[BossOfBosses]

*Oh no! Oh great emperor Germanicus has spoken, tremble you fools before his great wisdom!*

Germanicus,

The only one "self important" is you. I don't care about winning an "internet argument" and you pretend not to, but posture as such.

I'm not going to go into every one of your "arguments" point by point.
1) I have better things to do 2) This is not an argument but a shouting match. Nobody wins those.

It's clear you're not willing to flesh out your own "arguments" or explain yourself (merely pointing links, any simpleton can do that) so neither am I. You prefer ad hominem attacks against Rand, arguments from authority and assaults on her character and anyone else who gets close.

I might humor you if have something substantial to say at some point later but I doubt it.

Like I said, Amateurish.

[NilNisiOptimum]

(09-27-2016 01:25 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 12:33 AM)NilNisiOptimum Wrote:  

He interrupts them and delivers a three page lecture on the nature of money

Ayn Rand believed that her author-insertion Howard Roark was so special and enlightened that there'd be a single person in the world who would actually listen to him go on a three page diatribe on the nature of money, as if he had something truly fascinating and novel to say.

You miss my point. In the book, there are a number of examples of people feeling they are owed something. But when pressed for WHY they are owed, they can simply reply "I FEEL I am owed". That is where we are as a society now. Too many feel they are owed a steady paycheck, subsidized housing and free abortions paid for by Obamacare. That Rand predicted that in the 50's is something to appreciate.

[Kaligula]

Maybe some kind of double truth doctrine would help in reconciling everyone, Rand representing some kind of exoteric truth....

Good introduction here:
http://nathanschneider.info/2008/06/the-...ble-truth/

Another point is that in Europe Rand is still thought as some kind of American credo a la Manifest Destiny at best (I have first heard about Rand from someone who just got back from US), some American weirdo of the The Book of Mormon kind at worst .


The problem is, none of that has any intellectual credibility across the pond; rather, you would have here people referring to Max Stirner to express similar ideas without aspiring to be 'objective' in a quasi-religious way. Not that Stirner is very popular, mind you.
But at least he is a part of the official history of philosophy, being a footnote to Hegel

[Phoenix]

I think some people just feel good to tear down famous characters. Makes them feel better about themselves, that they're smarter or more virtuous because they can explain why an intelligent visionary is actually really stupid and ridden with vice. Kind of like Hitchens when he wrote a book attacking Mother Teresa.

[Edmund Ironside]

My take on Ayn Rand - everyone should read some of her books, they should be an input into any thinking person's frame of reference, but that's not saying they should be treated as scripture.

There are some things you need in your frame of reference about Rand. Firstly, be sure you understand what the basic meaning of "Objectivism" is ... belief in objective reality. That means not using various forms of spiritualism as a basis for your philosophy or politics. If you are deeply religious and/or think that religion is key to keeping society together in a good way, there is a conflict. If you believe in building on a basis of objective reality, she's weighing in on the right side, mostly.

(04-06-2013 02:00 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Her personal history ( I read her biography) affected her hatred of any type of socialism, in my opinion to an excessive degree. While living in Russia at the time of the Revolution she saw the brutal Bolsheviks crush the nicer guys ( forget what they were called) who were going to rule Russia after the Revolution.

^this
And, despite her reputation as a philosopher for being brutally logical and factual, as a fiction writer she considered herself a romantic idealist. This means that her novels (as opposed to non-fiction philosophical writing) are not INTENDED to be realistic - they are intended to be fanciful imaginings of ideal heroes and ideal outcomes. She wasn't trying to tell you that if you approach life with John Galt's attitudes that you will have great success. Don't buy into the memes that she was "naive" and misleading people ... you need to understand the difference between an idealistic fantasy and a prescription for everyday life.
In fact, as some have alluded above, the villains (individually and in groups) in her novels tend to be the most realistic parts. She was describing real problems and realistic villains and fantasies about how unrealistically ideal men might overcome them. It's almost a superhero story. If you are going to attack it fairly, attack it on the basis of putting forth the wrong ideals.

[Edmund Ironside]

Also keep in mind that on the philosophical/political front she was constantly under attack and constantly arguing against incremental frog boiling ... can't give them an inch or they will take a mile ... and in my opinion this led her to say some things that sound pretty extreme and questionable at times. Trying to argue complex topics with unreasonable people who will take advantage of any slippery slope or exceptional case that you leave open can cause that.

As for being good reads, in my opinion her novels are not necessarily good fiction, but rather philosophy/politics embedded in mediocre fiction. I've thought about writing fiction myself and thought that I'd have to fight against the tendency to sound that way if I really wanted to write good fiction. There would be a constant push/pull between being a good read and trying to make some larger point in a comprehensive way. In Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, the latter always wins out, so it is what it is. (Even just writing this post I went too long and have to break it up ... should have used "tl/dr" as my user name I guess.)

[XPQ22]

(09-27-2016 08:39 PM)NilNisiOptimum Wrote:  

You miss my point. In the book, there are a number of examples of people feeling they are owed something. But when pressed for WHY they are owed, they can simply reply "I FEEL I am owed". That is where we are as a society now. Too many feel they are owed a steady paycheck, subsidized housing and free abortions paid for by Obamacare. That Rand predicted that in the 50's is something to appreciate.

Yeah, I hear this argument brought out a lot, except as someone who lived much of his life poor and spent plenty of time around poor people I'm actually not terribly familiar with this "entitlement mentality" you mention.

Aside from habitual criminals, drug/alcohol addicts, and the mentally ill, most of the people I knew were hustling their asses of at the margins to stay above water. They're not thinking about it in terms of "what I FEEL I am owed" or aren't owed, they're wondering where their next rent payment is going to come from. They're not operating at this "entitlement" level you think they are, they're thinking "if I don't get my rent cut back by 40% by taking advantage of subsidized housing, I'm going to be on the fucking street. It seems like a nice offer, I'll take it."

It's a lot easier to pull someone out before they're drowning than after they've gone under and got water in their lungs. They didn't ask to be born, and not everyone who ends up in the world (which in a lot of ways is a pretty fucked-up plae) is cut out to be a Howard Roark. Where it ends - it usually depends on where you start.

What I do know is that the majority of the most entitled pieces of shit I've ever met were the children of the very wealthy. Born with everything, and even though you ain't got shit they feel like you owe them the fillings out of your teeth on top of it (often when you're young they extract that payment via physical abuse because they don't have a lot to do with their time, and they know you're too powerless to do much about it.) For my part I don't feel like providing a place to live and a little cash to give the means to pull oneself out, if it's possible, is really too much to ask.

[Kaligula]

As a kind of curiosity: today the German radio station SWR2 presented in its series 'Knowledge' (Wissen) Ayn Rand as 'the Idol of right-wing republicans' [and where are left-wing republicans...?]....

http://www.swr.de/swr2/programm/sendunge...index.html

You can download audio and transcript, which is actually pretty nice, especially if you are learning German.

Highlights:
1) in the 21th century, US tries to go on with the 18th century rhetorics and vision of the world [implicite: unlike Germany, always at the helm of modernity],

2) millionaires are Übermenschen [and we know what that means in Germany],

3) Trump is a millionaire, and a 'gilded clown'.

I suppose the German state media are trying to prepare the public for whatever happens at its hated and loved Big Brother's home.

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

(04-05-2013 07:30 AM)vinman Wrote:  

Feminists hate Ayn Rand. She inspired a philosophical school of thought with Objectivism. Wrote one of the top 5 most influential books in history, Atlas Shrugged. She's written plays, novellas, and screen plays, but she is completely ignored by feminists because she wasn't a Socialist. If she would've embraced the almighty state she would have statues erected in her honor.

Started reading Rand in junior high. I got an interest in because several teachers I had trashed her writings so vigorously. They made me curious to read what she was about.

Rand was a nice counterbalance to the hard left social indoctrination (some subtle.. some not so subtle) that I got in school. What I was taught in school never sat right with me (always been an outsider) and Rand in some ways, filled in that intellectual void.

[Nowak]

I really don't like Rand,she slept her way to the top and reminds me of a lot of the uppity masculine Jewish girls in the East Coast. For objectivists ,intelligence and productivity are all that matters. She has the voice of a dude as well, who should take these types of views seriously. Justifying limited government based off of selfishness not utility and prosperity is why the elite is mostly psychopathic and removed from who they rule over on a personal level. Objectivism is the ideology for self promoters and non team players.

[Off The Reservation]

(11-23-2016 05:41 PM)Nowak Wrote:  

I really don't like Rand,she slept her way to the top and reminds me of a lot of the uppity masculine Jewish girls in the East Coast. For objectivists ,intelligence and productivity are all that matters. She has the voice of a dude as well, who should take these types of views seriously. Justifying limited government based off of selfishness not utility and prosperity is why the elite is mostly psychopathic and removed from who they rule over on a personal level. Objectivism is the ideology for self promoters and non team players.

