Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/4/13 at 1:19 pm to CHSgc
Thanks for at least making a coherent argument.
While it is true that Objectivism is not as strongly accepted by academics as other philosophies it is hardly the case it is ignored either. UNC, Pitt, and Texas all have supported research on both and the later 2 have tenured profs who are Objectivists. Rating the success of a philosophy by how popular it is with academics is hardly a pure argument. Most philosophy departments are overwhelmingly liberal.
I agree Rand's philosophy is popular with "lay" people (though I fail to see why that is a bad thing, the Philosophy profs I had in school were the ultimate ivory tower elitists that truly seemed to live in their own world). Rand dealt with reality and the human condition and instead of trying to change human nature people should accept it and work with it. People work in their own self interests and are going to be most strongly driven by that.
I also don't think Rand's philosophy is the whole story. Her combining of her philosophy with economic and political theory are what is interesting and rings true. Does Rand go too far in terms of lack of governmental intervention or relying on people operating in their self interest? Maybe, but that's an opinion. It's a worthwhile exercise to learn about different ideas that may conflict with your own.
While it is true that Objectivism is not as strongly accepted by academics as other philosophies it is hardly the case it is ignored either. UNC, Pitt, and Texas all have supported research on both and the later 2 have tenured profs who are Objectivists. Rating the success of a philosophy by how popular it is with academics is hardly a pure argument. Most philosophy departments are overwhelmingly liberal.
I agree Rand's philosophy is popular with "lay" people (though I fail to see why that is a bad thing, the Philosophy profs I had in school were the ultimate ivory tower elitists that truly seemed to live in their own world). Rand dealt with reality and the human condition and instead of trying to change human nature people should accept it and work with it. People work in their own self interests and are going to be most strongly driven by that.
I also don't think Rand's philosophy is the whole story. Her combining of her philosophy with economic and political theory are what is interesting and rings true. Does Rand go too far in terms of lack of governmental intervention or relying on people operating in their self interest? Maybe, but that's an opinion. It's a worthwhile exercise to learn about different ideas that may conflict with your own.
Posted on 2/4/13 at 1:31 pm to aggressor
quote:
Rand was all about the right of the individual to have freedom and operate in their self interest.
Usually her supporters use the qualifier enlightened elf interests, don't they? For good reason. I haven't seen anything in human nature to suggest this as even a remote possibility for most.
Just my pessimistic 2 cents worth.
Posted on 2/4/13 at 1:31 pm to RT1941
quote:
Hugh Freeze
Straight up got highjacked yo
Posted on 2/4/13 at 1:33 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Someone is a proud statist.
Or a moocher, looter or some other form of human parasite.
Unfortunately for this formerly great country, as we learned in November, the parasites are now a majority.
Posted on 2/4/13 at 2:09 pm to MonroeTiger80
quote:
Or a moocher, looter or some other form of human parasite.
Unfortunately for this formerly great country, as we learned in November, the parasites are now a majority.
Spot on. It'd be funny/cute how many "enlightened" socialist sympathizers are on this board....if it weren't so scary & sad.
Posted on 2/4/13 at 2:30 pm to AgDuckHunter
quote:
Spot on. It'd be funny/cute how many "enlightened" socialist sympathizers are on this board....if it weren't so scary & sad.
You just described the average, run of the mill, college student there
Posted on 2/4/13 at 2:37 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Think of it this way, what if instead of them all disappearing to shangri-la of capitalism they start hording their money (which they are already doing to some extent) and stop putting it all back into circulation. It causes real problems because it restricts new entrants into business from getting funds.
Stop listening to Michael Moore.
Money does NOBODY any good if it is horded. It has to be INVESTED, which is what allows lending, which leads to economic growth.
Just because wealthy don't do with their money what you and Barack Hussain want them to do with it does not mean it's "hording" money.
Posted on 2/4/13 at 3:31 pm to KaiserSoze99
Has it been mentioned yet that Rand received welfare through her husband? I guess her philosophy doesn't apply to her.
Posted on 2/4/13 at 4:07 pm to BorisJonson
quote:
Has it been mentioned yet that Rand received welfare through her husband? I guess her philosophy doesn't apply to her.
No, but that sounds like the kind of Non Sequitur I expected to see here. If you are forced by law to pay into a corrupt program for your entire life, you bet your fricking arse you should be entitled to recover once your time comes. Her talking social security benefits still doesn't change the fact that an illegal Ponzi scheme in the private sector is called Social Security when government does it.
Posted on 2/4/13 at 4:18 pm to KaiserSoze99
Would John Galt take SS money? Medicare? She took it because she was broke - not to prove some point. The reason a lot of people are dismissive of Rand and her followers - besides the point that she is a horrendous writer - if you are critical you must be a commie, socialist.....etc. Perhaps you know something about good literature - and know the world is not black and white. Even a good children's book is well beyond Mrs. Rand's talent.
Posted on 2/4/13 at 4:34 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
No, but that sounds like the kind of Non Sequitur I expected to see here. If you are forced by law to pay into a corrupt program for your entire life, you bet your fricking arse you should be entitled to recover once your time comes. Her talking social security benefits still doesn't change the fact that an illegal Ponzi scheme in the private sector is called Social Security when government does it.
I just find it ironic that she was selective over which kinds of welfare and taxes were leaching and which ones weren't. Obviously the ones she was benefitting from weren't immoral, she's Ayn Rand.
Her hypocrisy is mostly funny but her actual philosophy is troubling. The anti-humanist bent of most of her ideas bothers me quite a bit. There are some schools of capitalism I agree with but Rand's laissez-faire ideas are mostly ridiculous.
This post was edited on 2/4/13 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 2/4/13 at 4:46 pm to BorisJonson
I don't exactly follow Rand's form of capitalism, but it's a lot closer that BHO and the left. There has to be some control on market forces, but fear and greed are the best controls.
It is ironic that Rand ended up accepting benefits of a program she hated, but there is NO HYPOCRISY in her actions. She was complaining about it from the beginning, knowing that she was stuck with it and had to pay well more than what she got in return. She was forced.
Take Obamacare. A lot of people are going to buy the government payer program because it's cheaper and they don't want to pay that Got Damn penalty. They still don't want the program, but it is not hypocrisy to buy it. It's like a Muslim eating pork when there is nothing else to eat. Starve or dig on swine? Not a hard choice. It's hardly hypocrisy when one is FORCED into doing something against his or her principles.
It is ironic that Rand ended up accepting benefits of a program she hated, but there is NO HYPOCRISY in her actions. She was complaining about it from the beginning, knowing that she was stuck with it and had to pay well more than what she got in return. She was forced.
Take Obamacare. A lot of people are going to buy the government payer program because it's cheaper and they don't want to pay that Got Damn penalty. They still don't want the program, but it is not hypocrisy to buy it. It's like a Muslim eating pork when there is nothing else to eat. Starve or dig on swine? Not a hard choice. It's hardly hypocrisy when one is FORCED into doing something against his or her principles.
Posted on 2/4/13 at 4:47 pm to KaiserSoze99
Cool misuse of "non sequitur"
edit: I like that you capitalized and italicized it. Quite a lot of fanfare for a term you don't understand.
edit: I like that you capitalized and italicized it. Quite a lot of fanfare for a term you don't understand.
This post was edited on 2/4/13 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 2/4/13 at 4:48 pm to Hog on the Hill
Oh. Please get out your usage dictionary and tell me where it's wrong.
Posted on 2/4/13 at 4:49 pm to Hog on the Hill
....do you even know what a usage dictionary is?
Posted on 2/4/13 at 4:54 pm to FinleyStreet
quote:
Too bad he hasn't gone Gault
Posted on 2/4/13 at 4:55 pm to BorisJonson
What does her taking SS money have to do with anything? Being opposed to those systems doesn't mean you should disqualify yourself from them when you are FORCED to pay into them for your entire working life. If she tried to follow that logic she also probably couldn't drive on public roads or fly in an airplane in federally regulated airspace because she would be a "hypocrite". It's a ridiculous argument.
Rand wasn't perfect by any stretch. In fact I have little doubt from what we know of her that she was a very nice person. She strongly believed in self interest and taking that to an extreme is quite harsh. That doesn't mean it was a philosophy without value. How many philosophers were perfect in both their logic and and actions? Maybe Jesus Christ?
None of that takes away from the reality that much of what she wrote about in Atlas Shrugged well over 50 years ago has come to pass today in a lot of ways. It also doesn't detract from the idea that reading Rand is a good exercise for anyone with intellectual curiosity just as reading others who disagreed with her is.
The literary reviews are also a joke. Rand's brilliance was in being able to write a passable set of novels in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead that showed her philosophy in a less stringent academic format. Of course they weren't great works of literature because they had other intentions than simply entertainment. It didn't help though that about 90% of literary critics are liberal and despised Rand's philosophy. Read for yourself and make your own judgments. If you think Karl Marx or Frederick Neitzsche is where its at then more power to you. I've read them all and have my own opinions.
Rand wasn't perfect by any stretch. In fact I have little doubt from what we know of her that she was a very nice person. She strongly believed in self interest and taking that to an extreme is quite harsh. That doesn't mean it was a philosophy without value. How many philosophers were perfect in both their logic and and actions? Maybe Jesus Christ?
None of that takes away from the reality that much of what she wrote about in Atlas Shrugged well over 50 years ago has come to pass today in a lot of ways. It also doesn't detract from the idea that reading Rand is a good exercise for anyone with intellectual curiosity just as reading others who disagreed with her is.
The literary reviews are also a joke. Rand's brilliance was in being able to write a passable set of novels in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead that showed her philosophy in a less stringent academic format. Of course they weren't great works of literature because they had other intentions than simply entertainment. It didn't help though that about 90% of literary critics are liberal and despised Rand's philosophy. Read for yourself and make your own judgments. If you think Karl Marx or Frederick Neitzsche is where its at then more power to you. I've read them all and have my own opinions.
Posted on 2/4/13 at 5:01 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
edit: I like that you capitalized and italicized it. Quite a lot of fanfare for a term you don't understand
Talk about irony. Jesus titty-sucking Christ.
Posted on 2/4/13 at 5:07 pm to KaiserSoze99
I don't need a usage dictionary. I was on the bus and only saw the first half of his post.
I thought you were replying to only a statement of fact, and being that there was no conclusion (as far as I knew), there could be no non sequitur.
edit: there is something a bit philosophically dissonant about her benefiting from a social program that she loathed, but I can understand the defense of her accepting the benefits.
I thought you were replying to only a statement of fact, and being that there was no conclusion (as far as I knew), there could be no non sequitur.
edit: there is something a bit philosophically dissonant about her benefiting from a social program that she loathed, but I can understand the defense of her accepting the benefits.
This post was edited on 2/4/13 at 5:09 pm
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News