Do they really misread, or are they just inspired to head in another direction?doppelgänger;2626277 said:LaVey misread Nietzsche in the same way Rand did.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do they really misread, or are they just inspired to head in another direction?doppelgänger;2626277 said:LaVey misread Nietzsche in the same way Rand did.
doppelgänger;2626274 said:To claim to be a philosopher and mis-read another philosopher's work that badly is embarrassing, and a sign of just how crappy a "philosopher" she was.
Finally! Someone delivers an unassailable critique of Rand.doppelgänger;2626274 said:She was also a crappy novelist. Her dialogue is awful. Her characters one dimensional, unsubtle and usually meant just to deliver speeches for her. Everything is black and white.
What? No Mark Twain, Kurt Vonnegut or Douglas Adams?If you want to read real philosophical novelists, stick with Dostoevsky, Orwell, Conrad and Hesse.
The link. Great article, imo. I think it's funny that he points out that his statements against a laissez faire system elicit more backlash than his combined statements against religion or free will.Sam Harris somewhere describes Rand's philosophy as "autism recast". I think that's being charitable. There's evidence she was a sociopath. Her philosophy reflects that.
Sam Harris said:As someone who has written and spoken at length about how we might develop a truly objective morality, I am often told by followers of Rand that their beloved guru accomplished this task long ago. The result was Objectivisma view that makes a religious fetish of selfishness and disposes of altruism and compassion as character flaws. If nothing else, this approach to ethics was a triumph of marketing, as Objectivism is basically autism rebranded.
Yes it does. I don't know how much Rand you've rad, but she explicitly says, more than once, that all of our actions should stem from our love for ourselves. That is explicit narcissism. She knows she is narcissistic, and loves it.Ayn Rand, I totally dislike her and her philosophy even more. Not only do I disagree with it, but it stresses so much narcissism, or so it seems, even though it does not admit it.
First on what she done is flat said out, in different words, that reason isn't the best way to go for ethics and morals, which I don't think is wrong. But then she goes and says what we should and should not do, and gives her reason on it!
1) She thinks there are 'Absolute Morals' that we have to follow. Hell, I doubt it so much, but I guess it is possible. But when she listed them out, I was thinking, "Who is she to give out the morals? Certainly not God."
[/QUOTE]2) Thanks to Debater Slater for telling me a quote from her today, "Altruism is the greatest evil." It proves she is selfish completely.
Basically, Rand is a cult figure. No matter what the evidence is, her defenders and groupies will never wake up from her kool-aid.
Makes sense to me.Not true. I've studied her and her philosophy and often defend her. But I'm not a groupie and found her kool-aid bitter-sweet.
Understanding Ayn Rand requires an understanding of the environment that created her. Her Philosophy isn't bad, it just doesn't hold up to human nature any more than Communism does. I think her biggest mistake was in deciding that human emotions were bi-products of the intellect and as such, controllable. Hers is a philosophy with a mind but no soul. There is much that can be taken from Objectivism, but over indulging in any philosophy is dangerous. IMHO
Makes sense to me.
I see 99.9% of philosophy as bunk.
But at times, it's illuminating & useful for us to read such bunk.
It isn't as simple as one is right & the other is wrong, but rather whether we find merit in it.
Worry not.Sometimes you make sense. That scares me...
For my money, the most hilarious critique of Rand and her philosophy was written by Michael Caigoy. Here's an except in which Caigoy sums up Rand's criticisms of ideologies other than her own:
"Listening to her impatience at other ideologies reminds me of a five year-old considering the world’s problems. Can’t get the Chilean miners out? “Why not just build a robot?” she’d say, handing over a sketch; herself pictured overseeing the operation from a unicorn. When kids do it, it’s cute (theoretically), but seeing a brusque Russian author do it — not so much."You can read the rest of Caigoy's critique here. But strap yourself to your seat -- you'll be laughing so hard you might fall out.
Not true. I've studied her and her philosophy and often defend her. But I'm not a groupie and found her kool-aid bitter-sweet.
Understanding Ayn Rand requires an understanding of the environment that created her. Her Philosophy isn't bad, it just doesn't hold up to human nature any more than Communism does. I think her biggest mistake was in deciding that human emotions were bi-products of the intellect and as such, controllable. Hers is a philosophy with a mind but no soul. There is much that can be taken from Objectivism, but over indulging in any philosophy is dangerous. IMHO
I've noticed that too.Americans are notoriously deficient when it comes to knowing much of anything about philosophy.
Americans are notoriously deficient when it comes to knowing much of anything about philosophy. That's why Rand is respected as a philosopher in America while laughed at for being a poser in other countries.
Ayn Rand, I totally dislike her and her philosophy even more. Not only do I disagree with it, but it stresses so much narcissism, or so it seems, even though it does not admit it.
1) She thinks there are 'Absolute Morals' that we have to follow. Hell, I doubt it so much, but I guess it is possible. But when she listed them out, I was thinking, "Who is she to give out the morals? Certainly not God."
First on what she done is flat said out, in different words, that reason isn't the best way to go for ethics and morals, which I don't think is wrong. But then she goes and says what we should and should not do, and gives her reason on it!
2) Thanks to Debater Slater for telling me a quote from her today, "Altruism is the greatest evil." It proves she is selfish completely.
As a philosophy student in the US, I can assure you that Rand is not taken as a philosopher by the academic philosophical institution in the States, either.
In her defense, though, she was once asked if she considered herself a philosopher or a novelist, and she said she considered herself a novelist who only philosophized enough to build her fictional worlds. On the other hand, she did write about twice as many philosophical texts as she did novelists, so that may just be another place where she's wrong.
Rand was a humanist. When she said that "Altruism is the greatest evil," her point was that we have motivation for everything that we do and that we do nothing without some form of reward, even if that reward was only to make ourselves feel good, or to placate our current ethical/moral structure.
From this we can derive, in Rand's mind, that altruism is a lie, ergo "the greatest evil." I would implore you to read a bit on Rand's life, you'll quickly understand what made her a humanist and the conclusions she drew for her experiences.
She was in our curriculum. We did a segment on Objectivism.