Ayn Rand. Anyone here a fan?

[Shiznown]

I've just started watching videos of her.

 

[IContainMultitudes]

I'm not a fan.

Ayn Rand, Hugely Popular Author and Inspiration to Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer | Alternet

I would be very curious to hear what anyone who is a fan thinks of this movie though (even if you are a fan, this sounds like a very poor adaptation):

Review: Atlas Shrugged, Part III plays like a cheap knock-off of itself · Movie Review · The A.V. Club

 

[icesyckel]

I'm a fan of some of Ayn Rand's theories and writings, and less so of others. On the whole, I like her notions of meritocracy. However, I tend to wax libertarian in my views. I believe an ideal government exists to provide infrastructure, ensure and protect the freedom and civil rights of its citizens, and to provide for those who TRULY cannot do so for themselves. I believe hard work and ingenuity should be rewarded. I don't believe that those who support themselves on the backs of others' greatness deserve equal income or standing generally with those who employ them. To the extent Ayn Rand agrees with me, I like her. To the extent she doesn't, well, we're all entitled to our opinions

However, the hating she gets is a bit ridiculous. People vilify her because she is associated with right-wing politics. However, like everyone else, she gets some things right and some things wrong. No right-winger has a model for perfect society, and no left-winger does either. Some people have literally been crucified in the media for suggesting Hitler had a few good social policies, which is just as silly. Was Hitler crazy and evil? Yes, unquestionably. Do crazy/evil people sometimes have good ideas that are overshadowed by their evil/crazy ones? I am willing to entertain the possibility that they do - but then I am an aspie, so I am open to analyzing the parts rather than the whole.

To me, I just set the person aside and analyze the philosophies, plans, and policies they propose individually unless they are running for office (you can't vote for individual policies - only individual politicians). I don't see the need or benefit to come up with one general overarching opinion on Ayn Rand any more than I do Karl Marx, Adam Smith, or Edmund Burke. That' would be such a mundane, simple, and shallow approach. I'd like to think those of us on the spectrum are capable of going deeper.

If nothing else, at least she had the gall to put her theories in writing for the world to read and either ridicule or endorse, accept or reject. I've got to applaud and admire her for that at least. It's much easier to criticize someone else's work then to publish our own.

 

[Judge]

Do crazy/evil people sometimes have good ideas that are overshadowed by their evil/crazy ones? I am willing to entertain the possibility that they do - but then I am an aspie, so I am open to analyzing the parts rather than the whole.

It's a moot point. "Parts" of the rise of the Third Reich did not outweigh its sum total- and inevitable demise. "If you seek his monument, look around."

Equally with Ayn Rand I don't see a cult of selfishness leading anywhere truly beneficial to any society in the long run. A cult that I see as contrary to the mentality of Fascism's "corporate state" or Nazism's "volksgemeinschaft". It's not an ideology in line with the extreme right at all IMO.

 

[icesyckel]

"Parts" of the rise of the Third Reich did not outweigh its sum total- and inevitable demise.

While you posted this in response to a quote from my post, I regard it as non-sequitur. I did not argue or opine that parts led up to a successful whole. I would argue that a damaged/non-functional whle can be comprised both of good/functional parts and bad/non-functional parts. It makes no sense to disregard the good bits just because of the bad bits.

Similarly, you do not have to agree with everything someone said, wrote, or did to agree with some of it. To argue otherwise is a form of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[Judge]

I did not argue or opine that parts led up to a successful whole. I would argue that a damaged/non-functional whle can be comprised both of good/functional parts and bad/non-functional parts. It makes no sense to disregard the good bits just because of the bad bits.

That in itself strikes me as a non-sequitur. What's the point of even emphasizing such a thing if the end result was disastrous?

While I don't process sarcasm well, but I do understand the significance of the saying, "Mussolini made the trains run on time." In essence what's the point of emphasizing "parts" when the whole ultimately negated all the parts in the first place?

 

[icesyckel]

That in itself strikes me as a non-sequitur. What's the point if the end result was disastrous?

You are focused only on the outcome, which is why I called it a non-sequitur. I was clearly posting about the ability of someone to be right at times despite also being wrong at times, for some parts to be effective, even if part of a non-functional or broken hole. You quoted me to make a point about the whole, which was not the point of what I posted (might even be the exact opposite rather than a true non-sequitur).

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to clarify. If your theory is correct, that the parts are damaged just because the whole is faulty cannot hold up. I'm not a mechanic, but you don't throw out good parts because the car doesn't operate. You either replace the bad ones or scrap the vehicle and sell the good parts where they can be used.

My point is that you need neither be a fan of Ayn Rand nor Nazi Germany (and I am not likening one to the other here) on the whole to feel like there are good parts to agree with that could be salvaged and used elsewhere. Examine China. They've managed to integrate some facets of capitalism with socialism. Previously, that would have seemed impossible or at least improbable. You may not like or respect what China has done, but the point is that we shouldn't just disregard every facet of something we don't like on the whole.

When it comes to Ayn Rand, I don't even bother to judge the whole. She was never "in power," so there isn't more than a fictitious whole to examine. So I just analyze the parts. Some I like, and some I don't. I refuse to subscribe to the notion that I have to take her or leave her altogether.

 

[Judge]

You are focused only on the outcome, which is why I called it a non-sequitur.

The end result of the Second World War and it's aftermath is hardly what I'd call a non-sequitur.

In such instances the outcome was all that mattered.

 

[icesyckel]

The end result of the Second World War and it's aftermath is hardly what I'd call a non-sequitur.

That is because you are ignoring the context of my post, which you quoted. I did not make any points about WW2's aftermath; therefore, your next post had little to do with my own. If you are making your own points, then that's fine. I just don't see how your post had anything effectively to do with the portion of my discussion that you quoted.

Also, I don't think something can be a "non-sequitur" all on its own without context. If you posted a thread about WW2, then a post about its aftermath/end result would be a logical progression in that context. Quoting my discussion about parsing out certain parts, which only referenced Hitler/WW2 as an example in that context, the discussion did not logically progress to critiquing the whole of something unless you are making the point that no bad whole is comprised of any good parts, which is not a logical conclusion.

That said, I'm not really sure if you are angry/offended at my post or just discussing this with me. As I've posted elsewhere, I have trouble spotting when discussion progresses to debate or argument, and I prefer to avoid such a progression.

 

[Judge]

Neither angry or offended. I just don't see the logic of emphasizing the parts of much of anything if the end result is negates the parts. Of course in terms of objectivism we'll never really know. Luckily no one has ever tried to politicize it. It remains at the level of a social cult and little else.

I just find the whole of objectivism leaning towards a potentially bad ending regardless of analyzing its parts. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

 

[icesyckel]

Equally with Ayn Rand I don't see a cult of selfishness leading anywhere truly beneficial to any society in the long run.

Re-focusing away from potential issues with our communications/potential miscommunications, I do not like the focus on self and self-betterment from a moralistic perspective, but I do believe capitalism is fueled by greed and the individual's pursuit of happiness for himself/herself. I don't think it is so much about the glorification of self so much as recognizing the reality that many if not most people are focused on self-betterment rather than the betterment of others. Accepting that and other realities I dislike is the only way to find pragmatic solutions to socio-political problems.

 

[icesyckel]

Neither angry or offended.

Good - as nothing was further from my intent than giving you (or anyone) offense.

I just don't see the logic of emphasizing the parts of much of anything if the end result is negates the parts.

In mechanics, the answer is simple: a faulty transmission might render an entire automobile inoperable. If the vehicle is sufficiently old, then a faulty transmission might even render the vehicle more expensive to repair than to replace. However, there are still valuable and operable parts in that vehicle that could be used to repair/restore other vehicles to working order.

I believe that it is possible to examine particular, effective policies from a failed political system or even evil regime and implement them with success in other systems. China has tried to fuse facets of socialism and capitalism, with mixed results. As no whole system has ever been perfect, taking parts and policies that work and theorising/experimenting to see if they comprise a better whole interests me. Different economic and political models have historically been thought to go hand in hand, but we are seeing that different facets are being interchanged in different ways in different countries. Sweden also has sort of an interesting amalgamation.

I wouldn't want to live under the Third Reich, for example; however, they did find a way to combat unemployment without increasing inflation in the wake of the Great Depression. I've never done the research myself, but I have heard some of its policies to deal with social and economic issues that did NOT involve genocide actually could work in other government forms. I find this interesting as well.

 

[Judge]

Re-focusing away from potential issues with our communications/potential miscommunications, I do not like the focus on self and self-betterment from a moralistic perspective, but I do believe capitalism is fueled by greed and the individual's pursuit of happiness for himself/herself.

No argument there. The culprit is always the same- the human condition. Greed is everywhere. Regardless of whatever economic system exists in any society.

I accept the idea of tolerating the human condition, but I see objectivism as glorifying- and enabling it. That just doesn't set well with me at all. But I also recognize those who would be perfectly happy in a society much like ancient Rome. I'm just not one of them.

On a tangent, I see nothing wrong with emphasizing my better Aspie traits. Conversely I also wouldn't want to emphasize what may be my negative traits. I accept them for whatever they are...but I have no desire to "harness" them- even in my own interest.

 

[nowwhat]

Liked "Atlas" and some of its ideas at first, then realized she was going to keep rehashing the same favored themes repeatedly for several hundred more pages, beating them to death and continually sharpening the already-too-fine point she had put on it around page 50.

Hey Ayn? We got it already. You can stop now. That was that for me.

 

[icesyckel]

I accept the idea of tolerating the human condition...

Which is a part of Ayn Rand's writings/perspective that I like - the pragmatic acknowledgement of what is (as opposed to focusing on wishes).

...but I see objectivism as glorifying- and enabling it.

"Glorifying" the pursuit of self-interest is part of Ayn Rand's writings/perspective that I don't like. It is important to acknowledge the existence of certain negative realities, but, at the same time, I don't need to be in love with them.

As to enabling, well, what is - is. And it will likely continue to be whether I enable it or not. Doesn't mean I should glorify everything that is or contribute, though.

I also recognize those who would be perfectly happy in a society much like ancient Rome. I'm just not one of them.

Nor would I want to live in a society "much like ancient Rome." (However, I should say that I live running water, plumbing, and usable highways, which again are useful parts in a whole that I don't care for...)

On a tangent, I see nothing wrong with emphasizing my better Aspie traits. Conversely I also wouldn't want to emphasize what may be my negative traits.

Exactly my point before - you don't need to judge everything as a whole. Judging Asperger's as a whole will not help you, since any conclusions you draw won't change that you're an Aspie, so why bother? (If you can think of and articulate a reason, then I have no problem with drawing such conclusions.)

However, there are both pros and cons to being an aspie. Knowing what they are can help you better pursue your goals in life by playing to your strengths and mitigating your weaknesses.

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but I hope this example sort of allows you to see why I often find value in breaking things and/or concepts down into useful and un-useful parts/components versus evaluating the whole.

 

[Judge]

Exactly my point before - you don't need to judge everything as a whole.

I think it depends on what you are examining to begin with. Some things can stand great scrutiny in being judged in part rather than in whole. Others are best left alone.

 

[icesyckel]

I think it depends on what you are examining to begin with. Some things can stand great scrutiny in being judged in part rather than in whole. Others are best left alone.

I agree with that in theory at least. There are some wholes really not capable or divisible into components amenable to independent analysis. "Gestalt," if you will. I believe human beings are more than the sum of their parts. However, I would point out that a kidney is still useful all on its own, and quite valuable in certain markets.

(That last point was a joke)

 

[Judge]

I agree with that in theory at least. There are some wholes really not capable or divisible into components amenable to independent analysis. "Gestalt," if you will. I believe human beings are more than the sum of their parts. However, I would point out that a kidney is still useful all on its own, and quite valuable in certain markets.

(That last point was a joke)

True. One can apply strategies and tactics of Machiavelli very effectively. However I wouldn't want to necessarily advertise that I was doing so in the process. I follow what you are saying...

 

[icesyckel]

Indeed.

 

[IContainMultitudes]

All political stuff aside, I can't help but find any writer a bit suspect when there's a dating site for people who follow their philosophy:

I Signed Up for the Ayn Rand Fan Club Dating Site | VICE United States

To me, that's an indication of an "unhealthy cult," as fantasy writer Michael Moorcock once described some of the more fanatical fans of J. R. R. Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings.