#40409 - 07/17/10 10:26 PM
Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion
[Re: Michael A.Aquino]
|
Draculesti
member
Registered: 09/18/07
Posts: 279
Loc: Rockville, Maryland
|
I have yet to read Atlas Shrugged or her non-fiction (The Virtue of Selfishness, etc.), but I'm even more motivated to do so now.
Robin says that Rand had contempt for corporate CEOs and other icons of capitalism? As anti-communist as she was (in my view), this doesn't make sense.
I realize that fascism is, in essence, antithetical to democracy, but not having a democratic world view does not automatically file one under "fascist". Personally, I agree with her view with respect to egalitarianism. So what if she saw people as being unequal? They are. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with racial characteristics. In many cases, inferiority is the harvest that many reaped from what they sowed. You can have raw potential, like a lump of clay, but if you don't work it, the lump of clay is still just a lump.
The first Russian revolution (though not the biggie) was around 1905/6, but the real revolution was in 1917. She left Russia just around the time things really started to get rough in the late '20s, when Stalin rose to power. Still, hers was a time of tumultuousness that few of us ever see in our lives. It was these early experiences, in my view, that informed much of her work (at least what I have read of it).
"I don't know if any of her screenplays got produced." Originally, probably some. If we're talking pre-Fountainhead, then I don't really know, but there was a production of a screenplay for "The Fountainhead" which she adapted from her own novel and which starred (if memory serves) Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal.
"...she had written a novel before The Fountainhead called Anthem..." What about We the Living? Did this guy actually do any research on Rand?
His view on the women in Rand's work (at least in The Fountainhead) is erroneous. "Ultimately, the role of these women is to fall before the weight of this great man." In my opinion, they were so much more than that. In Dominique Francon, what we have is THE perfect complement to Howard Roark. As he is a strong, intellectual male, so is she the perfect female counterpart. At least, that's the way I see it. People can feel free to argue with me; it's been a while since I've read it, but I'm pretty sure that with the impact it had on me I remember the more salient points. Of which most I think this guy is missing, but anyway...
He's relating Rand to Glen Beck???!! That fucking nut job? If Beck is in any way touting her ideas (which, I must admit, I don't really watch him, so I wouldn't really know), then he must be missing the point like the guy in the interview.
He says that her heroic male characters are inventors, artists, people who make things that others buy, i.e. capitalist titans. That may be true in the case with Wynand, whose corporate greed (in the beginning of the story, anyway) obliges him to sell newspapers (and sensationalism therein) to make a buck. However, with Roark, he isn't so concerned with the sell. If Roark was so motivated by capitalism, he would have taken any and every commission he was approached with like his counterpart, Peter Keating. Roark was more concerned with doing things his way (which meant he had to send many a client out the door), and when he did receive a commission in which the client would let him do it his way, of course he took money (the man's gotta make a living, doesn't he?).
The way I see it, The Fountainhead is an indictment of communism/collectivism (and so, SO much more), as evidenced in the character of Ellsworth Twohey and his rantings that pepper the book, and Roark is the antithetical (and ideal) archetype which stands against communism/collectivism. Twohey attacks Roark and tries, in vain, to bring about his destruction, because he is an element that cannot be controlled. In Twohey's half-baked rhetoric about how architecture (and, by relation, all the arts) and Man's ultimate goal, its raison d'etre is to serve the masses (in other words, a denial of the Self), we have the collectivist philosophy in a nutshell.
The main point of the book is summed up nicely by Roark in his speech in his defense at his trial at the end of the book. I can't really claim to be a Rand scholar, but I find her work interesting, despite what Corey Robin might say. That being said, ANY book taken too seriously can be a dangerous thing. Just look at the bible 
_________________________
The Holy Trinity: Me, Myself, and I.
Homo Homini Lupus
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40550 - 07/20/10 03:37 PM
Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion
[Re: Draculesti]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
He's relating Rand to Glenn Beck???!! That fucking nut job? If Beck is in any way touting her ideas (which, I must admit, I don't really watch him, so I wouldn't really know), then he must be missing the point like the guy in the interview.
Anyone familiar with Rand will eventually hear about the famous 1991 Book-of-the-Month Club survey. They asked "What book has most influenced your life?" The Bible ranked first, and Atlas Shrugged second. I've found that people treat Atlas Shrugged a great deal like the Bible; they cherry-pick all the bits they like and ignore all the bits they don't like. As such, Ayn Rand has become very popular among Republicans, a group she despised in life. There's a YouTube user called the "Atheist Antidote," who considers himself the antidote to Atheism (he's an apologist). Yet he just recently had a quote from Ayn Rand, an outspoken atheist, featured prominently on his Facebook page. (Now it's Mark Twain. Oh dear.)
Compare Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand. Both had practically identical political views (what we would call "libertarian" despite Rand's resentment of the term), but very different fans. Rand, whose literature focused primarily on economic policy, became the voice of the religious right republican crowd. She despised Christianity, but they conveniently ignore this. Heinlein, whose work focused on his socially liberal attitude towards sexuality and cultural freedom, became popular with the "free love" hippy movement. He wouldn't have liked their politics either, but they ignore that. 
So yes, Rand is invoked by the very people she would have loathed.
If you want to read Atlas Shrugged, skip ahead to John Galt's speech before reading the entire novel. Atlas Shrugged is painfully verbose and redundant. Rand wrote it that way for a reason; people kept misinterpreting what she meant. (See above paragraphs. This kind of crap happened even in Rand's own lifetime!) In order to make it abundantly clear exactly what her position was, she essentially hammered her point home again... and again... and again some more. (Unfortunately, it still didn't work!)
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#41364 - 08/03/10 09:11 AM
Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
SODOMIZER
pledge
Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 61
|
As such, Ayn Rand has become very popular among Republicans, a group she despised in life. There's a YouTube user called the " Atheist Antidote," who considers himself the antidote to Atheism (he's an apologist). Yet he just recently had a quote from Ayn Rand, an outspoken atheist, featured prominently on his Facebook page.
This is very true: libertarianism is essentially a market-savvy form of anarchy, and belongs on the left more than the right. Then again, our modern "right" is at least half leftist (neoconservatism) so it's hard to claim they're even rightist.
The right would be better off with Nietzsche, and everyone would be better off avoiding Rand, which is turgid, philosophically incoherent garbage.
An interesting viewpoint for rightists -- the "secular right":
http://secularright.org/
_________________________
SC / O9A
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#60329 - 10/21/11 11:48 AM
Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion
[Re: SODOMIZER]
|
BittenApple
stranger
Registered: 10/12/11
Posts: 5
|
"The right would be better off with Nietzsche, and everyone would be better off avoiding Rand, which is turgid, philosophically incoherent garbage"
Please could you elaborate on that? I find Ayn Rand's philosophy an excellent way for dealing with Objective Reality as Humans, not subspecies. Although Nietzsche had good points, it's a primitive and savage philosophy in comparison, more suited for slave drivers than for real individualists.
I don't know If Ayn Rand was involved in the occult, but I find her a more powerful magician than most would-be Magus out there; In fact she inspired the now deceased Steve Jobs, That's a REAL magician with REAL achievements!
Few people have the courage and intelligence to properly understand the Work of Ayn Rand, usually they pick up a few of her statements and get them out of context in order to suit their own agenda. Ayn Rand's teachings are not for the weak-minded or unintelligent individual. They require, as Ouspensky stated, a "state of objective consciousness", a difficult thing since most people are sleepwalkers.
I think that if the World had followed Ayn Rand's ideas in the '60s instead of following the conservative,religious right or the plain wrong liberal left now we'll have economic prosperity (I recommend you to read Capitalism, A Treatise on Economics, by George Reisman) hotels in space, a more conscious population and probably eternal lifespans (so no need for worrying about the after-life)
Nietzschean Egoists are a product of altruistic morality, a thing
we Satanists are fervorously against; It's a shame some people
still doesn't get it:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html
Other perspectives of Rand's Objectivism can be appreciated here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28UfcL9bD8M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKws94nR2ZA&feature=related
Edited by BittenApple (10/21/11 11:55 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#60355 - 10/22/11 02:01 PM
Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion
[Re: Gattamelata]
|
BittenApple
stranger
Registered: 10/12/11
Posts: 5
|
I understand your concerns regarding Ayn Rand's philosophy as a cult, obviously there are rotten apples in every movement. But you have selected that article of Rothbard that was his attempt
to defend himself against accusations of plagiarism and other childish behavior, you can read the whole story here:
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult2.html
Ayn Rand is not alive today in order to speak with Neurologists, Evolutionary Biologists, Experts in Epigenetics and Mind-Gene interactions, NLP practitioners, or students of the occult
so she is missing all those viewpoints. We Satanists have this multidisciplinary and pragmatic oversight, it is this study of the occult forces and interactions that gives an "edge" that allows maverick scientists to make outstanding advances and enables individuals like Michael Aquino to write that legendary,
timeless strategy classic that is "From PSYOP to Mindwar: The Psychology of Victory"
But since there is no "National Satanist Devil's Advocate Party" in place today, I tend to favor the Objectivists over the Conservatives and Liberals. The former want to repress freedom of expression under religious morals; the latter want to repress free markets and throw the baby with the bathwater by destroying Capitalism, instead of denouncing "crony" Capitalism and bad practices; both are the enemies of Liberty.
You only have to watch Yaron Brook (President of the Ayn Rand Institute) speaking in the debates against those Demos people to realize that Objectivists are not the wimpy-assed guys most people think. He in fact destroys them with his speeches. And I don't feel pity for them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#60404 - 10/24/11 12:29 PM
Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion
[Re: BittenApple]
|
Autodidact
member
Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 371
|
Please could you elaborate on that? I find Ayn Rand's philosophy an excellent way for dealing with Objective Reality as Humans, not subspecies. Although Nietzsche had good points, it's a primitive and savage philosophy in comparison, more suited for slave drivers than for real individualists.
This is the fundamental flaw with Rand - you are judging reality.
Humans are primitive and savage. Humans usually act emotionally. Discarding any theory because you find it distasteful in some manner, rather than inconsistent with data, will net you incorrect conclusions. Ironic, as Rand was all about Reason ...
I think that if the World had followed Ayn Rand's ideas in the '60s instead of following the conservative,religious right or the plain wrong liberal left now we'll have economic prosperity (I recommend you to read Capitalism, A Treatise on Economics, by George Reisman) hotels in space, a more conscious population and probably eternal lifespans (so no need for worrying about the after-life)
This is probably provably false. Alan Greenspan was a Rand devotee, and he didn't even believe a housing bubble was possible. His, and other's, odd ideas about human nature is founded on "it would be nice if" reasoning and unsupportable statements like, "It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash."
I've not undertaken a detailed reading of Rand. The circular reasonings and liberal sprinklings of "ought" have convinced me that it's no different than any other religion.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#60428 - 10/25/11 01:10 PM
Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion
[Re: Autodidact]
|
BittenApple
stranger
Registered: 10/12/11
Posts: 5
|
Alan Greenspan was a former associate of Ayn Rand but he betrayed her ideas when he stepped up as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, an institution contrary to U.S. interests. He is no Objectivist:
http://the-undercurrent.com/blog/alan-greenspan-is-not-an-objectivist
It is true that there are primitive individuals who haven't discovered Industrial Civilization yet and that human beings
are emotional; but emotions are automatic evaluations of events based on previous thinking. If the ideas of the individual
are consistent, there is no clash between emotion and reason. The dicotomy reason/emotion is the same as the mind/body
one showed by Christians, they are signs of a diseased human being; one can have carnal desires not divorced from reason.
We live in an epoch where the so-called intellectuals teach that the pinnacle of man's mind is for him to discover that
he has no mind, that godhood is not for him, that he is no more than an animal, that he must enter the domain of the "untermensch".
Woe to him who equates himself with a subhuman creature!
There are those who send probes to Mars and those who spend their lives smoking cocaine crack;
there are the drones and there are the Atlanteans. In an altruistic society, the drones proliferate and play havoc,
Atlanteans are discredited and vilified; thus governments are compelled to restrain their populations and reduce their numbers.
In an individualistic, free society where self-interest prevails (rational, long ranging self interest) the drones are
overwhelmed and magically influenced by the workings of the Atlanteans, who can express themselves in their Own way.
Thus new and higher standards are set; a new Aeon starts, Civilization advances in a forward onward march.
I suggest you read George Reisman's Economics Treatise because Objectivism can't be evaluated without deep study. What Ayn Rand said was not always accurate, but in a buch of things she hits the bull's eye.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#60434 - 10/25/11 03:46 PM
Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion
[Re: BittenApple]
|
Autodidact
member
Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 371
|
Same old Utopian claptrap, wrapped up in appeal-to-ego.
Disavowing him is besides the point. The same flaw pervades: the idea that everybody, left completely to their own devices with no oversight, will pursue only what is in their best interest, which is necessarily what is in the best interest of all of humanity, is wishful thinking at best. In any area without a rule of law (implicit dominance by the group as a whole), the most likely scenario is that someone will seize that power, and dominate others.
It is true that there are primitive individuals who haven't discovered Industrial Civilization yet and that human beings
are emotional; but emotions are automatic evaluations of events based on previous thinking. If the ideas of the individual
are consistent, there is no clash between emotion and reason.
You're going to have a hard time convincing me that emotions are the product of reasoning.
We live in an epoch where the so-called intellectuals teach that the pinnacle of man's mind is for him to discover that
he has no mind, that godhood is not for him, that he is no more than an animal, that he must enter the domain of the "untermensch".
Woe to him who equates himself with a subhuman creature!
Flowery, but devoid of reason. Denying physics, biology, and instincts, behaviors, and emotions created by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution does not seem very rational to me. Some studies show that 80% of human behavior conforms to predictable mammalian group behavior. Even allowing for a lot of overstatement, you're still more than half in fantasy land.
There are those who send probes to Mars and those who spend their lives smoking cocaine crack;
there are the drones and there are the Atlanteans. In an altruistic society, the drones proliferate and play havoc,
Atlanteans are discredited and vilified; thus governments are compelled to restrain their populations and reduce their numbers.
In an individualistic, free society where self-interest prevails (rational, long ranging self interest) the drones are
overwhelmed and magically influenced by the workings of the Atlanteans, who can express themselves in their Own way.
Thus new and higher standards are set; a new Aeon starts, Civilization advances in a forward onward march.
Ah, the crux - vanity. It's us versus them, and us is better.
Powerful men influence populations all the time. In the real world, achieving that power has no moral requirements.
I suggest you read George Reisman's Economics Treatise because Objectivism can't be evaluated without deep study.
I don't need to read the entire massive tome on economics, and the "Objectivist" bit can be evaluated just fine without deep study. Reisman is clearly a scientist, not a sociologist. To wit, here's how his plan starts:
[...] what we need is a group of educated and articulate individuals who adopt the achievement of capitalism as their goal. Such individuals, dedicated to maintaining constant progress toward capitalism, would constitute a de facto capitalist political party, even if the name of such a party never appeared on a ballot. By virtue of constantly offering their own definite program for political change, they would seize the political initiative.
Same basic misunderstanding of human nature - some people are inherently ubermensch, and therefore superior in all things, and "should" be the rulers. The world doesn't run on "should".
Edited by Autodidact (10/25/11 03:49 PM)
Edit Reason: typo
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Morgan, Mercury_Templar, Woland, Bacchae, Diavolo, Asmedious, Fist
|
|
