Ayn Rand ?

[Brainiac]

Take a look at Reagan's "Trickle Down" theory as well. I don't think that worked the way it was expected to either. It basically said (and I'm grossly oversimplifying) that by giving tax breaks to the rich, the money would "trickle down" to poorer folks through better sales, a stronger economy, and raises and such. It did not do so. It wasn't based on Objectivism, but post-Trickle Down data did show that the most well-off people kept a lot of the additional profits that they received from the tax breaks for themselves and their higher-ups rather than letting them "Trickle Down" to middle-class America. I'd be interested to see how the data from this program might affect your theory. I'd have to admit that economics is one of my weaker subjects so I can't offer you more than a lead.

I think a better description of supply-side economics would be to state that everyone gets tax cuts, and everyone benefits because of the resulting expansion in economic activity. Do the people with higher incomes get bigger savings in terms of absolute dollars? Yes, of course they do. But that's because they are the ones paying the taxes.

"Trickle down" is code for "I don't believe it".

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It appears to be dead wrong. A mind that is completely certain is the opposite of "active". That person has stopped thinking, and is resorting to dogma as irrationally as any cultist.

I am not sure you understand the difference between philosophy and dogma.


Philosophy: all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts

Dogma: something held as an established opinion

Very different, would you not say?

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Rand took her unconfirmed intuitions as axiomatic! Google threads from her critics to see that. One notes that she is part-this and part-that. She inveighs against certain philosophers whilst partway using their thought!
Had she taken the effort she'd has seen that Butler rebuts egoism as well as seeing she was pretty wet! Neither she nor her heir Leonard Peikoff could stand criticism, feeling that her system was the Truth for all time, never needing updating and criticism, the mark of a closed mind, not of a skeptic or rationalist or naturalist
Faith doth that to people!.

 

[bookitty]

In college, arguing Rand was one of my favorite pastimes. Her work is a wonderful jumping off point. These days, I consider re-reading her books and all I can think is "Ugh! The interminable dinner parties!"

 

[barrymore]

The people who reject Rand outright are no different than the people that pay lip-service to her. She has good ideas and bad ideas just like any philosopher.

To give you an example of each side:
The enemies tend to criticize her writing style and say her books are trash. OK, that may be the case, but it is irrelevant to the ideas contained within.
The lovers/followers believe in their own hype and tend to emphasize commercial success over all else.
It is as fashionable to criticize her books as it is to quote John Galt.

This is a shame because I think we can almost all agree on many of her points:
--Rationality & the importance of dispassionate analysis
--Productivity
--Individuality and Individual freedom
--Individual principles and rationally sticking to them
--The individual as a hero & aspiring to greatness

 

[Cavemonster]

Barrymore,
All those things you listed that one may agree on Rand with were communcated better earlier, by more talented writers and more interesting philosophers. They are standard, not revolutionary ideas. Only twisted into Rand's thesis are they something distinct, and in that they are incorrect.

Not to Godwin myself, but Hitler championed pride in one's country, athletic excellence and loved dogs. Aren't those good ideas? The reason no one needs to bring up Hitler to support those things is that they all existed long before him and he didn't make any real contributions.

Rand is the same way. Anything true she said, she added nothing to.

 

[barrymore]

Barrymore,
All those things you listed that one may agree on Rand with were communcated better earlier, by more talented writers and more interesting philosophers. They are standard, not revolutionary ideas. Only twisted into Rand's thesis are they something distinct, and in that they are incorrect.

I never said they were. Two things to note:
1.) I agree that Rand is not the best implementation of philosophy. The gulf between her and Plato in writing style, presentation, and depth is as wide as the length of the universe. But her ideas should still stand on their own.
2.) As you point out, they have been uttered many times before. The funny thing is that many people find them intriguing and worthy of discussion, but suddenly slap Rand's name on them and people dismiss them. Actually, they go beyond dismissing them and get absolutely defensive over them. Look if you want to attribute the ideas to someone else go ahead, but in the end it is irrelevant. Ideas are ideas.

Not to Godwin myself, but Hitler championed pride in one's country, athletic excellence and loved dogs. Aren't those good ideas? The reason no one needs to bring up Hitler to support those things is that they all existed long before him and he didn't make any real contributions.

Rand is the same way. Anything true she said, she added nothing to.

Not sure what the Hitler reference has to do with anything. Nazism is pseudo-philosophy and never aspired to be anything more. It never tried to explain anything and was only borne out of political motives. Objectivism, while some consider it pseudo-philosophy, at least aspires to explain the world and develop a formal, consistent set of rules.

But...

Again, who cares who uttered the ideas? It's one thing to disagree with ideas. But I am railing against people dismissing Rand outright because they did not like her writing style or the cult that has grown around her. Labeling a philosophy as Randian is only useful inasmuch as it saves people time in the initial staging of discussion. Besides that, the name and the content of the ideas should not be intertwined.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I tried to read a Rand book once.

Her characterisation of Socialism was so wrong I almost thought it was a satire on Libertarianism. It was absolutely pathetic. It stated that if you adopt a socialist system, in a fairly short (implied) space of time, you would lose science to the degree that glass becomes a new discovery (what? I mean seriously, what?) and names would be banned. There were other obscenely wrong distortions of socialist philosophy, but those two really made me laugh out loud.

Furthermore, her own philosophy was roughly equivalent to a five year old, with the same levels of social conscience, empathy and altruism. There was nothing attractive (to me) about her philosophy. I find the argument that dismissing "Randian" ideas out of hand because they are based on her dreadful books or because there's a weird personality cult around her is, in my opinion, a distortion of reality. Most people I know who actually know who Rand is think her ideas that are the reason they dismiss Randian ideas out of hand.

They still agree her writing is dreck though.

 

[barrymore]

Furthermore, her own philosophy was roughly equivalent to a five year old, with the same levels of social conscience, empathy and altruism. There was nothing attractive (to me) about her philosophy. I find the argument that dismissing "Randian" ideas out of hand because they are based on her dreadful books or because there's a weird personality cult around her is, in my opinion, a distortion of reality. Most people I know who actually know who Rand is think her ideas that are the reason they dismiss Randian ideas out of hand.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Senex]

God bless Ayn Rand.

It's important that articulate people exist on the edge of argumentative positions.

Heaven knows there are articulate commies out there but how many people argue that capitalism and self interest make what is best in the world possible.

She has an important place for open minded thinkers.

 

[Chris L]

I'm about a third of the way through Atlas Shrugged, and while I've seen what look to be some interesting ideas, I haven't seen anything worth creating a religion over. I see the book so far as a battle of elites, those who produce and those who want to (for various reasons) control those who produce (yes, I know that is kind of obvious). I think one reason for the book's length is that Rand wanted the reader to feel the frustration of people like Daggney and Reardon. That frustration is supposed to make Galt Gulch more attractive. In any case, it's an interesting read so far.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Thank you for proving my point.

Her philosophy, to me, in my opinion (can I stress that part enough?) was morally bankrupt and had a very questionable line to it. That she didn't consider all good things to be evil strikes me as an argument no more compelling than the argument that you can't hate on Charles Manson because he had good taste in music.

The parts of her philosophy that I actually agreed with, I failed to notice because they weren't actually hers. When I discuss a philosopher and their ideas, be it Rand, or Plato or Mill, I do not consider the fact that none of them say "so start killing people for their possessions!" to be a point in their favour. Just because they approve of something good that practically every philosopher agrees to does not make their views more or less insane and laughable.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Let me know when you get to John Galt Speaks and quit reading.

 

[barrymore]

Her philosophy, to me, in my opinion (can I stress that part enough?) was morally bankrupt and had a very questionable line to it. That she didn't consider all good things to be evil strikes me as an argument no more compelling than the argument that you can't hate on Charles Manson because he had good taste in music.

The parts of her philosophy that I actually agreed with, I failed to notice because they weren't actually hers. When I discuss a philosopher and their ideas, be it Rand, or Plato or Mill, I do not consider the fact that none of them say "so start killing people for their possessions!" to be a point in their favour. Just because they approve of something good that practically every philosopher agrees to does not make their views more or less insane and laughable.

