An interview with Ayn Rand....

[Osborn F. Enready]

1959 Interview, Mike Wallace and Ayn Rand:
#1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k
#2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0&feature=related
#3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEruXzQZhNI&feature=related

Ayn Rand on Phil Donahue:
#1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8&feature=related
#2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU&feature=related
#3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N4KbLbGYgk&feature=related
#4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7cje1I3VM&feature=related
#5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfqq4VKh1xM&feature=related

YouTube provides an ability to watch Rand in a couple of her televised interviews, which I enjoyed very much, and I figured some of you may enjoy as well.

I also thought this would provide a great start to a thread on the opinions and philosophy of Ayn Rand, whether in support or in your contentions to it.

This also is a wonderful tribute to Ayn Rands quotes from Atlas Shrugged:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm8OnDsWa7k&feature=related

[Osborn F. Enready]

Well, I know there are, or seem to be a lot of people on this forum that fault Rands philosophy and outlooks.... I am suprised none of those people are taking advantage of this chance to debate the issues.....

[Buck Laser]

Having read Rand's two major books, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and browsed through some of her supporters' essays over the years, I don't feel any motivation to read further. Both novels had a superficial appeal, but failed further scrutiny, mainly because I saw in them an utter disdain for the majority of people. I could suspend disbelief for the novels, but the essays just went beyond the pale for me.

And no, I don't really remember who wrote the essays. A couple of years ago, I got duped into ordering a book named Moral Armor from Amazon. It was the most inchoate thing I ever tried to read. The author, who published the book himself, must have offered some kind of bribe to Amazon to get his book promoted that way. I returned it for a refund and posted a harsh review of the book.

My son, who's in his mid-40s, and I have discussed the two novels at length, and we agree that while a certain few people are able to bypass current standards fairly successfully, the "philosophy" as a whole is essentially nihilistic.

[Truth_and_Power]

Great books, but the preachyness gets old after the 2000th page. I've read all her fiction and a few essays.

[Alonzo]

Her views on the role of woman, and their essentially inferior role in society, I've found to be at odds with her other views on freedom.

[suralos]

I got duped into ordering a book named Moral Armor from Amazon. It was the most inchoate thing I ever tried to read. The author, who published the book himself, must have offered some kind of bribe to Amazon to get his book promoted that way. I returned it for a refund and posted a harsh review of the book.

Spoken like a true Obama supporter. I look forward to your confession in 2009 if this guy is elected.

My son, who's in his mid-40s, and I have discussed the two novels at length, and we agree that while a certain few people are able to bypass current standards fairly successfully, the "philosophy" as a whole is essentially nihilistic.

Well, that settles it. (See above.)

[Buck Laser]

Spoken like a true Obama supporter. I look forward to your confession in 2009 if this guy is elected.

Friend, I've been an Obama supporter in his race for president since Feb. of '07. Prior to that, I voted for him in the IL democratic primary when he ran for senate in 2004. I have no confession to make. I'm proud of supporting him. I've voted in every presidential election since 1956, and there's no vote I'll feel prouder of making.

Now. What does this have to do with my utter antipathy to Ayn Rand?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck said:
Having read Rand's two major books, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and browsed through some of her supporters' essays over the years, I don't feel any motivation to read further.

The links above are video interviews on you-tube, and the link on quotes is also a video.
Limited reading for all the links...... did you click any of them?

Buck said:
Both novels had a superficial appeal, but failed further scrutiny, mainly because I saw in them an utter disdain for the majority of people.

What makes you say this? I can understand someone not liking her writing style, its not for everyone, and it is longwinded, since she writes and presents a story as your eyes take in a film, or artwork. I do question the comment on "I saw in them an utter disdain for the majority of people".... What do you mean by that? The characters seemed one dimensional? You think her "characterization" of the players in the book were too simplistic, or what?

Buck said:
I could suspend disbelief for the novels, but the essays just went beyond the pale for me.

Beyond the pale? Do you usually only read, watch and associate with things you agree with or enjoy?

Buck said:
And no, I don't really remember who wrote the essays. A couple of years ago, I got duped into ordering a book named Moral Armor from Amazon. It was the most inchoate thing I ever tried to read. The author, who published the book himself, must have offered some kind of bribe to Amazon to get his book promoted that way. I returned it for a refund and posted a harsh review of the book.

