Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Vindication of Ayn Rand
The Autonomist ^ | 03/11/05 | Cass Hewitt

Posted on 03/11/2005 6:17:42 PM PST by Hank Kerchief

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 301-319 next last
To: jackbob

So true!

We search for the words to express our thoughts, then we'll type the shortest lines possible. That's my method .......most of the time.


121 posted on 03/12/2005 5:50:31 PM PST by B4Ranch (The Minutemen will be doing a 30 day Neighborhood Watch Program in Cochise County, Arizona.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

>>Most, but not all, truly creative writers are egocentric, prone to a dominating disposition and likely to offend many while gaining plaudits from others. <<

Your description of the others is ??????


122 posted on 03/12/2005 5:52:28 PM PST by B4Ranch (The Minutemen will be doing a 30 day Neighborhood Watch Program in Cochise County, Arizona.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
If my not reading the book leaves me disabled in understanding objectivism, then so be it.

I think a much better written, shorter, more rousing, and philosophically comparable work that will put you near the pitcher's mound of what Objectivists are trying to say, I would suggest reading Robert Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

123 posted on 03/12/2005 6:06:34 PM PST by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
Nietszche was asked once what determines the value of a thing, and he responded, "How much did you pay for it?" But he was only half-serious. The Overman, in his view, established his own values--and the values Nietszche was talking about had nothing to do with commerce. However wrongheaded that screwed-up German might've been, he was nothing if not intellectually fearless and brutally straightforward. Rand comes along, swipes those ideas of his that suit her, dumbs them down, and covers them with a capitalist veneer to make these ideas more palatable (and more salable) to a market that likes to believe itself a cut above the common herd. 'Overman' becomes 'Entrepreneur'. Hank Reardon of 'Atlas Shrugged' isn't a businessman with a head for metallurgy, oh no. He is an avatar of the new Randian Man: proudly atheistic, ruthless, coolly intelligent, sublimely selfish. "Who is John Galt?" I'll tell you: John Galt is a bean-counting elitist parading as messiah. And finally, the values promoted by Ayn Rand disciples are far from conservative, as we understand the term. No amount of Randian harping about the joys of free enterprise can hide the absolute fascism at its core. It is a philosophy--one of many--which holds compassion as a weakness. So when I say 'damned', I mean it in the literal, Christian sense of the term.
124 posted on 03/12/2005 9:31:27 PM PST by Rembrandt_fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
"Its an important work, but it's a pain in the arse. There's no excuse for the repetition and flowery cliche in some places.

Well said! You have to go through 100 tons of silt to find a nugget but when you do it's a big one. She was a mediocre writer, an average philosopher, and one hell of an objective pragmatist.

125 posted on 03/12/2005 9:47:43 PM PST by SouthParkRepublican (There are no contradictions... Only faulty premises.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Rembrandt_fan
I'll cut you some slack in the "Christian" sense. Yes, Rand missed the point here but indirectly raises the valid question of original sin vs. a son not being accountable for the sins of his father.

That aside, you elect to begin by citing Nietzsche and declaring him to be "intellectually fearless and brutally straightforward." This is pure foolishness. Even the prolific sinner Russell had the common sense to point out that Nietzsche's views were absolutely incongruous with the conduct of his personal life. I have to paraphrase here but Nietzsche wrote "When going to women, don't forget to bring the whip" and Russell reasonably suggests "Nietzsche knows that, in reality, nine out of ten women would have got the whip out of his hand". Nietzsche's greatest problem was that he was the living, breathing, antithesis to what his philosophy held dear. He was nothing more than a weak step on the ladder to Nihilism which made us all realize that nothing mattered.

Interestingly, things still seem to matter, and I'm amazed that you differentiate between Hank Rearden and John Galt in your post. Galt is more vocal in the novel but their ideals are the same. Simplified; if I make something what gives another person any right to it or say in it's distribution?

BTW. I am a reformed lib too. Try not to let it get in the way.

