Ayn Rand
 

this will take about 28 minutes to watch in it's 3 parts.

many years later(1980) on phil donahue

Bravo, bravo, and bravo.
If only...

if only we could all see clearly enough to realize her vision?

The problem lies in people's fear. Fear of having to fend for themselves. To have to live on what they can acheive. The potential for disaster if they become sick or injured and cannot rely on anyone (the state) to protect them and feed them. It's a nice idea, and makes a lot of sense, but the reality of it is too cold and stark for people to come to grips with.
Given the choice of security and the loss of personal liberty vs. freedom and the danger of poverty and even starvation, most will surrender their liberties. I wouldn't.

And daily, we move further and further from that ideal.

That Donahue bloke's a bit thick isn't he?

Did he not do any research?




haven't actually come across her before (:eek: ), and only watched a few bits of it, but generally it makes sense to me.

I think the thing here is, it just doesn't gel with any ideology that includes the idea of judgement, or an afterlife or reincarnation, and that's a huge hurdle for many to overcome, no matter how much they are drawn to the basic concept.

I defined my own morality a long time ago, it's not very disimilar from Rand's, but not identical either, and I've never managed/tried to put it in words. Bravo for her for doing so, although one wonders how that fits in with her philosophy? Preaching is not exactly a fulfilling pastime in general, -why would you do it if you were not trying to impose your beliefs on others? And if you were just after the satisfaction of successfully describing your thoughts so that others may understand, you're doomed to fail.

You know, there's a reason I've never tried to put it in words -it's too hard, I'm too tired and right now beer makes me happy, philosophoferizing makes me cross-eyed. So I'll practice what I believe in and stfu ;)

I think she's was trying to impose people's own beliefs on them.

Irrational constructs are necessary to interpret and process the events around us. The limitations of our perception make it impossible for us to ever know "the truth" and hence, it is our destiny to dwell in the realm of the Subjective.

The very notion of an objective reality is, in my opinion, nothing more than subjectivity simulating objectivity; subjectivity in denial of itself. An idea that can't bear to examine itself in the mirror for fear that it might not see its own reflection.

I've tried to appreciate Ayn Rand but she's a little too in love with her own intellect. I'll go with someone who thinks he's right over someone who knows he's right. Even Einstein didn't trust his own conclusions and he was a scientist. How can a philosopher have less uncertainty of his own opinion than a scientist of his own conclusions?

Particularly ironic is that Rand's philosophy which, it can be argued, has its roots in Plato's cave is being advanced in an age where quantum theory has given rise to a more compelling empirical model of reality that sprang out of observing the subatomic world. The idea that the mere act of observing reality affects reality which precludes the notion that one can stand on the bank of the river and make an objective observation about the river.

In a world where nothing is truly independent of anything, objectivity as an idea is null and void.

In the long run she couldn't apply her thinking so well to her own life, and after a long term affair with one of her intellectual posse, she became a very bitter old woman and I believe she died alone. Applied to the emotion and rollercoaster of love, her ideas became a jumble and did not serve her. The group she founded became insular and closed and always at war with itself.

Good ideas taken with a grain of salt, is what it is.

Wow. I came in here to ask a question about Randism and taxes, but then I read Beestie's post. Damn.

Sometimes that Ayn Rand she looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And, you know, the thing about Ayn Rand... she's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When she comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until she bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'.


I'm pretty sure she was reincarnated as a dung beetle.


she was an extremist and I don't like extremists of any kind.

I'm going to have to come back later and watch the rest of the video series, plus I'm going to buy both her books and read them with great enthusiasm. Many of my own ideas are in parallel with hers, not all, but many. Her bit on love in the first video is very close to what I've come to think in the past few years, if you must love all, you can love none. We live in a society that forces us to value that which none of us can control, our humanity. We are told that someone deserves our aid not because he has fought to better himself in all areas, but because he happened to be born with a human genome. This is all sounds warm and fuzzy when read in a heated room in front of like minded people, but the disillusionment of so many people who set out to serve others is a good warning about how this meshes with reality.
Is it really heartless to expect people to earn the respect and loyalty of those around them? Most would say no, is it really any different to say that they must earn love through effort and personal growth?

At the Ayn Rand school for Tots, "our aim here is to develop the bottle within."

Nothing is more entertaining than an evening visiting a family of Randists, where I was told I could partake of the noodles and pasta sauce they cooked as long as I coughed up five bucks.

I didn't accept invitations to dinner at their house after that.

Most likely they were odd before Rand came along, if you invite someone to dinner then food is a gesture of goodwill. That being said I found Beestie's post amusing, Einstein had reason to doubt his conclusions because at that scale photons actually have a huge effect. There must be some sort of objective reality separate from ourselves because if there wasn't, then science would never work. The subjective nature of the fabric of reality would alter each experiment and nothing would be repeatable. This is not the proven case. It is people that are subjective, not reality. Striving to leave as much of that subjectivity behind is simply the natural human desire to improve ourselves.

Just because we cannot be absolutely, perfectly, objective does not mean we should not do our damnedest to get as close as we can.
This is like saying, "well, we can't eat all the turkey today... throw the damn thing out".
I like a lot about objectivism... what I do not like, I dislike completely.

Reminds me when Maggie Simpson went to the Ayn Rand pre-school. There was a sign on the wall: "A is A" and all binky's were banned. Maggie, thru ingenuity and personal bravery, was able to unlock the locker where they stored the binky's and distributed them to all the kiddies. You just can't seperate Maggie from her binky.