T Nation

Ayn Rand's Secret Agents

"Despite her criticism, Rand’s ideals held a place in the Nixon Administration. Her influence, in part, spurred Nixon to work with Greenspan in �??68 and appoint him to the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in 1974. When sworn in, Rand stood at his side. From the New York Times:

Miss Rand’s views were much in demand in 1974, when President Richard M. Nixon named Alan Greenspan, the economics consultant, to become chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers. It turned out that Miss Rand had been the mentor and a 20-year close friend to Mr. Greenspan.

Miss Rand helped persuade the somewhat reluctant Mr. Greenspan to join the Government so he could put their confidence in the capitalist spirit into action. ‘‘I helped Alan to analyze what was involved,’’ she told an interviewer that year. ‘‘But, of course, the decision was his own.’’

http://www.nixonwasframed.com/

Was this her way of ‘stopping the motor of the world’?

I confess to knowing nothing about Ayn Rand beyond a few quotes here and there. Not on purpose and I have done a pretty fare bit of reading, but I just never did get around to reading her.

I just finished the Fountainhead a few days ago. What a poorly written piece of crap. Lame plot, stilted dialogue, unsympathetic hero, ridiculously poor villains…

How could anyone take her seriously as an author or philosopher?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I just finished the Fountainhead a few days ago. What a poorly written piece of crap. Lame plot, stilted dialogue, unsympathetic hero, ridiculously poor villains…

How could anyone take her seriously as an author or philosopher?[/quote]

A FUCKING MEN!!!

THANK YOU!!!

The story of a Jew and a Jewess.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I just finished the Fountainhead a few days ago. What a poorly written piece of crap. Lame plot, stilted dialogue, unsympathetic hero, ridiculously poor villains…

How could anyone take her seriously as an author or philosopher?[/quote]

If you read Spinoza one time, or Heine, or Goethe, you’d probably use their books for toilet paper. Try Spinoza’s ‘Ethics’ and you’ll see what I mean. You have to read and dwell on what she says.

Ms. Rand tried to make a complex subject simple enough for ordinary people (like me and you) to understand. She took philosophy and put it into a novel. It is, in fact, a lot of disguised Aristotle and Nietzsche.

Try reading her book ‘Philosophy: Who Needs It?’, then try ‘Shrugged’. Her work is really one of those where you’ll go ''Oh, I get it now!" types.

Bioshock was a fun game though.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
The story of a Jew and a Jewess.[/quote]

Fiddler on the Roof?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I just finished the Fountainhead a few days ago. What a poorly written piece of crap. Lame plot, stilted dialogue, unsympathetic hero, ridiculously poor villains…

How could anyone take her seriously as an author or philosopher?

If you read Spinoza one time, or Heine, or Goethe, you’d probably use their books for toilet paper. Try Spinoza’s ‘Ethics’ and you’ll see what I mean. You have to read and dwell on what she says.

Ms. Rand tried to make a complex subject simple enough for ordinary people (like me and you) to understand. She took philosophy and put it into a novel. It is, in fact, a lot of disguised Aristotle and Nietzsche.

Try reading her book ‘Philosophy: Who Needs It?’, then try ‘Shrugged’. Her work is really one of those where you’ll go ''Oh, I get it now!" types.
[/quote]

That’s it- You’ve just compared genius minds like Goethe and divine poets like Heine with Ayn Rant - how could you?
If you think you’re too ordinary to cope with philosophical texts and need someone to dumb it down, try Brecht. You’ve got my permission to wipe your arse later with it.
One of the few times I fully agree with Zap.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I just finished the Fountainhead a few days ago. What a poorly written piece of crap. Lame plot, stilted dialogue, unsympathetic hero, ridiculously poor villains…

How could anyone take her seriously as an author or philosopher?

If you read Spinoza one time, or Heine, or Goethe, you’d probably use their books for toilet paper. Try Spinoza’s ‘Ethics’ and you’ll see what I mean. You have to read and dwell on what she says.

Ms. Rand tried to make a complex subject simple enough for ordinary people (like me and you) to understand. She took philosophy and put it into a novel. It is, in fact, a lot of disguised Aristotle and Nietzsche.

Try reading her book ‘Philosophy: Who Needs It?’, then try ‘Shrugged’. Her work is really one of those where you’ll go ''Oh, I get it now!" types.

That’s it- You’ve just compared genius minds like Goethe and divine poets like Heine with Ayn Rant - how could you?
If you think you’re too ordinary to cope with philosophical texts and need someone to dumb it down, try Brecht. You’ve got my permission to wipe your arse later with it.
One of the few times I fully agree with Zap.
[/quote]

She was more intelligent than either of them, even with Goethe’s 215 IQ.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I just finished the Fountainhead a few days ago. What a poorly written piece of crap. Lame plot, stilted dialogue, unsympathetic hero, ridiculously poor villains…

How could anyone take her seriously as an author or philosopher?

If you read Spinoza one time, or Heine, or Goethe, you’d probably use their books for toilet paper. Try Spinoza’s ‘Ethics’ and you’ll see what I mean. You have to read and dwell on what she says.

Ms. Rand tried to make a complex subject simple enough for ordinary people (like me and you) to understand. She took philosophy and put it into a novel. It is, in fact, a lot of disguised Aristotle and Nietzsche.

Try reading her book ‘Philosophy: Who Needs It?’, then try ‘Shrugged’. Her work is really one of those where you’ll go ''Oh, I get it now!" types.

[/quote]

Actually I think she took a simple subject matter and tried to overly complicate it. She was a bitter, self loathing hatefilled woman and her philsophy is a philosophy of selfishness and destruction. She is as wrong as the communists.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Actually I think she took a simple subject matter and tried to overly complicate it. She was a bitter, self loathing hatefilled woman and her philsophy is a philosophy of selfishness and destruction. She is as wrong as the communists.[/quote]

I agree. I don’t think these people realise that working together as a community is the best way to progress in civilisation, and the way she would set up the state would mean everyone was out for themselves, therefore community fails.

Reminds me of the Nazi’s social darwinism, and the stupid idea of putting multiple departments in charge of the same areas to promote in fighting.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"Despite her criticism, Rand’s ideals held a place in the Nixon Administration. Her influence, in part, spurred Nixon to work with Greenspan in �??68 and appoint him to the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in 1974. When sworn in, Rand stood at his side. From the New York Times:

Miss Rand’s views were much in demand in 1974, when President Richard M. Nixon named Alan Greenspan, the economics consultant, to become chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers. It turned out that Miss Rand had been the mentor and a 20-year close friend to Mr. Greenspan.

Miss Rand helped persuade the somewhat reluctant Mr. Greenspan to join the Government so he could put their confidence in the capitalist spirit into action. ‘‘I helped Alan to analyze what was involved,’’ she told an interviewer that year. ‘‘But, of course, the decision was his own.’’

http://www.nixonwasframed.com/

Was this her way of ‘stopping the motor of the world’?
[/quote]

I’ve read Greenspan’s book but it’s been awhile. I can’t recall when Rand died but I would find it shocking if she approved of Greenspan’s actions in the fed.

She’s no economist but I doubt she would have been a Keynesian. Greenspan talked a good game in his book and he is obviously a very intellegent man. The fact is his actions didn’t fit the mold of the economist he claimed to admire. He smashed Keynes a few times in his book which struck me as odd knowing his track record.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I just finished the Fountainhead a few days ago. What a poorly written piece of crap. Lame plot, stilted dialogue, unsympathetic hero, ridiculously poor villains…

How could anyone take her seriously as an author or philosopher?[/quote]

She was certainly a bit self absorbed. You can tell that she liked to hear herself talk or read here own writing. I don’t think she is unlike any other philospher in this regard.

