Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tk · 01-06-2003, 09:42 AM

Quote:

...a face that bore no mark of pain or fear or guilt. The shape of his mouth was pride, and more: it was as if he took pride in being proud...

Wow, Ayn Rand surely surpasses Feliciano de Silva when it comes to scarcity of content. Phrases that are supposed to describe physical countenance, but give zero information on the subject. What more can one want?

Quote:

But of all <books of chivalry> there were none he <Don Quixote> liked so well as those of the famous Feliciano de Silva's composition, for their lucidity of style and complicated conceits were as pearls in his sight, particularly when in his reading he came upon courtships and cartels, where he often found passages like "the reason of the unreason with which my reason is afflicted so weakens my reason that with reason I murmur at your beauty;" or again, "the high heavens, that of your divinity divinely fortify you with the stars, render you deserving of the desert your greatness deserves." Over conceits of this sort the poor gentleman lost his wits, and used to lie awake striving to understand them and worm the meaning out of them; what Aristotle himself could not have made out or extracted had he come to life again for that special purpose.
-- Miguel de Cervantes, "Don Quixote"

Gurdur · 01-06-2003, 10:05 AM

hmm. I am rather greatly in awe at tk's last post; the parallels are striking, and the analogies so apt that it would make a devastating and great literary critique.
I'll note the whole passage, and I'll look through the context, for future use or just thought.

:notworthy

I must admit to feeling rather plebian now.

Greg2003 · 01-06-2003, 02:56 PM

I am so, so sorry I did not find this thread earlier, as I absolutely hate and despise Ayn Rand. I cannot agree more with RED DAVE's critique of her writing style.

I particularly enjoyed South Park's satire about Ayn Rand. The boys teach the town sheriff to read and the guy who runs the RIF truck gives him a copy of Atlas Shrugged praising it as the greatest book ever written. At the end of the show the sheriff thanks the boys for teaching him to read and then announces that he will never read anything ever again, because if that worthless piece of shit is the greatest book ever written then there's just no point in reading anything at all.

Rand is mostly worshipped by poorly educated high schoolers and sophomoric college students, as well as the adults that these people eventually become. I guess it's comforting to some people to pick an idea and then never, ever change your mind or even consider alternatives.

99Percent · 01-06-2003, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg2003 Rand is mostly worshipped by poorly educated high schoolers and sophomoric college students, as well as the adults that these people eventually become. I guess it's comforting to some people to pick an idea and then never, ever change your mind or even consider alternatives.

I think you should be careful about statements making sweeping generalizations like you just made. Even though I do agree some people have taken Rand and objectivism to dogmatic cultish levels, Randian individualism would outright reject this kind of worshipping itself. And that I find strangely ironic.

elwoodblues · 01-06-2003, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Even though I do agree some people have taken Rand and objectivism to dogmatic cultish levels, Randian individualism would outright reject this kind of worshipping itself. And that I find strangely ironic.

Quite. People will make a cult out of just about anything. Some Christians managed to twist a religion mostly built on loving and caring for your neighbor into things like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Some Muslims managed to do something similar.

Any set of ideas will have some intractable individuals associated with it. But that doesn't indict the set of ideas. It just means people will be idiots, and it takes a special kind of stupid maquerading as intelligence to be _really_ dumb.

Rand espoused a philosophy based entirely on individualism. Some idiots managed to twist that into some kind of dogmatic, lockstepping cult. That's not the fault of Rand or her ideas; it's the fault of the idiots.

tk · 01-06-2003, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Rand espoused a philosophy based entirely on individualism. Some idiots managed to twist that into some kind of dogmatic, lockstepping cult. That's not the fault of Rand or her ideas; it's the fault of the idiots.

Actually, the philosophy that was being twisted is Libertarianism. What Rand did was to take the tenets of Libertarianism, and claim that they are based on "reason" and "objective truth" using specious arguments. So, the cult had been created long before the idiots came in.

Quote:

hmm. I am rather greatly in awe at tk's last post; the parallels are striking, and the analogies so apt that it would make a devastating and great literary critique.

Beginner's luck, I guess.

A complete translation of Don Quixote is available at Project Gutenberg, along with the works of other satirical authors such as Jonathan Swift (see Gulliver's Travels) and H. H. Munro (see Beasts and Super-Beasts).

OK... more Randian silliness, from Ayn Rand says...:

Quote:

Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

-- Ayn Rand, "Galt's Speech," Atlas Shrugged

Content in this speech is nonexistent.

Quote:

Contrary to the ecologists, nature does not stand still and does not maintain the kind of "equilibrium" that guarantees the survival of any particular species - least of all the survival of her greatest and most fragile product: man.

-- Ayn Rand, "The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

To summarize: "The ecologists are wrong, because they are wrong."

Quote:

Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.

-- Ayn Rand, "Philosophy: Who Needs It," Philosophy: Who Needs It

Yeah, and the Bible is the earth on which the soil rests. Another attempt to use analogy to `prove' things...

Zar · 01-07-2003, 12:12 AM

Maybe cultishness can manifest itself around any thinker, but Randism has a way of creating a special hold on people with its all-roads-lead-to-rome, one-stop-shopping claims to certainty and correctness. I think Randism is itself partly responsible for this, and it is a phenomenon that goes beyond simply having its "fair share" of dogmatic adherents. Maybe its the way she talks, or the cult of personality surrounding the seeming invincibility of her persona. Many an "objectivist" I've heard or read talks about philosophy as if they are channeling Rand's spirit rather than presenting their own views after long consideration. They even adopt some of her vocabulary and quirks. Maybe this is a wholly unintended consequence of her work, but I think it is nonetheless present.

This is especially hard for people who stumble upon her work before doing any real studying of any other philosopher. Its hard to abandon the confidence she instills, and her invectives and diatribes can be difficult to overcome when you are trying to give another idea fair consideration.

99Percent · 01-07-2003, 10:03 AM

tk: Thanks for bringing up great quotes of Rand

Quote:

Content in this speech is nonexistent.

I am dismayed you say that. The content in that speech is fundamental. In short its saying that existence and consciousness are fundamental philosophical axioms that can't be contested or derived.

Quote:

To summarize: "The ecologists are wrong, because they are wrong."

What a simplistic interpretation. What she is saying is that man as value is above nature's ontology doesn't presuppose a value system that chooses one species over another. Man therefore is always going against nature in order to survive. Thats one reason why she calls Man a heroic being.

Quote:

Yeah, and the Bible is the earth on which the soil rests. Another attempt to use analogy to `prove' things...

She is using analogy to illustrate her point to make it easier for you to understand.

99Percent · 01-07-2003, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zar
This is especially hard for people who stumble upon her work before doing any real studying of any other philosopher. Its hard to abandon the confidence she instills, and her invectives and diatribes can be difficult to overcome when you are trying to give another idea fair consideration.

Yes, I can imagine how it feels as someone who belonged to a cult for several years (a neo-eastern one, nothing to do with Rand). One must always think for one's self anyway and never blindly follow other's dictates (which is sooo easy because thinking for yourself is one of the hardest things we are required all to do)

But Rands books does encourage you to study philosophy critically. And frankly most philosophers are a real bore, at least Rand tried to make it more entertaining and accessible.

Gurdur · 01-07-2003, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent

What a simplistic interpretation. What she is saying is that man as value is above nature's ontology doesn't presuppose a value system that chooses one species over another. Man therefore is always going against nature in order to survive. Thats one reason why she calls Man a heroic being.

This is simply untrue. All species have survival-seeking built into their genes --- otherwise they wouldn't survive.
To claim "Man ... is therefore ...going against Nature... to survive" is simply wrong; lemmings willl also multiply till the local enviroment cannot support a current lemming population.

It would be far more apt to call ecologists heroic beings for resisting simple-mided exploitation, to call the inventors of the Pill heroic beings for resisting the demands of genes.

A lemming, or a human behaving like one, is far from being heroic.

Quote:

She is using analogy to illustrate her point to make it easier for you to understand.

Nope, she is using analogy because she has no good argument and she wanted to make emotional propaganda appeals.

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent

I think you should be careful about statements making sweeping generalizations like you just made....

How very ironic to the max !

Let's get back to social ethics and responsibilities; obviously, most people believe they exist and live by them.

An ethic exists when a significant number of people live by it

To then term all these people "intellectual cop-outs" for not accepting Objectivist claims that such ethics do not exist would seem to be a rather ridiculous stance, let alone a sweeping generalization.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2003, 10:05 AM	#142
Gurdur Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Buggered if I know Posts: 12,410	hmm. I am rather greatly in awe at tk's last post; the parallels are striking, and the analogies so apt that it would make a devastating and great literary critique. I'll note the whole passage, and I'll look through the context, for future use or just thought. :notworthy I must admit to feeling rather plebian now.

01-06-2003, 02:56 PM	#143
Greg2003 Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 167	I am so, so sorry I did not find this thread earlier, as I absolutely hate and despise Ayn Rand. I cannot agree more with RED DAVE's critique of her writing style. I particularly enjoyed South Park's satire about Ayn Rand. The boys teach the town sheriff to read and the guy who runs the RIF truck gives him a copy of Atlas Shrugged praising it as the greatest book ever written. At the end of the show the sheriff thanks the boys for teaching him to read and then announces that he will never read anything ever again, because if that worthless piece of shit is the greatest book ever written then there's just no point in reading anything at all. Rand is mostly worshipped by poorly educated high schoolers and sophomoric college students, as well as the adults that these people eventually become. I guess it's comforting to some people to pick an idea and then never, ever change your mind or even consider alternatives.

01-07-2003, 12:12 AM	#147
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	Maybe cultishness can manifest itself around any thinker, but Randism has a way of creating a special hold on people with its all-roads-lead-to-rome, one-stop-shopping claims to certainty and correctness. I think Randism is itself partly responsible for this, and it is a phenomenon that goes beyond simply having its "fair share" of dogmatic adherents. Maybe its the way she talks, or the cult of personality surrounding the seeming invincibility of her persona. Many an "objectivist" I've heard or read talks about philosophy as if they are channeling Rand's spirit rather than presenting their own views after long consideration. They even adopt some of her vocabulary and quirks. Maybe this is a wholly unintended consequence of her work, but I think it is nonetheless present. This is especially hard for people who stumble upon her work before doing any real studying of any other philosopher. Its hard to abandon the confidence she instills, and her invectives and diatribes can be difficult to overcome when you are trying to give another idea fair consideration.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.