Interesting article on Ayn Rand

[mhaze]

Correct, it's important to point that out, I'm only suggesting, somewhat tenuously but by all accounts accurately, that there are memetic remnants of some of that in the menome if you will......

I can't see any disagreement with that. Anything can and does often have a cult subset, Lady Gaga, The JREF Forum, Obama, .... anything. But if one focuses on that tiny wacko subset, it doesn't really get one anywhere.

That was my point on the original Slate smear article from 2009. As for the movie, like I said I like dystopian style movies, but in any case the only figure of merit for a movie is whether it was entertaining.

....Heh, I read his coming out letter from then recently actually. I remember him saying he was convinced by the data that was presented from the the consensus of climatologists. That you care to use such blatant ad hominems in casual conversation about him shows....

No, seriously, he did say algoreManBearPig's movie caused his epiphany. Now are you trying to weasel around that? I guess I don't see the point in doing that. Why would you need to weasel around the subject for a Titan?

A Titan can stand on his own two feet, if not on the shoulders of dwarfs such as Al Gore.

I't's not even an ad hom to criticize someone for their statement that they fell for The Gore Con, but

(A) you are welcome to enlighten us
(B) Shermer is welcome to retract those statements.

After all, he's a Titan.

Wait....

 

[Joey McGee]

No, seriously, he did say algoreManBearPig's movie caused his epiphany. Now are you trying to weasel around that? I guess I don't see the point in doing that. Why would you need to weasel around the subject for a Titan?

A Titan can stand on his own two feet, if not on the shoulders of dwarfs such as Al Gore.

I't's not even an ad hom to criticize someone for their statement that they fell for The Gore Con, but

(A) you are welcome to enlighten us
(B) Shermer is welcome to retract those statements.

After all, he's a Titan.

Wait....

That's what you imagine he said because, I don't know why you imagine this but it should be embarrassing for you. You insist on derailing this thread on a small matter based on your misreading of something Michael Shermer wrote 5 years ago on global warming instead of attacking anything he has to say about Ayn Rand here. It's not relevant to anything about this right?

Besides that, you're totally wrong.

Nevertheless, data trump politics, and a convergence of evidence from numerous sources has led me to make a cognitive switch on the subject of anthropogenic global warming.

Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance. Four books eventually brought me to the flipping point...

Four books, photographic evidence, and the evidence from Gore's film which was based on the consensus. There, everyone can decide for themselves whether Shermer is a sucker for ManBearPig or you're some kind of zealot. Got anything else to say about Michael Shermer's thoughts about Ayn Rand or are you desperate to talk about global warming still?

 

[mhaze]

That's what you imagine he said because, I don't know why you imagine this but it should be embarrassing for you. You insist on derailing this thread on a small matter based on your misreading of something Michael Shermer wrote 5 years ago on global warming instead of attacking anything he has to say about Ayn Rand here. It's not relevant to anything about this right?

Besides that, you're totally wrong.



Four books, photographic evidence, and the evidence from Gore's film which was based on the consensus. There, everyone can decide for themselves whether Shermer is a sucker for ManBearPig or you're some kind of zealot. Got anything else to say about Michael Shermer's thoughts about Ayn Rand or are you desperate to talk about global warming still?

??? Look it is not even an ad hominem if I take except with the assertion that Shermer is some kind of "Titan", got it? You said that, not I....I only point out that he did fall for the Gore Con, which you <in brief> agree with.

So are we still discussing here whether Shermer is a Titan, or back on the subject of Rand? Because he's not a titan of skepticism, or anything else. I've seen him talk numerous times, some excellant, some okay, some not so good.

And that's not an ad hominem, and that's not an attack on Shermer. When he's sold 7M books in the US like Rand has, with a similar number in other languages, let me know.

Sheesh...

 

[leftysergeant]

And that's not an ad hominem, and that's not an attack on Shermer. When he's sold 7M books in the US like Rand has, with a similar number in other languages, let me know.

Hitler sold tons of his book, too. Of course it was required reading for anybody who wanted to be anything in government. And right now, we have some lunatic congress critter requiring his staff to read Rand's garbage. Does that make her a genius? Or is she a cult figure with a bunch of brainwashed lunatic followers?

Are you sure this is an argument you want to make?

 

[Joey McGee]

Hey when Rand has sold as many books as the Bible, let me now

Whether or not he is correct, he is still one of the top 3 skeptics by hugeness. That's obvious. What does selling a cult book have to do with success? Isn't it obvious that hardcore skepticism isn't popular but fantasist escapism is? You're comparing Shermer to Rand in books sold?

