aneeshm
Deity
I have recently read Anthem , The Fountainhead , and Atlas Shrugged , and would like to know how many people here subscribe to her fundamental philosophy , and if so , to what degree , even if it may be moving towards irrelevance .
Ayn Rand ?
- Thread starter aneeshm
- Start date
Akka
Moody old mage.
Newfangle does, at least.
Tragdor
Radical for Freedom
I am reading Atlas Shrugged. I agree with about 50% to 75% of what she says. But I am still trying ot figure out my philsophy for life.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
I've read Atlas Shrugged, and I plan on tackling Fountainhead in the near future.
It certainly changed my life for the better. Even if you don't agree that it's possible to have a political/economic system based purely on Rand's ideas, her outlook is very refreshing and satisfying on a personal level. There's no escaping the supreme power of rationality, and it's self-destructive to try.
I'd say I'd agree with her 100%. I don't really see how you could agree with her on 50% to 75% of things. If you accept that reason is man's only absolute, you are already agreeing with everything she has to say.
It certainly changed my life for the better. Even if you don't agree that it's possible to have a political/economic system based purely on Rand's ideas, her outlook is very refreshing and satisfying on a personal level. There's no escaping the supreme power of rationality, and it's self-destructive to try.
I'd say I'd agree with her 100%. I don't really see how you could agree with her on 50% to 75% of things. If you accept that reason is man's only absolute, you are already agreeing with everything she has to say.
Mescalhead
Vincebus Eruptum
Reasoning is never absolute. It is and always will be approximations. Nothing more than observing certain phenomenon in relation to others. There are no forms independant of human thought. Human thought can go off on tangents and construct whole realities that are incongruent to what is actually there, so yes reason is not absolute. Reason is definately viable, one just needs to be careful in that it can not solve everything. Sometimes certain things cannot be taken for granted.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Essentially, she says "make your happiness the ultimate goal in your life."
As for all the details, just do a google search on her name.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Irrational human thought.
When all possible information is taken into account, reason can indeed solve everything. Our perceptions are limited, our mind is not.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Rationnality is great when you talk about reason or logic.
Rationnality is dumb when you talk about emotions or feelings.
And though I don't know enough about Rand to really have an opinion about it, the proponent of Randism haven't particularly stroke me as being particularly logical or realist themselves, so...
Rationnality is dumb when you talk about emotions or feelings.
And though I don't know enough about Rand to really have an opinion about it, the proponent of Randism haven't particularly stroke me as being particularly logical or realist themselves, so...
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
I read Atlas Shrugged. What did I think of it?
Its not real. None of the characters are real. None of them seem to have any problems or any flaws, besides the grand social problems of the world.
If Rand can show me a normal person become selfless and still suceed, she may convince me. When I can see someone with flaws in her books they'd be better.
I like characters who are human, who have friends, who have anxeity, who get worried over nothing, who become overjoyed over nothing, who have flaws and make mistakes. None of the characters in Atlast Shrugged are human...
Its not real. None of the characters are real. None of them seem to have any problems or any flaws, besides the grand social problems of the world.
If Rand can show me a normal person become selfless and still suceed, she may convince me. When I can see someone with flaws in her books they'd be better.
I like characters who are human, who have friends, who have anxeity, who get worried over nothing, who become overjoyed over nothing, who have flaws and make mistakes. None of the characters in Atlast Shrugged are human...
Akka
Moody old mage.
Well, absolute rationnality DOES work with computers and robots 
newfangle
hates you.
Hello there Aneeshm!
Reast assured the objectivist movement is stronger than it ever has been. I personally know at least a dozen just in my city. There probably exists at least 100 000 in North America.
So, what is objectivism?
Basically, Ayn Rand founding the philosophy and attempted to discover every conceivable logical consequence of it in her life. She did not live long enough to achieve this, and so many other people have begun exploring the intricate qualities of the application of reason, rights, freedom, and rational thought. A notable choice is a man by the name of Nathanial Branden, Rand's ex husband, who has written a plethora of books on objective psychology.
Note that there are two competing organizations for the advancement of reason:
www.aynrand.org and
www.objectivistcenter.org .
I tend to agree far more with the latter choice, as they never take the word of Rand as infalliable, and are constantly judging and reassessing even the fundamental properties of the philosophy.
Objectivism itself may be broken into the main branches of philosophy (I won't cut and paste this time).
Metaphysics: Reality is objective. Man's mind and consciousness exist indepedant of reality, thus nothing that man thinks may alter reality itself. As a consequence of this, faith, mysticism, and subjectivity are rejected in favour of the law of identity (everything is everything), the law of casaulity, and the fundamental axiom (and its corollaries): existence exists. It is upon these fundamentals that the philosophy is derived.
Epistemology: Man usings metaphysical laws in order to associate with reality. He takes in the identities of his surroundings, then goes on to form concepts, percepts, and something called the unit. This is an objective process, regardless of the individual. Objectivist epistemology defines man as the rational animal, with reason being his primary took of survival.
Ethics: Man's life is his own highest value. Galt's oath, "I swear by my life and my love for it that I will never live for another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for me," sums this up best. Keep in mind that selfishness must be clarified as rational self interest, in order to avoid the straw-man argument that many Christians and socialists use (the Nietsche idea of selfishness). Man's rights are defined as inalienable and are derived from reality, NOT divine endowment or a subjective origin. See The Virtue of Selfishness. This concept of rights leads to:
Politics: Freedom. Pure unadultured freedom, including the freedom to not have your fundamental right to life infringed upon by any other rational being. The only system that allows this is laissez faire capitalism. It is the only moral system in history, it is the only system that allows man to live in accordance with his nature, and any nation that adopts the principle of freedom is successful, proportional to the amount of freedom it allows. Note that the true capitalist society has yet to exist, yet man has progressed the fastest when closest to it. See Capitalism: The Unknown ideal.
Esthetics: Art is a representation of man's value-judgements which are formed from objective concepts. See the Romantic Manifesto.
Reast assured the objectivist movement is stronger than it ever has been. I personally know at least a dozen just in my city. There probably exists at least 100 000 in North America.
So, what is objectivism?
Basically, Ayn Rand founding the philosophy and attempted to discover every conceivable logical consequence of it in her life. She did not live long enough to achieve this, and so many other people have begun exploring the intricate qualities of the application of reason, rights, freedom, and rational thought. A notable choice is a man by the name of Nathanial Branden, Rand's ex husband, who has written a plethora of books on objective psychology.
Note that there are two competing organizations for the advancement of reason:
www.aynrand.org and
www.objectivistcenter.org .
I tend to agree far more with the latter choice, as they never take the word of Rand as infalliable, and are constantly judging and reassessing even the fundamental properties of the philosophy.
Objectivism itself may be broken into the main branches of philosophy (I won't cut and paste this time).
Metaphysics: Reality is objective. Man's mind and consciousness exist indepedant of reality, thus nothing that man thinks may alter reality itself. As a consequence of this, faith, mysticism, and subjectivity are rejected in favour of the law of identity (everything is everything), the law of casaulity, and the fundamental axiom (and its corollaries): existence exists. It is upon these fundamentals that the philosophy is derived.
Epistemology: Man usings metaphysical laws in order to associate with reality. He takes in the identities of his surroundings, then goes on to form concepts, percepts, and something called the unit. This is an objective process, regardless of the individual. Objectivist epistemology defines man as the rational animal, with reason being his primary took of survival.
Ethics: Man's life is his own highest value. Galt's oath, "I swear by my life and my love for it that I will never live for another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for me," sums this up best. Keep in mind that selfishness must be clarified as rational self interest, in order to avoid the straw-man argument that many Christians and socialists use (the Nietsche idea of selfishness). Man's rights are defined as inalienable and are derived from reality, NOT divine endowment or a subjective origin. See The Virtue of Selfishness. This concept of rights leads to:
Politics: Freedom. Pure unadultured freedom, including the freedom to not have your fundamental right to life infringed upon by any other rational being. The only system that allows this is laissez faire capitalism. It is the only moral system in history, it is the only system that allows man to live in accordance with his nature, and any nation that adopts the principle of freedom is successful, proportional to the amount of freedom it allows. Note that the true capitalist society has yet to exist, yet man has progressed the fastest when closest to it. See Capitalism: The Unknown ideal.
Esthetics: Art is a representation of man's value-judgements which are formed from objective concepts. See the Romantic Manifesto.
newfangle
hates you.
The point is they aren't flawed, and that makes them fully human. None of this "man is never perfect" BS.
Normal people are seflish and they do succeed. That is the point. You can create a system where you don't allow man's nature to flourish.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Why should I follow a philosophy that only seems to work for people who aren't flawed?
When I look at the world I see alot of greedy, flawed people, and they all seem to suffer somehow - whether its going down for some type of crime or just being unhappy.
When I look at the world I see alot of greedy, flawed people, and they all seem to suffer somehow - whether its going down for some type of crime or just being unhappy.
Akka
Moody old mage.
(what's fun, is that they really BELIEVE in this rubbish... And they say religions are illusionary 
)
)
Mescalhead
Vincebus Eruptum
Which is supposed to be what exactly?
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
I know you may laugh at this coming from a Catholic, but...You can't say what you just said. There is no way to be sure that what we see exists. Its just impossible. Most people assume it, yes, because that is the only way to function, but you can't say that we are sure of anything. Why? Because EVERYTHING is filtered through our mind, and then again through memory.
For example, what someone says to me can be altered by my mood (what I find funny in a good mood I find infuriating in a bad mood) and then two weeks later my memory of the event is biased even more.
That still wouldn't make art objective. It may be based on an objective thing - an artists paints a woman, the woman exists in a certain definete way - but the artist interprets the woman as he wishes.
I'm really fed up hearing about Ayn Rand. I prefer cooperation over selfishness. Maybe she didnt understand the prisoners dliemma.
newfangle
hates you.
If certainty is impossible, why do humans pursue any knowledge at all? As soon as you make that assumption, you are saying that nothing has objective value, therefore you are saying that nothing exists at all. Existence is self-evident, based upon that fundamental axiom.
As such you have a choice (well, not really a choice, but that can be saved for a free will discussion). You either accept reality or reject it. A drunk rejects reality with a bottle, a socialist rejects reality with a dictatorship, a criminal rejects reality with a gun.
That does not change the fact the event occured. I want you to turn to a wall and stare at it, and think about it turning into a peach. Will that wall turn into a peach?
Precisely. You nailed it.
Similar threads
