Ayn Rand

[Aleph-One]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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".

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.

[Capellini]

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.

[Wolfenstein]

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.

[Wolfenstein]

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.

[Wolfenstein]

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.

[johngalt]

Wolfenstein seems to have pointed out what I was saying all along. THank you.

[John Galt]

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.

[johngalt]

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.

[ChowMein]

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.

[johngalt]

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.

[ChowMein]

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?

[GuitarMan]

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.

[Wolfenstein]

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.

[Wolfenstein]

I wonder if a Roark can/does exist?

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.

[JohnGalt717]

[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.