What is your opinion of Ayn Rand?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_II

Guest
Is there anything in her work you admire?

Is there anything in her work you detest?

Is she anyone with whom you would have liked to talk for an hour on any subject of your choosing?

Why or why not?

Any takers?
 
Admire? One sentence in ATLAS SHRUGGED:

“If any part of your uncertainty is s conflict between your heart and your mind, follow your mind.”

—John Galt to Dagny Taggart

If I had a motto that might be it.

Detest? The whole philosophy behind AS, apart from that sentence. The sympathy for tycoons who are willing to let everybody else go to Hades just to have their way.

She was a talented writer, and I really appreciated her power of description in, for example, the first chapter of WE THE LIVING.

Still, she is not somebody who (if she were still around) I’d seek out to converse with.

ICXC NIKA
 
Admire? One sentence in ATLAS SHRUGGED:

“If any part of your uncertainty is s conflict between your heart and your mind, follow your mind.”

—John Galt to Dagny Taggart

If I had a motto that might be it.
Click to expand...
A few years before Shakespeare wrote Julius Ceasar, there had been several books published about Roman Stoicism. It was a flaming issue of the day and Shakspeare examined it in Julius Ceasar.

In stoicism, the idea is to subdue the emotions and let the intellect completely rule what you do.
Brutus and Ceaser were both stoics while fun loving Anthony was a party guy.
Ceasar bragged about being steady as the Northern Star, that is, once he made a decision there was no changing it because he’d used his infallibale reason. His wife comes to him at one point with her concerns for his safety, but his pride in his intellect won’t let him yield to her emotional appeals.
Brutus says “Brutus is at war with Brutus”, that is, Ceasar is his friend, but he wonders if he should kill Ceasar to prevent him from becoming dictator. Brutus’s wife comes to him asking him to share his worries, but his stoic pride won’t let him let his emotional wife in on what worries him.

After the assassination, it is Anthony who is in tune with the people and turns them against the conspirators. Party animal Anthony is the victor over the stoics, or at least at the end of the play.

Shakespeare disagreed that we should only follow the mind. The heart knows a lot too.
A scientist can work with his mind alone, but he’s not dealing with other people.
Everyone else must deal with people, and cannot do so unless they let the heart have a vote on what’s to be done.
 
empther said:
A few years before Shakespeare wrote Julius Ceasar, there had been several books published about Roman Stoicism. It was a flaming issue of the day and Shakspeare examined it in Julius Ceasar.

In stoicism, the idea is to subdue the emotions and let the intellect completely rule what you do.
Brutus and Ceaser were both stoics while fun loving Anthony was a party guy.
Ceasar bragged about being steady as the Northern Star, that is, once he made a decision there was no changing it because he’d used his infallibale reason. His wife comes to him at one point with her concerns for his safety, but his pride in his intellect won’t let him yield to her emotional appeals.
Brutus says “Brutus is at war with Brutus”, that is, Ceasar is his friend, but he wonders if he should kill Ceasar to prevent him from becoming dictator. Brutus’s wife comes to him asking him to share his worries, but his stoic pride won’t let him let his emotional wife in on what worries him.

After the assassination, it is Anthony who is in tune with the people and turns them against the conspirators. Party animal Anthony is the victor over the stoics, or at least at the end of the play.

Shakespeare disagreed that we should only follow the mind. The heart knows a lot too.
A scientist can work with his mind alone, but he’s not dealing with other people.
Everyone else must deal with people, and cannot do so unless they let the heart have a vote on what’s to be done.
Click to expand...
Fine with me, but I stand by what I wrote.

I admire Shakespeare as a writer and poet, far more than Ayn Rand, but do not turn to him as a guide to living life.

The heart (and the gut) are connected to none of our senses, yet human beings follow them in living life, and are surprised by the pitfalls. The mind operates all the human senses. It is clear to me which should be followed.

I don’t do so perfectly, having an overactive emotional system. That is a design flaw, IMNAAHO, to be overcome.

ICXC NIKA

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
Fine with me, but I stand by what I wrote.

I admire Shakespeare as a writer and poet, far more than Ayn Rand, but do not turn to him as a guide to living life.

The heart (and the gut) are connected to none of our senses, yet human beings follow them in living life, and are surprised by the pitfalls. The mind operates all the human senses. It is clear to me which should be followed.

I don’t do so perfectly, having an overactive emotional system. That is a design flaw, IMNAAHO, to be overcome.

ICXC NIKA

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Actually, it’s the brain that ultimately operates all human senses, and the mind is only one manifestation of the brain’s capabilities. It’s an error to ignore emotions and so-called “gut reactions”, especially when dealing with our fellow humans.

Where Ayn Rand failed most profoundly, in my view at least, is in her derision of empathy and altruism - things that have allowed humans to prosper far more than rampant individualism ever did.
 
Sair said:
Actually, it’s the brain that ultimately operates all human senses, and the mind is only one manifestation of the brain’s capabilities. It’s an error to ignore emotions and so-called “gut reactions”, especially when dealing with our fellow humans.

Where Ayn Rand failed most profoundly, in my view at least, is in her derision of empathy and altruism - things that have allowed humans to prosper far more than rampant individualism ever did.
Click to expand...
Not ignore them, but not be led by them, either.

ICXC NIKA
 
In the case of God, I think it is the heart more than the mind that is drawn to the Creator.

Even a theists like Rand are drawn more to atheism by their heart than by their mind, since there is nothing rational about atheism.
 
Atheism can be the result of a rational thought process, although I have never met someone who thought their way to atheism.

The fact that God’s presence is hidden from us and that, in life and in death, we are identical to the animals, can for some minds be the argument to atheism.

But a lot of the time, it is indeed the heart that does the leading there.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
In the case of God, I think it is the heart more than the mind that is drawn to the Creator.

Even a theists like Rand are drawn more to atheism by their heart than by their mind, since there is nothing rational about atheism.
Click to expand...
I think the claim that there is nothing rational about atheism requires more justification than you have room for here.

Atheism is the starting position. Convince any non-believer that Christianity is rational - then you’ll really have your work cut out for you…

In any case, since you think it’s the heart more than the mind that is drawn to belief in general, whether it’s theistic or atheistic, what draws you to a supernatural rather than a natural outlook on life?
 
But a lot of the time, it is indeed the heart that does the leading there.
Click to expand...
Without the heart leading a lot of the time it would be a bleak world.
No movies, no television, no literature, no music, no art, no Disney World.
Just application of technology for economic production.
And those who could not produce are forgotten.

Sounds like the aliens in Independence Day. Whizzes at technology, but apparently no soul. Robots! 😦
 
GEddie said:
Atheism can be the result of a rational thought process, although I have never met someone who thought their way to atheism.

The fact that God’s presence is hidden from us and that, in life and in death, we are identical to the animals, can for some minds be the argument to atheism.

But a lot of the time, it is indeed the heart that does the leading there.

ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
You seem to contradict your first statement with your second.

I thought my way to atheism, over a period of years.

Of course, thought is never a process that is independent of experience.

Does the ‘heart’ lead us to separate ourselves from other animals, or to recognise our kinship with them?
 
Sair

In any case, since you think it’s the heart more than the mind that is drawn to belief in general, whether it’s theistic or atheistic, what draws you to a supernatural rather than a natural outlook on life?

Hope. A much underrated virtue! Atheism is hopeless.

I think the claim that there is nothing rational about atheism requires more justification than you have room for here.

There is no rational proof whatever that there is no God. When you come up with some, let me know! 😉
 
Q: Who is John Galt?

A: John Galt is Alisa Rosenblum’s imaginary boyfriend.

A more detailed – though somewhat tongue-in-cheek – answer is at this link.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Sair

In any case, since you think it’s the heart more than the mind that is drawn to belief in general, whether it’s theistic or atheistic, what draws you to a supernatural rather than a natural outlook on life?

Hope. A much underrated virtue! Atheism is hopeless.
Click to expand...
Hope is extremely adaptable. Why are you so certain that hope requires belief in God? What, exactly, do you hope for?
I think the claim that there is nothing rational about atheism requires more justification than you have room for here.
Click to expand...
There is no rational proof whatever that there is no God. When you come up with some, let me know! 😉
Click to expand...
The burden of proof, as always, rests upon those making the positive claim - in the case of a god, for an entity that intervenes positively in the world, in ways that physical beings (including those of us that believe we are physical beings!) can discern. Please demonstrate where such intervention is the case, if it is so. The only rational proof that there is no god is that the world looks exactly as it would if there was no such thing as a supernatural, personal, intervening god.
 
Sair said:
You seem to contradict your first statement with your second.

I thought my way to atheism, over a period of years.

Of course, thought is never a process that is independent of experience.

Does the ‘heart’ lead us to separate ourselves from other animals, or to recognise our kinship with them?
Click to expand...
Not a contradiction, a qualification.

I never have met someone who thought their way to atheism. ( I haven’t met you. Meeting is done physically, in bodyspace.)

That said, I am fluent in the psychological equations that lead in the direction of atheism.

As to other animals, well, that depends. I care “emotionally” about my dog; conversely, I couldn’t care less about dolphins and whales, or the rare species du jour. Just as with other human beings, proximity is nine-tenths of emotion.

ICXC NIKA
 
Sair

Hope is extremely adaptable. Why are you so certain that hope requires belief in God? What, exactly, do you hope for?

Heaven.
**
The burden of proof, as always, rests upon those making the positive claim - in the case of a god, for an entity that intervenes positively in the world, in ways that physical beings (including those of us that believe we are physical beings!) can discern. **

No, it also rests upon those making the negative claim. If two hundred years ago I claimed atoms exist, but cannot be seen, and you claimed that atoms do not exist because there is no proof, you would be wrong to have made that claim, even though you thought you were right because the proof was not then available.

So it is with God. The proof really is not available until you are open to the truth and experience it, not just with your head but also with your heart.

A closed heart is the worst prison.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Is there anything in her work you admire?

Is there anything in her work you detest?

Is she anyone with whom you would have liked to talk for an hour on any subject of your choosing?

Why or why not?

Any takers?
Click to expand...
I admire that she was against socialism. I detest that she was anti Catholic and was for “self centered localism”.

No.

Because she would probably have harassed me.

Not me, but Paul Ryan has sort’ve been one, which is sad since he is CAtholic.
 
My opinion of Ayn Rand is less than that of a mustard seed with no chance to grow.:nope:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top