Cain

The Smith book contains some good essays. I've always enjoyed his lucid style, and topics range from his abandonment of religion to disillusionment with Ayn Rand to free-market apologetics.

Many former-Objectivists say this, but what are you thinking about specifically?

Kantian

... the more things actually do stay the same, eh, Primed?

:boohoo:

Since you are a living proof of that maxim, will Keith Russell prove yet another: "we are never as harsh as we are to the truths we used to hold"?

xoc

Rand was elitist. But so was Plato, Nietzsche, and most philosophers that had any interest in social structures and politics, other than when they were pandering to the"sheep" (proletariots unite!) as self-styled saviors of the human race. Elitism is the vein of one society/ideology/group/ preferencing itself and it's kind over the others. Truth is by most definitions elitist against falsehood, the ego is by nature elitist against other egoes in the struggle for realisation and survival, though this must conflict with our social nature and virtuous sense of love, mercy, peace, harmony, etc. The tension of being human I s'pose.

Not that I have much support for Rand, her philosophy was not all too original to warrant a name lasting as long as some of the philos above. The virtue of selfishness, blech(this is a good philosophy for the selfish who want to think they're virtuous). I do not believe she could have had a lasting impact and name if she was not a female, basically women have been so underrepresented in Philosophy(the hall of philosophy-stars) that Objectivism and the rest had an extra value just because it was, for once, a woman saying it. Not that women couldn't make "Great" philosophers, just this one didn't quite pull it off I'd say. But, her own sense-of-self (and the aggressiveness of her ego) and faith in her own philosophy allowed her to fight her way into the world as a voice to be heard, would the world have bothered to listen to a more gentle female in that time? (and could such a person be an "Original", paradigm-shattering kind of philosopher?) Often new philosophies enter the world in a violent way as a clash of ideas is sounded, perhaps the personality of an individual is in part key for this as well... I dunno.

exnihilo

XOC said:
Why do you think Plato and Nietzsche were elitists? Can you elaborate on that. I especially can't make the connection with what you say about groups as relating to Nietzsche, for he was concerned with the cultivation of the individual. It seems, at least according to the above, that you accept a Hobbesian conception, with a sprinkling of Freud.
Nevertheless, Rand's writings, unlike Plato's or Nietzsche's, have no originality, genius, or great insights to the human condition, she is a hack and her writings are not deemed meritorious of serious discussion in the realm of philosophy.

--exnihilo

xoc

exnihilo,

I see Plato as elitist because the government he espoused in The Republic is that of philosopher kings, the elite group who are in on the secrets of the society and considered formed of "gold" rather than base metals who are deemed the only ones worthy of ruling the lesser, vulgar crowd. Certainly one could not make the mistake of considering "all people equal" in such a system- the philosophers are the elite(from the mind of a philosopher no less).

Nietzsche is concerned with cultivation of the individual, but few are up to this. It is certainly not a universal message; mankind is exemplified by it's "strongest individuals" (the higher men, approaching Ubermensch), so there is a kind of elite club (almost like the "many are called, few chosen") that surround Nietzsche's prophet Zarathustra. Most of the rabble could not accept the message, so although he exemplifies the "individual" it is really only a rare individual, and an elite group that come to understanding. I was originally going to say group/individual/ as the elitism of Nietzsche is notr that of a social class(like the class that rules Plato's Republic) but more of a class or type of individual. So one elitism is priveledge by Society(the Republic), the other is an elitisim by Nature's endowments(and the intellectual/philosophical struggle of the higher men towards the Overman).

In spite of that I don't want to appear to be "spitting upon" these intellectual giants, there's a lot to be taken from them both of course, but do find some elitism in them both(and of course not just them). Counter to this I did not find any elitism in Kant's Metaphysics of Morals etc. but see the main distinction between elitism and non-elitist views as the "priveledge" of a certain class of people or not. Since we are not equal in terms of power, natural ability, intelligence, money, etc. etc. it is natural for various elitist systems to arise. The counter, non-elitist view needs to find a metaphysical basis for the equality of people(like the "soul" where essence of man is not dependent on it's manifestation). Buddhism, Stoicism, Pythagoreanism, Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religion, humanism, see a basis for equality on that basic level, so although most of these systems do tend to have elitist tendencies they are not purely elitist as long as they find a basis for "equality." Plato is not purely elitist but is in his proposed form for government. But Nietzsche stressed the inequality of man, preference of masculine over feminine virtues (especially disliking the feminie virtue of "pity"- also prefers the "masculine" version of Prometheus's "sin" against the "feminine" Hebraic version of temptation,(action over passiveness) and is generally dismissive of women as inequal... one could get real Freudian about this, but why?
...
as for Rand, I haven't read any of her books for years, though I liked reading that short one where the character writes "I" on a wall at the end when I was 15 or so. I think her opinions have power due to the strength of her own convictions but most people grow out of her spell eventually. So yeah, she is not up to snuff for serious philosophy, an elitist "philosopher" who can't enter into the assembly of the "philosophically elite". Does her system have any metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, or just an elitist kind of ethics/economics? Nietzsche and Plato are obvious geniuses, as with Kant etc. and definitely have some very original contributions that could effect further societies and systems of thought forever after.
But... Rand may be a poor writer but she is far easier to understand and relate to than most "real" philosophers, which definitely makes her place in Eng 101 a regulated standard for some years to come. And her novels have a clear and distinct ideological slant that is absent from most modern fiction, so I don't think she's all bad, her books could be a good bridge between philosophically empty fiction towards a more philosophical view. She's more likely to turn ordinary, non-philosophically inclined readers towards Philosophy than Kant/Nietzsche/Plato(although Plato is easier reading)/etc. because she is far more accesible, even if her view of humanity can be pretty repugnant sometimes.