I enjoy her books even if they are a bit tough to get through. Her novels are much better than her attemps at straight philosophy although I think reading the later first helped me get through her novels a little better.

Some of here books are very redundant and make the same points over and over again in agonizing length.

Atlas Shrugged is probably her best and you should give it a try.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I just finished the Fountainhead a few days ago. What a poorly written piece of crap. Lame plot, stilted dialogue, unsympathetic hero, ridiculously poor villains…

How could anyone take her seriously as an author or philosopher?[/quote]

I’ve never read her fiction but I agree with her philosophy. It just seems immoral to you because your standard of morality is corrupt.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I just finished the Fountainhead a few days ago. What a poorly written piece of crap. Lame plot, stilted dialogue, unsympathetic hero, ridiculously poor villains…

How could anyone take her seriously as an author or philosopher?

If you read Spinoza one time, or Heine, or Goethe, you’d probably use their books for toilet paper. Try Spinoza’s ‘Ethics’ and you’ll see what I mean. You have to read and dwell on what she says.

Ms. Rand tried to make a complex subject simple enough for ordinary people (like me and you) to understand. She took philosophy and put it into a novel. It is, in fact, a lot of disguised Aristotle and Nietzsche.

Try reading her book ‘Philosophy: Who Needs It?’, then try ‘Shrugged’. Her work is really one of those where you’ll go ''Oh, I get it now!" types.

Actually I think she took a simple subject matter and tried to overly complicate it. She was a bitter, self loathing hatefilled woman and her philsophy is a philosophy of selfishness and destruction. She is as wrong as the communists.[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Right on!

She was a flaming thundercunt who hated the world because she could not get laid. Ugly on the outside led to ugly on the inside.

Fuck that broad.

Rand despised living through others. Hitler needed others, as victims. Stalin needed others, as victims. What is it that allows one to make victims of others? Collectivism. The ‘good of the community’ is an evil and vile excuse to hurt some members for the benefit of others. For the good of the Proletariat, or the good of the Aryan Race, mass murders were committed. Why? What made it possible? The idea that the individual human life is NOT sacred.

Rand’s moral and political philosophy is based upon the premises above. Is THAT what you guys consider evil?

The phrase “Your life belongs to you and the ‘Good’ is to live it.” truly is selfish. That’s why it is good. Your life, your happiness as a rational being…those things are GOOD.

Ask yourselves why you despise these notions.

Your post makes no sense at all, once more.

Aren’t you an older guy? You sound as if man can persue happiness or anything more then just mere existance from living in a cave.
We need others for everything, as our feelings and moods are largely social technique.
Even a loner needs others to feel that he’s alone.
And that has zero to do with Collectivism but simple Biology.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Your post makes no sense at all, once more.

Aren’t you an older guy? You sound as if man can persue happiness or anything more then just mere existance from living in a cave.
We need others for everything, as our feelings and moods are largely social technique.
Even a loner needs others to feel that he’s alone.
And that has zero to do with Collectivism but simple Biology.[/quote]

Wow, are you confused! According to your logic, we should all live like ants in an ant colony.

Does an artist painting a picture paint said picture for their own enjoyment? Or to please others? Compare an Ibsen play with some sitcom and you’ll have your answer.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Your post makes no sense at all, once more.

Aren’t you an older guy? You sound as if man can persue happiness or anything more then just mere existance from living in a cave.
We need others for everything, as our feelings and moods are largely social technique.
Even a loner needs others to feel that he’s alone.
And that has zero to do with Collectivism but simple Biology.[/quote]

This is all self interest. Rand is simply stating that self interest motivates us and to condem this is to condem man’s instinct and natural tendancies. There is absolutly nothing wrong with being driven by your own self interests. Weather this be money, the ability to support your family, or the satisfaction you get from helping others, it is all self interest.

Collectivism is built on altruistic principles that cannot be attained without force. We are told to strive towards altruism and it is simply not possible. It’s not in our genetic makeup.