Well, much like any famous persons "followers" or "fans", the field is diverse and wide so you will most likely encounter "all-types" of things Rand may or may not have said in a work by someone "claiming" to be a fan of hers.

Buck said:
My son, who's in his mid-40s, and I have discussed the two novels at length, and we agree that while a certain few people are able to bypass current standards fairly successfully, the "philosophy" as a whole is essentially nihilistic.

Well, if you could show me what parts you think are nihilistic, perhaps I could comment, but I fail to see anything along those lines from my perspective. Rand philosophy is titled "objectivism" for a reason, and I don't see where that falls along the lines of Nihilism which argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

That seems contradictory to me Buck.


Truth and Power said:
Great books, but the preachyness gets old after the 2000th page. I've read all her fiction and a few essays.

I, so far, have enjoyed all of her works that I have read.

I own and/or have read these works from her:
Atlas Shrugged
The Fountainhead
The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z
The New Left
The Romantic Manifesto
The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought (especially enjoying "Religion vs America" by Leonard Peikoff)

I also have read the works of some other philosophers, but none struck me as true to life as Rand from my perspective and experience.


Alonzo said:
Her views on the role of woman, and their essentially inferior role in society, I've found to be at odds with her other views on freedom.

You obviously haven't read much of her work, or are operating on criticisms made by others who have and didn't understand it.

Ayn Rand was a woman, who personally challenged the fabric of society and our perception of it, and I have seen no place in her writings where she speaks for any other women than herself, or her novels characters.

Women are individuals just as are men, and Rand champions the value of individuals, to both genders equally in all cases that I have seen.

[suralos]

Now. What does this have to do with my utter antipathy to Ayn Rand?

Well, you indicate you are attracted to bad books and repulsed by good books. Ayn Rand is a profound writer who ventured into unpopular places and struck a major chord where people don't typically care to escape.

Fact is, we need people about whom Ayn Rand wrote. Take Bill Gates. Take Mike Dell. Take The Beatles. Take Arnold Palmer.

Do you have a problem with them or their contributions?

My barb is to suggest that you choose political candidates like you choose books -- by being flim-flammed.

Of course, you know that.

You also say you have been voting since before I was voting. Meaning no disrespect, I've been voting since 1972, and none of the candidates I have voted for have ever won.

And here we are.

[Buck Laser]

Well, you indicate you are attracted to bad books and repulsed by good books. Ayn Rand is a profound writer who ventured into unpopular places and
Fact is, we need people about whom Ayn Rand wrote. Take Bill Gates. Take Mike Dell. Take The Beatles. Take Arnold Palmer.

Do you have a problem with them or their contributions?

My barb is to suggest that you choose political candidates like you choose books -- by being flim-flammed.

Of course, you know that.

You also say you have been voting since before I was voting. Meaning no disrespect, I've been voting since 1972, and none of the candidates I have voted for have ever won.

And here we are.

Ayn Rand is a profound writer??? OK, if you say so. I read Atlas in 1964 or so, and Fountainhead in '03. All I got was profoundly annoyed. I had a philosophy professor in college who was a disciple of Michael Polanyi, a legitimate social philosopher who more or less laid the logical framework that Rand tried, unsuccessfully, imo, to follow. I never cared much for Polanyi's views myself, and they never gained much traction in social ethics circles, but at least his work had a sound logical construction.

Your "profound" strikes me more as pretentious. I've read my share of difficult philosophical books, including The Critique of Pure Reason, Whitehead's Process and Reality, and the standard Greek, Renaissance,
Rationalist and Modern philosophers. Polanyi might earn a place among the important philosophers, but Rand is about as significant as Limbaugh or Coulter.

I have no problem with your calling what I read "bad books," but I think you showed remarkably poor judgment in deciding that they were bad even before you knew what they were. Care to explain that? Another thing: you wrote of Rand "(she} struck a major chord where people don't typically care to escape." I've tried my damndest to decode what you mean by that, but the best I can get is nonsense.

As to the people who've read Miss Rand: I've read her, as has my son. I can't see into the minds of the illustrious people you mentioned, but he and I can agree that we think Rand is a putz. Incidentally, I have great admiration for the fact that Gates and his spouse began the Gates Foundation. I think the work they've done and will do constitutes a pretty profound negation of objectivism. And though I consider Michael Dell to be a horse's patoot*, he's certainly done some very admirable work in Austin, including the Dell Children's Hospital and the Dell Jewish Center. Once again, not the sort of thing I'd expect from a follower of Rand.

*If you want me to explain why I think he's a horse's patoot, we can take that up in another thread.

[suralos]

I have no problem with your calling what I read "bad books," but I think you showed remarkably poor judgment in deciding that they were bad even before you knew what they were.

Why do I need to read them when you've already said they're bad? Can't I trust your review? If you say they're "bad", I'll go along with that. And sorry, I haven't read any of the works you list.

Another thing: you wrote of Rand "(she} struck a major chord where people don't typically care to escape." I've tried my damnedest to decode what you mean by that, but the best I can get is nonsense.

How can you decode all those philosophical tomes you say you've read and still get stumped by one line from a baseball player? This is unprecedented. I think I will call World Weekly News and inform them of a real scoop.

God bless American Indians.

I can't see into the minds of the illustrious people you mentioned... and yada yada ...

They are examples of approximations of the heroes about whom Ayn Rand wrote -- movers and shakers around whom society eventually rallies, finds employment and has families. I don't have any problem with them if not a single one is steeped in any of the philosophical tomes you've drowned yourself in.

Actually, I'm not too sure about Arnold Palmer in the list, but he's inarguably a good, decent man, and I could care less about his philosophical convictions, which distinguishes him from, say, you.

You seem to be missing the point about Ayn Rand, a fiction novelist. Her epic characters can not be held accountable for social ills any more than the Incredible Hulk can be held to account for road rage. It's simply beyond the scope of her writing, just like Alan Ginsberg poems are beyond the scope of Wall Street.

But you know all this and you're fucking with everyone, just as you are in your support of Obama. Right? At least be fair.

If an old man give a living fossil some advise: Quit fucking with people.

[suralos]

I have to add that I've had the same problems with Ayn Rand's cold detachment as you. In fact, she is antithetical to my upbringing, my education and my inclinations.

But this is a good, not a bad thing.

[Osborn F. Enready]

What is "cold" about rational selfishness?

[suralos]

What is "cold" about rational selfishness?

Yeah, well there you go. One man's rational selfishness is another man's life spent trying to steal the entire pie.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Suralos said:
Yeah, well there you go. One man's rational selfishness is another man's life spent trying to steal the entire pie.

Well, while I agree with most of what you said to Buck, I don't see where your criticism of Rand is any more well defined or explained.

I was hoping people that would criticize the womans philosophy would at least mount credible arguments to be rebutted or addressed.

[suralos]

Well, while I agree with most of what you said to Buck, I don't see where your criticism of Rand is any more well defined or explained.
I was hoping people that would criticize the womans philosophy would at least mount credible arguments to be rebutted or addressed.

If you want a milk cow, buy a farm.

[Osborn F. Enready]

You do realize Suralos that Rand was a philosopher, not just a fiction writer?

You do realize I can also comprehend more than snappy analogies and quips?

I would appreciate any legitimate criticisms you may have, but so far you have only been making passing comments on the snipe, lacking any real debateable material at all.

[Buck Laser]

Why do I need to read them when you've already said they're bad? Can't I trust your review? If you say they're "bad", I'll go along with that. And sorry, I haven't read any of the works you list.
Your ability to misquote and misunderstand is massive. You referred to "bad" books initially, not me. I said I considered Miss Rand a bad novelist, and her philosophy execrable. I listed some of the books I've read simply to indicate that I'm capable of understanding profound writing. Ayn Rand ain't profound. She's a bloviator.

How can you decode all those philosophical tomes you say you've read and still get stumped by one line from a baseball player? This is unprecedented. I think I will call World Weekly News and inform them of a real scoop.

God bless American Indians.

and yada yada ...
I have no idea what you're talking about. Just how have I been stumped by a baseball player? Does it matter? Do you have a point here?

They are examples of approximations of the heroes about whom Ayn Rand wrote -- movers and shakers around whom society eventually rallies, finds employment and has families. I don't have any problem with them if not a single one is steeped in any of the philosophical tomes you've drowned yourself in.

