Debates
10 Jan 11
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderFortunately I have the advantage of reading much later in life, but so far in Fountainhead I see no virtues in the apparent protagonist and his extreme self-centerdness. I find it hard to believe Rand could win anyone over to anything.
đ
Yuck it up; I probably would have grown up to be a nice moderate Republican like sh76 if I hadn't been forced to read such crap extolling the virtues of complete selfishness. I almost became a Shaker because of it.
I suppose if you make the antagonists ugly enough then almost anything looks like virtue, but when righting fiction you always have that power.
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by techsouthRoark does not demand from others. He does not whine and complain. He's macho, confident and has a strong work ethic. His desire to work and produce is so great he loses his self-centeredness in a sense even as he embraces it.
Fortunately I have the advantage of reading much later in life, but so far in Fountainhead I see no virtues in the apparent protagonist and his extreme self-centerdness. I find it hard to believe Rand could win anyone over to anything.
I suppose if you make the antagonists ugly enough then almost anything looks like virtue, but when righting fiction you always have that power.
In many ways he's very different from most Rand admirers I've met. He does not complain about his property being stolen or vandalized. It doesn't bother him that much because he is not centered in his property; he's centered in himself and the act of creation of property.
He's not self-centered in the sense of "gimme stuff, don't take my stuff". He's self-centered in that his locus of control is in himself, not outside of himself. Even as others interfere with his life, he does not allow them to take the locus of control from him. "Bad guys" are simply challenges to overcome, not people to hate and resent.
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHe sounds HOT! Just like Willie Hickman.
Roark does not demand from others. He does not whine and complain. He's macho, confident and has a strong work ethic. His desire to work and produce is so great he loses his self-centeredness in a sense even as he embraces it.
In many ways he's very different from most Rand admirers I've met. He does not complain about his property being stolen ...[text shortened]... m him. "Bad guys" are simply challenges to overcome, not people to hate and resent.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree her comments are almost pathological in nature. She definitely had a mean streak in her, as do many of her current admirers. That's always been sufficient to dissuade me from identifying as a Randian.
While chatting with our resident Rand worshipper Wajoma in the "Gabby" thread, it came up that one of Rand's books, We the Living was on Arizona shooter Jared Loughner's list of favorite books. Wajoma wasn't too crazy (please don't use that part of the sentence out of context) about that work preferring the more well know Fountainhead and [ ...[text shortened]... , but aren't these comments almost pathological in nature?
But the reality of Rand is a complex one. Even given her major character flaws, everything about her and her doctrines cannot be imply declared devoid of value. Her stout, if relentless, defense of individualism was articulate and principled, a much needed antithesis to collectivist ideologies that threaten to undermine the fragile dignity of mankind in the name of safeguarding it.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by IshDaGeggWhat does Rand offer that liberal humanism (from Locke to AC Greyling) does not?
I agree her comments are almost pathological in nature. She definitely had a mean streak in her, as do many of her current admirers. That's always been sufficient to dissuade me from identifying as a Randian.
But the reality of Rand is a complex one. Even given her major character flaws, everything about her and her doctrines cannot be imply declared de ...[text shortened]... ogies that threaten to undermine the fragile dignity of mankind in the name of safeguarding it.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by IshDaGeggCan't think of any reason anyone would define themselves as "Randian" IDG, she was human and made mistakes, probably did smelly f arts the same as the rest of us, no reason to go sniffing them like these other guys seem to enjoy. As far as stories go Atlas Shrugged dosen't do much for me, the characters are romantic ideals, both the good and the bad, but without the philosophy portrayed in that novel the book would have died a death long a go.
I agree her comments are almost pathological in nature. She definitely had a mean streak in her, as do many of her current admirers. That's always been sufficient to dissuade me from identifying as a Randian.
But the reality of Rand is a complex one. Even given her major character flaws, everything about her and her doctrines cannot be imply declared de ...[text shortened]... ogies that threaten to undermine the fragile dignity of mankind in the name of safeguarding it.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaIt seems extremely popular in the USA.
Can't think of any reason anyone would define themselves as "Randian" IDG, she was human and made mistakes, probably did smelly f arts the same as the rest of us, no reason to go sniffing them like these other guys seem to enjoy. As far as stories go Atlas Shrugged dosen't do much for me, the characters are romantic ideals, both the good and the bad, but without the philosophy portrayed in that novel the book would have died a death long a go.
"Sales of Atlas Shrugged have tripled since Obama took office. From 2000 through 2008, the 50-year-old 1,088-page tome sold about 166,000 copies a year. Since Obama was sworn in, more than 600,000 copies have been sold. That’s 530,000 more than it sold in its first year of publication, when it was reviewed by more than 100 literary outlets. It’s the second-best selling political book on Amazon, ahead of trashy political thrillers and behind only Glenn Beck’s forthcoming opus The Overton Window."
Cited: http://www.mediaite.com/print/beck-rand-orwell-top-amazon-bestseller-list-americans-have-an-appetite-for-dystopia/
The same article says that George Orwell is selling well again.
14 Jan 11
1 edit
Objectivism, symbolized by Atlas Shrugged, tells people it's ok for them to be selfish because they're awesome, and awesome people deserve the best. Americans, being individualists and arrogant as heck, as well as highly money oriented, often feel a strong connection to these ideas. It ties in very well with racism, Yankee hatred for charity and the quest for personal wealth.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat would be a good thing wouldn't it? To believe in yourself, to believe yourself 'awesome'.
Objectivism, symbolized by Atlas Shrugged, tells people it's ok for them to be selfish because they're awesome, and awesome people deserve the best. Americans, being individualists and arrogant as heck, as well as highly money oriented, often feel a strong connection to these ideas. It ties in very well with racism, Yankee hatred for charity and the quest for personal wealth.
As for the importance of money, again that is a good thing because money is used to measure good things, you need a refresher, Franciscos money speech:
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=1826
Racism is a form of collectivism, completely at odds with a philosophy of individualism. Charity is fine if it is voluntary, there is no other type. Gummint 'charity' is no measure of a particular nationalities benevolence in fact it might be used as a measure of a particular nationalities reluctance to be charitable. Also benevolence is fine as long as it doesn't cross the line into duty or sacrifice.
The quest for personal wealth? Another admirable attribute.
14 Jan 11
There's also a rebellion theme to AS. The idea is that the elite human capital can rebel against the government passively by simply not working any more except in their secret lairs for their own benefit. This in principle should bring the system to it's knees because the system depends on these superior human beings who generally happen to be rich.
14 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThe human race would have gone extinct long ago if Randian principles had been followed by our ancestors. Selfishness is correctly considered a vice and moral failing in empathic, intelligent, social animals.
That would be a good thing wouldn't it? To believe in yourself, to believe yourself 'awesome'.
As for the importance of money, again that is a good thing because money is used to measure good things, you need a refresher, Franciscos money speech:
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=1826
Racism is a form of collectivism, completely at odd ne into duty or sacrifice.
The quest for personal wealth? Another admirable attribute.
People like Rand and her heroes suffer from mental impairment most likely Narcissistic Personality Disorder (though some like Hickman are socio- or even psychopaths). http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo doubt Roark has many admirable individual qualities.
Roark does not demand from others. He does not whine and complain. He's macho, confident and has a strong work ethic. His desire to work and produce is so great he loses his self-centeredness in a sense even as he embraces it.
In many ways he's very different from most Rand admirers I've met. He does not complain about his property being stolen ...[text shortened]... m him. "Bad guys" are simply challenges to overcome, not people to hate and resent.
Because fiction writers have complete control over their characters and the results, I'm left wondering why Rand is seemingly holding up Roark as an ideal.
For example, if a fiction writer wanted to make public nose picking as a virtue, he or she could create a character who unashamedly picks in public and sees nothing but admiration and fame result. As a reader, if we're not careful we may fail to realize the author has not actually demonstrated the desirability of this virtue of nose picking, when really all he or she has done is told a story. In real life, admiration and fame is not likely to result from public nose picking no matter what happens in the story.
The character Roark, while having some admirable qualities would ultimately disgust me in real life due to his complete selfishness. The characters who admired Roark in the book (e.g. Dominque) are a result of the author's imagination. I would not expect real women to admire and desire Roark in real life. Also, characters who disliked Roark but could not get him out of their mind (e.g. Peter Keating) are fictional. It seems unlikely Keating would develop such a fixation in real life.
Roark as an ideal is very lacking. Should the rest of us aspire to his brand of selfishness? I think not. Although we could aspire to his other admirable qualities, whether we embrace his selfishness or not we'd still have to deal with our own human weakness and not be able to attain even the virtues that are worth imitation. Roark nor Rand provides any power to attain these virtues. I'm still reading, but so far I'm still trying to find Rand's point.
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by techsouthRoark is not seeking fame or admiration, he does not look for approval from others, IMO the purpose of this character is to exemplify the importance of being true to oneself, an aspect of selfishness.
No doubt Roark has many admirable individual qualities.
Because fiction writers have complete control over their characters and the results, I'm left wondering why Rand is seemingly holding up Roark as an ideal.
For example, if a fiction writer wanted to make public nose picking as a virtue, he or she could create a character who unashamedly picks in ...[text shortened]... tain these virtues. I'm still reading, but so far I'm still trying to find Rand's point.
16 Jan 11
Originally posted by IshDaGeggWell everything can be declared devoid of value on the grounds that her views are not based on logical and consistent reasoning and they are not adequately grounded in an understanding of the relevant philosophy. Listing the flaws in her arguments is too tiresome for serious people to bother and serious people don't bother - why would they?
Even given her major character flaws, everything about her and her doctrines cannot be imply declared devoid of value.
There are elements in her output that might be worth debating, but they are borrowed from and better stated by others who are far more credible. For example, the philosopher Max Stirner set out a very consistent and effective case for "egoism" in about 1848 (I have not checked the year), to which Marx and Engels devoted a large part of their review of current thinking in The German Ideologies. That was a serious and interesting debate. Rand is neither serious nor interesting.