Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Poll: What do you think of Ayn Rand?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Ayn Rand

  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ayn Rand

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    This is categorically an irrational view. Does the sheer amount of criticism of Hitler make you want to read Mien Kampf and approve of it?
    I thought it went without saying that:
    1. I don't approve of views that I don't agree with;
    2. I don't agree with Hitler.

    I know more about Hitler's philosophy than I do about Ayn Rand's; I haven't yet formed an opinion about Rand's work. I have formed an opinion about Hitler's.

    Very few philosophical tracts exist that have no merit? That completely depends on what you mean by "merit."
    Very few popular philosophical tracts. Usually there's a reason that they're popular--and even tracts like Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto are not without philosophical merit, even if I find them morally odious or flawed.

    ---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------

    People who purport to find, discover, and codify "The Absolute, Objective Morality (tm)" are either delusional, foolishly arrogant, or erroneous. This is a fact which has been shown over and over again from cultural relativism in anthropology to the non-justifiability of any ethical system in philosophy.
    That depends on what is meant by "objective", I suppose. If you really wanted to prove your point, though, you'd outline her argument and explain where the flaw lies. I suspect that your dispute rests largely on Rand's axioms and presuppositions.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ayn Rand

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I thought it went without saying that:
    1. I don't approve of views that I don't agree with;
    2. I don't agree with Hitler.

    I know more about Hitler's philosophy than I do about Ayn Rand's; I haven't yet formed an opinion about Rand's work. I have formed an opinion about Hitler's.



    Very few popular philosophical tracts. Usually there's a reason that they're popular--and even tracts like Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto are not without philosophical merit, even if I find them morally odious or flawed.
    Well, I differentiate between "Worth reading" and "Is all, or mostly, true."


    Quote Originally Posted by Clive
    That depends on what is meant by "objective", I suppose. If you really wanted to prove your point, though, you'd outline her argument and explain where the flaw lies. I suspect that your dispute rests largely on Rand's axioms and presuppositions.
    Actually, one needn't go that far. It's sort of like how if a person states "Contradictions exist." you know that they are wrong, and you don't even need to go into their argument (Although you could) because their objective is not possible or they are either misusing the word "contradiction" or "exist."

    At some point, however, I may create a thread on ODN outlining my various problems with her worldview.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ayn Rand

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    Well, I differentiate between "Worth reading" and "Is all, or mostly, true."
    There are things that are worth reading that are not all or mostly true (fiction/fantasy), and there are things that are not worth reading that are all or mostly true (vacuous truth).

    Actually, one needn't go that far. It's sort of like how if a person states "Contradictions exist." you know that they are wrong, and you don't even need to go into their argument (Although you could) because their objective is not possible or they are either misusing the word "contradiction" or "exist."
    You think that anyone who holds that morality is not relative is deluded, foolishly arrogant, or wrong? Arguments against moral relativity are the same as arguing that contradictions exist?

    It is one thing to adopt a position on the question of moral relativity vs. objective morals. It is quite another to deny the validity or merit of any argument opposed to your view. Unless I am misconstruing your position, you are rejecting Kant, Bonhoeffer, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, and Plato with a wave of your hand.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  4. #24
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    X
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ayn Rand

    Quote Originally Posted by HermanLeadread View Post
    Ironically, in accusing me of misrepresenting the views of Rand's detractors, you wound up misrepresenting my own views.

    First, note that I said both unable or unwilling.

    Second, I agree with your observations of Rand's opponents. I never said anything to the contrary. Rather, I commented on a correlation that I've personally noticed. That correlation is: People who strongly oppose Rand's views are often those who are unable or unwilling to make money in business.
    Noted. However, I left out "unable" because someone who is unable to work hard probably has issues that they cannot overcome. A disability, etc. So, I didn't find the inclusion of "unable" necessary.

    Since you insist on including unable, perhaps you could better define it.

    Why is this significant?

    In her writing, Rand praises work towards a specific end - making money as a businessman. She focuses on this theme in Atlas more than in The Fountainhead. This is why I appreciate Atlas, and I suspect it is the primary reason why other businessmen do as well. (Similarly, perhaps architects can relate with The Fountainhead more than non-architects.) People unable or unwilling to work hard to make money in business often cannot relate to what is, in my opinion, the finest aspect of her work. Perhaps if they could, they would merely have mixed feelings about her (as I do), instead of disapproving of her so strongly.

    For reference:

    Awhile back, Mindtrap asked why the rich should pay more taxes. One answer was: the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. I suspect that many of Rand's detractors ignorantly believe this, while simultaneously remaining unaware that most rich people today - no matter how rich they are - earned their money. They didn't inherit it. Perhaps if Rand's opponents were better informed, they would not so strongly oppose Rand's view of egoism. Meaning: Perhaps they would "stand above using others," and would not see such a necessity to "sacrifice" the creators.
    I don't want to make this debate about taxes but the point is that "others" affect "others" even if they are doing what is only best for them. The fact that our society is connected and our choices for our lives affect others is an important to remember and consider. Furthermore...

    The point of a business is not to make money. The point of a business is to serve your customer and provide the best product or service so they will continue to use your business. A byproduct of doing business well is receiving compensation for the service (money or any other acceptable form you wish), sustaining and growing your business. However, if you lose sight of the business goal (the customers' need), it will fail.

    Don't you find it odd that the point of a business is to use your time to help other people? Isn't that the opposite view of Ayn Rand's grand philosophy? Sure she spins it to make business, capitalism, and the self seem like #1 but in reality the #1 in business IS the other.

    The only difference between businesses where people make a lot of money and people who don't is that society has put a higher monetary value on particular ones. We could easily be paying nurses and teachers substainially more money, for example. Then, we would have the business of sacrificing for others AND making money...but unfortunately that's not where our values are set.

    In the end, it isn't about taxes or class struggle; it is about recognizing the fact that our personal actions impact "others" actions and Rand's philsopophy seems to disregard that and only look out for #1. At least from what i've read from this thread...

  5. #25
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    584
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ayn Rand

    Quote Originally Posted by thegreenape View Post
    Noted. However, I left out "unable" because someone who is unable to work hard probably has issues that they cannot overcome. A disability, etc. So, I didn't find the inclusion of "unable" necessary.

    Since you insist on including unable, perhaps you could better define it.



    I don't want to make this debate about taxes but the point is that "others" affect "others" even if they are doing what is only best for them. The fact that our society is connected and our choices for our lives affect others is an important to remember and consider. Furthermore...

    The only difference between businesses where people make a lot of money and people who don't is that society has put a higher monetary value on particular ones. We could easily be paying nurses and teachers substainially more money, for example. Then, we would have the business of sacrificing for others AND making money...but unfortunately that's not where our values are set.

    In the end, it isn't about taxes or class struggle; it is about recognizing the fact that our personal actions impact "others" actions and Rand's philsopophy seems to disregard that and only look out for #1. At least from what i've read from this thread...
    The point of a business is not to make money. The point of a business is to serve your customer and provide the best product or service so they will continue to use your business. A byproduct of doing business well is receiving compensation for the service (money or any other acceptable form you wish), sustaining and growing your business. However, if you lose sight of the business goal (the customers' need), it will fail.
    The point of a business is not to make money?

    Many business owners, myself included, disagree. Many of us trade in highly competitive markets, and work with demanding suppliers and even more demanding clients. Trust me. We're in it for the money. I recently asked a supplier if his company planned to enter a particular market. Potential clients in said market definitely need this suppliers' service. However, the supplier said his company does not plan to enter the market, because "the margins aren't right." They won't make enough money to justify market entrance. He would not say this, if the point of business is not to make money.


    I agree that businesses should focus on the client's needs. Indeed, clients pay for value.

    Don't you find it odd that the point of a business is to use your time to help other people? Isn't that the opposite view of Ayn Rand's grand philosophy? Sure she spins it to make business, capitalism, and the self seem like #1 but in reality the #1 in business IS the other.
    No, I don't find it odd, because I've read Rand's non-fiction. I have never seen her denounce the notion of "helping" people per se. She champions trading; she loves the notion of Peter paying Paul for providing a helpful service or product. She doesn't mind if Peter gives to a charity that helps Paul. She does oppose robbing Peter to pay and "help" Paul.

    Her view on "help" depends on the context.

    She glorifies money, because it facilitates "mutual benefit."


    For the New Intellectual “The Meaning of Money,” For the New Intellectual, 89.


    Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders.
    She upholds capitalism, because it allows only voluntary relationships.

    “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 19.

    In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit.
    And she certainly does not oppose the notion of businesses "helping" clients. She regards this as trading, "giving value for value."

    The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.
    Last edited by sonofnietzsche; January 20th, 2010 at 11:12 PM.

  6. #26
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    X
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ayn Rand

    Quote Originally Posted by HermanLeadread View Post
    The point of a business is not to make money?

    Many business owners, myself included, disagree. Many of us trade in highly competitive markets, and work with demanding suppliers and even more demanding clients. Trust me. We're in it for the money. I recently asked a supplier if his company planned to enter a particular market. Potential clients in said market definitely need this suppliers' service. However, the supplier said his company does not plan to enter the market, because "the margins aren't right." They won't make enough money to justify market entrance. He would not say this, if the point of business is not to make money.


    I agree that businesses should focus on the client's needs. Indeed, clients pay for value.
    I'm not saying making money is bad, wrong, or shouldn't be considered in making business decisions. However....well i'll start another thread.

  7. #27
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    584
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ayn Rand

    Quote Originally Posted by thegreenape View Post
    I'm not saying making money is bad, wrong, or shouldn't be considered in making business decisions. However....well i'll start another thread.
    Ok, but you did say said the point of business is not to make money. What did you mean by "point"?

    It seems clear you meant it in this regard:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/point

    a particular aim, end, or purpose
    Perhaps if you start a business, you will not have money as a particular aim, end or purpose. However, you appear to think that this is, or should be, the "point" for all businesses. Is this the case?

    And if you did not mean "point" as used above, then how did you mean it?

    Go ahead and create the new thread. I'd gladly participate.

    ---------- Post added at 08:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SwanSong View Post
    Ayn Rand is a fauxlosipher. An arrogant misogynist with a flawed philosophy known as Objectivism. Her writings are awful as they try to compare fantasy to reality and she never expands her philosophy past the most elite members of her novels' societies.
    What did you mean by "never expands her philosophy past the most elite members of her novels'" societies?

    At the time you wrote this, were you aware that Ayn Rand wrote numerous non-fiction books that expand on her philosophy? If not, then it seems we have another example of an Ayn Rand detractor whose ignorance of Rand equals the vehemence of his uninformed critiques.

  8. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    222
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ayn Rand

    I voted "approve."

    I loved reading Rand! Fiction-wise, I most enjoyed The Fountainhead, then We the Living... Atlas Shrugged was good, not great, and I never really cared for Anthem.

    Really, though, it was her non-fiction that I found the most impressive. That woman could write an essay!

    Incidentally, I don't see much of substance in the OP to really address, but I do think that "fauxlosipher" is very clever (if not applicable in my view to Rand). Only, wouldn't either "fauxlosopher" or "fauxlocipher" be preferred spellings? Hmm... as she's an atheist, maybe a Christian could term her a "philucifer"? Ah, I do love puns...
    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these things with you!

    If you'd like to know "where I'm coming from" you can look here.

  9. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  10. #29
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    584
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ayn Rand

    Quote Originally Posted by DonAthos View Post
    I voted "approve."

    I loved reading Rand! Fiction-wise, I most enjoyed The Fountainhead, then We the Living... Atlas Shrugged was good, not great, and I never really cared for Anthem.

    Really, though, it was her non-fiction that I found the most impressive. That woman could write an essay!

    Incidentally, I don't see much of substance in the OP to really address, but I do think that "fauxlosipher" is very clever (if not applicable in my view to Rand). Only, wouldn't either "fauxlosopher" or "fauxlocipher" be preferred spellings? Hmm... as she's an atheist, maybe a Christian could term her a "philucifer"? Ah, I do love puns...
    Philucifer?

    Now that is clever.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •