Red Flags ( Archived) (659)

That last made me laugh out loud. I think you know libertarians about as well as you know Ayn Rand (very, very passing familiarity). Libertarians, by and large, are about the least materialistic-oriented people you would ever meet. God, money-grubbing libertarians are about as rare as...well, female libertarians. You'd be vastly more likely, when encountering a libertarian, to hear a long philosophic analysis or discussion of some book on economics than find some rogue capitalist. And when you enter their usually very modest homes, you will probably find a large library of books, not a big fancy car or expensive stereo system.

Libertarians by and large are about ideas. Sure, in principle they support free markets, but are not likely at all to be hard-driven capitalists. There are some notable exceptions, but after having spent decades with these dudes, I think I can attest to the above with some degree of accuracy.

You've read Atlas Shrugged and seen a few interviews, eh? Well, I guess that makes you better qualified than some to offer an opinion on her ideas. Your attempted summation above seems more of a summation of what you've taken from her ideas than her ideas themselves. Rand didn't spend a lot of time - almost none, in my reading - on the validity of subjective ideas. Her writings took a rather narrow view of subjectivity; mainly, she was concerned with contrasting her objective epistemology with more subjective models. I don't believe she ever wrote anything exploring subjects that are reasonably subjective. She did, however, extend her "objectivity" into areas usually reserved for "subjectivity" - for example, music, when she declared that Beethoven's music portrayed a poor sense of life, and therefore was suspect or even inferior to music which expressed a better sense of life.

Rand was legendary for imposing her values on others - for treating her tastes as "objective standards" (even if she didn't offer a formal philosophic exegesis for them). For example, she would decry someone for not smoking since smoking was what rational, heroic people did (this was earlier in her life; later, she, I believe, rescinded that particular belief).

Not going to explain if you don't understand.

I think these exchanges might qualify as a CS record for posting off the thread topic (despite that happening all the time...rarely have I noted such an extreme departure!).

You guys are all confusing me about objectivity. I've had Atlas Shrugged in my library....yes, it is a library and not just a bookshelf.......for about 15 years. I never picked it up to read because it is quite thick. The only reason I saw the Ayn Rand video is because I was looking at another video and she was on the side so I thought, there she is, let me see what she says. She was being interviewed by the British journalist who interviewd Nixon and even though at times it was difficult to understand her dialect I did understand that she said objectivity and religion have nothing in common. That when you are objective you are being realistic. That's what I need in my life, to be realistic about situations.

Ambrose, True and Conrad are all deep thinkers that I respect but I'm not on your level of psychology or whatever you want to call it so I have to look at thinks more simply.

You don't sing the praises of the man you're copying from. it's basic common sense.

However there are differences. Nietzsche says material success creates intrinsic problems of its own(such as decadence), wealth and greed is not problem-free in Neitzsche's view. Whereas Rand paints a utopia based on changing Human nature and placing greed as a virtue - everyone pursuing self-interest solves the World's problems, apparently. In this vague sense of utopia, and in other respects, Rand is much like a Marxism for the priviliged.

Small penises