Ayn Rand ?

[Chris Haynes]

... Have her writings helped others here to come to be rationalists and atheists ?There are the Peikoff- her choice - and the Kelly schools of thought. Might one add to all this?

No...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52566&

Posted for your amusement.

 

[luchog]

I remain the same. Yes, she was so wrong on those points. I find that with government doing the charity work, force is justified as our social compact requires it and democratically done without violating our rights .

Of course it violates rights. That is the entire nature of force. It is impossible to use force without violating rights. The key issue is whether the rights of some individuals sufficiently override the rights of others that they are justified in the use of government power to enforce their claims.

I have a right to the product of my labour, to benefit myself from the work I do with my own two hands and my own brain. Others have the right to life, and the resources to support their life. At what point does their right to life and support override my right to to support myself with and enjoy the fruits of my labour. Or, to put it more simply, when does their support become more important than my support? What is the line?

And I'm getting tired of people throwing out "social contract" as if it's some all-abidingly holy unassailable principle, without even bothering to define what they mean by it? What is the "social contract"? Why should I necessarily be bound by it? How is it better than any other worldview?

As for being done "democratically", the "tyrrany of the majority" is just as much a tyrrany as any other. "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner".

So,here is the nub of our disagreement . You equate all force as the same .

No, that's your assertion, not mine. There are multiple degrees of force, and multiple justifications for it's use which vary in degree of legitimacy.

There's a study, discussed in another thread, that purports to show that those who favour government distribution of wealth -- redistributionists -- are less generous than than those who oppose it. Non-intuitive, certainly, but charity donation patterns tend to support that assertion, even when corrected for income levels. Both are taxed the same, but anti-redistributionists contribute over and above considerably more (I believe the assertion was 9 times) what redistributionists do.

Redistributionists are far more free with other people's money, via taxation, than they are with their own. I've never known one who said "I'd gladly pay more taxes" who wasn't flat-out lying -- the very next moment complaining bitterly about their own tax burden. When it comes time to support or vote on taxes, it's never taxes on themselves they advocate, but taxes on "the wealthy", which translates to anyone who has more money than they do, since they never consider themselves part of "the wealthy".

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Gates, Turner, Buffett, Soros, donate more and love to pay their taxes! I doubt if we liberals are as donation shy as all that. Thankfully the voters just reaffirmed the social contract!It is not big or small government but smart government that we need. Gault's Gulch would be a distopia . We have the workfare state ,because charity is not enough . Selfishness is a vice,not a virtue. Altruism is our natural moral sense.

 

[luchog]

Gates, Turner, Buffett, Soros, donate more and love to pay their taxes! I doubt if we liberals are as donation shy as all that. Thankfully the voters just reaffirmed the social contract!It is not big or small government but smart government that we need. Gault's Gulch would be a distopia . We have the workfare state ,because charity is not enough . Selfishness is a vice,not a virtue. Altruism is our natural moral sense.

Lots of claims with no supporting evidence.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ayn Rand: philosophy = Claus Larsen: skepticism

That's being much too generous.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

I stand affirmed! Google Michael Huemer's " Critique of the Objectivist Ethics@ home.ssprynet.com/owll/rand5htm. She was hardly an exponent of logic!
Altruism is mutual help for all. She used the all or nothing fallacy in her description of altruism.
Go to grave yard of dead gods to see virulent Randism and anachism.[lamberthml]

 

[rsaavedra]

So for those that are well read on Rand's books, what should I tackle first: "Atlas Shrugged", or "Fountainhead"? I have had them for years, but haven't read one single page from each. Read only part of another much smaller book by Rand: "For The New Intellectual," which I think wasn't bad, but wasn't great either.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Anthem is a good start.

 

[-Fran-]

In the end, she became a cult. I never felt that inspired by her writings myself.

