What did I just read? Ayn Rand's Philosophy.

[Cutlass]

I could care less whether you learn it - you've got a mind of your own, work it out for yourself, live your own life etc etc.

You know why I don't really give Marxism the time of day? Because they are always saying things like: "I could care less whether you learn it - you've got a mind of your own, work it out for yourself, live your own life etc etc." If you cannot make a case for Objectivism, just as Marxists cannot make a case for Marxism, other than saying "You have to read everything Great Leader wrote, and then you will understand" (which Marxists on this board in that past did to me maybe 20 odd times) then clearly you don't have a case! For if you had a case for it, clearly there would be some way for you to make a summary of it.

Instead, you have a religion. No different from Scientology or any other cult. You are instructed to believe a certain thing, and no evidence to the contrary will be allowed to impinge upon your beliefs.

So don't pretend the failure to understand is mine, when you cannot even make an attempt to justify what you believe.

 

[JollyRoger]

Lots of socialists in this thread. So all the great high-tech things you have right now come from the left's philosophy. Good job!

They come from collective effort and collaboration.

 

[Traitorfish]

You know why I don't really give Marxism the time of day? Because they are always saying things like: "I could care less whether you learn it - you've got a mind of your own, work it out for yourself, live your own life etc etc." If you cannot make a case for Objectivism, just as Marxists cannot make a case for Marxism, other than saying "You have to read everything Great Leader wrote, and then you will understand" (which Marxists on this board in that past did to me maybe 20 odd times) then clearly you don't have a case! For if you had a case for it, clearly there would be some way for you to make a summary of it.

(For the record, there's no homogeneous "Marixsm" as there is Objectivism, so the analogy is a bit limited. Some Marxisms represent a sweeping Weltanschauung with a limited and indisputable canon, such as Stalinism, but some simply represent an analytical methodology drawing on a wide range of sources, such as the Frankfurt School. With Objectivism, you get the full kit or you get nothing at all.)

 

[Ayn Rand]

You know why I don't really give Marxism the time of day? Because they are always saying things like: "I could care less whether you learn it - you've got a mind of your own, work it out for yourself, live your own life etc etc." If you cannot make a case for Objectivism, just as Marxists cannot make a case for Marxism, other than saying "You have to read everything Great Leader wrote, and then you will understand" (which Marxists on this board in that past did to me maybe 20 odd times) then clearly you don't have a case! For if you had a case for it, clearly there would be some way for you to make a summary of it.

Instead, you have a religion. No different from Scientology or any other cult. You are instructed to believe a certain thing, and no evidence to the contrary will be allowed to impinge upon your beliefs.

So don't pretend the failure to understand is mine, when you cannot even make an attempt to justify what you believe.

Firstly, what Traitorfish said.


And secondly, Objectivism is not a religion or dogma or anything like that. It is just portrayed that way, usually by leftists. But it is not actually like that - we're not interested in recruiting you or changing the way you think. It makes no difference to me if you like it or hate it - chances are that if you are not a "certain kind of person" then it is not for you anyway.

No, my only objection is those who criticise it without bothering to understand it, or who constantly try to portray Objectivists as some kind of cult members or something, when really we care about our ideology about as much as a bunch of hippies.

 

[Cutlass]

Firstly, what Traitorfish said.


And secondly, Objectivism is not a religion or dogma or anything like that. It is just portrayed that way, usually by leftists. But it is not actually like that - we're not interested in recruiting you or changing the way you think. It makes no difference to me if you like it or hate it - chances are that if you are not a "certain kind of person" then it is not for you anyway.

No, my only objection is those who criticise it without bothering to understand it, or who constantly try to portray Objectivists as some kind of cult members or something, when really we care about our ideology about as much as a bunch of hippies.

And yet you can't be bothered to explain yourselves to anyone who isn't already a true believer, leaving us with no choice but to judge you on the fact that the things you claim to believe in are objectively fictional.

 

[Traitorfish]

In all fairness, if you really cared that much you could look up some of the easily-available introductory texts and then go from there. (I suggest the TV Tropes "useful notes" page for a discussion that manages the feat of being both even-handed and readable.) If you're actually going to go out of your way to critique somebody's ideas, rather than just responding to any given claim, you really do need a grasp of what they actually are, and expecting them to give you the full run-down every time anybody asks is more than a little bit peevish.

 

[holy king]

Lots of socialists in this thread. So all the great high-tech things you have right now come from the left's philosophy. Good job!

 

[Ajidica]

No, my only objection is those who criticise it without bothering to understand it, or who constantly try to portray Objectivists as some kind of cult members or something, when really we care about our ideology about as much as a bunch of hippies.

