[stuartcr]

I've never read anything by Rand, but it seems to me that 'reading between the lines', is inherently subjective. Wouldn't someone view the 'lines' as objective, and the 'space' between them, subjective? Please clarify.

[zx2dragon]

I was not aware of the split in the rand community, but I have never gone out of the way to look into it. However, I do enjoy her writing. So far I have read Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. All three were horribly fascinating and I found myself turning off the TV and reading every chance I could find.

[warchild9]

"Objectivity" means that Saint Rand says everyone should have equal rights. "Subjectivity" means that Saint Rand says women have the right to kill their unborn children because selfishness is the highest good. And, so, the Warchild is no longer a Libertarian.

[eBelasco]

it is the only logical philosophy there is.

Really?

[r9etb]

If you point out the fact that Objectivism is a "philosophy of reason," they deny the existence of reason. If you point to the logic of Objectivism, they say there is no logic. Then they go on to tell you that "there are no absolutes." Of course, they don't even notice the fact that their very statement is a "statement of an absolute," and negates not only their entire philosophy, but the very statement they have made as well. I love being a proponent of a philosophy that allows me to "shut down" those who disagree with it so easily and completely, and with their own words.

Alas, the problem with Rand's objectivism is that her own claims are mutually contradictory.

For example, her highest, allegedly objective, moral purpose is "happiness."

Also, there is simply no way to square Rand's claims to absoluteness with the evidence all around us that weighs against her claims.

And, tellingly, the Objectivists never seem to be able to prove their claims -- which, as it turns out, are based on a foundation of assertions and assumptions.

You don't have to be a liberal to disagree with Rand. You need only to be honest.

[robertpaulsen]

"Liberal intellectuals (almost a redundancy, that)"

Not redundancy -- the word he's looking for is "oxymoron".

You gotta like the way Objectivists approach morality issues: "One does not live for the sake of being moral; one acts morally in order to make the most out of his life."

In other words, you don't screw your customer's spouse because it's immoral -- no, you don't screw your customer's spouse because it's bad for business.

That said, my favorite book remains Atlas Shrugged.

[Hank Kerchief]

PHILOSOPHY PING

(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)

{Comment: This is appears to be a young "objectivst's" praise for this philosophy. Not sure how philosophical the discussion will be.) --Hank

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Doctor Stochastic]

I can't say anything about the faction (which I hadn't heard of until now) but the reasons Liberals don't like Rand seem to be essentially the same reasons Conservatives don't like Rand.

[ValenB4]

Murry Rothbard on the Ayn Rand Cult:

"Mozart was a Red"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

"The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

[what's up]

If Rand had used reason, atheism would not have been her conclusion.

Conversely, her applications of reason resulted in a wonderful defense of capitalism.

She contributed much in her work on the subject of capitalism. I don't think her views on atheism did much harm. She came out of Russian society with the Russian anti-God ideas. However, she rebelled violently against the Russian anti-capitalist ideas.

[Psycho_Bunny]

I'm a serious Randian.

 

 

.............................this thread's about sex, right?

[freeforall]

The usual rant against rand. Her philosophy isn't perfect so it's all crap ranters.
I've learned from many people—but not primarily from Rand.
In her time, Rand was a great defender of freedom. She was also a fine novelist and contributed some original ideas to philosophy. But to me, she wasn't the be-all, end-all of notions on liberty, philosophy, ethics, art, or anything else. Rand stood on the shoulders of the giants of history—many of whose ideas I became acquainted with before I read Rand. In certain ways, she was a giant herself. Yet despite passionate ignorance to the contrary spouted by certain followers of Rand, much of what she said was not original with her.
As we grow intellectually, we pick and choose from many sources of knowledge and integrate them as best we can, making the combination our own, a part of our worldview.
Rand herself was guilty of stealing countless ideas from others—among them, the non-initiation of force principle from Bastiat.
Yes, Rand did a great deal to popularize and repackage Enlightenment ideas, often with unusual clarity. But way too many enthusiastic followers—who need to study more history—give her credit for things that she simply did not devise. That false credit does her no favors.
This is not to say she contributed nothing original. She certainly did. For instance, her ideas on concept formation and the problem of universals are fascinating and break new ground. Also some of her material on the value of rational egoism—although, here again, she did not invent the idea. She elucidated many excellent political and moral points deriving from the "package deal" (her words) of the conflicting forms of altruism (e.g., Comtean sacrifice vs. American benevolence).

[x]

People who've read and studied the great philosophers don't count Rand among them. Even those of us who haven't can see that Rand's writings can be very shrill and too radical in their rejection of competing philosophies. And there also seems to be something incomplete in her philosophy.

Yes, people seek their own happiness, but what happiness in life is and what happens when our desires and aspirations conflict with those of other people are complicated questions that deserve more study than she gives them. Rand was right about the central ethical/political question of the 20th Century (as were other people who approached the question from other directions): coercive collectivism is not the ethical/political ideal. But others have come up with better and deeper answers to the less ideological question of what we should do with our lives.

What brought me to Objectivism is my inability to understand why people like Nelson Rockefeller, who had more money than he could spend in three lifetimes, supported collectivism even though it was intent on taking his money away (If you want to know the answer to that, e-mail me).

That's not so hard a question. The collectivism that they support doesn't advocate taking all their money or other satisfactions. It's not a question of all or nothing for someone like Rockefeller. Moreover, if we had as much money as Rockefeller had we could lose half of it and still have much.

[galt-jw]

the author is correct. the virulent response of those who disagree with rand is of a degree out of context with merely simple disagreement.

[Jhoffa_]

If you point to the logic of Objectivism, they say there is no logic. Then they go on to tell you that "there are no absolutes."

This remark summarizes liberalism in it's entirety.

They want to act in a completely illogical, contradictory manner and generally skew themselves all over the board. THEN if you point this out to them thy have nerve enough to make ridiculous statements like "Uh, well.. like, there are no absolutes"

That's pure emotion talking. People generally default to raw emotion when that's the only standard they can meet.

I never read any "Rand" (thought I have seen it mentioned allot here on FR)

I just may have to check her out.

[unspun]

Why are Ayn Rand threads in "News/Activism?"

We have no news about her since she died.

[Space Wrangler]

I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged again, and she has the current liberal philosophy pegged to a tee. It's almost spooky. And all this from a book that was written in the 40's.

[The Westerner]

"Peikoff was a member of her "collective" and, in my opinion, is an 'opportunist,' who took advantage of Rand's fall out with her original protégé, Nathaniel Branden and took over her fortune as well as the 'mantle' as 'The Voice of Objectivism.'"

RJCogburn, I have thought of you as a reasonable guy for a long time. Why do you post such an ad hominem attack on Leonard Peikoff? He is a brillant writer, the only Objectivist who has written two full length, original philosophical texts and countless, readable essays. The David Kelley faction of Objectivists may not agree with Leonard Peikoff's absolutist views, but their attack on his mind and character is specious. To assume that Ayn Rand was misled for 30+ years by this man is a huge insult to the quality of her intelligence which you seem to admire. Also, she knew Mr. Kelley well enough. She did not think his intellect in the same category as Peikoff's. If you do not agree with this author's attack, why not dissociate yourself from it, here on FreeRepublic, since you seem to be posting quite a few articles from the Objectivist Center? Thank you. The Westerner

[Springman]

Bump for later.