Ayn Rand

Book discussions, Author discussions, general book talk, also films.

Moderator: Other Stuff Mods

Postby Aleph-One on Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:28 pm

Capellini wrote:Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think a book can be good because it was good, and its quality had little to do with the accuracy of the facts that hold up the writer's personal life philosophy.

Unless the book was written with the intent of expounding on that philosophy.

Capellini wrote:Now I have to do research into the personal philosophies of ALL my favorite authors?

I haven't done any reasearch at all into Ayn Rand's philosophy. I haven't needed to... she wears it on her sleeve, and all of her books wear it on their jackets. Had her philosophy not been the motivation behind the books, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Now this:
johngalt wrote:Besides the fact that you are using Quantum theory to try to argue against a philosophy based on Newtonian systems. Any physicist will tell you that this doesn't work.

You have that backwards.

johngalt wrote:Until we figure out the theory of everything (M-Theory) you cannot try to apply them here.

That's coming dangerously close to becoming both a word salad and an appeal to ignorance. Knowing something is quite different from knowing everything. Attempting to say otherwise is tantamount to hard-line skepticism, as we can never know everything.

johngalt wrote:Philosophy is not concerned with quantum physics.

Ahh, but physics is concerned with philosophy in that, if your philosophy contradicts the science, then your philosophy is wrong. This would be the same thing as saying, "It's my personal philosophy that I can float around at will, and you can't use the theory of gravity to say otherwise, because philosphy isn't concerned with physics".

johngalt wrote:I am afraid the qualms you listed are based on a misinterpretation of Rand.

Strange that you, being of the "A is A" camp might mention that. My complaints, and you might run back there and actually read past the first 3 lines to verify this, come from the literal reading of her claims on epistemology and metaphysics.
It is an experimentally confirmed fact that Dembski gets his jollies by licking the butts of cats with IBS.
User avatar
Aleph-One
Conchigliette Convert
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:56 pm

Postby Capellini on Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:45 pm

I am a fan of her fiction work. I think she writes exquisite character-driven epics. I see her work as modern day mythology. The physics behind her philosophy is irrelevant to those books. They are built in alternate realities, in worlds that never existed, and the only parts of her philosophy that come through are the ideas of individuality and reverence for the human existence, embracing what you are, rather than aspiring for something you're not; the ideas of personal rights and personal responsibility, of the nature of true happiness vs. the illusion of false happiness; the true nature of the haves vs. have nots dichotomy.

If you have an overwhelming need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, that's your loss.
True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Capellini
Capolean Bone-apart
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: The State of Denial

Postby Wolfenstein on Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:04 am

Aleph-One wrote:the basis for Ayn Rand's epistemology is straight-up Platonism.


No, it is not, you are terrebly missinformed. Waths this http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... audiovideo for an introduction.
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
User avatar
Wolfenstein
Stele Second Mate
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: The Q Continuum

Postby Wolfenstein on Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:08 am

Aleph-One wrote:If the philosophy of Ayn Rand is based off of the philosophy of Newton, then the philosophy of Ayn Rand is wrong.


Well, it is not based on the philosophy of Newton on so why mention it?
Newton was by the way not a philosoper, he was a mathematician.
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
User avatar
Wolfenstein
Stele Second Mate
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: The Q Continuum

Postby Wolfenstein on Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:11 am

Aleph-One wrote:
johngalt wrote:Philosophy is not concerned with quantum physics.

Ahh, but physics is concerned with philosophy in that, if your philosophy contradicts the science, then your philosophy is wrong. This would be the same thing as saying, "It's my personal philosophy that I can float around at will, and you can't use the theory of gravity to say otherwise, because philosphy isn't concerned with physics".


The quantum theory and Objectivism does not contradict each other. It does not matter if there exists, say, 26 room dimensions, reality would be just as objective as with 3.
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
User avatar
Wolfenstein
Stele Second Mate
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: The Q Continuum

Postby johngalt on Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:29 am

Wolfenstein seems to have pointed out what I was saying all along. THank you.
"Giving up is what kills people. It's only when you refuse to give up that you truly transcend your human self." Alucard, Hellsing by Kouta Hirano

Damnant quadnon intelligunt - They condemn what they do not understand.

Sibling Alchemical
User avatar
johngalt
Fusilli Fuselier
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Lincoln, NE

Another J.G.

Postby John Galt on Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:35 pm

It's nice to see another John Galt, or any Objectivist for that matter. Did you know that your quote is a bit...contradictory to your philosophy? Perhaps you are going for the irony, or perhaps it's only the first part that really matters. Anyway, glad you're here. :fsm_float:
"Blessed be His noodly goodness!" - Ayn Rand
User avatar
John Galt
Conchigliette Convert
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:29 pm

Postby johngalt on Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:02 am

I'm sorry, I don't know what quote you are referring to. My siggy? I don't really see it...

Yeah, I consider myself mostly objectivist, but I realize that some of what Ms. Rand said she didn't have a total understanding of. Like I think welfare is okay, only insofar as the fact that the government has screwed up the person's life and therefore they should fix that. This is, however, not always the case (in fact I would argue that it is rarely the case) But for the most part she really knew what she was talking about. You have no right to harm me, I have no right to harm you. Other than that, live and let live. Enjoy yourself. Best possible philosophy in my opinion.
"Giving up is what kills people. It's only when you refuse to give up that you truly transcend your human self." Alucard, Hellsing by Kouta Hirano

Damnant quadnon intelligunt - They condemn what they do not understand.

Sibling Alchemical
User avatar
johngalt
Fusilli Fuselier
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Lincoln, NE

Postby ChowMein on Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:56 am

Hello Mr. Galt,
Loved Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead,i couldn't put them down.I was even reading them when i was supposed to be working(in an architect's office at the time).
Thankfully i didn't get canned, being the entire staff at the time helped.
I must say though,however enthralled i was with said author and Objectivism,both diminished in my eyes as i read more about her life.
In my view(no offense) she could not practice what she preached(being human) and therefore stands out only as a decent writer and no more.
User avatar
ChowMein
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Southern part of the Great White North

Postby johngalt on Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:00 am

I agree. She herself, not too great a person. In fact, pretty much a terrible Objectivist. The philosophy she presented is good though, if a bit... extreme. A Debate teacher I once had gave an interesting theory on why this is. He thinks she might have intentionally made it too extreme so people would become sort of moderates, which happens with most philosophy, and it would end up being more of the intended type of philosophy. I don't know if I agree with it, but it seems interesting. :shellfish: :shellfish: :shellfish:
"Giving up is what kills people. It's only when you refuse to give up that you truly transcend your human self." Alucard, Hellsing by Kouta Hirano

Damnant quadnon intelligunt - They condemn what they do not understand.

Sibling Alchemical
User avatar
johngalt
Fusilli Fuselier
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Lincoln, NE

Postby ChowMein on Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:33 am

After reading Fountainhead,I must admit i did try to embrace objectivism at that juncture of my life,attemping to emulate Howard Roark, but it didn't last long as i found truth much harder than fiction.
I wonder if a Roark can/does exist?
User avatar
ChowMein
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Southern part of the Great White North

Postby GuitarMan on Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:01 pm

Rand's writing itself is quite good, but her philosophy doesn't interest me whatsoever, simply because it goes against much of what I believe presently. It seems entirely selfish (Hence The Virtue of Selfishness) and intended for someone who has no grasp of what life and living is all about. I've heard it said that Objectivism is a phase that almost all teenagers and young adults go through. My friend and I spend much joyful hours making fun of Rand's objectivism. But that's beside the point.
Look, Lois! It's the two symbols of the Republican Party! An elephant, and a big fat white guy who's threatened by change.
-Peter Griffin
User avatar
GuitarMan
Maccheroncelli Missionary
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: In the fargate, enjoying free cable

Postby Wolfenstein on Fri May 26, 2006 3:46 pm

GuitarMan wrote:It seems entirely selfish (Hence The Virtue of Selfishness) and intended for someone who has no grasp of what life and living is all about.


Please refer to specific text Ayn Rand wrote about life and point out how it is not pro life. Unless you do that I will assume you do not know that you are talking about.
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
User avatar
Wolfenstein
Stele Second Mate
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: The Q Continuum

Postby Wolfenstein on Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:45 pm

ChowMein wrote:I wonder if a Roark can/does exist?


When Atlas Shrugged was published Ayn Rand wrote:I trust that no one will tell me that men such as I write about don't exist. That this book has been written - and published - is my froof that they do.
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
User avatar
Wolfenstein
Stele Second Mate
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: The Q Continuum

Postby JohnGalt717 on Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:36 pm

[quote="Wolfenstein"][quote="ChowMein"]I wonder if a Roark can/does exist?[/quote]

[quote="When Atlas Shrugged was published Ayn Rand"]I trust that no one will tell me that men such as I write about don't exist. That this book has been written - and published - is my froof that they do.[/quote][/quote]

I have strived very hard to incorporate her philosophy, basically to the letter into my life... it doesn't always work.

I think that a Roark can exist, just not everyone can be one... just as Gail Wynand tried but failed, some people just aren't strong enough to achieve the perfection that I believe that Roark is.

On the other hand, Rearden, Dagny, Ragnar are all potentially realistic characters that can exist, showing that Objectivism is not entirely idealistic.
"Who is John Galt?"
JohnGalt717
Ziti Zealot
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:39 am

PreviousNext

Return to Books and Authors, Films and Directors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron