Is Ayn Rand the McDonald's Hamburger of American Philosophers?

[Buttons*]

Don't be so silly. In the first place, I never have claimed to know everything about anything, let alone know everything about something as unimportant as Ayn Rand; and in the second place, it is ridiculous of you to think someone would need to read every last word Ayn Rand wrote in order to know some of her opinions. By your silly standards, Ashley, a person would know nothing about an author until they had read all of an author's works. Well, if that were the case, then few people would know anything -- for how many people have read all of any author's works. I don't think you thought through your opinion here before you announced it.

Well, suit yourself then. If you want to be ignorant and talk crap about things you know nothing about, just know it causes YOUR credibility to fail, and no one else's. I remember how you tried the exact same argument to me for not reading all of Dawkins' works. It's interesting that you can't take a similar criticism. Perhaps you should CALM DOWN a notch. You poor thing.

 

[Kathryn]

Bless his heart.

 

[Buttons*]

I've read all of Atlas Shrugged, and about the first 1/3 of The Fountainhead. Sure, there are plenty of individual Ayn Rand quotes that I agree with, and many of her ideas ring true in an isolated context, but this has nothing to do with the validity, or efficacy, of the "philosophy" of objectivism, as a whole. I can find quotes and ideas that I agree with, from just about any book, philosophy, or ideology, regardless of how incorrect the work is as a whole.

I have no idea how many people here have actually read Ayn Rand, but it was very popular among people in college when I read it. In my experience, a pretty good portion of educated people have read it at one time or another.

When I read it, at 19, it appealed to me greatly, and I held objectivism as a valid and true concept for probably a couple of years. The concepts appealed to me as someone who had left home at 18, was financially independent, and had gotten into a good college a year out of high school, all based on my own work and merit, without anyone's help. Objectivism appealed to my sense of superiority because of my independence compared to the other students around me. This, of course, makes sense at a time of life when we are all emotionally immature, despite our experiences or accomplishments.

At the core, regardless of any particular tidbits that might have merit, objectivism fails because it discounts empathy as a valid concept. It tries to eliminate the one attribute that actually makes us human. People are emotionally creatures, not rational ones - although we may be able to think and act rationally, the experience of being human will always be emotional.

True... well since you've read it and give your opinion, I'm much more likely to believe you if you say she's bland like McDonalds.

 

[Sunstone]

I think you should read at least one of her books if you're going to go off on such tangents about her.

You assume a lot, including that I have not read any of her books. But you have nothing to go on for that assumption in anything I've said. I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead some years ago. I have also read a fair amount of secondary source material on Rand. The question -- for any sane person -- is not how much of Rand I have read, but whether I have an accurate notion of her ideas and themes.

Do you have an adequate notion of her ideas and themes, Kathryn? Or is your reading comprehension of Ayn Rand as poor as your reading comprehension of my posts?

 

[Sunstone]

Well, suit yourself then. If you want to be ignorant and talk crap about things you know nothing about, just know it causes YOUR credibility to fail, and no one else's. I remember how you tried the exact same argument to me for not reading all of Dawkins' works. It's interesting that you can't take a similar criticism. Perhaps you should CALM DOWN a notch. You poor thing.

You've read a lot into my comments that is not there. Are you always so asssuming?

As for you and Dawkins, as I recall, your comments about him indicated that you knew nothing of him. The point is not and never has been how much you have read of an author. The point has always been whether you have an accurate idea of him. Leave it up to you to miss the point --- repeatedly.

 

[Buttons*]

You've read a lot into my comments that is not there. Are you always so asssuming?

You know I don't like it when you come onto me

As for you and Dawkins, as I recall, your comments about him indicated that you knew nothing of him. The point is not and never has been how much you have read of an author. The point has always been whether you have an accurate idea of him. Leave it up to you to miss the point --- repeatedly.

Belittle me all you like, it shows your real personality.

I know quite a bit more about him than you think, but you seem to assume just as much as I do. You just like picking on me, and I get that. From your one liners on this thread, I could ONLY assume that you know as little about Rand as I know about, say, Quantum Physics... but hey, I'm not here to judge, I'm just here to point out that comparing Rand to McDonalds isn't accurate, but you'd know that if you had actually known anything about her works. *shrug* As I say, suit yourself.

 

[Sunstone]

You know I don't like it when you come onto me

You call that a come on? Don't flatter yourself. The only come on I'd give you would be intended as a joke.

Belittle me all you like, it shows your real personality.

And you haven't been goading me? Come off your saint's pedestal, Ashley. You can't handle the height.

I'm just here to point out that comparing Rand to McDonalds isn't accurate, but you'd know that if you had actually known anything about her works. *shrug* As I say, suit yourself.

You can say it's not accurate. Can you also offer your evidence for believing it's not accurate. I might have more respect for you if you were not so full of unsubstantiated allegations and so devoid of evidence for your opinions.

 

[Buttons*]

You call that a come on? Don't flatter yourself. The only come on I'd give you would be intended as a joke.

I think you need to calm down..... seriously.

And you haven't been goading me? Come off your saint's pedestal, Ashley. You can't handle the height.

Well perhaps when you calm down some, we can have a rational discussion about whatever's hurting you. Try not to use a strawman about my sainthood to avoid talking about the subject. It's ok though, maybe when you relax a little we can continue this discussion.

You can say it's not accurate. Can you also offer your evidence for believing it's not accurate. I might have more respect for you if you were not so full of unsubstantiated allegations and so devoid of evidence for your opinions.

