There’s something about Ayn
Kerry
Ayn Rand, and cheered Whittaker Chambers as he denounced her
Nietzschean ethics. Now some are digging up Rand in hopes that her
call for rational selfishness and laisez-faire capitalism will
rejuvenate the Right.
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/01/03/theres-something-about-ayn/
Former Rand insider and lover Nathaniel Brandon wrote in his
autobiography, “Judgment Day,” that Rand built up a cult in which the
following truths HAD to be acknowledged to avoid excommunication from
her circle:
* Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived.
* “Atlas Shrugged” is the greatest human achievement in the
history of the world.
* Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme
arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or
appropriate to man’s life on earth.
* Once one is acquainted with Ayn Rand and/or her work, the
measure of one’s virtue is intrinsically tied to the position one
takes regarding her and/or it.
* No one can be a good Objectivist who does not admire what Ayn
Rand admires and condemn what Ayn Rand condemns.
* No one can be a fully consistent individualist who disagrees
with Ayn Rand on any fundamental issue.
* Since Ayn Rand has designated Nathaniel Braden as her
“intellectual heir,” and has repeatedly proclaimed him to be an ideal
exponent of her philosophy, he is to be accorded only marginally less
reverence than Ayn Rand herself.
* But it is best not to say most of these things explicitly
(excepting,
perhaps, the first two items). One must always maintain that one
arrives at one’s beliefs solely by reason.
Well I thought it was interesting anyway,... unlike Rand
vitw
> The American Right once kept its distance from the obtuse philosopher
> Ayn Rand, and cheered Whittaker Chambers as he denounced her Nietzschean
> ethics. Now some are digging up Rand in hopes that her call for rational
> selfishness and laisez-faire capitalism will rejuvenate the Right.
>
> http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/01/03/theres-something-about-ayn/
There's "somthing about Ayn" all right. Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
WorkHard
Typical leftie. Attack and denigrate the person rather than argue
the point. Lazy, cowardly people like you are always out for a
free ride at someone else's expense.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<2c604f8e-7829-4bd3...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Kerry
wrote:
> The American Right once kept its distance from the obtuse philosopher
> Ayn Rand, and cheered Whittaker Chambers as he denounced her
> Nietzschean ethics. Now some are digging up Rand in hopes that her
> call for rational selfishness and laisez-faire capitalism will
> rejuvenate the Right.
But she was an atheist. Which the USian Right, at any case, are not so keen
on.
Geopelia
metal and the trains.
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think her ideas are probably beyond the typical leftie.
vitw
>> Typical leftie. Attack and denigrate the person rather than argue the
>> point. Lazy, cowardly people like you are always out for a free ride at
>> someone else's expense.- Hide quoted text -
> I think her ideas are probably beyond the typical leftie.
I've read Atlas Shrugged twice, The Fountainhead twice, and seen the film
We The Living once.
Her writing reveals her to have been a most passionate, idealistic,
sincere and committed supporter of her positions.
From a psychological perspective, one can understand her - she escaped
from Soviet Russia at a time when the Bolsheviks were crippling all kinds
of human creativity, and after that experience, the USA must have felt
like absolute heaven, and an answer to her prayers had she not been an
atheist.
Rand had quite a hold on me for a few years - but while her philosophical
theorems are internally consistent, in practice they are contaminated by
certain psychological assumptions which are at odds with reality.
For example - the belief that emotions and desires should be purely a
product of conscious intellectual thought. That goes against nature and
scientifically observable reality for way too many reasons to discuss
here.
Her perspectives, however, remain a valuable addition to one's overall
philosophical toolkit.
WorkHard
Against nature? AFAIK you work in accord *with* nature but not go
against it.
Emotions are indeed a result of your beliefs and thoughts. Do you
dispute that?
> Her perspectives, however, remain a valuable addition to one's
> overall
> philosophical toolkit.
Absolutely. Good as a basis for one's own behaviour toward
others.
vitw
>> For example - the belief that emotions and desires should be purely a
>> product of conscious intellectual thought. That goes against nature
>> and scientifically observable reality for way too many reasons to
>> discuss here.
>
> Against nature? AFAIK you work in accord *with* nature but not go
> against it.
>
> Emotions are indeed a result of your beliefs and thoughts. Do you
> dispute that?
I certainly accept that beliefs and thoughts exert tremendous influence
on emotions. One would be crazy to deny that. But there are much deeper
layers to emotion.
Example - normal, intelligent rational women who find that kind, smart,
supportive men don't arouse her desire, but violent, narcissistic,
manipulative damaging men do. For such a woman, her beliefs and thoughts
clearly favour the good man, but these convictions can't allow her to
receive him as any more than a friend.
Another example - cigarette smoking - arguably the most difficult of all
addictions. The rational intelligent mind knows it's not a good idea, but
the emotions feel otherwise. When withdrawing, one gets flooded with
emotions like how 'one little smoke won't hurt' and the like.
In fact, Ayn Rand herself was a heavily addicted smoker, dying in 1982 of
lung cancer. That was years after the landmark Surgeon General's report
on smoking came out. Her intellect knew better, but that wasn't enough to
change her primal emotions about smoking.
WorkHard
I don't get that at all. Wanting 'emotionally' violent, narcistic
manipulative men is not rational.
>
> Another example - cigarette smoking - arguably the most
> difficult of
> all addictions. The rational intelligent mind knows it's not a
> good
> idea, but the emotions feel otherwise. When withdrawing, one
> gets
> flooded with emotions like how 'one little smoke won't hurt'
> and the
> like.
That's not emotions. That's thoughts.
> In fact, Ayn Rand herself was a heavily addicted smoker, dying
> in
> 1982 of lung cancer. That was years after the landmark Surgeon
> General's report on smoking came out. Her intellect knew
> better, but
> that wasn't enough to change her primal emotions about smoking.
Not emotions at all.
vitw
>> Example - normal, intelligent rational women who find that kind,
>> smart, supportive men don't arouse her desire, but violent,
>> narcissistic, manipulative damaging men do. For such a woman, her
>> beliefs and thoughts clearly favour the good man, but these convictions
>> can't allow her to receive him as any more than a friend.
>
> I don't get that at all. Wanting 'emotionally' violent, narcistic
> manipulative men is not rational.
You raise a good point there. Yes, wanting such negative men is not
rational. The point I'm making is that such women, no matter how hard
they try, can not 'think' themselves into desiring positive men over
negative creeps.
>> Another example - cigarette smoking - arguably the most difficult of
>> all addictions. The rational intelligent mind knows it's not a good
>> idea, but the emotions feel otherwise. When withdrawing, one gets
>> flooded with emotions like how 'one little smoke won't hurt' and the
>> like.
>
> That's not emotions. That's thoughts.
Thoughts, resulting from very deep feelings.
>> In fact, Ayn Rand herself was a heavily addicted smoker, dying in
>> 1982 of lung cancer. That was years after the landmark Surgeon
>> General's report on smoking came out. Her intellect knew better, but
>> that wasn't enough to change her primal emotions about smoking.
>
> Not emotions at all.
The point I'm making is that thoughts/beliefs can and do often influence
emotion, but the reverse is true as well.
This is in contrast to Rand's non-negotiable position that emotions are
*purely* the result of thought.
WorkHard
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:07:04 +1300, WorkHard wrote:
>
>>> Example - normal, intelligent rational women who find that
>>> kind,
>>> smart, supportive men don't arouse her desire, but violent,
>>> narcissistic, manipulative damaging men do. For such a woman,
>>> her
>>> beliefs and thoughts clearly favour the good man, but these
>>> convictions can't allow her to receive him as any more than a
>>> friend.
>>
>> I don't get that at all. Wanting 'emotionally' violent,
>> narcistic
>> manipulative men is not rational.
>
> You raise a good point there. Yes, wanting such negative men is
> not
> rational. The point I'm making is that such women, no matter
> how hard
> they try, can not 'think' themselves into desiring positive men
> over
> negative creeps.
So because of the 'irrational' way they think, their negative
emotions rule their desires.
However, anyone can choose to act or not upon irrational emotions
and desires. That was the whole point Rand was making.
Repressed emotions can be damaging, but they don't have to be
exporessed at the point in time that you 'feel' them. You can
save them for later and express them in a more positive
situation, even if that means being alone and beating the shit
out of a cardboard box, for example.
>>> Another example - cigarette smoking - arguably the most
>>> difficult of
>>> all addictions. The rational intelligent mind knows it's not
>>> a good
>>> idea, but the emotions feel otherwise. When withdrawing, one
>>> gets
>>> flooded with emotions like how 'one little smoke won't hurt'
>>> and the
>>> like.
>>
>> That's not emotions. That's thoughts.
>
> Thoughts, resulting from very deep feelings.
Don't think so.
>>> In fact, Ayn Rand herself was a heavily addicted smoker,
>>> dying in
>>> 1982 of lung cancer. That was years after the landmark
>>> Surgeon
>>> General's report on smoking came out. Her intellect knew
>>> better, but
>>> that wasn't enough to change her primal emotions about
>>> smoking.
>>
>> Not emotions at all.
>
> The point I'm making is that thoughts/beliefs can and do often
> influence emotion, but the reverse is true as well.
True. But you always have a choice whether to act on them or not.
And to address the reasons for those emotions - or cause of the
emotions. Usually based on beliefs and thoughts.
> This is in contrast to Rand's non-negotiable position that
> emotions
> are *purely* the result of thought.
But that 'thought' is not always conscious. It is also learned
from past experience, beliefs and thoughts, desires etc.
WD
Well said.
Weihana.
WD
> vitw wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:07:04 +1300, WorkHard wrote:
>
> >>> Example - normal, intelligent rational women who find that
> >>> kind,
> >>> smart, supportive men don't arouse her desire, but violent,
> >>> narcissistic, manipulative damaging men do. For such a woman,
> >>> her
> >>> beliefs and thoughts clearly favour the good man, but these
> >>> convictions can't allow her to receive him as any more than a
> >>> friend.
>
> >> I don't get that at all. Wanting 'emotionally' violent,
> >> narcistic
> >> manipulative men is not rational.
>
> > You raise a good point there. Yes, wanting such negative men is
> > not
> > rational. The point I'm making is that such women, no matter
> > how hard
> > they try, can not 'think' themselves into desiring positive men
> > over
> > negative creeps.
>
> So because of the 'irrational' way they think, their negative
> emotions rule their desires.
I think the point is that they are not necessarily irrational
thinkers. They know intellectually what is right and proper and
rational but it doesn't accord with their feelings. The question is
why does a person act irrationally if they are thinking rationally. I
think it's obvious that people are a product of both their nature and
their mind.
A person can have desires which are entirely out of their control.
Does a homosexual "choose" to desire people of the same sex? Do
people "choose" to desire other humans as opposed to other animals or
even random objects? Nature, to a very large extent, determines
sexual preference for it is an evolutionary necessity that man desire
woman.. it cannot be left up to choice.... and so it is not surprising
that the vast majority of people have a normal sexual attraction to
people of the opposite sex.
> However, anyone can choose to act or not upon irrational emotions
> and desires. That was the whole point Rand was making.
>
> Repressed emotions can be damaging, but they don't have to be
> exporessed at the point in time that you 'feel' them. You can
> save them for later and express them in a more positive
> situation, even if that means being alone and beating the shit
> out of a cardboard box, for example.
Psychology is more complex than simply choosing to do what your mind
tells you. It's one thing to talk of simply acting according to your
rational mind and it's another to endure the pain this can involve.
> >>> Another example - cigarette smoking - arguably the most
> >>> difficult of
> >>> all addictions. The rational intelligent mind knows it's not
> >>> a good
> >>> idea, but the emotions feel otherwise. When withdrawing, one
> >>> gets
> >>> flooded with emotions like how 'one little smoke won't hurt'
> >>> and the
> >>> like.
>
> >> That's not emotions. That's thoughts.
>
> > Thoughts, resulting from very deep feelings.
>
> Don't think so.
I think so.. smoking affects the brain to create physical and
physological dependence. The thoughts arise from the physical effect
smoking has on the brain. Rational thought can cause someone to
endure the pain necessary to break the cycle but it's certainly not
easy as many smokers will testify to.
>
> >>> In fact, Ayn Rand herself was a heavily addicted smoker,
> >>> dying in
> >>> 1982 of lung cancer. That was years after the landmark
> >>> Surgeon
> >>> General's report on smoking came out. Her intellect knew
> >>> better, but
> >>> that wasn't enough to change her primal emotions about
> >>> smoking.
>
> >> Not emotions at all.
>
> > The point I'm making is that thoughts/beliefs can and do often
> > influence emotion, but the reverse is true as well.
>
> True. But you always have a choice whether to act on them or not.
> And to address the reasons for those emotions - or cause of the
> emotions. Usually based on beliefs and thoughts.
Yup, but that choice can be very hard to make. Rand's smoking is a
good example of that. She knew better... she was addicted.
> > This is in contrast to Rand's non-negotiable position that
> > emotions
> > are *purely* the result of thought.
>
> But that 'thought' is not always conscious. It is also learned
> from past experience, beliefs and thoughts, desires etc.
It is also the result of ones nature. We are not Tabula rasa.
Weihana.
WorkHard
One's nature is to be human. So of course what you say is true.
But one can indeed learn to control emotions and even change them
through knowledge and work. One can overcome inappropriate
emotions.
Whether one does is another matter.
Richard McGrath
Nathaniel Branden (note the name Branden contains 'rand' - his
original surname was Blumenthal) had a wife Barbara who wrote a book,
"The Passion of Ayn Rand" which also describes some of Rand's rather
interesting personality traits.
While I concur with much of her philosophy, some of Rand's actions
were inconsistent with it. For instance, her suggestion that a woman
could never be president of the United States is simply absurd. From
memory she considered homosexuality immoral, a stance that many
libertarians would oppose.
Rand was initially intrigued with Nietzche, but fundamentally opposed
his suggestion that some people be sacrificed for the sake of others.
Whittaker Chambers was a former communist Soviet spy (i.e. traitor)
whose reading of Atlas Shrugged led him to the conclusion that Rand
was advocating a Nietzchean dog-eat-dog society. In fact, he was
embarrassingly wrong. Rand's philosophy explicitly states that no-one
should be sacrificed to anyone else.
Richard McGrath
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <2c604f8e-7829-4bd3-8683-641d38412...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Kerry
Yes Rand was an atheist, which annoyed right wingers like William F
Buckley.
Richard McGrath
> I liked "Atlas Shrugged". But I liked it for the story, especially the
> metal and the trains.
Atlas Shrugged is indeed a ripping yarn. The central themes are still
relevant, though the transcontinental railroad scenario might be a
little dated.
Richard McGrath
The psychological relationship between reason and emotion has been
explored further by Nathaniel Branden after he broke with Rand. Rand
is said to have stated that she never experienced an emotion that
wasn't linked to rational thought.
Many people experience emotions that are irrational in context. These
can be viewed as maladaptive and harmful. For instance it would be
irrational to feel joy at the sight of a hungry pitbull terrier
running toward your child.
Richard McGrath
>
> - Show quoted text -
According to Barbara Branden, Rand's doctor had tried for years to get
her to stop smoking but she had replied that statistics weren't proof
- a form of denial really. Not that she shouldn't have had the fredom
to light up.
Richard McGrath
> On , , Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:11:45 +1300, Re: There’s something about Ayn (Rhymes
> With “Mine”), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> >In message
> ><2c604f8e-7829-4bd3-8683-641d38412...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Kerry
> born a Jew you will always be counted a Jew.
>
> --
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> Anatole France.
She had Jewish ancestors but rejected all forms of religion.
vitw
> Many people experience emotions that are irrational in context. These
> can be viewed as maladaptive and harmful. For instance it would be
> irrational to feel joy at the sight of a hungry pitbull terrier running
> toward your child.
You might if your child was an adult, and had you tied up for weeks on
end while he constantly pistol-whipped you.
hellicopter
Some people just need to be annoyed.
Geopelia
"Richard McGrath" <richard...@mastertonmedical.co.nz> wrote in message
news:2b213a62-bf32-4feb...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
----------------
Steam trains were still widely used, but diesels were just coming in. And
the railway system wasn't computerised yet.
It could be considered almost a historical novel, today.
Enkidu
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
-Newsman-
Obviously, and appalling examples of failure to control such
inappropriate emotions are legion; witness the unedifying prevalence
of New Zealand's spousal violence and abuse, yes, even in the Wanganui
region, and the requirement to separate the violent abuser from his
victim spouse.
This is where all reason and rationality are gone; bereft of even the
most basic brainpower to understand the very nature of his failings
and behaviours, the abuser is left with nothing but to revert to his
innate animal thuggishness, both in deed and word.
Such men are regressive sociopaths.
It's in the breeding, or, rather, lack of it.
Allistar
I think it's primal - perhaps those attributes come across as some kind of
strength, and the inner primate favours a mate that is strong.