Self "promotion" is one possible path to be used by a person who exists for their own sake, and for their own interests, but there are others including choosing a private life. I wholeheartedly support "non team players" because no one has a moral obligation to live for others.

I am willing to bet that you and all of the other Rand haters have never read one single Ayn Rand book cover to cover. Even though you are incorrect about objectivists saying the "only" things that matter are intelligence and productivity, I can certainly think of worse things. Are you advocating for stupidity and laziness?

To criticize a very serious writer and philosopher based on her "voice" sound is really a worthless comment. (It could be relevant where you were criticizing a voice over actor whose tone interfered with the portrayal of a character, but you are using voice sound to try to throw a philosopher under the bus.)

Your thinly veiled anti-semitic comments are most unwelcome. If you have a legitimate well reasoned thing to say then say it. Try and get out of your parents basement and try and do some reading and get some life experience so that you can have some thoughts of your own, instead of repeating crap you hear.

[Nowak]

(11-23-2016 07:08 PM)Off The Reservation Wrote:  

(11-23-2016 05:41 PM)Nowak Wrote:  

I really don't like Rand,she slept her way to the top and reminds me of a lot of the uppity masculine Jewish girls in the East Coast. For objectivists ,intelligence and productivity are all that matters. She has the voice of a dude as well, who should take these types of views seriously. Justifying limited government based off of selfishness not utility and prosperity is why the elite is mostly psychopathic and removed from who they rule over on a personal level. Objectivism is the ideology for self promoters and non team players.

Self "promotion" is one possible path to be used by a person who exists for their own sake, and for their own interests, but there are others including choosing a private life. I wholeheartedly support "non team players" because no one has a moral obligation to live for others.

I am willing to bet that you and all of the other Rand haters have never read one single Ayn Rand book cover to cover. Even though you are incorrect about objectivists saying the "only" things that matter are intelligence and productivity, I can certainly think of worse things. Are you advocating for stupidity and laziness?

To criticize a very serious writer and philosopher based on her "voice" sound is really a worthless comment. (It could be relevant where you were criticizing a voice over actor whose tone interfered with the portrayal of a character, but you are using voice sound to try to throw a philosopher under the bus.)

Your thinly veiled anti-semitic comments are most unwelcome. If you have a legitimate well reasoned thing to say then say it. Try and get out of your parents basement and try and do some reading and get some life experience so that you can have some thoughts of your own, instead of repeating crap you hear.

Don't want no beef man , as for thinly veiled antisemitism, mentioned it somewhere at one point on the forum (I think). I am of Jewish heritage,my comment was based on previous experience in NY,I'm not hating on all Jews all the time. I'm not being critical of hardworking,independent and wanting the best out of life,I'm being critical of being a semi sociopathic dickhead to get where you are,self promoters like several banned from this forum(we all know who I mean) were the types to drop Rand as a huge influence. She did use men in her life as a way of increasing her influence and It's hard for me to take any women seriously who gives off a hyper masculine vibe.

[Jeptomf]

I read The Fountainhead (which is my favorite book) and like others who have studied her, I said to myself "THIS is what I've known all along, THIS is how I think, I just never articulated it".

I said to myself "THIS is what I've known all along, THIS is how I think, I just never articulated it". <~~~ Word for word. This is exactly what I said to myself and how I have explained it to others all my life!!!!!

Makes me feel good to know that there are others out there who feel the same!! Keep it red Brother!

-Jeptomf

[Nowak]

(11-24-2016 10:51 AM)Nowak Wrote:  

(11-23-2016 07:08 PM)Off The Reservation Wrote:  

(11-23-2016 05:41 PM)Nowak Wrote:  

I really don't like Rand,she slept her way to the top and reminds me of a lot of the uppity masculine Jewish girls in the East Coast. For objectivists ,intelligence and productivity are all that matters. She has the voice of a dude as well, who should take these types of views seriously. Justifying limited government based off of selfishness not utility and prosperity is why the elite is mostly psychopathic and removed from who they rule over on a personal level. Objectivism is the ideology for self promoters and non team players.

Self "promotion" is one possible path to be used by a person who exists for their own sake, and for their own interests, but there are others including choosing a private life. I wholeheartedly support "non team players" because no one has a moral obligation to live for others.

I am willing to bet that you and all of the other Rand haters have never read one single Ayn Rand book cover to cover. Even though you are incorrect about objectivists saying the "only" things that matter are intelligence and productivity, I can certainly think of worse things. Are you advocating for stupidity and laziness?

