First I would like to say Rand has influenced my life in a positive way, especially The Fountainhead. Recently though I've experienced a darkside to Ayn Rand, or at least the followers of Rand. In the last few months I've had a number of debates with the followers of Ayn Rand. I find it strange that proponents of objective reality and reason would be almost religious in their devotion to Ayn Rand. I noticed when debating these devotees of Rand that instead of debating an issue they tend to try and convince me why my thinking is wrong. Of course some believers in objectivism are quite willing to question their assumptions, but the one trait I've noticed with many of these people is their closed mindedness. I understand objectivism and the belief that there are absolute truths, but I noticed it is usually Rand's version of the absolute truth that is held as a gospel. I also became quite aware that when these supporters of Rand are questioned, they become almost missionary like in their zeal to try to convert me to their way of thinking. Can you be a believer of objectivism and disagree with many of Rand's assertions? Why are the proponents of reason and free thought so quick to stifle dissenting ideas?
~~~ Hi Troutski, I look at it like this: I can be a supporter of many of Rand's assertions. And... There are always zealots who lose sight of the very point they are trying to make. I think this is true with every philosophy--religious or non. Rand, herself, had a zealous side to her. This is clearly reflected in her writings. I cannot agree with everything she's ever asserted. With so many people in the world, all of whom are motivated and influenced by a myriad of things, (me & you included), it's not surprising (to me) to see a rational premise taken in any number of directions by various groups or individuals. Whenever we encounter this, we humans tend to question. .... Just as you're doing. Yours seems a rational response to me. ~~~ Counterbalance
CB, you and I seem to agree here. Reason is a human activity and as such, reason is subject to human error. We all should be willing to examine our assumptions as well as the assumptions of authorities. What is it that makes the followers of Rand so zealous? I've even seen the negative term "Randoids" used to describe this trait. It is really too bad because the Rand zealot turns people away from significant ideas that might otherwise play an important role in their life. I used to enjoy going to one particular bulletin board a lot until the Rand zealots dominated every discussion. The frustrating part is there was little debate, but there was a lot of one-sided criticism. The Rand zealot view was if you disagreed with Rand then your thinking is obviously flawed and they were there to fix your thinking.
~~~ Troutski, I've wondered that about a number of groups. I think the reasons might stem from how people are searching for something that makes sense, for justice, for truth, or sometimes just for anything that even smells like these things. They find Rand and they have nothing less than a religious experience. Her ideas, her works are virtually sacred to them. Sweet manna for the long-suffering rational (but too often alone) thinker. Rand IS exceptional in that much of what she proposes actually does come across as, and will stand as, rational. It's hard to dispute--if one is being honest. And then along come people who assign such an irrationally high value to her works, her message, or her memory, they cross the line of rational thought themselves. They fail to see themselves doing this. They're blinded by something, and the something may be a single or a multi-faceted thing. They may fear the death of rationality, or they may fear rejection by other seemingly powerful Objectivists if they don't support a faction of the group in a zealous manner... it could be anything. Part of Objectivism does deal with "how better it is to think rationally," and a world of great examples are offered by Rand. But overall I think it's about the INDIVIDUAL. How every person has the right to live his/her own life for his/her own sake, first and foremost. We have the right to choose how we will accomplish this, and if allowed--if left unvictimized by others irrational machinations--we will choose that which truly betters our lives--by our own, clearly rational standards. Mankind has SUCH potential for that which is good and rational. I think when we're talking about an individual, we must allow for every person to take their own journey toward enlightenment. Ill-tempered criticism or debate doesn't lend itself to anything positive. Sounds like you need to seek out a new Rand forum. ~~~ Good luck, Counterbalance
Well said, CB. I noticed the same fervor among many of the readers of Ishmael, by D. Quinn. It's like they have found the answer to all of their questions in this book. It is an interesting book, but like with Rand, some people will without question defend everything Quinn writes and will try to convert you to their way of thinking. People really seem to have a need for a spiritual leader or someone who will tell them what and how to think. I guess it brings comfort much as a religion brings comfort by providing a framework to make your decisions in life. -peace
Objectivity? How can anything not be subjective? How can reality be more complex than the mind of the observer? Our minds construct reality. Our minds decide how reality is interpreted. There is no one reality shared by different minds, but many ideas shared by realities . Just because some ideas have common denominators does not mean they have arisen from one objective reality.
God and St. Peter wiling - Ayn Rand Your commentary on objectivism is a philosophic argument which I understand implicitly. The question of the classical observer is fundamental to rational thought. Ayn Rand wrote during a period of intellectual global war, a war with two deadly foes, communism and nazism. Her arguments effected many people to continue believing in the free entreprise, fundamentally democratic system of government. Quintessentially - the classical observer is the first person perfect - that is - the proverbial angel which holds together all things (being known as God) is present to us (in this mortal life) only because of Objective Reality in which Physical Phenomenon are relative but absolute truth is not. Socrates, Aristotle, Lao Tze, are examples of such classical observers, the angel being more intimate with the prophetic traditions; which in their great correspondence with the philosophic ones - have produced civilizations where truth can flourish. Obviously this is an undertaking of emotional distress due to life, death, birth and infinity - the soul of a person - the greatest cause. Ethical Morality is what philosophy has striven to obey while using its amazing insights for all manner of science, art and medicine. Objective Entreprise must promote moral qualities in harmony with Truth and in so doing make living a worthwhile dialogue with the proverbial and sometimes troublesome angel......who may be showing mankind things (as presently) which go beyond what they were willing to deal with.
Counterbalance ... Re. "Mankind has SUCH potential for that which is good and rational." If history is to be considered, I believe that your statement at best refers to a very small band of individuals. Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Socrates, Aristotle, Lao Tze all we need is a few good men; objectivity can become arid and formal to the point of boring people to tears. Observation and purpose somehow need to correspond with each other in a meaningful way.
integral ... What! "Observation and purpose somehow need to correspond with each other in a meaningful way." And no Leonardo da Vinci? Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Chagur... Much, indeed, is revealed about Man when we consider history, including the fact that many of us are more free in this age and time to explore our potential--as individuals and as a species. Notwithstanding, potential is one thing, and though I maintain that Man is loaded with the stuff, realizing said potential is another matter entirely. My statement refers to whole motley crew of us. Takin’ care... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Counterbalance
integral... Nice to ‘read’ a new voice on the boards. Not sure I’m clear about where you’re going with the above, but if you’ve a mind to elaborate, please feel free. Judging by the number of views this thread has received, it’s quite possible there are others who would enjoy hearing more and might wish to respond to a different viewpoint. A chronic lack of “free” time for me these days doesn’t justify my asking many questions or offering much in the way of comment when I can’t follow up in a timely manner. (a disappointment for me, though not necessarily for everyone else! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Enjoy... ~~~ Counterbalance
many people deny freewill I am glad that Ayn Rand's work is drawing this attention; I remember having great debates even in high school about the age old problem of determinism; which if one actually looks and reads the history of philosophy is in fact the greatest "as I heard on the radio even today" - SOCRATIC DIALOGUE - ethical morality is determined by perfect logic - a logic which few in this world have (if we listen to dissenters) - yet common sense is actually better for men than "perfect logic" because it is tried and true in the affairs of everyday life. Being found true and faithful are ideals of dedication to duty.....which freewill must determine; because the question of truth or being trustworthy require some type of consideration of alternatives; alternatives that we hopefully keep under strict control - being that we are predisposed to trust what we know to be good. Freedom is a concept with many aspects, freedom is somehow a quality of existence.....enabling the consideration of complex questions. Freedom is a determining factor in an open society; the factor which provides authentic opportunities for human development.
I'm of a mind with most here... By which I mean I take most of her viewpoints on board, and discard some which seem to go against the grain a little. We should not take any philosophy in it's entirety unless such philosophy has proven infallible... which I'm sure hasn't been achieved yet. My experience with others though, has been the opposite... Most people I recommend her books to fail to get past the first few chapters, and the comments I've recieved have been negative to say the least. I suppose to one who has an extreme humanitarian philosphy she represents an opposing point of view which is difficult to reconcile themselves to. I have the tendency to re-read some of her books from time to time when I find I'm feeling stifled by some popular attitudes.
I can't believe there are people who called themselves Randists or whatever. Ridiculous. Anyone who follows ANY philosophy closely enough to describe themself with that philosophy's name is going to have tunnel vision. Anyone who follows any philosophy too rigorously will walk a narrow path and will probably miss most of the interesting sights.
Checking a premise Greetings - I tentatively refer to myself as an Objectivist; I am thoroughly impressed with Ms. Rand's work. I do not agree with her on all things, however. She makes a number of assertions which do seem to 'go against the grain'. Fortunately, her own philosophy promotes the use of logic to determine why. When I encounter something I don't agree with, I examine by rational means, and then either adopt it or discard it on its merits. There are different sorts of people that adopt her philosophy. Most are willing to question, to evaluate new information through rational means. Some others are followers. Anyone who claims to follow Ayn Rand is going against their own supposed philosophy, and generally means that they've accepted the conclusions of her work without the means by which she reached them. This sort of phenomenon happens with any philosophy, of course, but rarely is it so self-contradictory. What happens, then, is that the lack of conviction to reason combines with Ms. Rand's extremely definitive discrimination between right and wrong to produce a rabid adherance to her conclusions. In her writings, good and evil are distinct, as is the suggestion that evil should never get even the smallest amount of respect or attention. However, another of her suggestions requires that we need to know why it is evil before we can regard it as such. To quote Philosophy: Who Needs It , What this all boils down to is that as in any philosophical group, there exist people who claim to accept it when in reality they do not. The Christian, who murders, or loses faith. The Atheist, who secretly believes, or declares all gods utterly impossible. The pacifist who takes up a sword, the selfish altruist. In my experience, it is far more practical to examine the adjectives that fit a person, rather than the ones they assign themselves. Thanks, FyreStar
Interesting. I think I got the recommend to read the fountainhead from this site somewhere... not sure exactly. So I ordered it, and am a little past half through it in about 4 days heh. Incredible writing. Still, I personally, dont feel any need at present to dissect it. Objectivism? What the hell is THAT>?? Its a great story and some interesting observations . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
