You're hot. I guess that's enough to get over Ayn Rand's paranoid hatred of socialism due to her rich parents losing there wealth to the communist revolution. "Novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand was born Alissa Rosenbaum on February 2, 1905 in St. Petersburg, Russia. Her family lived in a large, comfortable apartment above the chemist shop owned by her father..... In February 1917 she witnessed the first shots of the Russian Revolution from her balcony. Soon, a communist gang nationalized her father’s shop. Almost overnight, her family was reduced to crushing poverty." from http://www.ayn-rand.com/ayn-rand-bio.asp Seems to have formulated her whole philosophy against socialism, does it not? "Objectivism holds that there is one reality, the one in which we live. ..... It holds it as undeniable that humans have free will, and opposes metaphysical determinism or fatalism. " from http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/what-is-objectivism.asp Any philosophy so ignorant as to hold that there is one reality, and to hold that this reality does not determine what exists within it (opposes metaphysical determinism/ fatalism) lacks logical coherence (or reason). How can a beings actions not be determined by the one reality which the being is within? (In other words: How can a being have free will within a set reality which the being is part of?)
same goes with every other philosopher. they are all directly influenced by thier own personal situation. like arthur schopenhauer, he was influenced by the war so he believed that using your will could change anything you wanted and he also hated women, but you learn that he fought with his mother in his 20s and never spoke to her again. and nietzche, he was always sick, so The Superman was someone who was never sick and society would model themselves after the healthiest (healthy in all ways) individual and inturn society would be strong and healthy. Im not saying that I really like Ayn Rand's philosophy, I just think it's worth learning about.
Sigh... aren't we all... You know, it's not that I disaprove of her philosophies existence. I don't look at a picture that a kid draws and compare it to the Mona Lisa and tell the kid they suck at drawing. But to take her philosophy seriously seems to be an exercise in mental misdirection. Any philosophy that is formed around an obvious logical contradiction should not be taken seriously. Of course, maybe the whole thing is a joke (like scientology), and Ayn Rand knew it was.
that would be trippy, i think all things are worth learning about, soak up every piece of knoweledge you can, thats how you decide who you are and what you believe in, but i think ayn rands philosophies are ignorant, i also am a socialist so thats another thing thats hard for me to accept
I'm sympathetic to anything that's that anti-collectivisty. Her ideas about racism being an inevitable result of collectivism go along with all the findings of social psychology (see social identity theory). And also the sensibility of the idea of just spreading freedom with your foreign policy, instead of stressing over the balance of power, has pretty much been proved by Sept.11. The 'balance of power' ideals of Kissinger directly lead to America arming Saddam, arming the Taliban; supporting dictators all over the world. And look at the results! I wouldn't take the philosophical stuff she writes seriously!
Kharakov "Any philosophy so ignorant as to hold that there is one reality, and to hold that this reality does not determine what exists within it (opposes metaphysical determinism/ fatalism) lacks logical coherence (or reason). How can a beings actions not be determined by the one reality which the being is within? (In other words: How can a being have free will within a set reality which the being is part of?)" Actions are a result of Choice. That is free will. Fatalism is completely unfounded as is metaphysical determinism. Your belief is based on the metaphysical, that which, I am sure, cannot be explained except through personal divine contact. "How can a being have free will within a set reality which the being is part of?" This is a completely different arguement. You posit that a metaphysical being controls your destiny and prove it by saying that (believe it or not) shit that happens around you will affect the shit you do?... no shit. You are full of shit.
I think that's kinda how life works.... I hope I am not too influenced by my situation, for some reason I really hate that thought, it's like being formed into something and not really being yourself.....
I like all philosophies, I don't agree completely with any, like most there may be a few things I do agree with her on, but alot of it is rather stupid and silly I consider Ayn Rand to be a good philosopher, but not great, the greats make you think and formulate your own opinions, her stuff just kinda makes me think about what she said, and not really what I believe.... if that makes sense
Rand was extremely important in political philosophy. My favorite book she authored is "The Virtue of Selfishness".
'Virtue of Selfishness' is a very good read (esp. the new racism essay). I've also read 'Atlas Shrugged' 3 times. The first 2/3 is excellent. She really belabors her message (which is for the most part a good message) at the expense of the story in the last 1/3. A lot of knocking down straw men too which doesn't help strengthen her position. I think she's mostly right about ethics and economics, but she doesn't always make the strongest argument for her position. Still, Rand turned the debate between capitalism and socialism into a moral issue and very convincingly came out on the side of capitalism. That was a rather novel (and I think correct) move. For one thing, it points to flaws within the doctrine of socialism rather than how certain individuals may have practiced it (a distinction too many people blur). Her humanism is also admirable. The three main characters in 'Atlas' have "ambition to excel" (John Adams's term for it). They are have found worthwhile, productive endeavors in which they take pride and wish merely to excel at because they value the endeavors and themselves (not in order to acquire more "things" or to thump their chests). Too many academics have given Ayn Rand short shrift. That's a shame.