What parts of her philosophy? What is logical? What is illogical?

I do not mean to compare her to these philosophers in terms of impact or quality, but dismissing Rand because you do not like her writing style or narratives is akin to dismissing Nietzsche because you did not like Thus Spoke Zarathustra or Kant because you thought The Critique of Pure Reason was too dense.

 

[D'rok]

The people who reject Rand outright are no different than the people that pay lip-service to her. She has good ideas and bad ideas just like any philosopher.

To give you an example of each side:
The enemies tend to criticize her writing style and say her books are trash. OK, that may be the case, but it is irrelevant to the ideas contained within.
The lovers/followers believe in their own hype and tend to emphasize commercial success over all else.
It is as fashionable to criticize her books as it is to quote John Galt.

This is a shame because I think we can almost all agree on many of her points:
--Rationality & the importance of dispassionate analysis
--Productivity
--Individuality and Individual freedom
--Individual principles and rationally sticking to them
--The individual as a hero & aspiring to greatness

You state those points as if they are axioms that are self-evidently true to any rational being. By doing so you a) imitate Rand's methodology, and b) reveal that she is not a philosopher.

You also commit argumentum ad populum, as if the truth of Rand's assertions had any relevance to the number of believers.

 

[Senex]

. I think one reason for the book's length is that Rand wanted the reader to feel the frustration of people like Daggney and Reardon. That frustration is supposed to make Galt Gulch more attractive. In any case, it's an interesting read so far.

non-spoiler: Get back to us after you read Galt's 60 plus page radio address.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

What I mentioned. If you haven't already been hit over the head with Rand's philosophy at that point in the book, JGS's will numb your brain and leave you hating her ideas and her writing.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

What parts of her philosophy? What is logical? What is illogical?

I do not mean to compare her to these philosophers in terms of impact or quality, but dismissing Rand because you do not like her writing style or narratives is akin to dismissing Nietzsche because you did not like Thus Spoke Zarathustra or Kant because you thought The Critique of Pure Reason was too dense.

I explicitly stated that I dislike Rand because of her philosophy rather than writing style. Can you read for comprehension?

I find her philosophy to be utterly worthless. Want me to expand?

I feel that her theories promote the concept of social darwinism, a bankrupt philosophy based on a total misunderstanding of something that has nothing to do with morality. I find her ideas to be selfish in the extreme and I find the idea that people should haul themselves up on their own merits and those who do not do so are all lazy slobs who deserve to die shocking and disgusting.

I also find her opinion that if someone is struggling, people will just lend a hand out of the goodness of their hearts without being made to by teh evul gubmint to be laughable in it's idiocy and naivety, in much the same way that the "let's all pull together chaps" ideas of Communism are.

I also find it hilarious when Libertarians can't see that those two things are exactly the same.

 

[Senex]

I explicitly stated that I dislike Rand because of her philosophy rather than writing style. Can you read for comprehension?

I find her philosophy to be utterly worthless. Want me to expand?

I feel that her theories promote the concept of social darwinism, a bankrupt philosophy based on a total misunderstanding of something that has nothing to do with morality. I find her ideas to be selfish in the extreme and I find the idea that people should haul themselves up on their own merits and those who do not do so are all lazy slobs who deserve to die shocking and disgusting.

I also find her opinion that if someone is struggling, people will just lend a hand out of the goodness of their hearts without being made to by teh evul gubmint to be laughable in it's idiocy and naivety, in much the same way that the "let's all pull together chaps" ideas of Communism are.

I also find it hilarious when Libertarians can't see that those two things are exactly the same.

Ayn Rand might be a bit deeper thinker than you give her credit for. Just look at your post. Five paragraphs and every one starts with "I." "I,I,I,I," give us a break. (I think I missed one).

The world doesn't turn because because you woke up this morning --you commie. You are on the dole aren't you?

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Mark, you are the right way Corrigan!
D'rok,those matters are right on! However, she was such a hypocrite! And she didn't see individual greatness in most people!
Oh, " Atlas " as a science-fiction movie without all the obtuse philosophy could be fine.
Anjelique Jolie, atheist, want to play Dagny.