I'd never use the phrase "take seriously," and I've not said anything even slightly supportive of Rand. — Terrapin Station
She's not taken seriously because objectivism is crap. When she's right, she's unoriginal and when she's wrong, it's clear she isn't aware of philosophical history and so obviously wrong it just makes her look stupid. Hence anyone downplaying the reasons for this by suggesting she's not taken seriously for irrational reasons is tacitly endorsing crap. — Benkei
I think Rand blows. — Terrapin Station
Which is why I used the words "a bit seriously". — boethius
Ok, so now I have to defend my argument. With references. With Detail. So be it, Boethius.Yes, please defend your thesis by referencing Rand's material. — boethius
She was neither. I would say she was a writer that more of right-wing libertarian conservative who invented her own philosophy of objectivism, which typically is just a resell of older classical philosophy done in a light-weight manner. And when her actual work are works of literature, so her philosophy is quite weak. — ssu
There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.
The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open. The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
1) Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2) Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3) Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. I most emphatically disagree with a great many parts of his philosophy—but his definition of the laws of logic and of the means of human knowledge is so great an achievement that his errors are irrelevant by comparison.
Ok, so now I have to defend my argument. — ssu
With references. With Detail. So be it, Boethius. — ssu
Really? Address something that I actually wrote in the edit section? Gosh.Edit: I'll of course address the "she's not fascist argument" — boethius
Good you had the answer in parentheses and added "though not much". Otherwise it would have been really awkward. There is obviously no reason whatsoever to discuss the thoughts of a crank.(and we will find some common ground there, though not much) — boethius
And obviously that is the most effective way to counter the ideas is to call her a crank. Now why didn't I think of this when somebody starts to talk silly things like Marxist economics. Just denote the Marxists to be cranks. They'll surely notice their error, apologize and change their views. Problem solved boethius style.but my position is her philosophy is crank level — boethius
Of mediocre 18th Century philosophy? No. Because she's a crank, got it.I view this as a gross misrepresentation — boethius
But she's a crank.I agree that Rand doesn't "want fascism", — boethius
Is this good English? (As a stupid foreigner, how could I now?)the issue is whether her philosophy, if taken to heart, leads to fascism anyways regardless of what she wanted and if there's anything in her philosophy, other than blatantly contradictory statements or simply flatly denying it, that would lead us to conclude otherwise. — boethius
Really? Address something that I actually wrote in the edit section? Gosh. — ssu
Good you had the answer in parentheses and added "though not much". Otherwise it would have been really awkward. — ssu
There is obviously no reason whatsoever to discuss the thoughts of a crank. — ssu
Rand is one of these typical immigrants to the US who praise the exceptionality of the American system. She makes this mix of individualism, libertarianism and capitalism in a way that obviously some Americans like. I think it is simply counterproductive brush this of as ludicrous humbug of one crank. You Americans genuinely voted Trump to be your President, so that tells a lot. And people here are discussing solipsism, so...enough people believe in Rand's ideology to have political force. — boethius
Your lurid example of merging with Scientology is beside the point here, so I'll answer to this above.would you change your opinion of the Girku being crankish material just because it developed into a political force? — boethius
Look, I just made a comment that she isn't a fascist to Pattern-chaser's comment, It's you that is making a huge fuss about it.I'm sure you are aware I have not once called her a fascist in this argument nor bring the word "fascist into the argument", just that, once the word appeared and you took issue with it — boethius
This is this strange adjacency accusation which I actually don't like at all. That basically what you actually say doesn't matter, but if the wrong people (who you don't have things in common) refer to you, quote you or whatever, then YOU have common ideologies and sympathies with them. Even if you have said you oppose them. This is simply ludicrous and utterly illogical.my own view that fascists saw it convenient to promote her ideology (does this make her a Fascist yes and no. No, to the extent "she doesn't want fascism in her heart", yes to the extent she was promoting an ideology and cooperating in processes that lead to fascism). — boethius
It's not tricky, it's a historical fact that many ideologies have started from the simple idea that making the World better, some people simply have to be killed. And many people have accepted these kind of ideas, unfortunately. And on both sides of the political divide.For, as you are certainly also aware, "well meaning" and "what we want" (absent any critical thinking that would what our actions are likely to lead to) are tricky concepts in moral philosophy. Is the SS officer taking his coffee on the Fields of Mars and seeing Jews and other riffraff being assembled to be sent to the East somewhere, morally exculpated because he might "means well" and "wishes them no harm". — boethius
Rand is one of these typical immigrants to the US who praise the exceptionality of the American system. — ssu
She makes this mix of individualism, libertarianism and capitalism in a way that obviously some Americans like. I think it is simply counterproductive brush this of as ludicrous humbug of one crank. — ssu
You Americans genuinely voted Trump to be your President, so that tells a lot. And people here are discussing solipsism, so... — ssu
Your lurid example of merging with Scientology is beside the point here, so I'll answer to this above. — ssu
Look, I just made a comment that she isn't a fascist to Pattern-chaser's comment, It's you that is making a huge fuss about it. — ssu
This is this strange adjacency accusation which I actually don't like at all. That basically what you actually say doesn't matter, but if the wrong people (who you don't have things in common) refer to you, quote you or whatever, then YOU have common ideologies and sympathies with them. Even if you have said you oppose them. This is simply ludicrous and utterly illogical. — ssu
does this make her a Fascist yes and no. No, to the extent "she doesn't want fascism in her heart", yes to the extent she was promoting an ideology and cooperating in processes that lead to fascism — boethius
It's not tricky, it's a historical fact that many ideologies have started from the simple idea that making the World better, some people simply have to be killed. And many people have accepted these kind of ideas, unfortunately. And on both sides of the political divide. — ssu
Really? You think Ron Paul is a fascist? How bizarre.
If things go right, we here in the UK may soon see our first-ever socialist leader! — Pattern-chaser
First ever??? What happened to Clement Attlee? — ssu
Look, I just made a comment that she isn't a fascist to Pattern-chaser's comment — ssu
3) Ayn Rand's objectivism is a resell of older classical philosophy done in a light-weight manner. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.