Actually, I'm not too sure about Arnold Palmer in the list, but he's inarguably a good, decent man, and I could care less about his philosophical convictions, which distinguishes him from, say, you.
It would be interesting to see you name some of these "movers and shakers:" the only ones I can think of who fit that mold are Karl Rove and Michael Milken. Maybe you can help me broaden the list. By the way, you seem to forget that I've actually read her two main novels.

You seem to be missing the point about Ayn Rand, a fiction novelist. Her epic characters can not be held accountable for social ills any more than the Incredible Hulk can be held to account for road rage. It's simply beyond the scope of her writing, just like Alan Ginsberg poems are beyond the scope of Wall Street.

But you know all this and you're fucking with everyone, just as you are in your support of Obama. Right? At least be fair.
"I'm fucking with everyone??? Whatever you wanna believe, I guess. I just think Rand's work is shallow and sophomoric. I support Obama because I read his books, and I've followed his career ever since he entered the IL senate some years ago. I'm really interested to hear how this is "fucking with everyone."

If an old man give a living fossil some advise: Quit fucking with people.
Well, excuse me for living...but it sounds to me as if I might just be a bit more mentally agile than you are. Wanna have a pissing contest? :madlaugh:

[Osborn F. Enready]

I have to agree with Suralos on his criticisms against your posts Buck...

You have not offered much to debate either..... as far as VALID criticisms go. ;)

[Buck Laser]

I have to agree with Suralos on his criticisms against your posts Buck...

You have not offered much to debate either..... as far as VALID criticisms go. ;)

Fair enough in some respects, Os. But you don't get to be the one who decides what constitutes valid criticisms. I've never written a paper on Rand's work, mainly because I've never regarded her as a real philosopher. But here are some thoughts, more or less off the top of my head.

1. Rand makes a great deal of the "virtue of selfishness." If I understand this right, she's talking about "enlightened self interest" as a valid principle for people who can get away with it. Certainly her heroes, the architect and Dagney Taggart, manage to get away with it, and write their own rules. For what it's worth, I've even done that most of my life. But I do it as something I can get away with, not something that should be a universal rule. I have paid the consequences for my arrogance on several occasions.

2. []b]Selfishness is a meritocratic virtue.[/b] I can't escape my duties to my family, my community or my nation because I'm better than any of them, or because I "march to a different drummer" without being prepared to accept the consequences. That means I'll have to pay my taxes, go to the military if I'm drafted, and sometimes submit to the judgment of my inferiors.

3. My conviction that I'm a rugged individualist doesn't necessarily mean that I am. I've run into way too many people, particularly since I went on the web in 1994 or so, who were incredibly stupid solipsists. Just because I think I've had a brilliant idea doesn't mean that everyone else is gonna think so. My observation has been that way too many "objectivists" think of themselves as self-appointed ubermenschen. (I don't know if that's the right plural of ubermensch[i] or not.]

4. The height of objectivism seems to consist in standing alone above the world. Again, there was a time I thought that was true, primarily between the ages of 17 and 22. Gradually, I've come to believe that the height of humanity consists in standing together for the common good. If I'm able to make an extraordinary contribution, then it's the community that supports me, not me and my superior genes alone that got me there.

5. Rand's heroes seem to be nasty people. As I said to Suralos, if Michael Dell is an example of a Randian, I wouldn't be impressed--not because he hasn't done some good things, but because he seems to believe that entitles him to be an asshole. To take another more or less local example, Lance Armstrong may be the best athlete in the world ever. But he's also pretty much a total asshole. I can go a ways with that--but he fails at being a real human--a [i]mensch--because assholes can't fulfill that role.

6. Moving to social and government structures, my impression is that Rand wanted commerce totally unfettered by government. I've expressed myself on this kind of issue time and time again. There are a great many areas where I consider government intrusive, but we're smack in the middle of what can happen when government turns away from a legitimate role, as it has with regard to lending practices. Further, government since the Reagan administration has steadily moved toward laws and regulations that favor business interest over individual interests. The new bankruptcy law passed in the last couple of years is an example that comes to mind immediately.

This is about all I can cover in an evening. There's a lot more, from the structure and organization of the universe to a concept of the divine that seems to get short shrift in Miss Rand's work. But the fact is that from what I've seen of her work, I have a very hard time imagining that anything she wrote could add to my understanding.

[cronic]

I just watched the first three videos.

I gotta watch the next ones...But thats tomorrow maybe.
so far.. here is what I gotta say

WoW,
I wasn't gonna watch the videos .. I never heard of her actually.

I figured.. Lets have a look.. maybe it will be worth it.

Also.. I don't usually like hearing philosophers because sometimes they sound arrogant.. like they know it all.. and some philosophers probably aren't any more smarter then Erma Bombeck

I think this lady is different.
I liked what she had to say..:thumbsup:
She is a lady with a very complex brain, sounds very educated, accompanied by a good, wholesome, simplistic, way of wanting to live.

My girlfriend liked the videos to.. now she wants me to get her the book..

I won't debate philosophy. because it deals with how one lives ethically ..
But I will comment on hers.

I think ( from what I have heard so far ), her vision of how we should live as a mankind is really a good one..

But not in 1959 and sure as hell not now...

the way she wants mankind to live is to close to barbaric in conjunction with todays society and more over.. todays people...

Mankind was different in 1959...
I would argue.. mankind was a better mankind then vs now

I would equally project I think mankind ( ethically ).. was better on a whole.. in a more simplistic way of life.. back in the 1800's.

This is where Ayn's ideas could work and did work.

I'll comment back after I watch the other vids.
:peace:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck said:
Fair enough in some respects, Os. But you don't get to be the one who decides what constitutes valid criticisms. I've never written a paper on Rand's work, mainly because I've never regarded her as a real philosopher. But here are some thoughts, more or less off the top of my head.

What I meant by valid was that you didn't site what she said that you disagree with, and why.

Buck said:
1. Rand makes a great deal of the "virtue of selfishness." If I understand this right, she's talking about "enlightened self interest" as a valid principle for people who can get away with it. Certainly her heroes, the architect and Dagney Taggart, manage to get away with it, and write their own rules. For what it's worth, I've even done that most of my life. But I do it as something I can get away with, not something that should be a universal rule. I have paid the consequences for my arrogance on several occasions.

Being and individual, means your focus, your ability, your thoughts, your actions, your aspirations, your intrests, your VALUES dictate your life, how you live it, and what thoughts you convert into action.

The concept of rational selfishness is simply a realistic way of looking at the world and all that inhabits it as we do, as individuals, and shreds once and for all the logical fallacy of "unconditional love" as is often preached by religions, socialists, communists, etc, but never practiced.

Every relationship in your life is DIRECTLY tied to your values, your perception, and what value you assign to anyone you meet, converse with, do business with, or are related to.
It is HONEST to say that you love those YOU deem worthy of loving. It is not honest to say you love all equally, and this is provable by actions over a persons life. People gravitate toward that which they value, and shrug away from things that they don't value, or those that don't value them.

Love is selfish.
Caring is selfish.
Empathy is selfish.
Virtue is selfish.
Integrity is selfish.
Generosity is selfish.

Without full understanding and appreciation of the self, none of the above actions or emotions could exist is what I alledge.

Do people value a murderer as they value their newborn?
Do you love a rapist as you love your mother?
Do you trust a stranger as you trust your significant other?
Do you give to those who steal from you?

Could you empathize without recognition of the self and the role self plays?
Could benevolence and generosity exist without a choice?

Can you give me one example of selflessness that NO SELF SATISFACTION could be taken from by the person who committs the action?

Can you give me ONE EXAMPLE of unconditional love?

Buck said:
2. []b]Selfishness is a meritocratic virtue.[/b] I can't escape my duties to my family, my community or my nation because I'm better than any of them, or because I "march to a different drummer" without being prepared to accept the consequences. That means I'll have to pay my taxes, go to the military if I'm drafted, and sometimes submit to the judgment of my inferiors.

Those are all individual choices Buck. Society "expects you" to do as is "traditional" or "commonly accepted", but that is NOT the only choice and every society over mans history has proven my point to be true, or societies would NEVER change. Status quo would be the same today as it was in the beginning of mans first society. Values today would be the same, as would laws, punishments and accepted moral norms. Obviously, that is not the case. Our nation was formed by rebellion, and none of those that chose that path did so by destiny, they did so by REASONED, RATIONAL selfish choice.