I couldn't get through it. I tried to listen to 'Atlas Shrugged' on audio book, while tidying up and such boring things... I found it more boring than scrubbing the bathroom, so I never finished it. Don't know if it would have become better later on, maybe I missed something, but it sure didn't engage me from the start.

 

[Denver]

So for those that are well read on Rand's books, what should I tackle first: "Atlas Shrugged", or "Fountainhead"? I have had them for years, but haven't read one single page from each. Read only part of another much smaller book by Rand: "For The New Intellectual," which I think wasn't bad, but wasn't great either.

I think Atlas Shrugged is as good as anything.

But be warned: I thought it was endlessly self-aggrandizing, rather drawn-out, and a pretty good shot at defining a religion of self-ishness.

 

[Jekyll]

So for those that are well read on Rand's books, what should I tackle first: "Atlas Shrugged", or "Fountainhead"? I have had them for years, but haven't read one single page from each. Read only part of another much smaller book by Rand: "For The New Intellectual," which I think wasn't bad, but wasn't great either.

Haven't read any of the others, but I read the first 900ish pages of Atlas Shrugged. I would try one of the other books instead.

 

[luchog]

Haven't read any of the others, but I read the first 900ish pages of Atlas Shrugged. I would try one of the other books instead.

Having just re-read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead; I'd strongly recommend avoiding the former as a first Ayn Rand novel. It's simply too unweildy, since it wasn't intended as a novel as much as a vehicle for her philosophy and social modelling. I'd recommend starting with Anthem, then reading The Fountainhead.

 

[rsaavedra]

Thanks to all, I will follow your suggestions. Don't have Anthem in my library though, but will get it and read it before any of the others.

 

[Bluefire]

I find that one can take parts of Ayn Rands philosophy and leave other parts alone; it is not all or nothing- She and Nathaniel Branden led me to atheism and more appreciation of rationalism- using reason than whims or faith. As a liberal , I disagree with her economics. I hope she inspires more to be rational.But as Michael Shermer and some at Wipedia show she wanted others to agree with her on all matters. Have her writings helped others here to come to be rationalists and atheists ?There are the Peikoff- her choice - and the Kelly schools of thought. Might one add to all this?

I found Ayn Rands writings just about when I decided religion was ******** (~13-14 yrs old). Ayn Rand had a tremendous impact on my thinking, and I still now (a dozen years later) agree with most of what she said.

It was quite the experience coming from a mormon upbringing, and finding this comprehensive secular philosophy where the answers had you go "but of course" all the time.

I don't think it really "had me come to be rational". Logic and reason had always been very important to me. (I remember the first doubts I got in religion was when I was 7 years old and asked about dinosaurs, and the answer was that they had not existed, and that one should not believe they had existed no matter what evidence was produced). But for sure, it had a big impact on which positions I held in a wide array of philosophical topics.

Her writings cemented my doubts in a need for god, and made me 100% confident in leaving all of religion behind. Her writings also changed me from being a sort of mainstream rightist free market friendly person to a minarchist libertarian of pretty extreme sort .

I only have some minor quibbles with Rands statements (things like homosexuals being immoral), so I guess I would be closer to one who took most of her philosophy rather then only taking the "atheist" part.

As for the Peikoff/Kelley thing, I don't care much for joining any form of "official" philosophical collective... The conflicts are tempests in teapots, but if you'd press me on the Peikoff/Kelley conflict I'd say Kelley is right.

 

[Bluefire]

So for those that are well read on Rand's books, what should I tackle first: "Atlas Shrugged", or "Fountainhead"? I have had them for years, but haven't read one single page from each. Read only part of another much smaller book by Rand: "For The New Intellectual," which I think wasn't bad, but wasn't great either.

IMO, The Fountainhead is better as a book, if you look to have a good read. Atlas Shrugged is more comprehensive in its philosophical content.

So if you primarily want a good read, with ideas read Fountainhead, If you primarily want dramatized ideas, with the "good book" qualiy coming second, read Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Apology]

I couldn't help but think that she was just mad about the development of the Social Security system.