I think you just need to take it easy, and calm down. Just because you couldn't find any evidence of your own to substantiate your claim does not mean that I couldn't also. I know, you think the world revolves around you because you're upset right now, but when you're in a better place, we'll talk more about it. Just, please, help yourself.

 

[Sunstone]

Try not to use a strawman about my sainthood to avoid talking about the subject.

By the way, this is the second time I've recently seen you misuse the term "strawman". You do know what a strawman argument is, don't you?

 

[Kathryn]

You assume a lot, including that I have not read any of her books. But you have nothing to go on for that assumption in anything I've said. I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead some years ago. I have also read a fair amount of secondary source material on Rand. The question -- for any sane person -- is not how much of Rand I have read, but whether I have an accurate notion of her ideas and themes.

Do you have an adequate notion of her ideas and themes, Kathryn? Or is your reading comprehension of Ayn Rand as poor as your reading comprehension of my posts?

I didn't direct my statement specifically at YOU, Sunstone - you just chose to take it personally. My statement was to ANYONE who judges Ayn Rand without actually reading her material.

Interesting.

Are you always so defensive?

 

[Sunstone]

I didn't direct my statement specifically at YOU, Sunstone - you just chose to take it personally. My statement was to ANYONE who judges Ayn Rand without actually reading her material.

Interesting.

Are you always so defensive?

OK. I'll take your word for it. My apologies.

 

[Buttons*]

By the way, this is the second time I've recently seen you misuse the term "strawman". You do know what a strawman argument is, don't you?

*sigh* Poor dear, you don't get the point. When you learn not to avoid topics because someone you don't like says something interesting, and write it off as emotional, perhaps you'll be a happier person. I can only hope for that day, for your sake.

Anyway, this is off topic, so I'll let it go at that.

 

[Sunstone]

*sigh* Poor dear, you don't get the point. When you learn not to avoid topics because someone you don't like says something interesting, and write it off as emotional, perhaps you'll be a happier person. I can only hope for that day, for your sake.

Anyway, this is off topic, so I'll let it go at that.

I think you're rambling. At the very least, you're incoherent.

 

[Sunstone]

Is there anyone who wants to seriously address the notion that while Ayn Rand is the most popular American philosopher (going by book sales), she is neither the most profound nor truthful American philosopher?

 

[dust1n]

Is there anyone who wants to seriously address the notion that while Ayn Rand is the most popular American philosopher (going by book sales), she is neither the most profound nor truthful American philosopher?

Most profound.. most truthful? She is profound and truthful in the minimal requirements of those words... (at least anything I have read from here.)

Note: Popularity shouldn't even be a consideration. More people vote for American Idol than for a president, that doesn't make American Idol more profound or truthful than American Politics.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is there anyone who wants to seriously address the notion that while Ayn Rand is the most popular American philosopher (going by book sales), she is neither the most profound nor truthful American philosopher?

I think it might be because her writings are easily within grasp, so to speak. Just look at all the people that quote a line from the Matrix and they think that makes them philosophers.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is there anyone who wants to seriously address the notion that while Ayn Rand is the most popular American philosopher (going by book sales), she is neither the most profound nor truthful American philosopher?

She is certainly neither the most profound, nor truthful American anything. Regarding her popularity, I think it may be due to the fact that what she expounds, is what many people like to think about themselves: I'm hard-working, everyone else is lazy. I'm smart and driven, everyone else is stupid and complacent. I don't get what I deserve because everyone else are parasites who steal from me. It appeals to people's over-inflated sense of self-worth, as well as their propensity to blame everyone else for their "misfortune."

 

[dust1n]

She is certainly neither the most profound, nor truthful American anything. Regarding her popularity, I think it may be due to the fact that what she expounds, is what many people like to think about themselves: I'm hard-working, everyone else is lazy. I'm smart and driven, everyone else is stupid and complacent. I don't get what I deserve because everyone else are parasites who steal from me. It appeals to people's over-inflated sense of self-worth, as well as their propensity to blame everyone else for their "misfortune."

Exactly! Anyone who has any materialistic success in the world will come out reading her books feeling like a God on Earth. It also distracts people from the reality of their success, and mindlessly compliments and reinforces it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Don't misunderstand me. I do not believe it is necessary to have read Newton or Darwin in the original to have a good idea of what Newton or Darwin said through secondary sources. That is quite different, however, from what you call "defaming" people without knowing anything about them at all.

This is true. I have never read anything Freud has written, but yet I still have a good understanding of his views of Psychoanalysis, and can form my own opinion that while his views were fitting for his time, he put too much emphasis on one's childhood. His emphasis on sex was a little too strong. Their are also plenty of philosophers that while I haven't got around to reading any of their works, it is not impossible to have an in depth understanding from second hand sources.

 

[dust1n]

This is true. I have never read anything Freud has written, but yet I still have a good understanding of his views of Psychoanalysis, and can form my own opinion that while his views were fitting for his time, he put too much emphasis on one's childhood. His emphasis on sex was a little too strong. Their are also plenty of philosophers that while I haven't got around to reading any of their works, it is not impossible to have an in depth understanding from second hand sources.

I haven't read much Freud, but I think his emphasis on sex is pretty accurate, just due to my own reasoning, but I can honestly only say so much since I'm not that educated in it. I do, however, know about the existence of unconscious desires through third-party media, and seeing how effective his views were for the Public Relations field.