- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
22 Jan 11
Originally posted by finneganWe don't seem to have any significant ongoing defense of Rand here. Could it be that the horse is dead?
Rand, more importantly, misses the philosophical point altogether and veers off into eccentricity.
Kant (for instance) argued that morality cannot be the product of our inclinations but requires a foundation in a rational code of laws (never mind why). Max Stirner, the Egoist, argued that any social code is actually a delusion - a voice in our head that ...[text shortened]... d groups survive if they are successful as groups, not if they contain special individuals.
23 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderNo Randian and no philosopher, in any professorily sense but then neither are you or your buds so no worries there.
Wajoma is a Randian, but doesn't seem well enough versed in philosophy or any other area of learning to make a cogent defense of her or Objectivism.
The defense has been more than adequate, a loan out of context quote was supposed proof of...what? It was shown that Rand did not endorse Hickmans actions, in the quote provided she called him a purposeless monster, and one lesson to garner from objectivism is the importance of having a life purpose. I also added the example of how at such an early stage she held a view (determinism) that she would later refute with a defense of free will. The purpose of this was to show that her views at this early stage of her life were still in development and cannot be held as representative of objectivism, which she went to lengths to lay down formally. Further, I do not doubt young writers often experiment with characters, styles and themes and if we were to trawl through the journals of any number of authors we'd find similar or possibly 'worse'. Am I going to research that and find examples? No, because it would prove nothing about the authors that wrote them, the OP is indeed, a dead horse.
23 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaYou are being deceitful. First, her admiration for Hickman is hardly a "lone out of context quote" but apparently takes up page after page of her journals and he was to be the inspiration for the central character in her planned first novel. Second, she hardly held a determinist view at the time as this quote clearly shows:
No Randian and no philosopher, in any professorily sense but then neither are you or your buds so no worries there.
The defense has been more than adequate, a loan out of context quote was supposed proof of...what? It was shown that Rand did not endorse Hickmans actions, in the quote provided she called him a purposeless monster, and one lesson to garne ...[text shortened]... use it would prove nothing about the authors that wrote them, the OP is indeed, a dead horse.
"If he had any desires and ambitions -- what was the way before him? A long, slow, soul-eating, heart-wrecking toil and struggle; the degrading, ignoble road of silent pain and loud compromises....
"A strong man can eventually trample society under his feet. That boy was not strong enough. But is that his crime? Is it his crime that he was too impatient, fiery and proud to go that slow way? That he was not able to serve, when he felt worthy to rule; to obey, when he wanted to command?...
"He was given [nothing with which] to fill his life. What was he offered to fill his soul? The petty, narrow, inconsistent, hypocritical ideology of present-day humanity. All the criminal, ludicrous, tragic nonsense of Christianity and its morals, virtues, and consequences. Is it any wonder that he didn't accept it?"
(Emphasis Supplied)
Third, the line from Hickman to Roark and Galt is clear; as she said of Roark: ""He was born without the ability to consider others." To Rand, that is a wonderful characteristic.
It is quite clear that there is nothing inconsistent or surprising with Rand's statements concerning Hickman and her later views extolling selfishness as the highest possible virtue. Her anti-social views and contempt for most of humanity are a recurring theme. No wonder she found so much in sociopaths to admire.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaI appreciate your wanting to focus your response on the premise of this thread's originator, that Rand was an admirer of Hickman. It does seem legitimate to say that she admired certain aspects of his character, although that in itself is not damning of her -- if she also concluded that he had perverted that aspect and became a "monster" in so doing, where's the problem? Whether she thought Hickman's path was predetermined is interesting -- would she have said that a perverted path is predetermined but a Randian path -- a path that followed her ideals -- is not? Would she say a predetermined path should be free of social condemnation? Or did she, like most of us do, settle into a pragmatic approach to the free-will/determinism dichotomy. The pragmatic approach is that we might as well get used to the fact that we act as though we have free will, because we are, if wrong, predetermined to do so.😀
No Randian and no philosopher, in any professorily sense but then neither are you or your buds so no worries there.
The defense has been more than adequate, a loan out of context quote was supposed proof of...what? It was shown that Rand did not endorse Hickmans actions, in the quote provided she called him a purposeless monster, and one lesson to garne ...[text shortened]... use it would prove nothing about the authors that wrote them, the OP is indeed, a dead horse.
23 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderWow. It's like she grew up in the projects. It all rings true. How she got from these observations to the virtue of selfishness I have no idea.
You are being deceitful. First, her admiration for Hickman is hardly a "lone out of context quote" but apparently takes up page after page of her journals and he was to be the inspiration for the central character in her planned first novel. Second, she hardly held a determinist view at the time as this quote clearly shows:
"If he had a ...[text shortened]... humanity are a recurring theme. No wonder she found so much in sociopaths to admire.
You don't know me, fool, you disown me, cool
I don't need your assistance, social persistence
Any problem I got I just put my fist in it
My life is violent, but violent is life
Peace is a dream, reality's a knife
My colors my honor my colors my all
With my colors upon me one soldier stands tall
Tell me
What have you left me
What have I got
Last night in cold blood my young brother got shot
My homeboy got jacked, my mother's on crack
My sister can't work 'cause her arms show tracks
Madness insanity, living profanity
Then some punk claiming' they understanding' me?!
Give me a break, what world do you live in?
Death is my sect, guess my religion
Colors
Colors by Ice T
24 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes this is the right direction to follow with right wing ideology. On the one hand it is fair enough to reject the false valour (bravado) of those who simply replicate their own poverty. Then again, it is right to celebrate their insistence on being heard and finding their own basis for respect. However, it seems to me that the root remains one of being excluded from what society values - by poverty and by colour. There is a "you" and a "me" in this lyric. If "you" are not prepared to include everyone within "your" society, then the excluded people will not be submissive or passive but will force their way back in on their own terms, which are not "your" terms. The resulting society is not only unequal, as it is designed to be, but also violent and dangerous. It [inequality, racism] is not a good way to organise social relations. It will not work. It should not be allowed to work.
Wow. It's like she grew up in the projects. It all rings true. How she got from these observations to the virtue of selfishness I have no idea.
You don't know me, fool, you disown me, cool
I don't need your assistance, social persistence
Any problem I got I just put my fist in it
My life is violent, but violent is life
Peace is a drea e
My colors my honor my colors my all
With my colors upon me one soldier stands tall
24 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderIf anyone is deceitful D it's you, you're the one presenting the case and so you thought you'd try hiding a few cards up your sleeve, here's quote from Rand:
You are being deceitful. First, her admiration for Hickman is hardly a "lone out of context quote" but apparently takes up page after page of her journals and he was to be the inspiration for the central character in her planned first novel. Second, she hardly held a determinist view at the time as this quote clearly shows:
"If he had a ...[text shortened]... humanity are a recurring theme. No wonder she found so much in sociopaths to admire.
"The model for the boy is Hickman. Very far from him of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me. ..."
How much of this 'page after page' admiration is for Hickman, or is it actually for a charater she was developing, the character of Danny.
Here's another regarding Hickman:
"And when we look at the other side of it–there was a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy turned into a purposeless monster." She later repeats: "Yes, he is a monster–now. But the worse he is, the worst must be the cause that drove him to this."
Here is the determinism, i.e. that Hickman was a product of his environment, a view completely at odds with her later defence of free will, again the purpose of this is to illustrate that it is meaningless to grab bits and pieces from this early stage of her self development, prior to any serious attempt at giving form to objectivism, a time when she would have still been getting a grasp of English and trying to project this into the present. Even from a quote that you yourself posted D, at the very same time you yourself were denouncing any evidence of determinism there is this:
"He was given [nothing with which] to fill his life...."
So we move onto Roark and his lack of empathy, you need a re-read of "The Fountainhead" I suggest your bias has not allowed you to view the book clearly, in particular revisit Howards' relationship with a young struggling artist Steven Mallory, or to a more subtle degree his relationship with an old retired architect.
No Rand does not hold contempt for humanity, hers' is a romantic ideal full of hope and optimism in what man is capable of.
24 Jan 11
Originally posted by finneganRacism is a form of collectivism, objectivism is a philosophy of individualism. The colours mentioned in the lyrics refer to gang colours not skin colours but it's all much the same thing, as Rand has said:
Yes this is the right direction to follow with right wing ideology. On the one hand it is fair enough to reject the false valour (bravado) of those who simply replicate their own poverty. Then again, it is right to celebrate their insistence on being heard and finding their own basis for respect. However, it seems to me that the root remains one of being e ...[text shortened]... way to organise social relations. It will not work. It should not be allowed to work.
"....a quest for the unearned."
24 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaThat's not determinism, Wajoma. There is nothing contradictory between the idea that society - which Rand despises - influences individuals and free will. "Free will does not mean without influence, coersion and pressure from the environment." http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2002/11/17/freeWillVsDeterminism.html
If anyone is deceitful D it's you, you're the one presenting the case and so you thought you'd try hiding a few cards up your sleeve, here's quote from Rand:
"The model for the boy is Hickman. Very far from him of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more ...[text shortened]... ers' is a romantic ideal full of hope and optimism in what man is capable of.
A contrary belief is nonsensical. Your ignorance is rather pathetic.
24 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaObjectivism's claim to be a "philosophy" of anything at all is an excellent example of a "..quest for the unearned."
Racism is a form of collectivism, objectivism is a philosophy of individualism. The colours mentioned in the lyrics refer to gang colours not skin colours but it's all much the same thing, as Rand has said:
"....a quest for the unearned."
28 Jan 11
Looks like Rand was a bit of a hypocrite.
"...it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper (Venerated in Public, Disdained in Private) as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
As Pryor said, 'Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out' without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn 'despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help.'"
Is anyone surprised?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html
29 Jan 11
Originally posted by CliffLandinNo surprises here, another ill researched hack job.
Looks like Rand was a bit of a hypocrite.
"...it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper (Venerated in Public, Disdained in Private) as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law ...[text shortened]... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html
The main point being that if you're forced to pay for something and you disagree with that force then you should not claim back that which has been wrongfully taken and that which is legally due = hypocrisy.
Read a dictionary.
Here's an example of hypocrisy: Pollies that extol the virtues of public health care, public pensions, public transport and public education then go private themselves.
The analogy is: Someone steals something from you then you should never again reclaim that which has been stolen.
So a fail on the definition of hypocrisy and a fail in finding a contradiction or flaw in her actions.
Or to put it more politely: FAIL
29 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaHow many times does it have to be shown on this board that the word "steal" is just propaganda (or less charitably an untruth) when applied to tax rates set by the majority in a democratic society?
No surprises here, another ill researched hack job.
The main point being that if you're forced to pay for something and you disagree with that force then you should not claim back that which has been wrongfully taken and that which is legally due = hypocrisy.
Read a dictionary.
Here's an example of hypocrisy: Pollies that extol the virtues of publ ...[text shortened]... a fail in finding a contradiction or flaw in her actions.
Or to put it more politely: FAIL
Rand choose to live in the United States if I remember correctly and could have left at any time.
29 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaIll researched, Scott McConnell founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute? Well, then it was an inside job. Are you saying that she didn't take Social Security or Medicare? The main point being that even though she demonized people taking help from anyone, especially the government, she did it herself proving that it is easier to extol beliefs rather than to live by them.
No surprises here, another ill researched hack job.
The main point being that if you're forced to pay for something and you disagree with that force then you should not claim back that which has been wrongfully taken and that which is legally due = hypocrisy.
Read a dictionary.
Here's an example of hypocrisy: Pollies that extol the virtues of publ ...[text shortened]... a fail in finding a contradiction or flaw in her actions.
Or to put it more politely: FAIL
EDIT: I agree it was a big FAIL. It was a failure of Rand to live up to the standards she set and it was a failure of her philosophy to live up to the standards set by reality. AYN RAND FAIL.