13 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaNo thy enemy.
You have plenty to say about Rand shav, that means you must have read plenty of her work, that makes you a yank.
However, anyone who creates a philosophy to defend a system, rather than creating a system based upon a philosophy has their elbows and their arses mixed up. Wouldn't you agree?
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by shavixmirWhat system? Capitalism? Politics is only one aspect fo Objectivism shav, it's a hierarchical system built up from metaphysics through to aesthetics.
No thy enemy.
However, anyone who creates a philosophy to defend a system, rather than creating a system based upon a philosophy has their elbows and their arses mixed up. Wouldn't you agree?
You're looking in the wrong place for your elbow guy.
13 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaI don't know, Waj. It is common practice to treat the journals and correspondence of philosophers as part of their overall work, often shedding light on their published works from angles that ease, problematise or otherwise enliven interpretation. The notebooks of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein are three important examples. Rand's journal entry on the present subject seems a lucid and unqualified expression of admiration for a psychopath. So you are quite correct to assert that her journal does not detract from the clarity of her non-fiction; on the contrary, it helps make her views even clearer.
I didn't take the post as being serious, who knows what Rands intentions were, these are excerpts from her journals, not as far as I can see anything intended for publication by her. It's a non-flyer, but a common tactic, rather than deal with the philosophy look for other things to attack, next we'll have some gossip about her relationship with Frank Connor publication.
You blokes luv to wallow in the dirt, be my guest, but I'm not joining you.
As it happens, Rand's entry on Hickman is very similar to the reasonining of Raskolnikov, the impoverished student who convinces himself that murdering an old woman will constitute sufficient proof of his worth as a 'Superman' in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment.
Anyhow -- you're clearly an ardent admirer of Rand's philosophy -- how do you interpret the actions of a Hickman Objectively?
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaAnd besides... just because she calls it objectivism, doesn't make it objective.
What system? Capitalism? Politics is only one aspect fo Objectivism shav, it's a hierarchical system built up from metaphysics through to aesthetics.
You're looking in the wrong place for your elbow guy.
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI am unfamiliar with the details of Hickman and have no interest in looking them up, might give Burns book a try though. I believe you'd be hard pressed finding anything in her non-fiction that even comes within a million miles of, what was it? child murder?
I don't know, Waj. It is common practice to treat the journals and correspondence of philosophers as part of their overall work, often shedding light on their published works from angles that ease, problematise or otherwise enliven interpretation. The notebooks of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein are three important examples. Rand's journal entr ...[text shortened]... mirer of Rand's philosophy -- how do you interpret the actions of a Hickman Objectively?
13 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaYou're missing the point by a million miles -- what difference does it make whether the statement was published or not? -- but that's not unexpected.
I am unfamiliar with the details of Hickman and have no interest in looking them up, might give Burns book a try though. I believe you'd be hard pressed finding anything in her non-fiction that even comes within a million miles of, what was it? child murder?
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe point being? That you blokes are so desperate to find a flaw that out of the many thousands of pages she wrote to publish you have nothing sturdy enough to put up against her ideas, so you're going to grasp for this one little tit-bit (taken out of context?) that came from many more thousands of (known to be tampered with) pages that she never meant to be published and has no hope of defending (on account of being dead) in the hope of making a dint in the philosophy of objectivism.
You're missing the point by a million miles -- what difference does it make whether the statement was published or not? -- but that's not unexpected.
The point being No1's futile twig that he's grasping at is a ludicrous joke.
I'm no objectivist, I don't know enough about it and I don't live by that philosophy but the more time spent here at RHP, the more sense it makes.