Buck said:
3. My conviction that I'm a rugged individualist doesn't necessarily mean that I am. I've run into way too many people, particularly since I went on the web in 1994 or so, who were incredibly stupid solipsists. Just because I think I've had a brilliant idea doesn't mean that everyone else is gonna think so. My observation has been that way too many "objectivists" think of themselves as self-appointed ubermenschen. (I don't know if that's the right plural of [i]ubermensch[i] or not.]

Solopsists.... well, I could see why some may think that, especially if they don't know her philosophy very well, but that is really an issue of taking her philosophy at face value more than it is an honest criticism after honestly viewing the role of the self in any one persons life.

As far as Ubermenschen (which that is correct I believe for plurality), yes, also there is reason to perceive that trait or "label" in many of Rands followers as the heroic view of the role of self tends to spin perception toward the positive. Do you think it would be better if we instead weighted ourselves from birth to death with guilt or burden that is undue, unjust or illogically attached to us by no means of our own?

Usually, those who deny the existence of self or the role the self plays in our decision making, are irritated, naturally at the role the self plays in Rands philosophy. However, most times these views are carryovers from religion (a subjective choice to the individual), cultural stigma ( government or parental teaching that others are more important than self needs or intrests that are based in rational pursuit of happiness ) and
have been taught to view the entire concept of self, selfishness as a pejorative term, without ever really analyzing the source of happiness in individuals.

For example, I am an advocate and follower of the bulk of Rands philosophy, so many would alledge that means I don't give to charity, I don't care about others, I only live for myself. However, that would all be based on the assumption that I DON'T DERIVE SELFISH PLEASURE from helping others, from giving when I can, from helping where I can, from doing good things for others in hopes and expectations that in my time of need others may be there to do the same for me. Its a false construct, is what it is, and usually goes back to the concept of being "born into sin".

Buck said:
4. The height of objectivism seems to consist in standing alone above the world. Again, there was a time I thought that was true, primarily between the ages of 17 and 22. Gradually, I've come to believe that the height of humanity consists in standing together for the common good.

LOL....

Who would define "a" "common good" without the role of the self and all the selfs of individuals who make up the "commons"?

Obviously, we all have different perceptions of "good", and we all have our own perception of "the role we play toward the commons" being that we all individuals and all have our views, values and moral outlooks.....

Which individual is to say what is right, and why would some majority of individuals outweigh the views of other individuals? (using what logic)

IF we all had the same view of "good" and "bad" there wouldn't be any bad by the hands of man, would there? If we all valued virtue equally, wouldn't we all be equally virtuous?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck said:
If I'm able to make an extraordinary contribution, then it's the community that supports me, not me and my superior genes alone that got me there.

What would make you say such a thing? If it was the community that supported you to put you there, why you and not everyone is in that position of great contribution? Who said anything about superior genes, as in, are you trying to infer that I am some sort of elitist, or that Rand is?

Buck said:
5. Rand's heroes seem to be nasty people.

LOL....

Nasty how? Because they don't take no for an answer? Because they refuse to be stopped in their climb toward progress, happiness and self fulfillment by those wrongly standing in their way on unjust ground to do so?

Please explain.

Buck said:
As I said to Suralos, if Michael Dell is an example of a Randian, I wouldn't be impressed--

Well, I will let Suralos deal with that issue should he choose. I am not here to debate Rands heroes, or people who ascribe to her ideals, I am more interested in debating the facts about her philosophy and how it compares to others.

Buck said:
not because he hasn't done some good things, but because he seems to believe that entitles him to be an asshole.

Last time I checked, we are all entitled to be assholes, and you have been in the past if I am not mistaken, as have I.

Buck said:
To take another more or less local example, Lance Armstrong may be the best athlete in the world ever. But he's also pretty much a total asshole. I can go a ways with that--but he fails at being a real human--a mensch--because assholes can't fulfill that role.

You forgot to end that with "in your opinion", which is different than every others persons to some degree. I however, would agree as I have no fascination or excessive admiration for Lance. He has done things in his life that were important to him, and I respect that, but I place him on no pedestal. Then again, I don't put many on pedestals.

Buck said:
6. Moving to social and government structures, my impression is that Rand wanted commerce totally unfettered by government.

Either you don't understand the role rights play in business, or you don't include the role of rights in your statement of "totally unfettered".

The same individual rights that protect you from government (in the legal sense) also protect you from other people who seek to infringe on those rights, or any business, corporation or contract that infringes those rights.

The "only fetter" to Laissez Faire Capitalism is the ENFORCEMENT of individual rights equally against any who violate them, be they individual, corporation, contractual fraud or corrupt government.

Buck said:
I've expressed myself on this kind of issue time and time again. There are a great many areas where I consider government intrusive, but we're smack in the middle of what can happen when government turns away from a legitimate role, as it has with regard to lending practices.

What role is that Buck? Do you mean standing up for individual rights when individuals are taken advantage of by fraudulent lending practices? That is what Rand would have supported.

Buck said:
Further, government since the Reagan administration has steadily moved toward laws and regulations that favor business interest over individual interests.

LOL.... its been a LOT longer than since Regan my friend.
Its been since 1913 and the creation of the Federal Reserve officially, but has roots that go back even further before the bi-partisan monopoly was in place.

Buck said:
The new bankruptcy law passed in the last couple of years is an example that comes to mind immediately.

I can't think of two laws in the last 50 years that are constitutionally sound, not that there may not be a few, but the bulk surely are not.


Buck said:
This is about all I can cover in an evening. There's a lot more, from the structure and organization of the universe to a concept of the divine that seems to get short shrift in Miss Rand's work.

Well, that short shrift for the supposed "divine" is well deserved, I would say.
This is again where our INDIVIUDAL VALUES and MORALS come into play. Your subjective values are no better than anyone elses, so why should all recognize them equally, or value them equally? Obviously you don't value rands values and morals very much, do you?

Buck said:
But the fact is that from what I've seen of her work, I have a very hard time imagining that anything she wrote could add to my understanding.

Well, many of us feel that way about the Bible, the Koran and the other holy books out there, but you don't see us trying to PREVENT people from finding value where THEY think value and happiness lie using force, which many of the above mentioned have done to those who don't "think like them".

[Osborn F. Enready]

Cronic said:
I won't debate philosophy. because it deals with how one lives ethically ..
But I will comment on hers.

Fair enough. Thanks for sharing.

[Buck Laser]

Os, arguing with you is a great deal like arguing with a literate fundamentalist. I say that with respect, but the fact is that I have nothing to gain by continuing the argument. Randian philosophy is precisely as important to me as fundamentalist Christianity. It won't affect the way I live my life except to waste my time when I could be doing more interesting things.

I'm fairly active on another board called Internet Infidels, and I'm constantly bemused by the people who try to convince people to accept creationism--and the number of others who'll respond again and again with arguments against it. Sometimes threads go on through thousands of responses. Yet no one changes positions. I've made a good faith effort to lay out my reactions to Miss Rand's philosophy, but your responses simply take me back to where we began. I'm pretty well steeped in western philosophy, that having been my undergraduate major, and having spent a year in graduate studies in philosophy in the mid 80s. From those studies and my own thought, I have a world view that simply doesn't accord with "objectivism."

One of these days I may post a "credo' trying to detail my personal understanding of reality and existence. Until then, I have more immediate concerns, like enjoying my family, particularly my grandchildren, enjoying my hobbies, and trying to regain my health following a whole series of problems.

[Osborn F. Enready]

LOL, whatever Buck, no offense taken at all.

I enjoy debate, that is why I come here, but I don't want to debate people who don't want to debate me or don't feel they are gaining anything from it.

I wish you luck with your health and your return to happiness if that is what you seek.

[suralos]

Love is selfish.
Caring is selfish.
Empathy is selfish.
Virtue is selfish.
Integrity is selfish.
Generosity is selfish.


It's been decades since I read Rand, and frankly you've refreshed my memory some, OFE. I now also recall two problems I had with her: 1. She made her points brilliantly and eloquently in short order, and dwelled on them way too long; 2. There was an incompleteness about her larger-than-life characters that belies her philosophy.

Sorry, I don't have the book, and couldn't quote a line after all these years. However, in relation to the above, I find the following rearrangement of your argument interesting:

Selfishness is love.
Selfishness is caring.
Selfishness is empathy.
Selfishness is virtue.
Selfishness is integrity.
Selfishness is generosity.

Don't the rules of logic dictate that if what you wrote is true, then the reverse must also be true? "Is" means "equals".

However, it's patently false since it would make serial killers and rapists and so forth appear philosophically acceptable to you by your own rules, or if not, why not? It is odd, don't you think? Maybe it hits on what is so troubling to the Obamaholic.

To the extent that what you wrote so well is true, you're more honest than a lot of people. But I was unable to fully accept Rand at the time I read her because what you wrote is flawed -- important but flawed.

That's about as deep as I get, but I'm honest (a lot of the time) too, if a bit short with labor (which is why I haven't viewed the clips you obviously went to some trouble to compile. I will if it appears to serve my own selfishness.), unlike a few around here who are far too transparent for their own arrogance and who shall remain unnamed by humble me.

Doing it again.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Suralos said:
It's been decades since I read Rand, and frankly you've refreshed my memory some, OFE.

Thank you for admitting that candidly, that was one of my goals to anyone that decided to take this topic up, so you have given some selfish justification of performing this act, which gratifies me.

Again, thank you for your honesty.

Suralos said:
I now also recall two problems I had with her: 1. She made her points brilliantly and eloquently in short order, and dwelled on them way too long;

LOL, a valid critique, because regardless of how much you agree or disagree, she is long winded, and even she admitted that.

Suralos said:
2. There was an incompleteness about her larger-than-life characters that belies her philosophy.

Much could be said the same about any philosophy I have ever read, up to and including all recognized established religions that I have encountered, at least, from my perspective and perception.

Suralos said:
Sorry, I don't have the book, and couldn't quote a line after all these years. However, in relation to the above, I find the following rearrangement of your argument interesting:

Selfishness is love.
Selfishness is caring.
Selfishness is empathy.
Selfishness is virtue.
Selfishness is integrity.
Selfishness is generosity.

Don't the rules of logic dictate that if what you wrote is true, then the reverse must also be true? "Is" means "equals".

Yes, it does, taking into context individual perception.

Selfishness, nor selflessness could exist at all without recognition and acceptance of the self as a pretext, and allowing the self to play a role which it obviously must, regardless of our perception.


Suralos said:
However, it's patently false since it would make serial killers and rapists and so forth appear philosophically acceptable to you by your own rules, or if not, why not?

No, they would not be philosophicly acceptable, as their selfish value is built upon the concept of robbing others of their rights, which removes their rights or the application of those rights to them. It would be irrational to recognize rights, expect them to be applied to you, when your entire view of selfish happiness is based on removing those same rights from others using force.

Rational selfishness is about avoiding and disapproving the use of force for ANYTHING other than defense of ones rights, regardless of the form the agressor takes from citizen to government.

One has every right to base their life on rational selfishness in how THEY LIVE THEIR OWN LIFE, but they have no right to base their selfishness irrationally, which would be preying upon those who are their equals, their peers and their physical equivalents.

Suralos said:
It is odd, don't you think? Maybe it hits on what is so troubling to the Obamaholic.

It is odd seemingly, to many who were raised under the wing of religion, and those who have been taught that selfishness is a pejorative term, or those who belief we are born into some "undefineable debt" to society other than mutual respect for individual rights.

While those may think it seems odd, what seems is not always what is, nor what should be.

Suralos said:
To the extent that what you wrote so well is true, you're more honest than a lot of people. But I was unable to fully accept Rand at the time I read her because what you wrote is flawed -- important but flawed.

How so, please be specific so I can adequately address the issues in my reply.

Also, I thank you for the kind words which were totally unexpected, but appreciated, and may I express my satisfaction and appreciation of your views and honesty is equally appreciated.

Suralos said:
That's about as deep as I get, but I'm honest (a lot of the time) too, if a bit short with labor (which is why I haven't viewed the clips you obviously went to some trouble to compile. I will if it appears to serve my own selfishness.), unlike a few around here who are far too transparent for their own arrogance and who shall remain unnamed by humble me.

Doing it again.

;)

No problem, I like your approach and enjoy the debate, so I find my investment of time and labor here is worthwhile and self-fulfilling. I am not dissappointed.

[suralos]

How so, please be specific so I can adequately address the issues in my reply.

I mean that what you wrote stands in place of what she wrote which I don't recall. She remains one haunting philosopher for any liberal. I long ago accepted her narrow vision as valid, something that has to be accounted for in any world view. I have a lot of room in my head for smart people, and well, everybody loves great writers.