I still pretty much think that.

 

[Apology]

I should probably add that I won a small grant from the Ayn Rand Foundation for an essay I wrote comparing and contrasting Rand's messages in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. It was a really great essay.

I still think she was just mad about Social Security.

 

[PenguinWarrior]

There's a study, discussed in another thread, that purports to show that those who favour government distribution of wealth -- redistributionists -- are less generous than than those who oppose it. Non-intuitive, certainly, but charity donation patterns tend to support that assertion, even when corrected for income levels. Both are taxed the same, but anti-redistributionists contribute over and above considerably more (I believe the assertion was 9 times) what redistributionists do.

Redistributionists are far more free with other people's money, via taxation, than they are with their own. I've never known one who said "I'd gladly pay more taxes" who wasn't flat-out lying -- the very next moment complaining bitterly about their own tax burden. When it comes time to support or vote on taxes, it's never taxes on themselves they advocate, but taxes on "the wealthy", which translates to anyone who has more money than they do, since they never consider themselves part of "the wealthy".

Ad Hominem. Whether or not those who support redistribution are themselves generous beings has no effect on whether their arguments are correct or not. Religious people give more to charity, too (and I suspect this, as well as demographics, are the primary reasons for relative generosity of American conservatives - I haven't seen studies looking at other parts of the world, so I do not know of the picture there) but that does not prove that God exists. (PS: From the same study I read, anti-redistributionists are also much more likely to be racist, homophobic, anti-science and against stopping climate change, so bear that in mind before trumpeting the huge benefits).

Personally, I think that looking around the developed world, I'd much rather live in a more heavily redistributionist country than in a less heavily redistributionist one, although there is a balance to strike (vested interests in the form of unions can really hurt an economy for example - although looking at those areas where no union has formed, you can see why they are considered necessary). The fact that my fellow liberals and atheists are less generous is somewhat disappointing (and if you don't give to charity because you never get round to it, I'd encourage you to do so), but it doesn't mean that they aren't fighting the right battles, politically. (Mostly, anyway, pick any particular left-wing government and I suspect I can find policies I disagree with harshly). And I earn a decent wage (especially for a recent graduate) and can expect to enter the top band of tax (I.e. more than £33k after allowances) if my career goes reasonably well, and whilst "Happy" doesn't particularly describe my feelings about it, I think it is absolutely fair and would oppose any flat tax across all bands or similar. The NHS is the best thing we've ever achieved as a country, and an example of humanity taking a positive step forward together rather than merely erasing the damage we've already done (which a lot of lawmaking is sadly about).

I've not read Ayn Rand (although any philosophy that claims to be objective has immediately failed in my book. I have many other criticiams of what I've heard, though without reading her books, I don't really feel I can fairly air them here). What I have read about her and her writing has made me disposed to beat her to death with a shovel in the company of objectivists to see if they are altruistic enough to intervene, but it's possible that that is unfair.

 

[Bluefire]

I couldn't help but think that she was just mad about the development of the Social Security system.

I still pretty much think that.

Obviously I disagree that it was "just" that. But of course, having fled the soviet communist revolution she was sensitive to anything she saw as leading in that direction.

 

[Apology]

Obviously I disagree that it was "just" that. But of course, having fled the soviet communist revolution she was sensitive to anything she saw as leading in that direction.

Just sort of a general impression. I always felt it fueled her obvious hatred of "altruism". Forced "altruism" should be considered a negative thing, but if "altruism" is actually forced, it's no longer "altruism", it's taxation.

It also seemed to me that to embrace Objectivism, you must assume that you will be the donor, not the donee. There's a certain assumption by people that embrace Ayn Rand that there would be a special place for them in Gault's valley, not outside with all the incompetent leeches that the gifted folk left behind to die. The Objectivist can object to Altruism, because they don't really see themselves as ever needing altruism from others. I object to this objectivist objection.