"She didn't give a f*ck when other people were dying of cancer or starving." (how do you know this?)
"I do dismiss anyone who has no compassion or empathy for other human beings." How do you know she had no compassion or empathy?
(this is the same as saying, "I have no compassion or empathy for people I BELIEVE have no compassion or empathy.") < the on/off switch. I don't have one and don't think most do either.
Yes..that was in the context of this thread in response to her life and what I have observed...
Her admiration of the serial killer William Hickman because he did not exist for anyone shows a disturbing lack of compassion or empathy...and says a lot about who she is. It indicates sociopathic behavior and thinking
I am not going to address your on/off switch or what you think I am saying or not saying. I was clear...I meant what I said...not going to engage you there any further.
East, I'm not so much in this to argue with you but to do as I said in the thread by Mett8 and seek to test the truth, strength and goodness of ideas the same way we test the qualities of metals, ropes and glass --- we try to break them. You've presented me a real challenge and I like being challenged and never take them personally. Challenges are what make us realize our weaknesses and strengths then lead us to overcome our weaknesses and build upon our strengths. There's obvious truth in that old saying, "that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger."
And I thank you for it and believe it or not am beginning to live you for doing this. It's certainly more intellectually stimulating than reading and commenting on things like gay men in closets falling in love with straight men.
You're giving me reasons to read about Ayn Rand that my BF has been unable to do. But I'm not doing it to embrace her philosophy but to make sure the other readers get a larger presentation of the facts in order for them to make more informed opinions of their own about this.
I've noticed something about people who present less than most of the facts about an issue. They fall into two groups. Either they are repeating what they've heard and not taken the time to examine before repeating --- or they are doing it in order to sway the opinions of people and keep them from making informed decisions based of the full facts.
Vladmir Lenin called the first group his "useful idiots" but they aren't limited to the communist parties. There are way more of them in the far right of politics controlled by the fundamentalists. Regardless of where they are on the political spectrum they all repeat lies, half truths and anything else they've heard from pulpits or other forms of propaganda machines.
The second group, the ones who make up the lies and spread them to the useful idiots are the dogmatists and idealists (both left and right) who lack the courage to stand up for their convictions and seek to create power in collecting "useful idiots' who will stand up for anything.
I found a link explaining Ayn Rand's supposed admiration of this William Hickman that really paints a more believable picture of her admiration for a murderer who she used as a model for an Anti-hero in a play that flopped so long ago that only people really desperate for something to sat about Ayn Rand would have ever latched onto.
I also found a youtube video of a guy whose remarks about Ayn Rand have some bizarre nearly word for word similarities to your own. It's not up to me to decide if he's plagiarizing you or vice versa.
Here's the video. Let those who want to make up their own minds read the link above and this short video from the Rebel Maoist News.
Hypocrisy? He sits in front of two flags that symbolize the mass murders of over 50 million people in PEACE TIME and accuses a woman who escaped communist Russia of having the least concern for human life and right wing elites of being cold blooded.
Just so you know...have read Rand (Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) and also the first internet board I was on for years was a political/entertainment board and one of my buddies was an Ayn Rand devotee and I have had a lot of discussions about her over the years with him and others. My opinion is based on who she was and the things she advocated.
As time went on we agreed to disagree...and no...I didn't see any of the things you posted that I am aware of... or if I ever did see them it has been years. My observations and conclusions of and about her are many years old and I have never seen any reason to update them.
Politically I am to the left of Ghandi so I am at odds with her at almost every turn. It is a complete oil and water thing....
Not having read Atlas Shrugged or anything else my knowledge of her is very much second hand. But from what I've read she seems like a despicable person with an equally despicable philosophy.
I liked Slavoj Žižek's characterization of Ayn Rand. (No link unfortunately because it's from one of his talks and I can't remember which!) According to him Ayn Rand is somewhat of a self-defeating phenomenon, namely because her over-identification with the ideology of economic liberalism exposes the stupidity of the doctrine, which is why any serious (I don't include the Tea Party here) center-right politician (at least in Europe) can't seriously declare to be her follower with popular success. It is crucial for the success of any type of an ideological doctrine that it should not be taken directly as it is but adopted with a certain distance.
(As for Žižek himself, he is a much more interesting philosophical figure than Ayn Rand.)
My opinions of her
Since I read her "meaning of sex" (linked earlier) I've always liked it and found no other explanation to be better. Before this conversation that was all I knew about her.
I learned from one of the videos I posted that her concept of altruism is the same as mine. It should be done by individuals who expect no praise or thanks for doing it. I won't even list off all the things I do here locally that meet that definition.
She's right that the only way the monopolies and huge business interests can exist is with government cooperation and protection.
I think she's right that we are on earth to make the best of the lives we have and follow our own courses and take credit for our own achievements.
Sharkspeare Wrote:I will defend "Atlas Shrugged" to the death. It changed my life utterly. See, when I moved to this condo, one of the legs on a cute little side table I had got broken and I couldn't use it anymore. But then I placed a hardcover copy of "Atlas Shrugged" under the broken leg and now it's steady as a rock!
I recommend her book for everyone! If you need something to hold the screen door open when you're taking stuff outside to grill it's an excellent doorstop.....perfect for your young niece to place on the chair and sit on so she can reach the table.....really it's one of the most useful pieces in all literature!
I couldn't wade through her novels to save my life and felt like I must be intellectually challenged, but now I see I was handling it the wrong way. Thanks man, you've given me a whole new perspective.
Okay I finally have the opportunity to post in this thread again! I just knew the topic of Ayn Rand would create a lively debate and I have many responses to you guys.
@50Plus:
I got "Anthem" from the library today. It's not one of her more famous books but all the other ones were already borrowed. Thanks for the offer!
@East:
First of all, it's NOT a fact that she accepted government handouts. It's a claim. But even if it's true, you can't pretend like it would make her hypocricy unquestionable. Taxation is force. To me and many others it's considered a necessary force, the pillar of society, but forcive nonetheless. "The government will take a certain percentage of your income with or without your consent. If you refuse they will punish you by locking you up, and if you refuse to go peacefully the government may use force against you".
We can then establish that the process of taxation for those who don't consent to its existence (Ayn Rand, for example) is basically theft. Every month a man comes knocking on Mrs. Rand's door, taking a percentage of her income. If she refuses to accept this peacefully, he will use force against her; he is essentially stealing from her. This goes on for many years and the stolen money is used for various governmental projects, financing the welfare state etc. Without her consent, her stolen money is being used for the good of others. In the later stages of her life she finds herself sick and in need of money. Suddenly, the man who has stolen from her income throughout her entire life re-appears at her doorstep. This time he is willing to give back some of the money he took from her and, being in her financially tough situation, she agrees. You could draw the conclusion that she merely got some of her stolen money back or that she was a hypocritical bitch. But please don't pretend that the scenario is anything but morally ambiguous.
I started reading about Ayn Rand yesterday, and already I've encountered so many people that misinterpret her severely. She was not a woman uncapable of love. She even supported her husband (who was an artist) financially in his time of need. When asked why she'd do this she merely said that she loves him and that love itself is a self-interest. When you value the characteristics of another person and they bring you joy you want to have them around you and contribute to their happiness. Love is based around what good another person does for you and is essentially selfish.
I think the reason why many people are upset by her philosophy is that they reject self-interest and a certain degree of egoism as typically human traits. Like I said, I don't agree with most of her philosophies, and I wouldn't want to live in her dream society, but neither do I think her values are illegitimate. She wants absolute freedom, and absolute freedom can only come at the expense of the collective. Why is it that people who value individual freedom more than collective well-being are so despised? I'm not one of them and I don't want society to be run on their model, but essentially it all boils down to values and the value of freedom shouldn't be considered illegitimate to the extent it is today.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
Capricorn
