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: Sociopath Who Admired a Serial Killer?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Lol. That post explains a lot.

More than I need to know to stop trying to actually talk philosophy with you. I was wondering why you seemed fixated on her storyline, and why you kept bringing up the fact that I wasnt using it in my posts, but it clear to me why its important to you. You dont understand either the basic economic theory, nor the evolutionary theory you call "survival of the fittest." ALL you know is the storyline. Its why you want to focus on that when all that is a vehicle for the philosophy.

Clearly you are unaware that what has been selected for in all humans, is that we live in groups. And work in groups, and function as societies. No human "type" anywhere are "lone wolves." None. In the feline species, you have both social cats, and solitary cats, but ALL humans are social.

You know why? Because the "fittest" are those who know their fate is bound to that of their fellows. And the "lone wolves" who think its all about them are, quite frankly dysfunctional humans. They would be selected against in a heartbeat if only their more social peers would give them exactly what they think they want.

You keep trying to focus on "so and so isnt a serial killer, nor is so and so, so the OPs claim is ridiculous," while overlooking the philosophy espoused by those characters and Rand through them itself, taken as a whole, is rather sociopathic.

Consider from the article the OP linked her words about the serial killer.

atheism.about.com...


hat did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"


and this;

en.wikipedia.org...


Hare states that: "Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse".[23] He previously stated that: "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony".[24]


I would love to see how her ardent fans did on tests of their own sociopathic tendencies. I suspect much of the admiration for her work is that it simply justifies and validates for the person what they already believe to be true or at least really WANT to be true.

They dont want to feel they are dysfuntional. They want to feel it is their superiority that makes them "different." They want to believe that the more social majority are the dysfunctional ones, even though reality doesnt really support that idea.




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Heres a article from 1957 by a Russian spy who defected to the US that says exactly what I think people miss.
www.orthodoxytoday.org...



For politics, of course, arise, though the author of Atlas Shrugged stares stonily past them, as if this book were not what, in fact it is, essentially — a political book. And here begins mischief. Systems of philosophic materialism, so long as they merely circle outside this world's atmosphere, matter little to most of us. The trouble is that they keep coming down to earth. It is when a system of materialist ideas presumes to give positive answers to real problems of our real life that mischief starts. In a age like ours, in which a highly complex technological society is everywhere in a high state of instability, such answers however philosophic, translate quickly into political realities. And in the degree to which problems of complexity and instability are most bewildering to masses of men, a temptation sets in to let some species of Big Brother solve and supervise them.

One Big Brother is of course, a socializing elite (as we know, several cut-rate brands are on the shelves). Miss Rand, as the enemy of any socializing force, calls in a Big Brother of her own contriving to do battle with the other. In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls "productive achievement" man's "noblest activity," she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau. She might object that she means much, much more; and we can freely entertain her objections. But in sum, that is just what she means. For that is what, in reality, it works out to. And in reality, too, by contrast, with fiction, this can only . into a dictatorship, however benign, living and acting beyond good and evil, a law unto itself (as Miss Rand believes it should be), and feeling any restraint on itself as, in practice, criminal, and, in morals, vicious — as Miss Rand clearly feels it to be. Of course, Miss Rand nowhere calls for a dictatorship. I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that impulse toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship.


"I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that impulse toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship."

Keep following the Koch Brothers if you want. Yes the Koch Brothers are setting up plays in New York of Ayn Rands novel and of coarse it is straight from Russia with love. You know Russia where Koch Industries made all there money. And don't worry you don't have to go to the play you can just wait for the block buster movie they are trying to make of her book. And don't forget the Koch Brothers are donating money to Coleges and Universities and telling them to put classes in that deal with her religion or philosphy of Objectivism. Just think of Objectivism as the same as Scientology there really a religion created by a fictional writer.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Its already a film its just been thrashed by critics and isnt really making the splash certain people (cough cough) might hope it would.



Just for laughs, a famous conservatives take on "Atlas Shrugged." Its not only "liberals and socialists" who are not fond of the work.


edit on 31-5-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Released on April 15th tax day?
I guess they only showed it in St.Petersburg in Florida. And its only playing in 32 movie theatersacross the US?
www.atlasshruggedpart1.com...
edit on 31-5-2011 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Yeah Im not sure the marketing strategy of the tax day thing, although since it is heavily critical of taxation, I guess they were hoping disgruntled tax payers would flock to see it out of sheer rage. When I was looking at trailers, to find one to post here, it also seems like they are trying to get a "demand Atlas Shrugged" campaign going to bring it to more theaters.

But the trailer really sucks. Everyone knows the trailers are cut to make even crap movies look good, but the dialogue and acting in the trailers is stiff and boring, and that hardly speaks well for the movie. Which is, essentially, what critics have said about it. They didnt criticize the plot, Im sure they knew what to expect there, but they just thrashed the acting, dialogue, etc.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


You are attacking a 50 year old book, claiming it caused the 2008 economic recession. The only book that can be blamed on that is Keynesian.

