Ayn Rand and William Edward Hickman

It has to be said, Wajoma's exquitely fumbling cop out on the previous page made me giggle. Worth remembering for 2011's Flaming Tomato Awards.

Originally posted by FMF
It has to be said, Wajoma's exquitely fumbling cop out on the previous page made me giggle. Worth remembering for 2011's Flaming Tomato Awards.

I suppose you will be eligible for a second Phoenix Award then!

Originally posted by shavixmir
Not relevant.

You have plenty to say about Rand shav, that means you must have read plenty of her work, that makes you a yank.

Originally posted by Wajoma
You have plenty to say about Rand shav, that means you must have read plenty of her work, that makes you a yank.

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?

Originally posted by shavixmir
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?

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.

Originally posted by Wajoma
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.

You cannot build a philosophy based on metaphysics.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You cannot build a philosophy based on metaphysics.

Of course you can, provided you don't mind being laughed out of court by empiricists.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You cannot build a philosophy based on metaphysics.

There is nowhere else to start.

Originally posted by Wajoma
There is nowhere else to start.

The real world is a good start.

Originally posted by Wajoma
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.

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 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.

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?

Originally posted by Wajoma
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.

And besides... just because she calls it objectivism, doesn't make it objective.

Originally posted by shavixmir
And besides... just because she calls it objectivism, doesn't make it objective.

It may, however, encourage the tendency to treat other people as objects.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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?

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?

Originally posted by Wajoma
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?

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.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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? 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.

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.