Making Sense Objectively of the Absurd...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Everywhere in today's liberal, or progressive lexicon we hear of the evils inherent in Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Indeed the general consensus, or so it seems to this individual, is that Ayn Rand herself was an evil person.
So, perhaps some object liberal, or progressive can explain the evil in the following...
Thank You...
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Everywhere in today's liberal, or progressive lexicon we hear of the evils inherent in Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Indeed the general consensus, or so it seems to this individual, is that Ayn Rand herself was an evil person.
So, perhaps some object liberal, or progressive can explain the evil in the following...
Thank You...
Les, I think that many on the left (especially the hacks in the press) hate Rand because she is so effective. No one simply inspires individualistic hope in small people v. the Almighty State like she does and they hate her for that. They hate her because she convincingly spells out that YOU own yourself and that no man has a lien on your happiness, your life and your property- quite revolutionary compared to the collectivism that rules us today.
ReplyDeletePlease, Rand was a hardcore materialist who believed in the labor theory of value and many of the core philosophic elements of Marxism.
DeleteShe didn't give two warm farts in hell for common folk and working people. What she wanted was a oligarchy, essentially a totalitarian state with the comic figures of Galt's Gulch as the new politburo.
You really want us back in the days of Jay Gould. Insane.
With apologies to Anatole France:
"Objectivism means every man is free to sleep under a bridge"
How many of her books/essay have you read? Knowing that you've read Mein Kampf cover to cover (and loved it, I assume?) I'm loathe to take anything you say seriously.
DeleteThe progressive mind: attack and insult anything that doesn't fit your worldview. Small-minded, doncha think?
Les: What do you want to bet that Ducky and Anon here (who hate Ayn Rand more than anyone/anything), are wearing Che Guevera t-shirts as they camp out in their mother's basement, typing away at their vapid, hate-filled screeds
DeleteWho knows? There is a certain number of progressives like aNon that has absolutely no clue, generally I just ignore their baseless hate filled personal attacks.
DeleteDucky, well I seldem ever agree with his rather ultra progressive views, but at least so far he is a complete different class than aNon and its fellow, let's just leave it at that.
Rand has been rejected by a few generations, not because they said she was evil, but because her ideology was rejected, but nice try on making her some kind of super victim. Absurd, just like you.
ReplyDeleteMust be you know quite a bit about being rejected, right? Why else would a person (you) be so filled with such apparent disdain for anyone or any philosophy?
DeleteNews flash... Rand has been rejected by only by those who disagree with Objectivism and rational self interest. Apparently Rand and Marx have that much in common.
As for absurd, certainly you top the list.
Ayn Rand’s fascination with sociopath and child-murderer, William Edward Hickman, is a matter of historical record. Rand regarded Hickman as a “real man,” an “adventurous spirit” and “unappreciated outcast” as recorded in her diaries.
ReplyDeleteHickman was a sociopath who tortured animals and later became infamously headlined as the murderer of a 12-year old girl. It was an especially sadistic crime: Hickman demanded and received ransom from the father, then proceeded to chop the girl’s body and dump the pieces along a highway.
It is hard to respect any person who would idealize such a monster and put him on a pedestal; yet, this was Ayn Rand’s perfect exemplar of the individualist-hero.
Ayn Rand herself was no role model. She slept her way from one end of Hollywood to the other – leaving behind wrecked marriages, ruined reputations, and broken lives. According to clinical accounts, Ayn Rand was a seriously disturbed person, hated by her own mother who would have preferred an abortion to raising the child - posthumously described as “Borderline Personality Disorder.” Rand’s views were more likely driven by family pathology than politics.
Objectivists who regard Ayn Rand as a “great genius” ignore the historical record and rarely consider the possibility that maybe her views are simply bizarre and insupportable. Her admiration of a psychotic killer calls into question her judgment and her emotional stability. She did not “see further;” she simply saw wrong.
The trope about superior men - above the law and above morality – about blowing up a building or celebrating the deaths of passengers aboard a train - is symptomatic of the grandiosity and narcissism of a very sick person.
This from the follower of a rejected ideology, rejected by sane and intelligent people for the last 60 years. Enjoy your God Rand while serious and sane people move on.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't know about "evil," or who refers to her that way, but Rand was certainly a unique character. Her notions of "racism" and "collectivism" don't jive with the way most people, let alone those of us on the Left, see things, and it's hard to argue without common terms. It's like arguing about what shade of blue a red is.
ReplyDeleteThat's the trouble with arguing about Rand - she invented her own universe, with her own language and physics, like JRR Tolkien, though unlike (most) Lord of the Rings fans, Objectivists take these terms and physics to be real. It's hard to argue about something that most don't even see as real.
But to the point about why Rand is disliked by many people, I think it's because her ideology seems to epitomize the old Galbraith saying about the search for the superior moral justification for selfishness.
JMJ
Interesting that her MANY books, continue to sell yet today. I shall not go into discussion of the merits of Rands individualism nor the inevitable loss of liberty when Governments grow to large and intrusive.
DeleteHistory will repeat itself jmj. There are reasons for this. I leave it to each INDIVIDUAL to decide for themselves what that is. Rand spoke for herself, she was right on things and she was not on others. But again, I leave it to you, I have decided long ago what rational self interest and liberty mean.
Well, you did ask for an explanation...
DeleteJMJ
jmj, what I specifically asked for was for a progressive to explain the evil, or wrongness of the specific content of the video. You did not do that. There is a reason you did not. I have yet to find progressives who will speak to specific issues of her philosophy and disprove them based solely on logic. There is a reason for this as well. Evading points of specificity to generalize as you did in this instance is what? Evasion methinks. Why? Because ot down't fit. your template. The inability of some progressives to acknowledge ANY good in Rand's philosophy simply belies their collective cosed mind(s).
DeleteAs to creating her own reality, it could be argued other philosophers have done the same. But, that was not the point of this post no was it?
Okay, Les, please stop insulting me. That's not necessary. I DID address the content. I pointed out that the terms "racist" and "collectivist" are simply NOT viewed the same way by progressives as Objectivists, and that the REASON we do not care for Rand's ideology is that it strikes us as SELFISH. That is the REASON. Our minds are not closed to anything. I first read Atlas Shrugged many years ago (I tried to get through Fountainhead years later, but found it too tedious a read to complete) and came away with the same opinion I have now - that she has an unrealistic and rather unpleasant view of society, government, and reality. When I talk about reality, I'm NOT (as I am not a moron) talking about her philosophical fictional license, but about her perception of reality period - her paranoia about communism in America, her rather racist opinion of non-Europeans, and her zero-sum philosophy and it's zero-sum underpinnings. She did not see shades, but rather stark blacks and whites, not a very realistic view given the complexity of humanity.
DeleteThis is WHY most people who are familiar with her don't like her.
JMJ
If you feel insulted I apologise. Tell you what, if you refrain from using the word stupid I'll work on my responses to your comment. Deal?
DeleteLOL! Ol' Jersey NOT using the word "stupid?!?!?!" My God, man! Just take my right arm my don't ya'! LOL!
DeleteJMJ
It is not my intention to start a partisan argument between liberals versus libertarians (who share more common ground than they would care to admit), but merely to bring some common sense into a discussion unbound from ideological talking points
ReplyDeleteDuring my parenthood years, I tried to teach my children the relationship between responsibility and freedom. Responsibility earns trust and confidence, I would tell them. Misconduct results in more parental oversight and loss of independence. A reasonable proposition for raising children, I thought; yet ours is a society that fails to understand this relationship. Whether we are talking about gun control, deficits, taxes, laws and regulations - every public controversy, every perceived loss of freedom (whether imagined or real) represents a failure of responsibility. In a more perfect world, we would not be having such arguments because people would presumably engage in responsible acts, and no laws or regulations would be required. Unfortunately, ours is not a perfect world, and all controversies arise from one question: How much freedom will you give up in exchange for living in a more civilized world? We are not arguing over absolutes; what we argue is a matter of degree.
Consider how fractious and fragmented our society has become with each passing year. We equate freedom with excess, and excess with freedom. We have enabled excess without restraint. We practice brinksmanship but not citizenship and hold the public hostage, while driving all standards of civility, community and accountability further into the wilderness. Meanwhile, chicanery and corruption run rampant.
We value freedom but not responsibility. Some of us seek answers from government; some simply cast a blind eye. The size of the chasm defines the impasse.
Thank you (O)CT(0)PUS for your clarification. Your point is acknowledged. It is unfortunate that some, perhaps many are unwilling to consider the similarities. Unfortunately politicians (on both sides) have programmed us to focus on our differences. I leave it to your good judgement to determinate my meaning.
DeleteI agree with the balance of your statement as well.
I was brought up to recognize the value and importance of accepting personal responsibility in life. Freedom and liberty carry with it an awesome responsibility. I tried to pass on what my parents and grandparents gave me to my children.
Your are right, living ones life responsibly, honestly, and as though you want to be held accountable does engender trust and respect. From the vast majority of individuals.
Perhaps some day people will find a way to effectively resolve the differences that are so deeply dividing our nation. It takes two to tango, or so the saying goes.
It seems (0)CT(O)PUS some of us are able to do so, sometimes anyway :-)
DeleteIs this same Anon who believes that Wikileaks docuementation is not credible?
ReplyDelete