To criticize a very serious writer and philosopher based on her "voice" sound is really a worthless comment. (It could be relevant where you were criticizing a voice over actor whose tone interfered with the portrayal of a character, but you are using voice sound to try to throw a philosopher under the bus.)

Your thinly veiled anti-semitic comments are most unwelcome. If you have a legitimate well reasoned thing to say then say it. Try and get out of your parents basement and try and do some reading and get some life experience so that you can have some thoughts of your own, instead of repeating crap you hear.

Don't want no beef man , as for thinly veiled antisemitism, mentioned it somewhere at one point on the forum (I think). I am of Jewish heritage,my comment was based on previous experience in NY,I'm not hating on all Jews all the time. I'm not being critical of hardworking,independent and wanting the best out of life,I'm being critical of being a semi sociopathic dickhead to get where you are,self promoters like several banned from this forum(we all know who I mean) were the types to drop Rand as a huge influence. She did use men in her life as a way of increasing her influence and It's hard for me to take any women seriously who gives off a hyper masculine vibe.

Extreme individualism in the form of extreme modernity is something Objectivism promotes and neomasculinity rejects. This video from Ramzpaul is in itself a great example of my issue with Rand and her philosophy as well as many (not all of course or even a majority) of her followers. It's view of the world is void of any sense or calling for things greater than humanity or ourselves. David Aurini also has very good criticisms of Libertarianism and Objectivism on his blog and youtube channel.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62DV7WddHPE

[Rob Banks]

↑ This.

In my teenage years, I used to agree with everything Ayn Rand said, pretty much. I thought religion was stupid, any and all forms of altruism we're stupid, etc. Naturally, I was also a "sexual libertarian" who believed that sexual morality was a religious concept (remember, I was an atheist) that infringed on our "freedom." Since I was male, and I did not see very many downsides to having lots of sex (with condoms), I could not understand how sex with a variety of partners could be a negative thing for women and girls. These views led to personal experiences that I greatly regret, involving people very close to me who I care about deeply.

I believe Ayn Rand herself was somewhat of a sexual libertarian. I remember seeing a video of her a while back where she talked about having had intense sexual experiences, and that she didn't believe it affected her or that anyone should care (it was a long time ago, so I could be getting the details wrong, but it was something to that effect). I also know she cheated on her husband, and I believe the husband stayed with her.

Rand had a lot of good points (which is why some leftists hate her so much), but her philosophy really breaks down when you realize that people cannot be broken down into individual units. We are a family society, not an individual society. We have strong tribal instincts. We evolved tribal instincts and in-group preference to prevent individuals from abandoning their family and tribe the moment it became convenient and efficient to do so.

[puckerman]

Rand had a brilliant take on feminism:

"Is there something worse than the women of the women's lib movement? Yes. The men who support it."

Here is the source:

https://books.google.com/books?id=cwCF_j...t.&f=false

[Koolman]

Somehow i cannot post a thread in the roosh v forum. how come? I am new here, and my account is activated.

[Heuristics]

I had a pretty smart friend who studied philosophy and we were talking about Rand one day. His opinion was that she was legit (I believe this as well) but her work (many of the most insightful of it is in novel form like Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead) was being suppressed by leftists in philosophy departments because she used novels as her medium, and also that it was so at odds with leftist philosophy teachings at universities. That is why if you go to a philosophy department at a major university you won't hear them discussing Rand. She has serious ideas but they don't want to shed any light on their little scam they have going on at universities. Of course some of the prose in the novels is a bit much, but on the philosophical level they're unlike almost anything.

It has been a while since I've read any of her work, but I have to say don't take the republican's word for what she says (types like Paul Ryan, Grover Norquist, etc), read it yourself and see what she really says. For example if memory serves me right she's: against welfare, collectivism, communism, high taxes, corporate welfare, identity politics, etc. It's well known Rand's stance on welfare, she decided she was gonna take advantage of the system because it is untenable and because it took her money from her.

The thing about many objectivists is that many of them have a tendency to infight or regard everything she wrote as religious dogma. There was a lot of fighting after her death about who was going to carry the torch for her.

I think she's probably the most **correct** philosopher of the past 50 or 60 years or so. Philosophy nowadays is just so much post-modern bullshit. The thing about Rand is that her following is organic unlike what's forced down our throats in the university. Maybe one day she'll be studied in universities...