Let's compare their success as far as contributions to humanity. Shermer debunks for a living and has probably helped millions of people get rid of dangerous and destructive beliefs about thousands of topics preventing unimaginable suffering just through his work. Rand... well let's just say her contributions aren't exactly clear or as measurable. I would say net zero or less just because there are better thinkers in every language, but that's just my personal opinion.

 

[mhaze]

Hey when Rand has sold as many books as the Bible, let me now

Whether or not he is correct, he is still one of the top 3 skeptics by hugeness. That's obvious. What does selling a cult book have to do with success? Isn't it obvious that hardcore skepticism isn't popular but fantasist escapism is? You're comparing Shermer to Rand in books sold?

Let's compare their success as far as contributions to humanity. Shermer debunks for a living and has probably helped millions of people get rid of dangerous and destructive beliefs about thousands of topics preventing unimaginable suffering just through his work. Rand... well let's just say her contributions aren't exactly clear or as measurable. I would say net zero or less just because there are better thinkers in every language, but that's just my personal opinion.

That's ridiculous, but if you want to go down that route, fine.

Top 3 skeptics? Start with Aristotle. What? Shermer doesn't get into the top 3? Awww....And again, no ad hom to Shermer. He just ain't in the list of the top 3 skeptics.

So where we going now?

Shermer's opinion of Rand? Well, that's like rating a movie reviewer or book reviewer against a movie producer, or someone that writes books. And you know what they say...

"There are no statutes erected of critics".

Which is true, but it also does not mean they don't have things worth reading. But it being true, means you can't put the two into a comparable status, doesn't it?

So....how would you compare them? As skeptics? Well, geez, I vaguely recall Rand was pretty darn skeptical about a whole boatload of stuff. A lot of stuff that Shermer is skeptical about, as it might be.

Hmm....

 

[leftysergeant]

So....how would you compare them? As skeptics? Well, geez, I vaguely recall Rand was pretty darn skeptical about a whole boatload of stuff. A lot of stuff that Shermer is skeptical about, as it might be.

The fact that the crazy Ukrainian refugee thought that a cold-blooded killer in any way represented a higher order of thinking should say something about their comparative mental capacity or wisdom.

 

[Mycroft]

...I have not heard a single progressive commentator say a good word about he film...

I'm trying to imagine the circumstances where a progressive commentator would ever recommend Rand. The subject matter would preclude that regardless of the quality.

 

[Madalch]

No discussion of Ayn Rand is complete without this:

http://angryflower.com/atlass.gif

 

[leftysergeant]

No discussion of Ayn Rand is complete without this:

http://angryflower.com/atlass.gif

Details will get you every time.

 

[mhaze]

I'm trying to imagine the circumstances where a progressive commentator would ever recommend Rand. The subject matter would preclude that regardless of the quality.

Yet Joey has gone oddly silent after I mentioned the many similar attitudes held by Rand and Shermer.

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm trying to imagine the circumstances where a progressive commentator would ever recommend Rand. The subject matter would preclude that regardless of the quality.

Progressives tend to be more artistic types and woulld be more likely to at least comment on how realisticly characters are developed.

Rand sucked at that.

 

[Joey McGee]

Yet Joey has gone oddly silent after I mentioned the many similar attitudes held by Rand and Shermer.

More like I couldn't care less to think about such nonsense any longer.

What interests me about a person's legacy is their objective contribution to society. Did you know Leonardo da Vinci ended up contributing absolutely nothing to science and progression? He was too isolated and did not publish. Interesting chap, his contributions are relegated to art and inspiration.

What can we say of Rand? Like a lot of people I think her ideas are more harm than good and the ideas are too basic to be taken seriously as philosophy. She was never accepted by academia, virtually no philosophy department teaches her. I find it impossible to believe people take such ideas so seriously, there must be some kind of mental masturbation going on that sustains it. It's just too much. It's like her #2, Nathanial Branden, going on and on about Self-Esteem for years just as crackpot about psychology as she was about philosophy. Everything you read about that came out of that group of people is wacky. Some organization tries to buy her into academia with grants that require ongoing teaching etc! That's so desperate! Oh well it's not going to happen in any significant way, ever. So, I think her contribution is net negative.

Obviously some people would say otherwise. I think the reason she gets slammed so hard is that her only real contribution was to start a cult, people tend to want to tar those people quite a bit in order to dissuade copycats.

Oh and Shermer is just getting pounded for his apologias, the poor guy He's begging them to stop

Hey friends-chill out a little on my Rand/Atlas stuff! A little political variety is ok. I know it has flaws. I like the heroic characters.

 

[leftysergeant]

Shermer needs to stick to science. He seems good at that. Art and literature?

 

[mhaze]

More like I couldn't care less to think about such nonsense any longer.

What interests me about a person's legacy is their objective contribution to society. ....I think the reason she gets slammed so hard is that her only real contribution was to start a cult, people tend to want to tar those people quite a bit in order to dissuade copycats.

Oh and Shermer is just getting pounded for his apologias, the poor guy He's begging them to stop

No problem. I would not want to contribute to your thinking about nonsense, so let me leave you to your preferred thinking of vile invective, progressively spun. So don't consider the topic of the many similarities in opinion and attitude between Shermer and Rand to be worth discussing.

Don't consider the many skeptical attitudes of Rand.

Don't note that Shermer - your Titan - does not share your rabid hatred of Rand.

Neither do I.

Actually, it's a bit puzzling to me.

But hey, whatever.

 

[Beerina]

There's a very interesting essay on Ayn Rand and how her background forged her philosophy Here. What's everyone think of it?

It wasn't the usual heap of regurgitated, anti-Rand memetic defense mechanisms, I have to give that much credit.


The real problem is that, yes, society is indeed driven forward by a small handful of individuals. This is the polar opposite of what the politician tells you -- that you, the common yokel, are the important one, and all society should be oriented around you. Even if it slows down those who are hauling you forward into future society. Some even go further and declare those people to be evil, what's keeping you down, thus memetically requesting authorization for the politician to beat them on the head even more, with the attendant, designed-in kickbacks to said politicians to get back out of the way.

 

[mhaze]

It wasn't the usual heap of regurgitated, anti-Rand memetic defense mechanisms, I have to give that much credit......

YES, Komrade. Keep cleverness and creativity in dah propaganda.

Entertain! while dulling the minds.

I vote you for double vodka ration next Party committee meeting.

 

[easycruise]

Actually, allowing for hyperbole, that paragraph is a pretty accurate summation of Rand and her philosophy....

Now, lest you think that "to a gas chamber" line is a bit much, consider the infamous train wreck section of Rand's novel. Rand did indeed believe that the common masses (or "looters" as she characterizes them) were parasites unworthy of life....

And so on, endlessly through over a dozen "deserving" victims.

This post is indicative that the Rand bashers from JREF really don't have a clue as to Rand's philosophy of objectivism. At least try not to be so intellectually lazy and actually find the time to read her books. For crying out loud, at least learn who the "looters" are! That's so basic and you couldn't even get that part right!

 

[mhaze]

This post is indicative that the Rand bashers from JREF really don't have a clue as to Rand's philosophy of objectivism. At least try not to be so intellectually lazy and actually find the time to read her books. For crying out loud, at least learn who the "looters" are! That's so basic and you couldn't even get that part right!

But they don't seem to want to go down the road of comparing Shermer's opinions and beliefs with Rand's.

Hmm.....

Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head with the phrase "intellectually lazy".

I tell committee chairwomen give you extra bread ration, Komrade. She good friend owe me favor.

 

[Joey McGee]

No problem. I would not want to contribute to your thinking about nonsense, so let me leave you to your preferred thinking of vile invective, progressively spun. So don't consider the topic of the many similarities in opinion and attitude between Shermer and Rand to be worth discussing.

Don't consider the many skeptical attitudes of Rand.

Don't note that Shermer - your Titan - does not share your rabid hatred of Rand.

Neither do I.

Actually, it's a bit puzzling to me.

But hey, whatever.

I do consider that she was a skeptical person, an atheist, an attempted rationalist. I do understand Shermer doesn't hate her. I don't have a "rabid hatred" for her. I think if you are selective you can fine some very fine things about her. But it's not the critic's job to list all of the positive aspects of someone in their critique. It does not invalidate the criticism at hand.

I don't like her philosophy or her followers. I prefer other thinkers and other kinds of writing. That doesn't make me some kind of nut or bad person, we don't like your global warming conspiracy theories and we don't like your philosophical hero. Get over it! Or have you started following the rules of the cult too?

*Once one is acquainted with Ayn Rand and/or her work, the measure of one's virtue is intrinsically tied to the position one takes regarding her and/or it.