Ayn Rand discovered THE correct philosophy of life.

mgarrettny wrote:

Will someone please post a rational argument against Rand's philosophy instead of ad hominems and general unsubstantiated assaults:

Objectivism is

"the concept of man as a heroic being,

with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,

with productive achievement as his noblest activity,

and reason as his only absolute"

The philosophy of many a narcissist. An inflated sense of self, driven by his own desires, seeing his own achievements as more worthy than any others, and able to justify to himself whatever he chooses.

forgotmypassword wrote:

Chauncy Swain wrote:

No one, except the most determined academic or bizarre fanatic, has read more than one of her books. Try reading 3 chapters of Atlas Shrugged and you will know why. It make the Book of Mormon seem exciting. Apparently the concept of editors was unknown to her publishers. 99% of the people signing Rand's praises, including every single person in this thread doing so, have never read her books. Which, again, are all fiction.

That's not true. I've read three of them, AS and the The Fountainhead twice, and thought they were brilliant. To a teenager they were a revelation. To a grown man they are prophetic. I am not an academic or a fanatic, just a well read Midwestern lawyer with a couple of Harvard degrees. Ayn Rand was a genius but to the left she is and must be reflexively dismissed.

Let me guess - you fantasise about being John Galt and leaping over tall buildings in a single bound. Those that think Rand was a "genius" are typically congratulating her for describing their imagined reflection in the mirror. She says it's alright to feel superior if you think you are.

Just a thought today wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

In your case, the distinction would likely be superfluous, as you would satisfy both.

As you are also. Why are you so sadist?

Why are you so masochistic?

Armstronglivs wrote:

CrispyChicken wrote:

Tis the lion that feeds on the herd, yet in doing so keeps the herd healthy.

The herd should be so grateful.

The herd, yes. The individuals of the herd, no so much.

"It is fiction, by the way. A lot of idiots don't seem to grasp that."

I don't understand the objection to myth and fiction as viable sources for learning and inspiration like people who dismiss the Bible as fairytale fiction as though fiction cannot tell nor portray universal truths.

kore wrote:

"It is fiction, by the way. A lot of idiots don't seem to grasp that."

I don't understand the objection to myth and fiction as viable sources for learning and inspiration like people who dismiss the Bible as fairytale fiction as though fiction cannot tell nor portray universal truths.

But how can you tell if it is a universal truth and not just a fairy tale? There are plenty of books that portray some marxist societies working well. Problem is real world experience tends to not to mirror those books. Objectivism has the same problem in that for it to work would require human nature to be different since people don't act rationally.

We have had laissez capitalistic societies. They never work since the incentive to exploit the people around you for short term gain instead of long term ones is too strong. The questions is always how much regulation and control do you need for a functioning society. Once you get out of grade school philosophy you stop dealing with black and white and have to mess around with shades of grey. Apple is a great capitalistic success story. But the iPhone only exists because of government regulation.

gilt wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The herd should be so grateful.

The herd, yes. The individuals of the herd, no so much.

So siding with the predators in our midst? That's a valuable social philosophy. "Lions feeding on herds" conjures up something other than an enlightened society.