Yes, unfortunately for you, I am focusing on the storyline, which you haven't read.

Here's an example of the poor logic you use, which indicates you have no grasp of philosophy


You know why? Because the "fittest" are those who know their fate is bound to that of their fellows. And the "lone wolves" who think its all about them are, quite frankly dysfunctional humans. They would be selected against in a heartbeat if only their more social peers would give them exactly what they think they want.


So, the fittest, would die off if their social inferiors gave them what they wanted, freedom?

This isn't arguing about Ayn Rand, her story, or her philosophy, it's about arguing against a straw man compilation of Ayn Rand's story and philosophy, and basically hating on the fit and active who chooses not to help the poor.



edit on 1-6-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
To annoy those who hate Ayn Rand: I love her work.

She's a great author. For newbies to Ayn Rand, don't let these haters get you down, they haven't even read the story. I'm sure someone just told them not to trust it so they are blindly following this. If they had read the book they would see that her characters have emotion and soul despite her philosophy supposedly being "cutthroat" again if the haters actually read the book instead of reading atheist blogs and attacks of her character, they would see that the anatgonists, those who work in the government, are the real cutthroats who do as they please and ignore morality.

Oh, but don't expect to hear that from one of these haters. They can't even name three characters and their role in the book. They have no comprehension of the book because they haven't read it, yet they claim to know her philosophy. It's sad really.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Ayn Rand's philosophy is real simple, man should work towards his own happiness, not sacrificing it for another's happiness, or sacrificing other's happiness for its own. It's a moral philosophy based off of the golden rule, it actually has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution. Of course you wouldn't know this since you haven't read it, and yet you say I am the one that doesn't comprehend her philosophy. Maybe you should read the book first in order to figure out more of Ayn Rand.

Start with the Anthem as this sums up her work, then move on to the Fountain Head where her character of Howard Roark is explained, then Atlas Shrugged is her final masterpiece where mutliple Howard Roark-esp characters interact with each other and most especially against the parasites in government.

So, try and read the book, who knows, maybe you'd even gain some info to further insult Ayn Rand. It could be a win, win.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Let's see, I spent $2.50 at the local thrift store to purchase a copy of Ayn Rand. It was possibly less than that like $1.50. So is Ayn Rand so selfish that she sticks to herself so much that I don't even know who she is? Obviously no. Or, is she a social person who writes books not just for her own self-interest but also the benefit of others? Could I have exchanged the meaning I get from Atlas Shrugged for $2.50? I spent under 3 dollars for a timeless classic piece of literature. How is it Ayn Rand is being selfish? How is it she is giving me the raw end of the deal? Even if her book was 100 dollars online, I could always just avoid buying it if I thought she was being greedy. But since she's dead, it really begs the question: why are there people online who would go around demonizing her when they haven't even read the book? The answer is because they hate her "sovereign" philosophy.
edit on 1-6-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


So a book written in the 50's is responsible for our economic problems? I think that's taking it a bit too far. I may not know much about her personal life but nowhere in any of her books does it advocate a system of corporatism, in fact it opposes it on every level. If Ayn Rand disobeyed this in her personal life, not likely, it's still an exaggeration to say she is responsible for the economic collapse of 2008. That's just some recent notion that tries to desperately link Alan Greenspan to Ayn Rand's philosophy. Alan Greenspan claimed he was for sound money and then turned character, so he most likely lied.


I agree with others, her philosophy was fine for the individual, but once applied to humanity becomes a social poison that is ravaging America, Elites and Multinationals depend upon her teachings and are covered by her political disciples. In the name of Rand anything can be justified, Masanto and the Oil Companies are not to be disturbed, Randites are there to block attempts to regain sanity.
edit on 1-6-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Anarchy on trial, that was the story of the murder of little Marian Parker one of the bankers twin daughters.
Nietsche was allowed to thrive until he wrote his contra Wagner back in 1889.
Interesting read, I'm not sure about the movie version of Atlas Shrugged is it still showing anywhere?



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I agree a with a good bit of her philosophy ; freemarket/capitalism is a good thing because it makes people strive to better themselves instead expecting a handout. This discourages lethargy and is good for society. On the other hand, we do need a government institution [ I think a limited form is best] to keep "order" [ i.e. military instrumentation, support for the elderly/disabled etc.] but when it gets overly large and intrusive, that's when you have a problem.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


This is very telling. I wonder what Objectivists have to say about it. It makes no sense to make a "virtue" of selfishness. A virtue is something you put higher than yourself. Therefore if you put nothing higher than yourself, you can have, by definition, no virtue.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
first off the op is not an Ayn Rand fan but the post is slanderous not cool.I have read a few of her books and she has a philosophy that is really like our original constitution not much different than our founding fathers anyone disagree?I agree with almost everything she says except i am a christian not an atheist.I believe in charity and helping others but not as a duty or altruism .I do it to make me feel good.Those who comprimise between poison and food still die




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join