126 posted on 03/12/2005 10:32:59 PM PST by SouthParkRepublican (If man evolved from monkeys, why do we still have Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: SouthParkRepublican

Don't need any slack cut for me, thanks, and wasn't defending Nietszche's ideas by any means, but I don't mistake the man with the mind. The fact that he was physically weak and sickly has nothing to do with the philosophical stance he took: an atheist who followed the ramifications of such an anti-belief in toto, all the way. Of course nihilism is the result, but he didn't shrink from it. And I stand by the central claim: Rand repackaged the raw material of Nietszche's ideas and shaped them into something slick and smooth and easily swallowed by those whose vanity is tickled by the notion that they, too, are Reardon and Galt material. Whether or not 'Reardon Steel' belonged to Reardon is not the central issue of 'Atlas Shrugged', and in the real world, which we common folk somehow muddle through without Rand's quasi-divine arbitration, copyright and patent laws are in place to assure ownership belongs to the creator. The author's contempt for those not part of her self-styled elite is palpable. She spends several interminable pages, for example, explaining why the death of hundreds of people in a railway disaster really isn't such a bad thing since the train crash victims were idealogical bedfellows to the cardboard cutout bad guys in her novel. Conservative thought, as Hobbes and Locke propounded it, is based upon self-interest harnessed to a common good, the polity as a whole. The self-interest Rand advocates is pathologically extreme: selfishness not as a recognized trait of a less-than-ideal humanity, as Hobbes saw it, but as a virtue to be extolled and celebrated.

'Reformed lib' doesn't get in the way of anything. It does, however, give me some experience with power-hungry, self-styled apostles of truth.



127 posted on 03/12/2005 11:36:15 PM PST by Rembrandt_fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Askel5; All
And how could her voice be other than common with militant atheists (of whatever "spiritual" stripe) who must decide for themselves that which is Good and that which is Evil

Because UNLIKE (perhaps even opposite) random nihilists and hedonists -- she demonstrates that there IS a SPECIFIC objective morality derived from REALITY, and she spells it out in such a way that many people who were never born into a Judaeo-Christian culture (numbering, oh say, about 5 Billion people) have a common starting point (There's an introduction to the objectivist ethics in the first essay in The Virtue of Selfishness).

This confusion on your part may be THE MOST COMMON source of the straw-man and red-herring objections to Ayn Rand. This, plus your justified objections to her temperament, may prejudice you from even considering that she can be, and has been, the source of conversions of tremendous numbers of people, including myself, to the pro-liberty mindset.

While we all must appreciate what the love of life and productivity, however imperfect, that Aquinas Catholics and Presbyterian and Episcopalian Protestants have meant to Western Civilization, an insistence on non-Christians accepting such teachings on blind faith is, to most of them, a nonsense demand that they substitute one randomly-chosen subjectivist ethics for another. Therefore I think we all must also appreciate how those like Rand have not only tried, but succeeded, in convincing millions of non-Christians and pseudo-Christians to appreciate the values of capitalism and freedom when they would have otherwise remained supporters of various forms of socialism, dictatorship and in the U.S. of the DemocRAT party.

128 posted on 03/13/2005 11:23:28 AM PST by FreeKeys ("You have to ask yourself, 'Who owns me? Do I own myself or am I just govt property?'"- Neal Boortz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys

=== an insistence on non-Christians accepting such teachings on blind faith


Please, you're speaking to a Catholic. Not some lobotomized Bibliolator or Enlightened.

I'll address the rest of your post later. You bring up some good points to which I'd like to respond when I have more time.


129 posted on 03/13/2005 11:27:02 AM PST by Askel5 († Cooperatio voluntaria ad suicidium est legi morali contraria. †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys
Rand have not only tried, but succeeded, in convincing millions of non-Christians and pseudo-Christians to appreciate the values of capitalism and freedom

She did? Where? One can see some intellectual exercise value in Rand's work -- I do -- but please, let us not pretend that her pitiful philosophy ever convinced anyone outside of a very narrow circle of fellow-theorizers.

130 posted on 03/20/2005 11:32:13 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: annalex; muir_redwoods; Nicholas Conradin; Rudder; jonno; Borges; numberonepal; not-alone; ...
One can see some intellectual exercise value in Rand's work -- I do -- but please, let us not pretend that her pitiful philosophy ever convinced anyone outside of a very narrow circle of fellow-theorizers.

Since I have personally talked with about a thousand people from many different walks of life about Ayn Rand since 1963, and since Rand not only sold millions of books before her death in 1982, and TWELVE MILLION SINCE her death, your insinuation that my conclusions are based upon PRETENDING I can only guess is based upon hasty wishful thinking or something equally unwise on your part. Further, did my seeing the impact of Rand on influential people from Robert Prechter to Tibor Machan to Jonathan Hoenig, etc., etc. have me fooled? For myself, I've never been part of anyone's inner circle, and have found her philosophy vastly more compelling, life-saving, inspiring and ennobling than anything else, and any implication that I didn't would be unwise to keep maintaining.

131 posted on 03/21/2005 11:49:07 AM PST by FreeKeys ("Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." -- Euripides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

I happen to know that James Valliant is correct. The Branden's deception of a woman scrupulously honest, the most honest human being I have ever seen, was the depth of depravity, bar none. You would have had to have known Ayn Rand in person to know the definition of total honesty in all human affairs. They deceived her over such a long period of time, during which she gave them hours of her time trying to help them with their contradictions, trying to give them everything she could to help them think it through. And they lied, knowing she was expending all that effort in an attempt to make sense of their lies. Over a period of Years. They are liars, and to have lied to this human being, of all people, marks them for life. You cannot believe anything in their biographies.


132 posted on 03/21/2005 11:56:34 AM PST by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex
let us not pretend that her pitiful philosophy ever convinced anyone outside of a very narrow circle of fellow-theorizers

That may be the most ignorant post I've ever read here.

133 posted on 03/21/2005 11:57:34 AM PST by aynrandfreak (If 9/11 didn't change you, you're a bad human being)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: annalex

"She did? Where? One can see some intellectual exercise value in Rand's work -- I do -- but please, let us not pretend that her pitiful philosophy ever convinced anyone outside of a very narrow circle of fellow-theorizers."

Hmmm, that's funny. I suppose since you seem to believe that the numbers convinced gives validity to a philosophy, you probably are willing to give 100% credence to Karl Marx. What the heck, we have half the country believing in socialism so it must be a valid and workable philosophy!

The more I look around, the more I see "Atlas Shrugged" coming to life!


134 posted on 03/21/2005 11:57:36 AM PST by CSM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: The Westerner

When the books came out, Peikoff & Co were saying that they were lying about the affair (which he later admitted they had), so don't try saying that we can't believe anything that's in their books. Your attempt to dismiss them out of hand shows a Peikovian intrincism.


135 posted on 03/21/2005 12:02:23 PM PST by aynrandfreak (If 9/11 didn't change you, you're a bad human being)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: CSM; aynrandfreak; FreeKeys

I know she can sell books, and I know that libertarianism is an attractive philosophy for the modern mind.

The fact remains that the intellectual attraction did not result in a libertarian society. Moreover, the trend is in the opposite direction, toward more and more statism. This is unfortunate, and Rand shares some of the blame for this.

There are pockets of acceptance of libertarianism, mostly in economic thought. Thanks to her and her fellow-thinkers such as Hayek, Friedman and Mises, planned command economy has been discredited.

But I think that her inability to reach beyond that is in the falsehood of the ethical system of Objectivism. Intuitively, all have an understanding of good and evil, and most find her ethical system inattractive. The falsity of her moral philosophy shows through in her sneering attitude toward charity, acceptance of abortion (I know that many libertarians these days are pro-life, for reasons extraneous to libertarianism), indifference toward cultural values, and myopic views on immigration and foreign trade.


136 posted on 03/21/2005 12:29:14 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: ShadowDancer

What wonderful memories I have of reading Rand the first time and I must admit envy of West coast conservative. Forty yeaes ago I was an architectual student at Pratt and my classmates nicknamed me Dominque. I read Fountianhead to find out why and learned so much more.


137 posted on 03/21/2005 12:41:06 PM PST by not-alone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys
One can see some intellectual exercise value in Rand's work -- I do -- but please, let us not pretend that her pitiful philosophy ever convinced anyone outside of a very narrow circle of fellow-theorizers.

I have many more times been quite correctly portrayed by others as being anti-Rand, than I have ever been referred to as pro-Rand. I consider myself to be an anti-Randian. Yet to be honest, I must admit that Rand has had a tremendous influence on me and my opinions. Today, as when she was alive, I have/had many disagreements with her positions. I also agree with many of her opinions. Any statement as quoted above is pure silliness and is not even worthy of this comment.

.

138 posted on 03/21/2005 12:42:06 PM PST by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: annalex
My reply #138 should also have been addressed to you and your #130. It is now.
139 posted on 03/21/2005 12:44:56 PM PST by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
I must admit that Rand has had a tremendous influence on me and my opinions.

Same here, except I couild not bring myself to reading her novels. I was a self-identified libertarian till about two years ago, and I even had a regular Pursuit of Liberty feature running on FR. I was never terribly fond of Rand or objectivism, and I stand by my epithet of "pitiful".

140 posted on 03/21/2005 12:53:18 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 301-319 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson