Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive5

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>

, (new)(back)

A thought

Though I might have been considered a hardcore Ayn Rand fan some years ago, when I was 16-17, and being a big Rush fan admittedly think there's something of value in her work, no one would ever mistake me for a Randroid today. That said; I think her stances and writing might be at least somewhat mitigated by the way in which the Soviets completely destroyed her family's way of life. It certainly had something to do with her vicious hatred of anything even remotely government-run or socialist, and I daresay most of us would have felt the same way in her situation. The article as it stands doesn't really give any insight into just how destitute Lenin's cronies left her family. Again, not trying to say her ideas are anything approaching perfect, but a little more on her early life and how it played into her ideas would seem warranted.

Oh, and by the way, it's worth noting that with her play, On the Night of January 16th, she invented the format wherein the audience selects what the end of the play is. I know that's not what she's most remembered for, obviously, but it seems like it's worth a sentence. I'd do it myself, but I'm very given to verbosity and would rather someone who knows what they're doing handle it. 24.45.33.231 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Million of people survived the fun and games the Nazis had and walked away without creating an ethical system that humans literally cannot follow, so no, her position is not in any way understandable because "oh, the dirty commies took the family farm, boohoo". She was a lunatic who created a half-baked ethical system that existed for nothing other than justifying her doing whatever the fuck she wanted. Her positions were idiotic an inhuman then, and they're idiotic and inhuman now.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Easy for you to say, not having had all your property confiscated, lived through pogroms, and having to flee your home country. It was a hell of a lot more than "the family farm" she lost, as I'm sure even you know; it was everything. No matter how much you disagree with her ideas, if you can't possibly imagine those experiences had at least some effect on what she thought of communism, I really can't help you. Nice Godwin, too. I also note you didn't respond to the second part of my post, which is arguably more important because it's a complete omission. That said, as mentioned above I'm not her disciple, or anyone else's for that matter; I adhere to no one philosophy, only take what good I can out of whatever I come across. If you had to ask me to pick one, I'd likely tell you the Mingjia. We're not in as much disagreement as you seem to think, I'm mostly with you, but you can make your point without coming off as a self-righteous dogmatic dickhead... I thought this was supposed to be Rationalwiki. 24.45.33.231 (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to do this systemically for you:

1. My family had the same experience. In fact, considering my family was Ukrainian and were forced to flee around Holodomor, I'd argue that Rand and her family have fuck all to bitch about.
2. Oh, she lost her entire family wealth and had to move to Moscow so she could get free education, boo-fucking-hoo. She didn't have to watch her friends and family die of starvation around her, so she can suck it the fuck up.
3. I can understand that they had some effect on her, but turning her into a misanthropic bitch who tries to justify her own bad behavior through an ethical system that completely contradicts human evolution? Yeah, that can fuck itself.
4. You are arguing she went through some shit and that makes it understandable that she became a heartless bitch. Guess what? She had it easy compared to people who lived through the Holocaust and Holodomor, not to mention any other event in human history that ended in mass death, so her "oh, I lost the family farm, I want all of humanity to die" is just bullshit.
5. We leave out your claim about theatre because a) it is completely uncited and b) it is completely irrelevant.
6. Being a self-righteous dogmatic dickhead is like 40% of what Rationalwiki does
7. Take a drink.

In summary, fuck off Randian concern troll--Token Conservative (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Geez, lest you think I'm just a troll, under an earlier IP address I posted this. So, by and by, I rather like you guys. I'm a Wikipedia admin, and this place gives me a nice outlet for my opinions; sometime I might just take my massive project on Wikipedia (Genie, the famous linguistics case) and adapt it for here, I can see some potential for it. Incidentally, half of my family had to come to the US because of the Irish Potato Famine, so such persecution is in my family history too.

Now that I reread my first posts they weren't well worded, and gave the impression I currently like Rand's ideas a lot more than I do (i.e. pretty much at all; I'm almost 23 now), but you seem to partially get what I was really driving at. You're acknowledging her experiences influenced her later ideas, which is what I was trying to say all along. I'm not trying to say that turned out to be a good thing, only that there was a cause and effect relationship. That's all I'm looking for; not justification, only explanation. And much as you and I may not like it, she did invent that play format too. Truce? 24.45.33.231 (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right. We should probably have better background information on her. If you'd like to start making that contribution, it would be wonderful. Regardless of where a reader might stand on Objectivism, it's good to see how it was shaped and her history.--^talk 19:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of the Philosophy

"neither Rand's metaphysics nor her epistemology answer many of the probing questions that philosophers might demand of it." You could say the same thing about Logical Positivism or Existentialism, no-one would deny that these are "philosophies of importance" whatever that means. ^{— Unsigned, by: 101.164.40.29 / talk 11:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)}

Turning a Fictional Novel into an Economic System

I claim limited knowledge of her, but Randoids treat Objectivism as an economic system. Someone with more knowledge could point out that Objectivism as an economis system makes no sense. The take the ball and leave mentality of big business does not take into account consumers (aka the people that give them money)Would someone be able to articulate my thoughts?. Thanks in advance. Fairandunhinged (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Her economic philosophy is similar to (if not largely stolen from) the Austrian School, the gold buggery and all. It's also somewhat similar to Social Darwinism. --Frybread (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche

Wot? No mention of how she shamelessly ripped off Friedrich Nietzsche? C'mon folks! ^{— Unsigned, by: 88.104.253.95 / talk / contribs}

Nietzsche was an early inspiration to Ayn and she started writing a novella called The Little Street, based on his ideas but she ultimately became disillusioned with him, considering him "a mystic and an irrationalist" because he believed that reality could be subordinated by "will" and she thought his rejection of the concepts of good and evil and his belief that power was all that counted in life meant that his philosophy made a hero out of "Attila." The character of Gail Wynand in The Fountainhead is a satire of Nietzsche's philosophy. She thought he was along the right lines but ultimately missed the mark. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Rationalism/Skepticism Should Focus on Observation and Logic

This article does little more than belittle Ayn Rand in an informal tone. As rational skeptics, we proceed logically from observations and axioms. We should be clear when we detect logical fallacies vs when we reject the premises. Correct logic can lead to false conclusions if it's based on premises or observations that turn out to be false. This is something Rand points out in AS.

The fact that some political conservatives view Ayn Rand's books as being about their politics deserves only a small section of the article. The books, however, go out of their way to condemn politics. This article should focus on what Rand wrote rather than those who seek to coopt her for their own purposes.

I am all for listing questionable premises and explaining logical fallacies. We're alienating people from the rationalism and skepticism by accepting a politicized conservative view of Rand and then refuting it in a belittling way. We alienate people who believe in conservative politics and those who would be attracted to rational skepticism because it offers away to rise above politics. As a supporter of the skeptical movement, I reject the way tone and content of this article.

This entire article should be reworked to remove the informal tone and to focus on facts in logic rather than contributors' disdain for the self-serving interpretation of the books offered by political conservatives. ^{— Unsigned, by: Cgervasi / talk / contribs} 00:13 27 June 2014 (UTC)

By "we" I assume you mean you and the mouse in your pocket. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant no offense to other Wiki editors. By we I meant Wiki editors and members of the skeptical / rational community. ^{— Unsigned, by: 62.232.113.235 / talk / contribs} 17:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off as harsh or dismissive, but Rationalwiki has evolved its own tone which has worked pretty well for the site. I, for one, have hair-trigger antennae for newcomers offering advice about how to "improve" the wiki by using a more measured, inoffensive tone. Now I'll go put some links on your talk page about that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See SPOV. The more detailed refutations of Rand's philosophy is at the Objectivism page. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)