Anybody here ever read Ayn Rand's works?
Posted by deleted 6 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
Not intending to be objectionable or insensitive, I have to ask, especially considering some of the responses I have received lately:
Has Anybody Here Ever Read Ayn Rand's Works?
Yes, yes, I've been told a million times not to exaggerate so I know perhaps even most people here have some familiarity with her works and words.
But there are too many others who seem to have not the least concept.
Rand advocated, as her political philosophy, individual freedom. From her premise that each individual has sole ownership and control of his own life, she reasoned -- and I honestly see no other conclusion -- that therefore it is wrong to initiate force.
She quite explicitly opposed, to name one, the income tax, as well as other forms of theft.
Therefore, despite her own neurotic opposition to the word, Ayn Rand was a libertarian.
Now, please, you who are determined to react rather than think, note I said "libertarian," NOT "Libertarian."
Even though I have several times explained the differences between the two words, some leap-to-wrong-conclusion addicts keep trying to argue with me, without checking their premises.
For you folks who have not read her works and her words, Ayn Rand was probably the world's foremost advocate of reason ... maybe ever.
She was also, though actually allied with many thousands of others, a leading advocate of human freedom.
Only a cultist, only very misinformed cultist, can continue to deny that "libertarian" is the correct term.
She was not an "anarchist," not an agorist, not a voluntaryist, but I think she was a free marketeer and thus she was, yes, a libertarian -- though a minarchist.
So, I ask again: You people who keep calling yourselves "conservative" and/or "Republican," how do you rationalize or justify also calling yourself "Randian" or, especially, "Objectivist"?
I remember Rand explicitly forbidding people calling themselves "Objectivist." She said to call your self "student of Objectivism."
Finally, and I'm sure there will be hurt feelings from this, why on Earth don't you check your spelling as well as your premise?
I see comments here that are downright embarrassing because of miserable grammar and sloppy spelling.
If we truly care about truth, about reason, about Ayn Rand's legacy, shouldn't we be much more careful about how we represent her?
Has Anybody Here Ever Read Ayn Rand's Works?
Yes, yes, I've been told a million times not to exaggerate so I know perhaps even most people here have some familiarity with her works and words.
But there are too many others who seem to have not the least concept.
Rand advocated, as her political philosophy, individual freedom. From her premise that each individual has sole ownership and control of his own life, she reasoned -- and I honestly see no other conclusion -- that therefore it is wrong to initiate force.
She quite explicitly opposed, to name one, the income tax, as well as other forms of theft.
Therefore, despite her own neurotic opposition to the word, Ayn Rand was a libertarian.
Now, please, you who are determined to react rather than think, note I said "libertarian," NOT "Libertarian."
Even though I have several times explained the differences between the two words, some leap-to-wrong-conclusion addicts keep trying to argue with me, without checking their premises.
For you folks who have not read her works and her words, Ayn Rand was probably the world's foremost advocate of reason ... maybe ever.
She was also, though actually allied with many thousands of others, a leading advocate of human freedom.
Only a cultist, only very misinformed cultist, can continue to deny that "libertarian" is the correct term.
She was not an "anarchist," not an agorist, not a voluntaryist, but I think she was a free marketeer and thus she was, yes, a libertarian -- though a minarchist.
So, I ask again: You people who keep calling yourselves "conservative" and/or "Republican," how do you rationalize or justify also calling yourself "Randian" or, especially, "Objectivist"?
I remember Rand explicitly forbidding people calling themselves "Objectivist." She said to call your self "student of Objectivism."
Finally, and I'm sure there will be hurt feelings from this, why on Earth don't you check your spelling as well as your premise?
I see comments here that are downright embarrassing because of miserable grammar and sloppy spelling.
If we truly care about truth, about reason, about Ayn Rand's legacy, shouldn't we be much more careful about how we represent her?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
The fundamental differences between Obj. and Lib. are very significant. Since Libs are all over the place, I can't speak for you; but Libertarianism is certainly not a complete philosophy.
Thank you for being guided by facts and reason.