>> Another example - cigarette smoking - arguably the most
>> difficult of
>> all addictions. The rational intelligent mind knows it's not a
>> good
>> idea, but the emotions feel otherwise. When withdrawing, one
>> gets
>> flooded with emotions like how 'one little smoke won't hurt'
>> and the
>> like.
>
> That's not emotions. That's thoughts.
Thoughts driven by base urges, and those base urges are akin to emotions.
>> In fact, Ayn Rand herself was a heavily addicted smoker, dying
>> in
>> 1982 of lung cancer. That was years after the landmark Surgeon
>> General's report on smoking came out. Her intellect knew
>> better, but
>> that wasn't enough to change her primal emotions about smoking.
>
> Not emotions at all.
Aren't emotions just a kind of thought?
--
A.
WorkHard
Then they must be controlled by thoughts/beliefs?
Enkidu
>>
>> I don't get that at all. Wanting 'emotionally' violent, narcistic
>> manipulative men is not rational.
>
> I think it's primal - perhaps those attributes come across as some kind of
> strength, and the inner primate favours a mate that is strong.
>
narcistic.
and manipulative women like Rand? Are they rational?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
'Johann Hari, a British journalist, wonders how Rand became an American
icon, describing her as a damaged woman, a crazed, pitiable charlatan
with an amphetamine addiction feeding her natural paranoia and
aggression, and surrounded by a "tightly policed cult of young people"
complete with show-trials; he concludes that the popularity of her ideas
rests on "drilling into the basest human instincts".'
>
> Aren't emotions just a kind of thought?
>
Obviously, no.
Kerry
>
> >> The American Right once kept its distance from the obtuse
> >> philosopher
> >> Ayn Rand, and cheered Whittaker Chambers as he denounced her
> >> Nietzschean ethics. Now some are digging up Rand in hopes that
> >> her
> >> call for rational selfishness and laisez-faire capitalism will
> >> rejuvenate the Right.
>
>
> > There's "somthing about Ayn" all right. Narcissistic
> > Personality
> > Disorder.
>
> Typical leftie. Attack and denigrate the person rather than argue
> the point. Lazy, cowardly people like you are always out for a
>
> - Show quoted text -
How did you extrapolate that from anything vtw actually said?
hellicopter
> hellicopter wrote:
>> Richard McGrath wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 6, 1:11 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <2c604f8e-7829-4bd3-8683-641d38412...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Kerry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The American Right once kept its distance from the obtuse
>>>>> philosopher Ayn Rand, and cheered Whittaker Chambers as he
>>>>> denounced her Nietzschean ethics. Now some are digging up Rand
>>>>> in hopes that her call for rational selfishness and
>>>>> laisez-faire capitalism will rejuvenate the Right.
>>>> But she was an atheist. Which the USian Right, at any case, are
>>>> not so keen on.
>>> Yes Rand was an atheist, which annoyed right wingers like William F
>>> Buckley.
>>
>> Some people just need to be annoyed.
>>
> ... while Rand was just annoying.
No. I doubt she would be annoying had not people been already
susceptible to being annoyed. Death, Taxes and easily angered people,
the socail trifecta?
Angry people aren't necessary a bad thing, just the wooden rigid
ones whose rage with never let them adjust their assumptions.
i.e. angry fundamentalist religious people, and now the new angry
people the religious economic fundamentalist ideologue.
Religious people are always going to target atheists, and since their
assumptions are articles of faith, they are hard to take seriously.
Its just debating with people who won't enter the arena with something
to give up if they should lose, i.e. their faith. So of course,
anyone who hates Ayn Rand for her atheism is not much of a person,
and clearly is unamerican, and not worth saving when the world is in
crisis. I want people in my boat who can be reasoned fairly with.
So was Ayn Rand a reasonable person? Clearly yes, since detail domes
of debate, to have a principled view, write intensively, etc, means
there must be some anti-voice motivating them.
Ayn Rand was wrong however, she did not understand that those
great unwashed hordes not only created the demand for experts
of high art and finance, but also could easily replace them
when they got lazy and started hoarding the wealth and burning
the bridges they used to get rich. i.e. Key shutting down his old
school. You can tell the man from how he views his own past.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>
>
Brian Dooley
Easily - he can do it with anything that anybody says.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand