How Ayn Rand ruined my childhood

^^This exactly!

As is so often the case, the problem comes from the fact that people
don't always "observe" everything in the equation, and their standard
for "evidence of truth" is far too lax. This makes it incredibly easy
to find facts to support what they have already decided to be true.

I agree that blaming Rand's writings for your father being an asshole--
or the Tea Party, or Libertarians, or anyone else-- is a bit of a stretch
by a crybaby.

If the article is real-- and I question it-- then I wonder if this is the author's
attempt to justify her father's actions. He is her father, and she wants to
love him, but finds it difficult, so she puts a core part of the blame on
someone else?

Anyway, having read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged repeatedly
when I was young, these days I have much the same view of her work
that she held of Aristotle's.

I've read the books on Objectivism. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness ...although neither is written completely by Rand.

I tried to slog through Atlas Shrugged, but it was too dry to hold interest.
The long speeches as dialog were painful.

There were recently two movies based on Atlas Shrugged. To me, they were almost unwatchable. (of course, I still watched them both) Only a few people were in the theater, and they were devoted followers.

Her philosophy appealed greatly to me in my twenties & thirties. I wonder, if I went back and read one of her non-fiction books now, if I would feel the same.

John Galt.

Ugh... Some of it isn't even that... It's just Goodkind trying to promote
his own views in the same narrow way.

Don't get me wrong, I love the characters and a lot of the story,
but "dear spirits" some of his work is just so hard to read. I remember
being enthusiastic about The Third Kingdom, but after the third chapter
of them having the same conversation in different words, I was asking
myself if he used some kind of spinning software to turn each paragraph
into three paragraphs?

I've read it twice now, because the first time I realized that I could
just skip ahead and look for the good parts, and he was going to
repeat most of the last few chapters, anyway, and I just wanted
to get to the good parts. In the second reading, I found that I
hadn't actually missed much. :p

I see it a slightly different way. The majority of people who agree with Rand's politics are Conservative. And most Conservatives are religious. But it is the Conservative viewpoint that tends to match Rand. Not the religious viewpoint.

The "Objective reality"? The people who understand it tend to be intellectual, and intellectuals tend to be more liberal. But the attraction is to the intellectual, not the Liberal.

To me, that's not a good argument against Objectivism. It's a good argument against being either a Liberal or Conservative. Because each party is a point of view. And the crux of Objectivism is that reality exists, and is the same, regardless of our point of view.

Anyway, that's my take based on reading the books years ago. It's absolutely possible that I'm missing the ball here.

I truly love Ayn Rand's philosophy's. The definition that Kay King provided is pretty much the crux of it.

It's a challenge to break away from our conditioning and accept any new ideals let alone hers that sound so foreign to most.

However, even the best of the naysayers found it difficult to argue with her.

Patrick

Claude, That shows things that are different from just looking at the "facts" being presented.

For example, if the argument is wholly logical but you still have a different opinion, the odds are good you're proceeding from different assumptions. That's a critical thing to know.

As an example, I once worked with a fellow who loved to debate. He wanted, for some reason, to have the "G-d/not G-d" discussion with me. I told him I'd take either side and make a convincing argument if he would answer one question for me first. He agreed. I said something very close to: "The answer ultimately comes down to the choice to believe either that existence was created or has always existed. That isn't a thing which can be proved, and seems a matter of faith."

His reply: "That sounds right."

Me: "So, my question: If we've already established that it's a matter of faith, what is the point of the debate?"

Most seemingly 'intractable' arguments arise from people operating from different fundamental assumptions, quite often equally unprovable in any logical sense.

Some arguments, especially the kind you see in main discussion or the SEO section, arise from untested assumptions, or from inaccurately generalizing from a valid specific case to all other situations. The "single/double opt-in" argument is one where untested assumptions are common, and can lead to all manner of bad decisions.

Looking at the form of the argument is often much more useful than looking at its content. Not to mention what it can show you about the thought process of the person making the argument.


Paul

PS: Explaining existence is like teaching a snake to tap dance. (As Heinlein said, "It's easy, once you get the shoes on him.")

I haven't read Rand, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I dreamt I was high upon a mountain top, and there was a guru there. I asked him how Objectivists could come to radically different conclusions about reality. He said, "Because our Perception of Objectivity is Subjective."

I placed a baksheesh at his feet and went home, satisfied that I finally understood why there can be square crop circles.

Even reading some of the statements made about various "philosophies" could make your head spin, but I agree with the rest, and that is why I said thanks.

Steve

I found three there that I love(maybe not the ONLY ones, but these are enough for now.):

Steve

People often cite conspiracies and complain about the "two party system".
As far as I know, most of them are not advocating a one-party system,
but want to promote the idea that there should be more than two.

Yet everywhere that we've seen it happen-- For example in Italy and Israel--
the weakest party can't get their way on something, so they throw a
temper tantrum and become obstructionists, blocking everything they
can out of spite.



Yep, no doubt she read the works most of the old and well-known philosophers,
and some that are more obscure as well. ("Philosophy: Who Needs It?")

It's difficult not to be impressed by Nietzsche, especially because he is one
of the first philosophers most young (and impressionable!) people are introduced
to. One thing I like to point out is that many people don't seem to take into
account is that he spent 30+ years producing his works, and that can bring
some interesting perspective.

The same can be said about Rand and most prolific authors, I think? I mean,
two hours ago I thought it was a fantastic idea to eat some chocolate cereal
with a bit of rice milk and cranberry juice. Now, my stomach is telling me
that wasn't a very good idea after all? Imagine what I could learn in 30 years
if only I paid attention to such things and spent some time thinking about them!

Oh... And lest someone think that I am criticizing and of the philosophers
mentioned in this thread, the fact that I don't always agree with them doesn't
mean that I think I am anywhere near as intelligent as they!

Nor do I exclude myself from those young and impressionable people who
were influenced by Nietzsche. Wille zur Macht was perhaps the most
powerful and moving thing that I ever read in my youth.

Selfishness and dependency are two different things.

Selfishness is acting in your own self interest. It may involve(in my use of the word) being productive, providing a service, bettering society...to serve your own self interest.

Dependency looks like selfishness, but it's really weakness. there is no "giving to get". No reciprocity. Just consuming.

OK, I feel so much better now.:rolleyes:

I think you ALL know that that graphic is a *******IZATION of the REAL saying.

Basically the REAL sayng means that rather than just helping out, which accomplishes NOTHING in the end, you should teach the people to do it THEMSELVES so they can be independent!

FIGURE IT OUT! If you just give the person a fish(in this one MINOR example), you will have to give out over 1000 fish for each person you "help", and don't forget YOURSELF! Taken to the Nth degree, that is over 3 TRILLION fish a year in the US ALONE! Do YOU want to do that? GO AHEAD! If you die, NO MORE FISH!!!!!!!!

If you TEACH them to fish, they can fish for THEMSELVES! Maybe Another can teach them to grow vegetables, etc.... All can easily feed THEMSELVES! If you die, LIFE GOES ON!

You know, they have EVEN found that birds teach birds, and chimps teach chimps! FANCY THAT!

As for Ayn Rands statement? Well, ICSM!

Steve

I watch Parks & Recs with the kid and Ron the gov worker who hates government is a hoot.