But correct, even if otherwise-wrong people also say it.
AGAIN, there is a difference between "libertarian" and "Libertarian." I do wish you would learn it.
People who call themselves "libertarian" believe, as did Ayn Rand, that individuals own themselves and that initiatory force is wrong.
And libertarians do indeed have a "philosophical base" for our political views even if not all libertarians accept entirely the Rand philosophical base.
You seem to be, in Randian terms, concrete-bound and intentionally blind to facts.
Including, for example, the wheel.
The so-called "Indians" -- the North Americans -- did have wheels, but used as decoration or in toys, not as ... well, as wheels. Note their travois.
But especially note their truly savage ways of treating prisoners, such as slicing off eye-lids and leaving the victim, alive, staring into the sun; or the burning alive; or ... well, other horrible and vicious acts.
Which were also "savage" when done by any others, including Europeans.
Thank you again, PURB.
Again, if you have a better word in common use than “libertarian” to describe Ayn Rand's position on the political/economic spectrum, I would like to hear it.
I was there, heard them speak before and during the process of forming a party. And at the beginning, it was not a minority who were anarchists; that's where they started deviating from Obj.ism.
No it didn’t. According to a contemporary libertarian publication (SIL News), the creators of the Libertarian Party were a mix of former Republicans, advocates of Objectivism, Misesians, and fans of Robert Heinlein. A minority were anarchists. What united them was support for economic and personal liberty, and the desire to participate in the political process through a party that would promote these values. I joined the LP shortly after its formation in early 1972, knew many of its founders personally, and can vouch for the wide mix of ideological backgrounds of its early members.
The purpose of a political party is to promote a political agenda, not an entire philosophy. And no, it is not necessary to be a member of a political party in order to vote.
The friend who introduced me to Objectivism took a similar attitude towards my second-hander approach to Rand's ideas. I'd annoy him with straw-man questions, and he eventually said, "I'm not answering you any longer. If you want to know, read Rand's books."
re-read this "...despite her own neurotic opposition to the word, Ayn Rand was a libertarian." She was not an advocate of anything libertarian because an advocate of reason she understood that Liberty cannot be established without a proper moral system and a proper moral system can only be found by agents with free will by reason. Substituting libertarian for reason and egoism and capitalism only shows how you have abandoned them. . Rand showed that to define a term you have to do it by essentials. You will benefit from re-reading OPAR.
The philosophical Cat
You may not know of the origin of Libertarianism: the movement began with Objectivists who could not agree with her principles except for some political fundamentals.
Of course an Objectivist can be a member of a political party - that's necessary to vote. He just can't hold Libertarian principles (such as they are).
He never claimed it was. “Denote” and “define” are entirely different words with entirely different meanings. Dictionary.com defines “denote” as “to be a mark or sign of; indicate”. Thesaurus.com lists as synonyms “designate” and “mean”. None of these have anything to do with identifying a person’s “essential defining characteristic”. In today's political/economic environment, the word "libertarian" is used in everyday discourse to denote someone who is a consistent advocate of a free market. If you have a better word in common use to describe Ayn Rand's position on the political/economic spectrum, I would like to hear it.
I thought that Rand was a little off with her comments about primitive people not being civilized or not have been able to discover the laws of nature. Discoveries are made very slowly due to lack of the resources and methods of technology upon which new advancements are made.
The other thing that bothered me in AS was her description of some persons being "little" when just doing small jobs and depending on things such as cosmetics to feel good.
As for the concept of 'belief', look up the philosophical discussions of the difference between 'believing in' and 'believing that', the first believing regardless of facts and the second believing with facts and being able to change belief if the known facts change. The first could be called religious and the second scientific.
As for Libertarians’ (capital “L”) failure to integrate the remainder of her philosophy, the Libertarian Party exists to espouse and promote a political viewpoint. It does not claim to represent a viewpoint on other aspects of philosophy, nor should it be expected to – that’s not its purpose. (And if an Objectivist cannot be a member of the Libertarian Party, the same certainly holds true regarding any other political party.)
Load more comments...