Political Crossfire Forums

[daveyc59]

I was wondering what you guys think about Ayn Rand's objectivism theory. I can say it is definately interesting. I have read anthem, the fountainhead and have just begun to read Atlas shrug. I also read her essay book. Her ideas captured me right away, for it always seemed logical to me to achieve your means without the casulty of others. This philosphy has helped me to not feel like I am wrong for not believing in a higher power and collectivism. I really like her ideas though overall and think that it is a smart idea to live by the standards she sets out, which I have but until now I thought of my tendacy to do things for my advancement to be bad and often was made really mad by people calling me selfish or concieted. So I was just wondering your guys thoughts on this philosophy.

[curisz]

I read all her stuff in my teenage years. Most of it twice (and believe me, reading atlas shrugged twice takes some dedication). I was a huge fan, even subscribed to the Objectivist Forum.

There is a lot about her philosophy which does make sense, if you begin from a completely blank slate neutral position. Its when you examine the reality of human history that she runs into trouble. Is it right to expect, for instance, a newly freed slave, who is illiterate and owns nothing but the clothes on his back, to be able to lift himself up and compete with wealthy, educated people who were born with a fortune? Is it right to expect people who had land and had it stolen to be able to compete with the thieves? If from the time mankind first had a thought in his head, a system like Rand's would have applied, it would have been great. But abandoning all thoughts of social justice to institute it now smacks too much of "I got mine, now change the rules before someone takes it back from me."

When you are born rich, you get to make a lot of mistakes before eventually getting it right. When you are born poor, one mistake can ruin your life forever. Expecting everyone to be able to pick themselves up by their bootstraps requires a level of perfection out of people, often young and untutored people in difficult circumstances not of their making, that few can reasonably achieve.

[daveyc59]

curisz wrote: If from the time mankind first had a thought in his head, a system like Rand's would have applied, it would have been great. But abandoning all thoughts of social justice to institute it now smacks too much of "I got mine, now change the rules before someone takes it back from me."

.

That was my problem with the system too. I'm always thinking that yea this set of ideas is great, but the only way her governmental ideas would work is if it were applied on a mass scale without the pretext of one's background affecting them, and the weight of their backgrounds baggage on them too. I still do strongly agree about achieving what you want by your own means without the hurting of others. I also am a strong believer in her trading values ideas.
I'm glad though I found her ideas because it gives hopes to finding a set of something besides athiesm, since I can't stand collective good and all that other opiate religous junk for the masses.

I find it odd that you read her stuff in your teen years because I too am only just 15 as I started reading her stuff.

[curisz]

daveyc59 wrote:

I find it odd that you read her stuff in your teen years because I too am only just 15 as I started reading her stuff.

Rand is the "gateway drug" of philosophical thought, hehe.

[Centrist]

I admit I'm not hugely familiar with Ayn Rand on a personal level. However, and maybe I'm incorrect, but it's been said to me that a good deal of her philosophy has been, well, debunked, for lack of a better word. Highly criticized, perhaps, and I'm talking about true philosophical scholars.

But that's just what I'm told. /shrug

[Demothenes]

I've got to say that maybe I'm just being ideocentric, but how can anyone take her seriously?

Centrist, trust me, it's been debunked.

[Centrist]

I believe you, and, as I said, I've never bothered to really look into Rand's work. If someone wants a modern philosopher (and in this case, contemporary), I suggest Peter Singer.

[Mightier Than The Sword]

It's total B.S., in my opinion. But to each his own...

[Gus]

Rand's a little wild--a little out there...

Most philosophers don't like her because she openly criticized Kant and, well, Kant's ideas are basically accepted as truths in the field of philosophy. She doesn't fit into the little philosopher's circle, so most of them hate her.

Demothenes, who debunked her? I'd love to read it.

Rand had a disgustingly hoarse voice too. Really bad smoker's voice. Gross.

[Demothenes]

Centrist wrote: I believe you, and, as I said, I've never bothered to really look into Rand's work. If someone wants a modern philosopher (and in this case, contemporary), I suggest Peter Singer.

If you want a modern philosopher, just take a look around here.

I'm not entirely sure who said it, but

"People are remarkably good at philosophizing, though they're not always aware that that's what they're doing."

I think that you can't just read a modern philosopher and take it verbatim. You need to look and listen to conversations, debates and even petty arguments to create your own outlook on life. Don't just quote somebody else, unless you believe the exact same thing.

[daveyc59]

[quote="Demothenes"] Centrist wrote:

I think that you can't just read a modern philosopher and take it verbatim. You need to look and listen to conversations, debates and even petty arguments to create your own outlook on life. Don't just quote somebody else, unless you believe the exact same thing.

I totatly agree with that, I like to take junks from life and add it to a self philosphy.

I wonder if some of you older people or college goers could recommend me some good books on philosphy and such. I don't care what the reading level is or anything.

[curisz]

[quote="daveyc59"] Demothenes wrote: Centrist wrote:

I think that you can't just read a modern philosopher and take it verbatim. You need to look and listen to conversations, debates and even petty arguments to create your own outlook on life. Don't just quote somebody else, unless you believe the exact same thing.

I totatly agree with that, I like to take junks from life and add it to a self philosphy.

I wonder if some of you older people or college goers could recommend me some good books on philosphy and such. I don't care what the reading level is or anything.

Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau
Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzche
Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes
Plato's Republic
Rene Descartes...I think its called "meditations" where the I think therefor i am argument occurs.

Also, for interesting philosophical thought in a more literary format that you will probably really enjoy:

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig
Anything by Tom Robbins, but especially Skinny Legs and All
Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert Heinlein
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
Anything by Kurt Vonnegut

And for a little science with your philosophy:
The Star Thrower, Loren Eiseley
The Tao of Physics, Frijtof Capra

[daveyc59]

[quote="curisz"] daveyc59 wrote: Demothenes wrote: Centrist wrote:

I think that you can't just read a modern philosopher and take it verbatim. You need to look and listen to conversations, debates and even petty arguments to create your own outlook on life. Don't just quote somebody else, unless you believe the exact same thing.

I totatly agree with that, I like to take junks from life and add it to a self philosphy.

I wonder if some of you older people or college goers could recommend me some good books on philosphy and such. I don't care what the reading level is or anything.

Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau
Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzche
Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes
Plato's Republic
Rene Descartes...I think its called "meditations" where the I think therefor i am argument occurs.

Also, for interesting philosophical thought in a more literary format that you will probably really enjoy:

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig
Anything by Tom Robbins, but especially Skinny Legs and All
Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert Heinlein
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
Anything by Kurt Vonnegut

And for a little science with your philosophy:
The Star Thrower, Loren Eiseley
The Tao of Physics, Frijtof Capra

Thanks I really enjoyed the ayn rand novel stuff and philosphy junk hopefully I will enjoy these books. I really like Fahrenheit 451 when I read it in 4 grade, but I could probaly gain a whole different perspective from reading it now.

Have you guys read 1984 by Orwell that book is pretty good so is animal farm for some different perspectives on government and civil duty relations.

The Stranger by: Albert Camus opened my mind alot when I read it. What the philosophy behind that called isn't it like extremenalism. How do you spell it ?

[Gus]

Another one of those good Orwellian-type books is Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Very powerful.

If you want a challenge, pick up a copy of Critique of Pure Reason...Kant is frickin impossible to read--takes me days just to get through one page :lol: .

[daveyc59]

derEikopf wrote: Another one of those good Orwellian-type books is Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Very powerful.

If you want a challenge, pick up a copy of Critique of Pure Reason...Kant is frickin impossible to read--takes me days just to get through one page :lol: .

I read brave new world too that book is amazing. Ill try the book your suggesting.

[Gus]

daveyc59 wrote: derEikopf wrote: Another one of those good Orwellian-type books is Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Very powerful.

If you want a challenge, pick up a copy of Critique of Pure Reason...Kant is frickin impossible to read--takes me days just to get through one page :lol: .

I read brave new world too that book is amazing. Ill try the book your suggesting.
It's not a pleasure book. It's very hard to read, if you're not well versed in philosophical ideas, I'd recommend against it...I was just pointing out that Kant may have been smart...but his writing was so damn cryptic.

But if you're serious about philosophy, then Kant is required.

[John Galt]

I like Ayn Rand. I don't know what people mean by her philosophy has been "debunked" and I'd like clarification on what that means and who debunked her. And I echo most of the people in her that one should read a vareity of philosophers -- all exceptfor Peter Singer, who is an advocate of intanticide and animal rights. I know sounds strange that the twocan fit together but utilitarianism to the extreme -- man as means to an end but not as ends themselves -- gets you to think that way. What a tool.

[jawsome]

her philosophy is most definitely interesting, but she stretches her ideas a little too far and draws strange causal relationships. i really liked her essay, "man's rights," though. that's basically the only bit of her philosophy that has rung true to me.

ps- here is a very important passage most people either omit or forget or don't know about when concerning her belief in selfishness as a virtue: "this is a sad warning against the kind of 'nietzschean egoists' who, in fact, are a produce of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it s intended for one's own benefit. just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one's own irrational desires. morality is not a contest of whims. "

[jawsome]

[quote="curisz"] daveyc59 wrote: Demothenes wrote: Centrist wrote:

I think that you can't just read a modern philosopher and take it verbatim. You need to look and listen to conversations, debates and even petty arguments to create your own outlook on life. Don't just quote somebody else, unless you believe the exact same thing.

I totatly agree with that, I like to take junks from life and add it to a self philosphy.

I wonder if some of you older people or college goers could recommend me some good books on philosphy and such. I don't care what the reading level is or anything.

Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau
Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzche
Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes
Plato's Republic
Rene Descartes...I think its called "meditations" where the I think therefor i am argument occurs.


meditations is quite possibly one of the most annoying philosophical writings because you cannot logically disprove his skepticism, yet the ideas he comes up with as to why we cannot trust are senses are just...dumb. "evil deceiver"?? :roll:

[Centrist]

Demothenes wrote: Centrist wrote: I believe you, and, as I said, I've never bothered to really look into Rand's work. If someone wants a modern philosopher (and in this case, contemporary), I suggest Peter Singer.

If you want a modern philosopher, just take a look around here.

I'm not entirely sure who said it, but

"People are remarkably good at philosophizing, though they're not always aware that that's what they're doing."

I think that you can't just read a modern philosopher and take it verbatim. You need to look and listen to conversations, debates and even petty arguments to create your own outlook on life. Don't just quote somebody else, unless you believe the exact same thing.

Who said anything about taking things verbatim? I get bits of philosophy from a lot of places, though quite a bit of it comes from comedians. I like Singer, but I don't necessarily agree with him. The original poster asked about Rand, so I thought that perhaps, with the not-so-nice things that have been said about Rand, it would be nice if I suggested another modern philosopher. Singer happens to be a contemporary, so bonus. :tu: