please understand that that was the only way to get through to people in the seventies, you couldn't just make pure and absolute allegories out of characters, you had to make them more in the fashion of greek gods.

If that is selfish, than so is nature. In nature, you will never see an animal such as a bear share food withanything but its young. Wolves do, but thats another survival mechanism and it allows a relatively small hunter to overcome larger prey.

So if you count selfishness and greed as amoral off the bat, of course you are going to dislike her.

And arent you dismissing her offhand after admitting that you dont need to read her works to know her philosophy is trash.

Sure, her books aren't geared towards the academic. they stand on a middle ground, to academic for the common, too common for the academics. this was her one fault, but the philosophy remains the same, advance, thrive, dont be a parasite, dont tolerate parasites, live

Just quite how Rand is being blamed for the current economic crisis I dont know,

I would never reccomend that someone shouldnt read a book that has been hugely influential as some of Rand's work. It has been especially influential to the Libertarian movement in the US, even with Rand's condemnation of Libertarianism movement. Her work certainly has value even if the value lay's in the History of Idea's

What? Are we making things up about the 70's?



How can "nature" be selfish or selfless? That's a human quality. We might say that nature is selfish or selfless, but that is only a figure of speech. It's called personification.



It is one thing to disagree, and another to dislike. For example, I disagree with Nietzsche, but I recommend his books.



In my case, I've read most of her work. I recommend that others do not read her work because I know better from experience.



You might want to double check this part, friend. Her philosophy is overtly elitist - she says so. Her's is not for the common man, but for the self-styled, romantic egoist.

Funny, though, that she was nothing but a parasite.



She is part of the vast equation given her influence.



You make a good point. However, consider this: a friend of yours is in the book store looking for something to read. This friend picks up two texts, Don Quixote and Atlas Shrugged, and seems to be favoring Atlas. What do you say to your friend?
If you care for that friend, you advise him to avoid Rand and read something decent.

I wonder if you would have displayed such great passion for or against Ms Rand if you hadn't read her books as you so recommend.

And regarding nature's selfish nature, mankind is nature too. Thusly mankinds' selfesh nature is naturally natures' as well.[/SIZE]
Agreed?

No. Man is not nature, but an aspect of the natural world.

quote]

What?

And regarding Ms. Rand,
I believe that the reason for the deeply sided or divided passions that one gets from her are from her equally sided knowledge of profound wisdom while at the same time her incomplete capacity to handle or attempts to control what simply is. That love hate relationship One sees on this forum alone is simply a display of emotion for the love of wisdom or truth and at the same time an equal abhoration for her feeble attempts to deal with the power of it All. What she does with truth is at issue with me too.
But she knew and tried, and I for One have great admiration for her, and for that. If you were handed the power of the universe, how would you or anyone handle it?
In retrospect if One ever does find the truth it probably best to simply let it Be. And at the very most, simply be.
True.

=
MJA

saying rand is responsible for todays mismanagement is like saying hitler is responsible for mel gibson's outbursts

and elitist though she may be, she tries to convert people, a modern day gospel of wealth minus the charity. And animals can certainly be described as selfish, i see no reason why not, being concerned with number one is not an exclusive priviledge for humanity

and in answer to your question, i would tell them to make their own choice, but recomend rand. Millions of people fell in love with the harry potter books, i advised against them, but people need the chance to make their own descisions about what they imbibe

So you would recommend Rand over classics such as Crime and Punishment and Don Quixote? Have you read the two classics in question?
Sure, people need to make their own decisions, but our decisions influence the decisions of others; it's the power of example. I would suggest that a positive example is preferable to a negative example.

Just quite how Rand is being blamed for the current economic crisis I dont know,
I would never reccomend that someone shouldnt read a book that has been hugely influential as some of Rand's work. It has been especially influential to the Libertarian movement in the US, even with Rand's condemnation of Libertarianism movement. Her work certainly has value even if the value lay's in the History of Idea's

Consider this paradox: You find yourself in a love triangle. In order to secure the affections of your lover, which is of course what you want to do, you must eliminate your rival. How to do that? The greatest virtue, of course, according to Objectivism is to act in the most self-centric way possible; the action that must necessarily result from this situation is that you would murder your rival. In other words, from what I understand of Randianism, murder can in fact be ethically justified.

Since murder--the calculated destruction of one human being by another--is, we can all agree, one of the greatest unethical acts, sine qua non, Ayn Rand has enshrined the blatantly unethical as ethical. In other words, Objectivism allows its practitioners to say no matter how societally ill-advised their actions are, they are in the right because the action met their own ends. And since the function of society is to allow many people, each with their own ends, to coexist on a mutally-agreed playing field, the fact that everybody in an Objectivist society would be pursuing their own ends regardless of the consequences inflicted upon others would inevitably result in the collapse of said society--

Theaetetus, you're applying a ad hominem fallacy to the credibility of Rand's work. Her accomplishments and way of interaction should matter not; an idea should be considered just as any idea, not denounced based on emotion towards the author.

I realize that some of what I had said was an ad hominem fallacy, but Rand was a plagiarist and had no academic credibility or integrity (especially her nonfiction). I am attacking her character, but it is true so it is not a fallacy. A fallacy is only a fallacy in informal logic if its not true. Sure, she had some ideas, but many were lifted from others without acknowledging the source of the idea. Not to mention, the original poster asked for thoughts on the author Ayn Rand, not thoughts about her ideas.

The reason why I am emotional towards Rand's work in a negative way is because I would like my 100+ hours back that I spent reading Rand. I am just trying to do other people a favor, and direct them to the original thinkers that Rand ripped off instead.

Rand would probably be treated with more respect here on the forum, but with time I would have ignored her and her ideas much like I do with a few members on the board now. Bad ideas are bad ideas.

The ad hominem fallacy is judging the idea based on character, source of idea, rather than addressing the substance of the idea itself. Therefore, even if what you say about her character is true, the direct judgment of her ideas based on her character is the fallacy. In other words, her character and philosophy should be completely separate in evaluation.

You're calling her ideas bad because they aren't completely original? I can't respond to the direct plagiarism, as I haven't read her books, but from the little I have read on her, I'm still a bit confused. Everyone is influenced one way or another from other ideas, so even though some of her philosophy isn't completely original, the culmination of the thoughts (a connection of the unoriginal ideas) is what makes it original (again, at least from what I've seen; I haven't read every other great author to verify if they come to an exact philosophy). I feel almost like Ayn Rand even making this post, as my notion of equality and consideration definitely isn't original, nor are many of the ideas I share. No, I don't directly plagiarize, but if I were to say I'm not influenced by other works that speak to me, I'd be lying.

All this aside, I truly believe you should let others come to their own conclusion rather than defacing her and telling people to stay away from the books.

In many ways I think Ayn Rand is one of the most original thinkers in the history of humanity. But that does not mean that her thinking is good. The only way you actually notice the plagarism is if you have studied thinkers like Aristotle, Locke, Nietzsche, and Kant. The later she doesn't plagarize, but instead demonizes and uses wrongly for her own devices. Kant may as well be the devil in Rand's world.

Randism........ is like eulogising about your own **** ! Pardon me for that expression.


Oh! heavenly god!.... thanks moderator...... the system saves me off some guilt.

The proposed axiom's that her system of Objective knowledge is based on are quite frankly ludcrious in many respects. Though there a few points that can be of interest.