T Nation

The Wisdom of Ayn Rand


#1

As I have said before, ATLAS SHRUGGED is my all time favorite book. I discovered it around 16 years ago and have read it around 10 times since then.

I am doing so again and am blown away as usual. It is though she had a crystal ball. It could have been written today.

This is usually where the bashing begins and HH and I are left to defend, but I bring it up in hopes that someone might be encouraged to pick it up. It is layered like an onion. Each time I do I pick up something new.


#2

Do you have an opinion on her atheism?


#3

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Do you have an opinion on her atheism?[/quote]

I would like to know this as well.

A little light reading:

As a life-long atheist Rand rejected organized religion and specifically Christianity, which she decreed “the best kindergarten of communism possible.” More recent Objectivists have argued that religion is incompatible with American ideals, and the Christian right poses a threat to individual rights. Objectivists have argued against faith-based initiatives, displaying religious symbols in government facilities, and the teaching of “intelligent design” in public schools.

Discuss.


#4

My all time favorite book is the Holy Bible which leads me unavoidably to view Ayn Rand as a God hating pagan whose occasionally good economic ideas have no reason to exist in her own deluded reality of self exalted self obsession. Any society made up of individuals that had degenerated into actually living the aggressively godless self worshiping existence she prescribes would eat itself alive by dinner time.

I posted this for HH in another thread somewhere. It’s a radio show piece from a couple months ago where a local pastor named Paul Edwards interviews a guy who just wrote a book about the anti-Christian views of Ayn Rand. Don’t remember the author or the title of the book, but he’s right. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/forum1/host/audio/edwards_rand.mp3 This http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com/2011/04/25/the-anti-christian-selfish-cult-of-ayn-rand-drug-addict/ lady hit it pretty much on the head as well. To take Rand seriously is by definition a rejection of Jesus Christ.


#5


#6

I was wondering what you looked like Eph ol buddy. Bein from Holland I would have never guessed you were black =]


#7

Rand was a radical philosopher of the continental stripe whose fetishism of the satisfaction of terrestrial appetites as the highest good and exaltation of godless materialism have little in common with the classical liberal tradition of the West (Anglo-American thought, Scottish Enlightenment, Founding Fathers, etc.).

She is really just a Marxist, and shares all the assumptions of a Marxist - she just happens to take the side against the proletariat.

Rand is the literature of adolescents. Rand gives young people a sense of anti-autoritarianism and radical chic, and convinces them that they have discovered “philosophy” at a young age.

Rand - who simply recycled the fable of the Golden Goose in her works - isn’t to be taken seriously.


#8

each time i read about Rand’s economical ideas, i get some hardcore Maoist fantasies
each time i read about Rand’s atheism, i feel the sudden urge to become a franciscan monk.

fortunately, in both cases, it last only a few seconds.


#9

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Rand was a radical philosopher of the continental stripe whose fetishism of the satisfaction of terrestrial appetites as the highest good and exaltation of godless materialism have little in common with the classical liberal tradition of the West (Anglo-American thought, Scottish Enlightenment, Founding Fathers, etc.).

She is really just a Marxist, and shares all the assumptions of a Marxist - she just happens to take the side against the proletariat.

Rand is the literature of adolescents. Rand gives young people a sense of anti-autoritarianism and radical chic, and convinces them that they have discovered “philosophy” at a young age.

Rand - who simply recycled the fable of the Golden Goose in her works - isn’t to be taken seriously. [/quote]

hahahaha

Gobbledygook!

Can you at least write one sentence without prose and maybe say something meaningful?

Complete nonsense.


#10

I disagree with her philosophy of Objectivism. Not all knowledge can be objectively known.

She misses the fact that our point of view is inherently subjective. Our subjective opinions are very much a part of our individual reality and it is for this reason we can even argue about art and aesthetics, for example. She believes in the supremacy of the individual over the collective but yet she disregards his ego.

I still think she is one of the 20th Century’s greatest thinkers.


#11

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

hahahaha

Gobbledygook!

Can you at least write one sentence without prose and maybe say something meaningful?

Complete nonsense.[/quote]

Aw, look at poor Lifty. Still struggling to be relevant. Best of luck, pumpkin.


#12

Better to struggle to be relevant than just mistakenly assume you are.


#13

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Rand was a radical philosopher of the continental stripe whose fetishism of the satisfaction of terrestrial appetites as the highest good and exaltation of godless materialism have little in common with the classical liberal tradition of the West (Anglo-American thought, Scottish Enlightenment, Founding Fathers, etc.).

She is really just a Marxist, and shares all the assumptions of a Marxist - she just happens to take the side against the proletariat.

Rand is the literature of adolescents. Rand gives young people a sense of anti-autoritarianism and radical chic, and convinces them that they have discovered “philosophy” at a young age.

Rand - who simply recycled the fable of the Golden Goose in her works - isn’t to be taken seriously. [/quote]

Translation: Rand’s ambiguous acceptance/promotion of materialism and a rejection of the idea of religion are in contradiction with the basic political philosophies that led to the creation of this country and which she claims to further through Objectivism. She writes in a manner that easily provokes the inherent revolutionary attitude present in almost all youth, which allows her to easily dupe these impressionable youths into thinking that her philosophy is something more than it really is.

Not that hard Lifticus.


#14

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Better to struggle to be relevant than just mistakenly assume you are.[/quote]

I agree with this. If I were mistaken, it would be a bad thing. Thank goodness I’m not.


#15

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Rand was a radical philosopher of the continental stripe whose fetishism of the satisfaction of terrestrial appetites as the highest good and exaltation of godless materialism have little in common with the classical liberal tradition of the West (Anglo-American thought, Scottish Enlightenment, Founding Fathers, etc.).

She is really just a Marxist, and shares all the assumptions of a Marxist - she just happens to take the side against the proletariat.

Rand is the literature of adolescents. Rand gives young people a sense of anti-autoritarianism and radical chic, and convinces them that they have discovered “philosophy” at a young age.

Rand - who simply recycled the fable of the Golden Goose in her works - isn’t to be taken seriously. [/quote]

Translation: Rand’s ambiguous acceptance/promotion of materialism and a rejection of the idea of religion are in contradiction with the basic political philosophies that led to the creation of this country and which she claims to further through Objectivism. She writes in a manner that easily provokes the inherent revolutionary attitude present in almost all youth, which allows her to easily dupe these impressionable youths into thinking that her philosophy is something more than it really is.

Not that hard Lifticus. [/quote]

Why are you directing that at me?

See, dunderhead? Not that hard.


#16

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

See, dunderhead? Not that hard.[/quote]

Not that hard to do what? State a position in a way so that another poster can understand it, digest it and repeat it back to you in an effort to show you how understandable it was?

As DB Cooper just did?


#17

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
I gotta agree with Eph…I hate ayn rand and her Micky Mouse philosophies. I don’t necessarily disagree with some of the things she states, but he defenses are typically pathetic, arrogant, and not well founded, even if correct.


#18

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

See, dunderhead? Not that hard.[/quote]

Not that hard to do what? State a position in a way so that another poster can understand it, digest it and repeat it back to you in an effort to show you how understandable it was?

As DB Cooper just did?
[/quote]

I see things haven’t changed at all since the last time I was here.


#19

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I see things haven’t changed at all since the last time I was here.[/quote]

I share your frustration.


#20

There is no content to even understand from your post and DBC was just subjectively interpreting it. What you wrote is just prose and some cliche you read off the interwebz.

You have no clear premise and further fail to defend and come to any logical conclusions. It is a non argument.

Your post is nothing more than a series of strawmen, reeking of rhetorical and undefinable terms; re:

This is the most nonsensical sentence I have ever read…but points for grammar, punctuation, and proper spelling of multi-syllable words.