1 of 7
1
Ayn Rand (does not) describe herself and other thoughts regarding Rand
Posted: 05 April 2013 06:08 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3789
Joined  2010-08-15

I don’t know why that image isn’t working anymore. 
Well, here’s her quote:

“I am a mediocre writer, hypocrite and a sociopath.

My disciples are ignorant deluded hypocritical sociopaths too.”

Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosembaum

AKA Ayn Rand

I bring it up because it’s about the first time I’ve read anything she’s written that has made sense to me.
~ ~ ~

UPDATE 6/12/  and 6/14 to add the bold… for the hard of comprehending
... and perhaps an adjustment to the title…
lest we get too distracted from my own incomprehension at how many people take her writing seriously.
OK so the words attached to the picture are a prank:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/15752/P60/#181829

citizenschallenge.pm - 12 June 2013 04:41 PM
HBinswanger - 12 June 2013 03:19 PM

You mean the one that starts, “I am a mediocre writer?” 100% fabrication
out of whole cloth.

Yes, I know everything she ever wrote, and most of what she said publicly. (I began
reading her in 1962).

Being in philosophy, I got to know her gradually after that. In her final years
(1980 - 1982) I was speaking to her daily on the phone and
visited her frequently. So I can on that basis tell you that such a statement would
have been impossible to her.

Thank you and I will accept your authority on the matter.
Thanks.

But, like I’ve said this thread wasn’t about what Ayn thought of herself,
it’s about my bafflement that people have elevated her novels to foundational political action.
To me it all seems so disconnected from what the real world, and pageant of our individual lives, is all about.
~ ~ ~

Still trying to comprehend the Rand loving Tea-Party/Neo-Con/Republican mind

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Further reading for the curious:

Ayn Rand, Just Go Away
By Victoria Bekiempis, Guardian UK
11 June 12
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11863-focus-ayn-rand-just-go-away

Ayn Rand: Sociopath Who Admired a Serial Killer?
By Austin Cline, About.com GuideMay 11, 2011

http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/05/11/ayn-rand-sociopath-who-admired-a-serial-killer.htm

Ayn Rand And The Sociopathic Society or ‘How I Learned To Stop Loving My Neighbor And Despise Them Instead’
2013/03/24
By Justin “Filthy Liberal Scum” Rosario

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/24/sociopathic/

“This is a simple fact that can be verified by anyone with even minimal Google skills. She was the Albert Schweitzer of Selfishness and the Mother Theresa of Greed all rolled into one. This, naturally, makes her a hero to the Right and qualifies her for sainthood. Too bad she was an Atheist. . .”

Voices from the Flats – I Me Mine: The Unholy Trinity Of Ayn Rand
By Don Millard
http://www.themudflats.net/?p=20458

[ Edited: 14 June 2013 10:46 AM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2013 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  2007-10-22

CC Ayn Rand is just the favorite “theologian” of the libertatians, nothing more.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2013 09:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05

Very interesting reading, CC. The essayists did a credible job of pointing out the flaws in Rand’s philosophy.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 April 2013 09:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3789
Joined  2010-08-15
garythehuman - 06 April 2013 08:50 AM

CC Ayn Rand is just the favorite “theologian” of the libertatians, nothing more.

And Tea bag..er partiers - and climate science denialists.


“nothing more” ? . . .
bad enough

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3024
Joined  2010-04-26

Ayn Rand….pfeh.

“I am a mediocre writer, hypocrite and a sociopath.  My disciples are ignorant deluded hypocritical sociopaths too.”
Sounds about right.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2012-04-25

Wow what a lot of childish thinking in this thread. First of all, I don’t by any means agree with Ayn Rand’s philosophy AND I’m as leftie as you can be. But what this thread appears to be is a bunch of liberals who hate the current crop of Righties so they criticize AR based on the actions of the Righties, versus anything she said or did herself. Also sounds like some rewriting of history and “found quotes” that are either completely made up, or taken way out of context.  In other words, sounds like a bunch of lefties acting like the worst kind of righties.  In a similar way you can find hard core Christians for the last 60 years trying to rewrite Hitlers legacy so as to hide the fact that he was a Christian. We see all this crap psycho-analysis evidently showing he was a maniac etc. Silly.  The guy had a philosophy that resounded with many people. He was extremely effective in getting others to follow, brilliant one might even say. AND his philosophy was dead wrong and evil. To me trying to prove he was nuts actually gets him (and his anti-Semitic-Christian-based philosophy) off the hook.  This current wave of attacks on AR seem to me to be the same. I’m sorry but she WAS a brilliant writer and a deep thinker. She’s wrong, but so what.  So was Immanual Kant.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 08:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3789
Joined  2010-08-15

Sorry C., not sure what you are going on about.

