"raven1"
nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:aghp045pa95p2c2pmhguhdav081o8qg77t@4ax.com...> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:21:54 -0500, "skysi"
sbc.net> wrote:
>>>
>>"raven1"
nevermore.com> wrote in message
>>news:h62p049efrpht316cetfe3vru0gj7hup8v@4ax.com...>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:01:00 -0500, "skysi"
sbc.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>"raven1"
nevermore.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:fl1o045f6j2qri8laeamurgfnd679eoc2j@4ax.com...>>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:09:30 -0500, "skysi"
sbc.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>"raven1"
nevermore.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:bv1m04pbm2jn2e77sfm0rl7l7ro5rhm7g4@4ax.com...>>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:20:00 -0500, "skysi"
sbc.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"raven1"
nevermore.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:olpk04tue3kq03av4g3etauv9mfglauuod@4ax.com...>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:08:32 -0500, "?????? ????????"
>>>>>>>>>
sbc.net>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Folks, read works of Ayn Rand and a lot of your confusion in life,
>>>>>>>>>>politics
>>>>>>>>>>and economics will go away.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That would be a feat, given Rand's total muddle-headedness on each
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the topics. Like Marxism, Libertarianism is an excellent example
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> "nice idea, wrong species".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hmm... and what exactly did you read to come up with the conclusion.
>>>>>>>>Care
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>comment on examples of muddle-headedness?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The entirety of the philosophy contained in "Atlas Shrugged" and
>>>>>>> "The
>>>>>>> Fountainhead" would be a good start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, It's a good start,
>>>>>
>>>>> Missed the point much?
>>>>>
>>>>>> but only in a poetic sense. What you see in Atlas
>>>>>>Shrugged and Fountainhead is a condensed idea.
>>>>>>It is impossible to lay out your entire philosophy in detail in a
>>>>>>novel.
>>>>>>Here's what she wrote in "For the New Intelectual" which was an
>>>>>>organised
>>>>>>collection of exerpts from her previous works :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The full system is implicit in these excerpts (particularly in Galt's
>>>>>>speech)
>>>>>
>>>>> Galt's speech is a prime example of what I mean; as the Caterpillar
>>>>> put it to Alice in another literary work, "it is wrong from beginning
>>>>> to end".
>>>>
>>>>That's all you have to say? Not much, considering you really said
>>>>nothing
>>>
>>> As did Rand in Galt's speech. Somewhere around 100 pages worth of
>>> nothing, IIRC.
>>>
>>>>:o)
>>>>Do I still have to repeat the word non-fictional works?
>>>
>>> If her own fictional character can't adequately present her philosophy
>>> in an endless speech that she wrote for him, her non-fictional works
>>> are unlikely to be any more rewarding, but I'm willing to give it a
>>> shot. What single non-fictional work of Rand would you recommend to
>>> someone looking for a basic overview?
>>
>>
>>Well, too bad you didn't get it.
>
> I understand it. I just don't buy it.
>
>> But try "the Virtue of Selfishness". If you
>>want to understand a philosophy on a deeper level, you have to read the
>>major works. In the case of Objectivism it would be Introduction to
>>Objectivist Epistemology and Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal (the unknown
>>because we never really had it).
>
> Which puts her on just as shaky grounds as Marx in her idealistic
> claims. Nice "own goal" on your part.
>
>>If you are really interested in this, also
>>read Alan Greenspan's the Age of Turbulence. Btw, Ayn Rand has a few
>>serious
>>followers, and there's Rand Institute. Google it.
>
> I'm already aware of the Rand Institute. It confirms my opinion of her
> writings and philosophy.
>
>>That said, something tells me that you are not serious and all you are
>>after
>>is outlines.
>
> I am serious in asking for a non-fiction work of Rand's that might
> lead me to think of her as other than the intellectual lightweight,
> philosophical hack, and delusional economist, that her fictional works
> inadvertently reveal her to be.
>
>> If that's the case, forget about understanding Objectivism or
>>any other philosophy on an intimate level.
>>Lastly, understanding the truth of this particular philosophy requires
>>courage to look deep into the issues of mankind and re-think many a dogma.
>>I
>>personally started my studies of philosophy from the Greeks (Plato and
>>Aristotle).
>
> A good place to start with, but Rand is an asinine point to end your
> exploration.
I end my exploration when I'm dead :o), but I'm not going to venture any
more into philosophies that do not include man and his relationship to
existance as an individual into the subjects of their study.
I know some folks don't like Rand because she always sounded so radical and
forceful. Definitelly, she was not soft-spoken and entertaining. Yet, this
didn't hinder my understanding of her philosophy. For me, content is most
important, not presentation. As to buying it, there's no way right now to
prove that her system can work
-- the world is too deeply rooted in its
destructive ways, so things like her system sound Utopian and Idealistic.
Yet, I do buy its intent and straightforwardness.
As to Marx, Marx' and Rand's philosophies are in direct opposition, as
opposite as collectivism and individualism can be.
