Page all of 2 12>
Topic Options
#40400 - 07/17/10 04:26 PM Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Very interesting Doug Henwood interview of Corey Robin this morning concerning Ayn Rand. Listen to/download it here; the CR segment is partway through, just after the segment on the Fugs.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#40409 - 07/17/10 10:26 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Draculesti Offline
Impaler
member


Registered: 09/18/07
Posts: 325
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 \:D
_________________________
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 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1146
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Draculesti
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!)
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41364 - 08/03/10 09:11 AM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: XiaoGui17]
SODOMIZER Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 61
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
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 Offline
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
#60333 - 10/21/11 12:59 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: BittenApple]
Gattamelata Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/23/10
Posts: 45
There is a reason that Rand is not taken seriously as a philosopher outside the circle of randian believers. And no, it is not because some conspiracy of the mediocre majority, but because her corpus is more of an ideological cult than it is an attempt at philosophy.

Even though ideologically opposed to marxism, her whole system of thought is quite similar to the dialectical marxists: a closed loop of axiomatic conclusions imitating science but foreign to the method of continual adjustment between the theoretical map and the empirical terrain.

I believe this is why randians tend to arrive at bizarre antiscientific positions. And why they sometimes demonstrate a rather cultish behaviour.

As for the ideology itself, I can see why her noble ideal of the triumphant individual appeals to the satanist, and much of her rhetoric in this vein is certainly inspiring. As is her critique of altruism, collectivism and hivemind idiocracy.

My main concern is however that her ideology is a mere idealism dressed up in neo-aristotelian garb, a human rights idealism disconnected from reality and therefore doomed to remain an utopian pipe dream.

You may very well object to the barbarism of the nietzschean ethos - but the flaw of Rand is that you can place a thousand idealist objectivists at one side of the pitch and they will still be defeated by one lone pragmatic Machiavelli.
_________________________
Society : an inferno of saviors. —Emil Cioran

Top
#60355 - 10/22/11 02:01 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: Gattamelata]
BittenApple Offline
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 Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: BittenApple
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 ...

 Originally Posted By: BittenApple
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 Offline
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
#60432 - 10/25/11 03:21 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: BittenApple]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I once fucked an Atlantean dry in the butt and didn't even say thank you afterwards. "But how's this possible?" he cried.

I smiled and told him: "Reason isn't everything mate".

Top
#60434 - 10/25/11 03:46 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: BittenApple]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
Same old Utopian claptrap, wrapped up in appeal-to-ego.

 Originally Posted By: BittenApple
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


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.

 Originally Posted By: BittenApple

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.

 Originally Posted By: BittenApple
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.

 Originally Posted By: BittenApple

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.

 Originally Posted By: BittenApple

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:

 Originally Posted By: Laissez Faire Capitalism - Reisman

[...] 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
#60435 - 10/25/11 05:50 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: Autodidact]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
It's indeed crap Auto. You can't at the one hand value rational self-interest while on the other talk about betrayal without juggling with some huge contradiction.

Objectivism is a matter of faith not reason since there is absolutely no indication this far reality and consciousness are separate. As an assumption yes there could be an ontological reality but it is purely an assumption because all goes through the filter of consciousness which implies anything following is again limited to this.

Humans are governed by Will to Power, as anything else that qualifies as life, and due to that, rational self-interest or reason are really not important which is evidenced quite nicely in all human affairs.

Top
#60440 - 10/25/11 08:00 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: Diavolo]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
Agreed. What I find particularly annoying is the grand, sweeping, pseudo-scientific Crowley-esque political stump speech type of justifications.


... hee hee, "fucked an Atlantean dry in the butt", that was funny ...
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60444 - 10/25/11 10:39 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: Autodidact]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand both as a novelist and a philosopher but she has those few but gaping problems with each. I've still yet to make it all the way through Atlas Shrugged because the middle section is just hundreds of pages of the same characters saying and doing the same things over and over and over. The Fountainhead on the other hand was quite a pleasure to read.

Philosophically she just wanted to believe that nature favored the creator so much that she refused too see the reality of the situation. As absolutely noble and admirable her idea of a stratified utopia is, it's just completely unrealistic and unsustainable.

Her heroic image of the noble industrialist who cares about nothing but his work - and is successful for this reason - is just plain fiction.
Antonio Meucci invented the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell got the money. Nikola Tesla invented radio broadcast, Guglielmo Marconi got the money. Steve Wozniak built Apple computers, Steve Jobs got the money. These are the biggest examples that I have off the top of my head that show how the market favors the smart thief and the strong brute more than the most productive creator.

That said I love Rand and the principals of objectivism to death. I can't say how pissed off I am at what a joke the Ayn Rand institute is. I was amazed when I saw some spokesman from that septic think tank on Glen Beck's show nodding and agreeing with everything he said. (PS, what the fuck is a think tank anyway? An unaccredited biased college? Or more realistically, people who say what they're paid to because they're seen as intelligent- intellectuals for hire. I think it's safe to make assumptions of how Rand would feel about that idea)


Edited by TV is God (10/25/11 10:42 PM)

Top
#60445 - 10/25/11 11:25 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: TV is God]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
What is most amusing about Rand is that this whole "objectivism" she developed was emotionally driven. She grew up being treated by her parents as a little princess, or as we call it; a spoiled little bitch. When her father lost his pharmacy and they had to flee, with all the niceties attached to this, it damaged her quite well.

Looking at her "objectivism" in this light, you see very little reason as the initial motivator in her own life.

Top
#60585 - 10/29/11 07:02 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: Diavolo]
BittenApple Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/12/11
Posts: 5
Well, I see the discussion here has growed a bit. But I think both of you are talking crap here. Autodidact:

Could you point to a single fact in scientific literature that negates the reasoning faculty on a healthy individual? Man has to exert this faculty or else face embarrassment and ultimate death.

While less advanced mammals have to adapt themselves to their environment, Man has to adapt the environment to himself, else we would be living in jungles today.


Definitely Man has this faculty that sets him appart from other animals, he has to decide to make use of it or face consequences. The desire of Right Hand Path followers and environmentalists to be "in communion with nature"
is ridiculous at our present stage of evolution.

This can be seen as "unnatural", but is the way it is. Do you use a computer, an automobile, a smartphone?

Dare to tell me that the individuals who created these artifacts were primitive, unconscious savages.


About:

"Powerful men influence populations all the time. In the real world, achieving that power has no moral requirements"


This one shows a lack of understanding of the Laws of Power. We are not talking here about banging-head wannabes wearing
Emperor T-shirts who dream of Conquest and Power while living on Mom's basement. We are talking REAL Power. Go ahead, try
to rise to Power by holding to the wrong moral standards and see how long you last. Even the Yakuza have their honor.

You fail to describe the values that make possible for a Steve Jobs or a Jack Welch to rise to Power and to grow in influence.


About:

"The World doesn't run on "should" "

"should" is the ideal that inspires our actions towards the goal. In this manner, it illuminates the way for the goals
to materialize. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America thought that Governments "should" be different,
Nicola Tesla thought that electricity generators"should" ignite the Lights of Civilization, Bill Gates thought that there "should" be a computer in every household. I think you are underestimating this point.


Diavolo, of course you mention the phenomenal and the noumenal worlds of Kant, who invented that fairy tale because he was
worried the people would abandon his precious religion, Christianism. Man cannot see reality because he has eyes, he
can't feel because he has senses, he can't think because he has mind. He with Hegel, the poisonous root of the now stale
doctrines of postmodernism, that led to Socialism, who miserably failed and is failing now, Look at Europe, you fool.

Would we have landed on the Moon had we had followed all this nonsense?