I don’t like Rand because she wrote disgustingly contrived books; filled with irredeemably juvenile thinking;
... then for the past decades right-winger power boys have taken them and her childish sociopathic ideas to insane ideological extremes.

And we can see the fruits of that siren song throughout the world news these days… and it’s not a pretty sight.

As for those links, any in particular that offended you?

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2013 10:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2012-04-25

“disgustingly contrived”, “irredeemably juvenile”, “childish sociopathic”.  Those three phrases alone tell me your knowledge of her ideas must have come from cheap shot analysis like the above links.  I DO fault her for picking a bad title for one of her books that really trots out her philosophy, i.e. Virtue of Selfishness.  I wonder how many people read the title, formed an on the spot opinion, and went from there to “sociopath” or the usual “she thinks it’s ok to climb over a mountain of others to get what you want”.  Neither is accurate, and the made-up version the righties follow is just that, made-up.  I have a feeling she would not agree with much of what they’re trying to do.  The hard part with her philosophy is that there are many parts that ring true, scattered amongst stuff that is patently wrong.  It’s kind of like the Ron/Rand Pauls of the world. Some of what the say make a lot of sense, and people, especially young people, flock to them.  Until they find out there are other parts of their worldview (not founded on Rand’s idea) that are plain nuts.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 04:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2013-01-23

This Ayn Rand has also been discussed in Finland during last year, partly because the the so-called “intellectuals” from right-wing parties have been adoring her. I am not very familiar with her thinking, although i know it has many, many fallacies, and i also know that her philosophy is also very, very bigoted.

So whats the big deal? Why is her so important for some people, especially for rich and famous?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 05:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15300
Joined  2006-02-14
Little Bird off Heaven - 15 April 2013 04:48 AM

Why is her so important for some people, especially for rich and famous?

Because she aims to justify selfishness.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 05:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
CuthbertJ - 11 April 2013 10:06 AM

“disgustingly contrived”, “irredeemably juvenile”, “childish sociopathic”.  Those three phrases alone tell me your knowledge of her ideas must have come from cheap shot analysis like the above links.  I DO fault her for picking a bad title for one of her books that really trots out her philosophy, i.e. Virtue of Selfishness.  I wonder how many people read the title, formed an on the spot opinion, and went from there to “sociopath” or the usual “she thinks it’s ok to climb over a mountain of others to get what you want”.  Neither is accurate, and the made-up version the righties follow is just that, made-up.  I have a feeling she would not agree with much of what they’re trying to do.  The hard part with her philosophy is that there are many parts that ring true, scattered amongst stuff that is patently wrong.  It’s kind of like the Ron/Rand Pauls of the world. Some of what the say make a lot of sense, and people, especially young people, flock to them.  Until they find out there are other parts of their worldview (not founded on Rand’s idea) that are plain nuts.

If Ayn Rand had been a man, we would never have known about her.  That’s a fact.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 06:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  2007-10-22
dougsmith - 15 April 2013 05:05 AM
Little Bird off Heaven - 15 April 2013 04:48 AM

Why is her so important for some people, especially for rich and famous?

Because she aims to justify selfishness.

That’s a big part of her “charm.”  cool grin

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 06:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3789
Joined  2010-08-15
CuthbertJ - 11 April 2013 10:06 AM

“disgustingly contrived”, “irredeemably juvenile”, “childish sociopathic”.  Those three phrases alone tell me your knowledge of her ideas must have come from cheap shot analysis like the above links. I DO fault her for picking a bad title for one of her books that really trots out her philosophy, i.e. Virtue of Selfishness.  I wonder how many people read the title, formed an on the spot opinion, and went from there to “sociopath” or the usual “she thinks it’s ok to climb over a mountain of others to get what you want”.  Neither is accurate, and the made-up version the righties follow is just that, made-up.  I have a feeling she would not agree with much of what they’re trying to do.  The hard part with her philosophy is that there are many parts that ring true, scattered amongst stuff that is patently wrong.  It’s kind of like the Ron/Rand Pauls of the world. Some of what the say make a lot of sense, and people, especially young people, flock to them.  Until they find out there are other parts of their worldview (not founded on Rand’s idea) that are plain nuts.

Actually my contempt comes from reading Atlas Shrugged and subsequent research into who this person was and what people were trying to build her into.  Heck even the term “Objectivism” for her philosophy is a travesty to my lower order philosophical skills, since I can’t find anything objective about what I’ve read.

As for your last couple sentences - Well isn’t that the problem with the whole neo-con nation.  Take a tiny sliver of truth, rip it out of context and try to build a world around it. . .  why my anger and palpable contempt?  . . . because of the counter-productive insanity of the Bush Administration and it’s neocons brainiacks. . .  and because they seem to find tons of justification within her books. . .  otherwise they wouldn’t be peddling her tripe as though they were a mini Bibles.

I’m actually not trying to offend you, just want you to understand my motives.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 07:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05
CuthbertJ - 09 April 2013 10:17 AM

Wow what a lot of childish thinking in this thread. First of all, I don’t by any means agree with Ayn Rand’s philosophy AND I’m as leftie as you can be. But what this thread appears to be is a bunch of liberals who hate the current crop of Righties so they criticize AR based on the actions of the Righties, versus anything she said or did herself. Also sounds like some rewriting of history and “found quotes” that are either completely made up, or taken way out of context.  In other words, sounds like a bunch of lefties acting like the worst kind of righties.  In a similar way you can find hard core Christians for the last 60 years trying to rewrite Hitlers legacy so as to hide the fact that he was a Christian. We see all this crap psycho-analysis evidently showing he was a maniac etc. Silly.  The guy had a philosophy that resounded with many people. He was extremely effective in getting others to follow, brilliant one might even say. AND his philosophy was dead wrong and evil. To me trying to prove he was nuts actually gets him (and his anti-Semitic-Christian-based philosophy) off the hook.  This current wave of attacks on AR seem to me to be the same. I’m sorry but she WAS a brilliant writer and a deep thinker. She’s wrong, but so what.  So was Immanual Kant.

Rand was not a brilliant writer. Atlas Shrugged is a banal and predictable novel with an entirely unreadable sermon near the end. Your assertion that Rand’s critics are taking her ideas out of context is wrong, at least in my case. If you watch the Mike Wallace interview with Ayn Rand you’ll realize the critics you bashed are not taking her words out of context. Rand’s Objectivist philosophy is nothing more than an attempt to justify greed.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 01:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2013-01-23

And was this person also kinda narcissistic in her private life? I mean that she was very abusive in her private life towards her loved ones?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 10:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2012-04-25

DarronS - that’s your opinion nothing more, and a very condescending one at that (and inaccurate). Personally, back in the day I was extremely well read, on my way to a PhD in Philosophy and found her novels excellent, couldn’t put them down. I also found no one in academia thought anything of her. I’ve since discovered many in academia look down on anyone, whether it’s a philosopher, a musician, etc. who pursues activities that relate to the “unwashed and ignorant” masses. Too bad, because she does have some interesting ideas.

Her main mistake IMHO was to try to express her ideas in loaded words such as ‘greed’ and ‘selfishness’.  Those words have standard meanings and have negative connotations that will never change. It’s sort of like the word “manifesto”. That word is forever connected with communism and totalitarianism.  If you wanted to write and promote a “manifesto to happiness” you’d fail.

So while folks in this thread continue to summarize her thought as defending greed and selfishness, they’re really missing the fact that she means something different by those words. It’s no different than if I’d written a “happiness manifesto” and folks in this thread accused me of writing something to brainwash people just like the Commies did.

The next time you read a criticism of her, do the following substitution:
instead of Selfishness, use Rational Self Interest.
instead of Greed, use Pursuit of goals unimpaired by efforts of others to enslave ones mind or to impose rules and conditions that you haven’t agreed with prior to acting.

Those are the ideas she’s expressing.  Now debate THOSE ideas.  I personally find there are problems with them and I don’t live my life by them. But at least now we’re talking ideas, accurately represented, versus silly personal attacks and loaded statements like “she’s supports climbing over others to get what you want”.  UNFORTUNATELY…it’s hard work, and righties take the easy route and twist things.

[ Edited: 16 April 2013 10:37 AM by CuthbertJ ]
Profile
 
 
   
1 of 7
1