Watch some of her old interviews on Johnny Carson on YouTube, they're a great introduction that succinctly articulates much of her thought.

edit: as another poster said she's anti-feminism, anti-victim politics. She was ahead of her time by decades.

[Cr33pin]

(02-10-2019 10:17 AM)Heuristics Wrote:  

I think she's probably the most **correct** philosopher of the past 50 or 60 years or so. Philosophy nowadays is just so much post-modern bullshit. The thing about Rand is that her following is organic unlike what's forced down our throats in the university. Maybe one day she'll be studied in universities...


edit: as another poster said she's anti-feminism, anti-victim politics. She was ahead of her time by decades.

Shes brilliant not doubt. Theodore J. Kaczynski or the Unabomber was also a philosopher (if you will) who got it right. I don't agree with his method but you'd be hard pressed to read his manifesto and look around you today and not see that he was right about what technology and leftism was going to do to society.

[[email protected]]

I credit atlas shrugged for getting me out of NEET-dom and into a 6 figure earner. Most influential book after the Bible, I think it is true

[Heuristics]

(02-10-2019 10:34 AM)Cr33pin Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 10:17 AM)Heuristics Wrote:  

I think she's probably the most **correct** philosopher of the past 50 or 60 years or so. Philosophy nowadays is just so much post-modern bullshit. The thing about Rand is that her following is organic unlike what's forced down our throats in the university. Maybe one day she'll be studied in universities...


edit: as another poster said she's anti-feminism, anti-victim politics. She was ahead of her time by decades.

Shes brilliant not doubt. Theodore J. Kaczynski or the Unabomber was also a philosopher (if you will) who got it right. I don't agree with his method but you'd be hard pressed to read his manifesto and look around you today and not see that he was right about what technology and leftism was going to do to society.

Yes. He's been written about before by roosh/ return of kings. What he wrote was very insightful regarding technology, identity politics, and modern society. In fact, many left wingers (especially in the environmentalist movement) are reading him and are inspired by him.

It's very funny actually, Anders Breivik (Norway shooter) copy pasted large portions of his manifesto and replaced liberals/leftists with some other word, I forget. Maybe with "cultural marxists".

[Sherman]

Libertarianism is the path to suicide when you are surrounded by a united enemy. The proper definition of liberty was that of the Romans and Greeks, i.e. you can be realized as an individual only within the context of a community. I have never been attracted to Ayan Rand because I am aesthetically repulsed by Jewish cults.

[Heuristics]

(02-10-2019 12:08 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Libertarianism is the path to suicide when you are surrounded by a united enemy. The proper definition of liberty was that of the Romans and Greeks, i.e. you can be realized as an individual only within the context of a community. I have never been attracted to Ayan Rand because I am aesthetically repulsed by Jewish cults.

Ok. So what's the path... fascism? I don't know where your affiliation lies but alt-right types should just say they endorse some form of fascism for whatever reason, and then at least we don't have to cloak the conversation in doublespeak.

We can talk about the merits of fascism, but what exactly sort of political system are you endorsing?

Rand was an individualist, which is one of the bedrocks of modern western thought...

[Kid Twist]

(02-10-2019 12:08 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Libertarianism is the path to suicide when you are surrounded by a united enemy. The proper definition of liberty was that of the Romans and Greeks, i.e. you can be realized as an individual only within the context of a community. I have never been attracted to Ayan Rand because I am aesthetically repulsed by Jewish cults.

I liked your post based on the initial sentiment of individual within community (a paradox and thus truth about life), but how do you explain your assertion that she is part or similar to a "jewish cult," as you say. A modern rationalist cult? What's "jewish" about it?

[Aurini]

(02-10-2019 12:12 PM)Heuristics Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 12:08 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Libertarianism is the path to suicide when you are surrounded by a united enemy. The proper definition of liberty was that of the Romans and Greeks, i.e. you can be realized as an individual only within the context of a community. I have never been attracted to Ayan Rand because I am aesthetically repulsed by Jewish cults.

Ok. So what's the path... fascism? I don't know where your affiliation lies but alt-right types should just say they endorse some form of fascism for whatever reason, and then at least we don't have to cloak the conversation in doublespeak.

We can talk about the merits of fascism, but what exactly sort of political system are you endorsing?

Rand was an individualist, which is one of the bedrocks of modern western thought...

That sounds like playing by the enemy's rules, and choosing failure.

Not that I'm saying the Alt Right believes in fascism (I neither know nor care) but if they did, I'd tell them to make up a new name for it because the Left has tarnished the word fascism in a manner that truly belongs to communism.