Obama...the ridiculous Ayn Rand the teaparty ..the bible and kids

poeticseraphim

I hope mods feel i have changed the thread enough to make it acceptable:)..I also hope the other poster does not mind:)

Another poster started a thread that was in reference to this
Quote:

Have you ever read Ayn Rand?
Sure.
What do you think Paul Ryan's obsession with her work would mean if he were vice president?
Well, you'd have to ask Paul Ryan what that means to him. Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we'd pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we're only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we're considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity – that that's a pretty narrow vision. It's not one that, I think, describes what's best in America. Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a "you're on your own" society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party.

SOURCE: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...tood-teenagers

FULL INTERVIEW: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...025?print=true

However it was locked as they did not offer an opinion.

Well i think it is an interesting debate Topic. Ayn Rand ...is for undeveloped minds

My thoughts...




I have never ever encountered anyone of acedemic standing who seriously gave her work the time of day.

From a philosophical point of view her thesis contained basic logical fallacies.

And she based many tennets on false premises.


Her work lacked acedemic rigour. She had pretensions to being a philospher but she had never read anyone but Aristotle.


She is not taught in third level institutions for the same reason Mills and Boon is not taught on Literary courses because it is trash and very poor quality.


She has no basic concept of capitalism, ecomomics, philosophy or democracy. Which is probably why she was such a failure financially and culturally in a demoratic, capitalist country.


In Atlas lost she suggests that in order to force the Govt into libertarianism that entrepenuers and artists etc deny their services to the world (by hiding in a cave or something) and this frees the world and capitalism. But the thing with capitalism is it is about supply and demand. Rand takes away the supply but not the demand. Someone would take advantage of a gap in the market. She seems to suggest that all entrepenuers act together like a communist movement might. It is like a strike at CEO level.


Her arguement has fatal flaws. Her first prmise seems to be that value is agent-relative; things can only be valuable for particular entities. But it begs the question. She offers no arguement for it only bold assertion. She proposes agent relative value without justifying it against any other view such as absolute value with a logic proof.

Another premise is ...Everyone should always do whatever promotes what is valuable for himself. This is probably the most egregious error. This premise also begs the question. Rand claimed to have an argument, a proof even, for ethical egoism. Yet this premise is one of the required premises of that 'proof'--and the premise itself essentially just is ethical egoism!


She had no training in formal logic or philosophy and the book was seen as joke by most. She lacked any acedemic rigour and had a limited or no understanding of philosophical subject matter.

But the strangest thing happened. She herself had come from the entertainment industry and Hollywood. She cultivated a lot of myth and demanded complete unthinking devotion from those in her life. She used her unblinking faith in her own 'reason' to assert that all her actions and behavouirs were rational. She felt free to insist on extra marital affairs with a married man when he really did not wish to and nor did his wife. Most of those who associated with her came away feeling instead of living for themselves as she claimed to favour that they had been forced to replae their own will, self best interests with Ayn Rand's own. She became a cultish pop phenomenon. When she was alive those around her would forbid any critical thought of Ayn Rand in the group and even dress a certain way.


' A few articles about Rand's ideas appeared in academic journals before her death in 1982, many of them in The Personalist. One of these was "On the Randian Argument" by libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, who argued that her meta-ethical argument is unsound and fails to solve the is–ought problem posed by David Hume.'

I guess a huge part of what she was saying was 'selfishness is a virtue' which is true in some intances and in some ways....but i have never met a person who NEEDED to be MORE selfish....or an arguement to say the world needed to be more selfish....it is a virtue that we are already accomplished in.

Rand said her most important contributions to philosophy were her " discovery in politics that evil—the violation of rights—consists of the initiation of force". She seemed to thin that she discovered this. She believed epistemology (she did not use this term nor really do i think she understood it's function in philosophy) was a foundational branch of philosophy and considered the advocacy of reason to be the single most significant aspect of her philosophy, stating, "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." That IS the basis of philosophy however her work does not apply reason to reach her conclusions she asserts them. And when one applies reason to her argument it collapses.

Only a child's mind could actually believe in Rand such is the level nonsense. You have to be unreasonable to be able to accept it. It is an emotional assertion.

Basically, there is no need for additional selfishness in the United States, and that’s precisely what Ayn Rand and her morally vapid Objectivism is promoting. It’s no wonder it’s so popular with the Tea Party and other idiots on the right.

What’s most intriguing, however, is how this morally corrupt philosophy can co-exist with a supposed embrace of Jesus’ teachings in the minds of these fools, when it is clear at a distant glance that they are polar opposites of each other.

It is a very strange pairing.....the whole Idea of Christianity is we share this world and are all responsible to each other....we have the cult of 'Jesus' due to an extreme act and doctrine of unselfishness.

Again only an unreasonable mind can put them comfortably together.


You cannot demand society should be dictated to by both....they are completely incompatible


We all share this world ...thats my philosophy...



She is a fascinating , horrible nutty woman...thats the draw i think..there is no reason to her arguements or thesis. Basically it is BS.

Paul Ryan being 'obsessed' with her shows a clear lack of normal level analytical thought and ability. In fairness he seems to have moved onto Aquinas but cannot reconcile his (Ryan's) thesis with his (Aquinas...who was obsessed with Aristotle.and could not reconcile his entire thesis with Aristotle)...Although brilliant as Aquinas was he bascially tried to 'Christianize' Aristotle who loved Plato and Socrates...these men put reason honor valour and philanthropy as man's highest virtues.

Now what are your thoughts :):):):)???

Wildlife Actor

I love the way she ended up claiming state benefits in her old age!

20Cent

I'm surprised Obama actually read it thought he'd be more highbrow than that. Its true Rand's ideas (not sure if it qualifies as a philosophy) is not take seriously in any field of research.

The most interesting thing lately is how Paul Ryan who claimed Rand as an inspiration for his entry to politics quickly disavowed her. Romney and Ryan have been running to the middle ground shedding their Rand like ideas along the way in order to get votes as they are such unpopular opinions.

Brian?

20Cent wrote: »

I'm surprised Obama actually read it thought he'd be more highbrow than that. Its true Rand's ideas (not sure if it qualifies as a philosophy) is not take seriously in any field of research.

The most interesting thing lately is how Paul Ryan who claimed Rand as an inspiration for his entry to politics quickly disavowed her. Romney and Ryan have been running to the middle ground shedding their Rand like ideas along the way in order to get votes as they are such unpopular opinions.

Ryan backing away from Rand had nothing to do with running to the middle. He stated himself that Rand's "philosophy" was an atheist one. He was pandering to the christian right. In fairness he was probably pandering to the fiscal conservatives when he cited Rand as one of his influences and as usual found flip flopping convienent.

The Bishop!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUd8zpGHS3s

Brian?

The Bishop! wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUd8zpGHS3s

Bare faced lies from Ryan, imagine that.

Endless Nameless

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I also hope the other poster does not mind:)

Hey I don't mind at all, didn't read the rules properly.

I guess the rule is important because the context I was posting that under was that I thought the Obama campaign was steadily getting more childish and just started taking pot shots at the opposition instead of trying to promote it's own positives, and not so much about Rand herself.