JERDOG

People who study Objectivism can and a lot of times go to extremes with it. Yes people do make a religion out of it. People like Leonard Peikoff are considered to be fundamental objectivist. I think the objectivist that are from "The Objectivst Center" rather the "Ayn Rand Institute" are much more down to earth and sometime do disagree with the way Rand went about things.
I personally do not agree with her using the word selfish as a virtue.Though I do agree with the philosophy behind it. I think she did do a nice job articulating how the definition of selfish changed over time in Websters as the religious right influenced increased during the 1900's.

I tend to dismiss peoples arguments against Objectivism who are socialist or of coarse religious minded. If someone is a liberty minded person and has objections to objectivism I tend to listen to what they have to say.
From reading some of the deragotory comments made here about her I would have to say that some of you are socialst to some degree.

JERDOG

Hey ZMA I like that second link you posted .<--sarcasm) the one with all the anti objectivst links.
It just proves my point. Their are websites from anarchist and even bible thumpers! What a joke!
Was we supposed to take any of them seriously?

foolsparade

I personaly think Rand was a tremendous woman. She wrote books that made us think, and thats always a good start to a day.
XOC says that " Nietzsche is concerned with cultivation of the individual, but few are up to this." well it sucks too be you!

xoc

Uh, yeah, how'd you know? (-senseless rant coming up...
Personally I feel quite an affinity for the existentialists, especially the Nietzsche vs. Kierkegaard stress on the individual vs. the "Crowd." The "Crowd" is where we can lose our identity as individuals, become slaves to "peer pressure" or "corporate pressure", "Mutual responsibility", or just endless ways we may compromise our I-status for the "Collective". But "no man is an Island"; I feel we(or just I) need a greater aim than both "Society" or the "Self" to make life worthwhile as both society and self are made of the same troubling material: unstable and undefinable philosophies. The wolves of the world are found on the highest levels of government and hypocrisy because of money/power runs rampant throughout our system. (Personally I wouldn't doubt if Canada's new "decriminization of pot" laws could have been in part a result of OC like the Hell's Angels and above making monetary/etc. promises to certain politicians, and to not completely piss-off the US with too-liberatarian views, don't want to get W to cause any trade embargoes etc. Politicians are often more concerned with "politics"(and their own interests) than government and the people; easy to see how the Machine/Collective/Crowd can seem so evil sometimes.)

But commune communities, small and disorganised, could approach a Utopia if not threatened by outsiders(which is not possible). The 1st century church was full of people who gave all their own to be shared by all, the Pythagoreans likewise considered property communal, in communities where love and friendship are stressed over common hatred of those out of the community we find rare bubbles of semi-utopic societies based on mutual sacrifice, and freedom to expression, order, love, etc. The only way we could taste some kind of "utopia" in the world is if we became people it would be a utopia to know. In a perfect system, it would not matter who the "king" was as all would be of the same mind to judge fairly if they were of equal views and principles, (imagine some small society where the "ruler" changed from week to week to avoid the "corrupting influence of power" on any individual for a long time, sounds unrealistic but idealisitic).

However these kinds of "cult" groups are usually stomped out by greater society as they are "deemed a threat". I suspect in such cases it is often true that it is just their way or life is an affront and insult to the ways of the larger Society and so the Crowd must burn it down to prove the continual error that might=right(the majority are "right").

That being said, large-scale Socialism and Communism hasn't worked so well, although I know people who think Castro's communism works as the people still love him and they've survived despite trade embargoes from the US(an amazing feat considering how close they are to the mainland US). The personable nature of smaller communities can lead "socialistic" methods to work better then in large countries where alienation towards fellow "Comrades" does not inspire true brotherhood. What do we need? A place where "everyone knows your name"; the happy medium where the individual may have freedom of expression and freedom to be as he is individually, and the friendship, harmonistic other benefits of a society. I think we could live this way if countries weren't so full of greedy men with big bombs and aims to take over, as long as such people exist minor "utopias" will always be taken as a threat- the unfree always despise the free, especially if it reminds them their "unfree" state is self-imposed!
Hopefully I haven't gone too far off as I'm half-making it up as I go along here, madly fumbling for a good balance between the individual and society... I'm sure history has a lot better ones than what we're most familiar with...

contracycle

Allow me. I am most certainly 'socialist to some degree' and have a dim view of Rand. The problem with the above statement, though, is that I do not see Rand as "liberty-minded"; I see her as appealing for the subordination of the unwashed masses to the elite. It is in fact, I assert, precisely becuase I am liberty-minded that I oppose Rand and support (what you refer to as) socialism.

Jerdog also wrote:
Most certainly.