The phenomena/noumena distinction has long been supplanted by non-Cartesian, linguistic-communicative conceptions of
reasoning in which propositional limits are immanent to making sense/nonsense. As Schopenhauer points out in his "Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy", "noumena" are, in fact, nonsense.


You also fail to recognize that we already have the technology to overcome our human sense limitation. We do have spectrum
analyzers and a great variety of sensors that act a candle in the dark allowing us to perceive the electromagnetic spectrum beyond our human limitations. As technology advances we will be able to see more and more of this spectrum.

The limit of the electromagnetic spectrum is that of the Universe, and recent measurements with several probes had
estimated that the Universe is flat with a 0.5% marging for error, revealing an infinite nature. With a Universe of such
characteristics, what need do we have for a noumenal world? Just keep improving the sensors:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

This task alone will take forever, so we have here a great motivation for Humankind to survive. Transhumanism and
Immortalism will be the mediums used to become the next step on evolution, in order to achieve our Eternal Mission:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-beqpg2eaM

Top
#60589 - 10/29/11 08:11 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: BittenApple]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Fool?

You surely must be governed by reason.

I enjoyed your counter-argument, especially because you don't seem to realize that at no point you provided anything explaining why my opinion was wrong.

I say we perceive what we perceive because we compile it as such. You say; but fool, when we use binoculars we can look much farther.

Great but ain't we still looking through that shit?

Back to the drawing board my friend.

Top
#60594 - 10/29/11 08:42 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: BittenApple]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
While less advanced mammals have to adapt themselves to their environment, Man has to adapt the environment to himself, else we would be living in jungles today. Definitely Man has this faculty that sets him appart from other animals, he has to decide to make use of it or face consequences.


This is a false distinction. Some primates make tools. Other animals make nests, or build hives, dams and other structures. We are not fundamentally different from most other biota out there.

 Quote:
The desire of Right Hand Path followers and environmentalists to be "in communion with nature"
is ridiculous at our present stage of evolution.


How is it ridiculous? No matter how much we change, we will always be subject to some sort of natural law.

I guess it's the main reason I don't buy the whole "human progress" myth. Regardless of the era, affluent clans of men wage war and get more resources while poorer ones starve. The players and weapons change over time, but the basic game doesn't. All the technology we can imagine won't change human nature. Even if we somehow genetically engineer a couple of immortal humanoids in some lab in Switzerland, it won't make a difference for the billions of other humans on the planet.

"Evolution" simply means change; not necessarily for the better. I really don't see how there can be any sort of "Eternal Mission" or any idealistic dream like that.
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#70706 - 09/09/12 01:03 PM Re: Ayn Rand: Corey Robin KPFA Discussion [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Very interesting Doug Henwood interview of Corey Robin this morning concerning Ayn Rand. Listen to/download it here; the CR segment is partway through, just after the segment on the Fugs.


I read Atlas Shrugged (and virtually all) of Rand's non-fiction as an adolescent and young adult. This interview reminds me a bit of the biographies written by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. More to the point would be:

The Ayn Rand Cult

The heroic capitalist! It has a certain appeal to it. In Rand's worldview, it is somehow possible to separate economic and political power. In practice, this strikes me as an absurdity.

The dogma of Rand is almost stunning to read. She was also a lot more emotionally based than she may have admitted to herself. The expulsion of Nathaniel Branden is of particular note here. The heroes tend to be male. The Virtue of Selfishness is useful in some regards. Even here, she lacks the synthesis of say ... one who was trained and unequivocally rejected Soviet academia and dialectical materialism.

I do have a strong suspicion as to why you might post this MAA. Regardless, I found elements of the interview to be accurate. I would not align her with fascism, but the dogma of objectivism may remind you a bit of a current satanic organization? ;\)

Oh, the musings of my youth.

PS: To be fair: Chris Sciabarra presents the best case to the contrary


Edited by Le Deluge (09/09/12 01:18 PM)
Edit Reason: PS
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
Page all of 2 12>


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 32 queries. Zlib compression disabled.