworking political theorists or sociologists. Societal crash with the surviving oligarchs to rule.

It's a conspiracy!
edit on 27-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

After several pages of 'Never heard of Rand, but I just skimmed her wiki page and now Imma summarize her entire socio-economic philosophy', your contributions are much appreciated. So many replies in this thread are ridiculously off-base with their understanding of Objectivism. Many of them make it clear that members are not here to learn or discuss. All that matters to these people is propping up their existing ideological bias by 'proving' their pre-conceived notions to be correct. They aren't fooling anyone but themselves.

If anyone here seriously wants to understand a complex subject like Ayn Rand's philosophy, I suggest you do your own reading and thinking. Suppose I can spare some of you the time; If you think that another man's success entitles you to the fruits of his labor, you will not like what Rand has to say.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

aherm.

I posted this thread, to see what ATS members think (or know, or don't know) about her.
I admitted I was a beginner.

I AM doing my own reading, and studying, and thinking.
Sorry if you find it useless to ask for the feedback from others about this new 'interest' I took up just so I (we all) could better understand our political system.


edit on 5/27/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist


If anyone here seriously wants to understand a complex subject like Ayn Rand's philosophy, I suggest you do your own reading and thinking. Suppose I can spare some of you the time; If you think that another man's success entitles you to the fruits of his labor, you will not like what Rand has to say.

That is true - "you" will not like it.
But I'm not sure YOU have a grasp on the complex subject - how about you share with us what you have read and think?
Or don't.
You accomplished it (right?) so there's no need to share (right?).

Is that "right"?

Is it "your right?" Yes, it is your right.
Does that make it morally correct or "right"?

In my opinion, no.



edit on 5/27/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist


If you think that another man's success entitles you to the fruits of his labor, you will not like what Rand has to say.

No man's success occurred in a vacuum. Even a loner mountain man beaver trapper's success came about because of an existing market and trading post. Not to mention shipping lines, merchants, tailors, shop keeps. Finally some European wearing a hat.

What's that saying Randites made famous, "You can't eat your cake and have it too?"

I've got my cake, by the powers that be I will eat the whole thing myself, then I'll drive down to the ... whoops! no road, somebody forgot to pay taxes.
edit on 27-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
WOW...Pretentious much.a reply to: OpenMindedRealist



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon


That is not entirely correct.

Charity is not a "monstrous idea," but forced charity is.

A quote from her:

My views on charity are very simple.

I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.


And another:

QUESTION: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively?

AYN RAND:
I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—that is, the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given.* I didn’t know whether to be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable. I’ll take Jane Fonda over them. [Earlier during this same Q&A period, AR had been asked about Jane Fonda. For the question and her answer, see below, p. 80.] [OC 80]

*Narcissistic much, lady?


QUESTION:
Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

AYN RAND
Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program. [FHF 81]


Don't know if anyone is still reading, but - there it is.

Source
edit on 5/27/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: add source


And you know what? Just found "this quote" too!

"Place nothing above the verdict of your own mind."


My "mind's verdict" is that this Ayn Rand Rosenbaum is.....ill. Mentally ill.



edit on 5/27/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Don't know if anyone is still reading, but - there it is.

Strait from the demi-god's mouth: "libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people"

to quote one of my earlier posts:



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.


Objectivism is a philosophy created by Russian-American writer Ayn Rand (1905–1982). First expressed in her novels and polemic essays, it was later given more formal structure by her designated intellectual heir, philosopher Leonard Peikoff, who characterizes it as a "closed system" that is not subject to change.
Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

edit on 27-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




But I DO NOT AGREE that humans, who live in a society, have no responsibility to anyone but themselves.



This is my issue with her as well.

I think it goes against our nature when we are not compassionate. Watch a tv show or even a real life accident and you instantly FEEL for the other. We do have a responsibility for our fellow man. It's in our bones.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I didn't single any member out, which was intentional. You do come across as sincere in your questioning. Others in the thread are openly dismissive and close-minded in their presumptions.

As to explaining Objectivism...I could make a pretentious reference to 'give a man a fish and he will eat for a day,' and act self-righteous about it...after all, Rand likely parroted that proverb once or twice...
Instead, I'll admit to feeling lazy and hoping Lews does the job.


Seriously, it is no small task to summarize Rand's Objectivism. If I had to come up with 3 tenants right now...
1. Wealth, resources, and property belong solely to the person who built/earned/created them. Complete opposite of 'if you own a business you didn't build that.'

2. No person should be coerced into a transaction, meaning all trade and charity should be voluntary. This is where 'forced charity is monstrous' comes from. Rand goes into detail about reasons, mentioning among other things that a donor should be able to select the most worthy recipient of his/her charity. Rand believed that if a person had extra resources, they could find personal satisfaction through voluntary, involved charity. Her examples were about helping real people in everyday life because you feel they deserve it. To her, forced charity was not helpful for the donor or recipient; the donor does not feel the joy of giving, and the recipient feels no motivation or personal connection. It is no longer a gift, because it's required. It's monstrous, because it keeps people in need rather than helping them to succeed.

3. Every person has a sovereign right to their own judgement and choice. This ties in with a lot of things, including the right to judge a worthy recipient of charity. Rand was very emphatic that every person needs to think for themselves.

4. Couldn't keep it to three. A pillar of Objectivism which its critics always overlook is the notion that Every person is born equal, and we should judge people only by their actions. Rand goes on for pages about how each person has strengths and weaknesses, basically saying that it takes all kinds. In Atlas Shrugged she spends equal time glorifying the engineer and the laborer, the inventor and the factory worker. Objectivism recognizes that the 'unskilled' laborer is worthy of dignity and honor, for without him who would build the bridge? But it also recognizes that without the architects, engineers, and even financiers, the bridge would never even exist on paper.

As you can see, these are subjects of controversy and are not easily broken down. Atlas Shrugged alone is well over 1000 pages and while a lot of it seems irrelevant it is laiden with metaphors. I am no expert, but I do consider myself acquainted with Rand's work and philosphy. I won't deny that her tone becomes...belligerent at times. She was undoubtedly a very judgemental person, though her writings indicate to me that she applied compassion to her assessment of others. I think she saw the world too clearly to be happy herself.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

Thanks, MamaJ! I agree with you totally. It seems she was so jaded and 'hurt' by the events of her upbringing that she was no longer able to think clearly...
and when a brilliant mind can't think clearly anymore, it can be devastating.

(Long time no chat!!

Hope you're doing well.)



edit on 5/27/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join