It's well-known among Objectivists that the philosophy is not understood very well by people who criticise it. My own experience has confirmed this 100% of the time.

Dissonance much? "We aren't in a cult, but everyone else is wrong!"

If I really wanted to, I could go hunting for some of your other posts, such as the rather well known 'We are Wonderful' post but I'll trust the collective memory of CFC can remember at least one time when you said more or less that any non-Objectivist is misguided and ignorant.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Dissonance much? "We aren't in a cult, but everyone else is wrong!"

If I really wanted to, I could go hunting for some of your other posts, such as the rather well known 'We are Wonderful' post but I'll trust the collective memory of CFC can remember at least one time when you said more or less that any non-Objectivist is misguided and ignorant.

The World is fluid and complex, like a swirling river. The art of my posting is that it reflects this buddha-nature wonderously.


Edit - of course, when you are ready to move past the juvenile "knowledge is proved by ad hominems" phase of political discourse, you might want to check out Traitorfish's link

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Objectivism

Actually a good read

 

[Old Hippy]

The World is fluid and complex, like a swirling river. The art of my posting is that it reflects this buddha-nature wonderously.


Edit - of course, when you are ready to move past the juvenile "knowledge is proved by ad hominems" phase of political discourse, you might want to check out Traitorfish's link

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Objectivism

Actually a good read

she can be agood read but the problem comes with her "followers " understanding of it...

they are all for legalizing drugs, Gay marriage etc, or is that just left Randians


If reality exists, and Rand says it dose, then the philosphy can only be seen today in its suporters

Because, according to this idea, humans are intrinsically flawed, they have to justify their existence. How? By sacrifice and service to something greater than themselves. Enter various codes of selfless morality, each promoting a different thing to serve; a tribe, a god, a king, a country... the Aryan race, the universal brotherhood of the proletariat, the list goes on.

it all makes sense that the free Randian individule dose not have these society imposed restrictions on the self

Yet they do ... they place the Corporation on the pedestal of "the GOOD"... one can only wonder if they have even read RAND or do they just get Blog reports secondhand??

 

[Cutlass]

In all fairness, if you really cared that much you could look up some of the easily-available introductory texts and then go from there. (I suggest the TV Tropes "useful notes" page for a discussion that manages the feat of being both even-handed and readable.) If you're actually going to go out of your way to critique somebody's ideas, rather than just responding to any given claim, you really do need a grasp of what they actually are, and expecting them to give you the full run-down every time anybody asks is more than a little bit peevish.

Every time, no. But I don't think it's unreasonable for them to do it once.

 

[Traitorfish]

Every time, no. But I don't think it's unreasonable for them to do it once.

Well, have you read the introductory text which I linked?

 

[Cutlass]

Well, have you read the introductory text which I linked?

I'll read it tonight

 

[asbestos]

Didn't Ayn Rand admire the pedophile and murderer William Edward Hickman, specifically for his lack of social instincts and concern for other people? What do Objectivists make of that?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Didn't Ayn Rand admire the pedophile and murderer William Edward Hickman, specifically for his lack of social instincts and concern for other people? What do Objectivists make of that?

Yay! This one never gets old. No, really.

 

[asbestos]

Yay! This one never gets old. No, really.

If it's such a common criticism, then surely you must have a rebuttal. I really am genuinely curious in your answer, that wasn't a rhetorical question.

 

[Ayn Rand]

If it's such a common criticism, then surely you must have a rebuttal. I really am genuinely curious in your answer, that wasn't a rhetorical question.

That was my rebuttal. Pay attention, man.

 

[asbestos]

That was my rebuttal. Pay attention, man.

Are you saying she didn't admire him? Because from what I've read Hickman was the basis of the protagonist of her unfinished novel The Little Street.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

And it is always boys, isn't it? Same with Stalinists. Something about frustrated adolescent machismo and self-important joke-ideologies that go together, I suppose.

Generally, but not always. The first and most fanatical Randian I ever met in real life is this girl:

Spoiler :

 

[Ayn Rand]

Are you saying she didn't admire him? Because from what I've read Hickman was the basis of the protagonist of her unfinished novel The Little Street.

Not that I care, but I read that she was a 12-year-old schoolgirl and had a schoolgirl crush on him or something like that. Who knew that 12-year-old schoolgirls could have such dark crushes? Or maybe she was over-romanticising it and, I dunno, grew out of it.

None of which has anything to do with the validity of her ideas. These kind of questions you ask are simply a reflection of our current low intellectual culture, which diverts attention purely onto persons in order to divide and obscure real knowledge.