Ive read many philosophy boks in my time, but have found little out there are useful as the works of Ayn Rand.
Now, I know that immediately everyone will jump out and say that she is an insane, selfish capitalist.
Ive been doing alot of research and thinking and have come to this conclusion :

I believe that what Ayn rand preaches, (self-esteem, Self-worth, thinking capacity, and productive ability, that A=A) is excellent.

A=A, if A doesnt = A, then what the hell is the point of having philosophy? lets just let our thoughts go everywhere.
Everyone with half a brain must want a concrete idea of who is is, or at the very least, a code of morales.
Either dictated or by his free will.
Right now, I believe that since we have the free will of choosing our own morales and ethical values, its throwing people into a loop. One day people believe in one thing, the other day they believe in psychics?

I believe that what Ayn Rand preaches is brilliance. (with its limits of course)
What Rand is missing is simple..
True compassion, Caring, loving...helping others. She says this is a second hand pleasure.

BUT.. .
If you can have both pleasure, both through your own life, your mind, your accomplishments, your self esteem, then..... why not add the second hand pleasure as well????
whats the harm.

So lets look at that..

AYN RAND + DALAI LAMA

I believe that the combination of these two philosophers will give a solid base to anyone searching to live with reality, deal with reality, and love reality.
You are not worthless, this life is real, dont sell your ability short!
Youve been given this life, its the most precious gift you could have ever received. Put it to use.

Both philosophers preach the same.

Just to serve as a warning to everyone...

Kant, Hegel, plato,......... when dealing with philosophers who believe in the abstract, that what you see isnt what you really see, will lead you through a neverending loop of " what the hell is real? "
AVOID THEM.

Philosphy should be a tool to guide your life, your value, and your ethics.


Thank you for your time.


-Mark Manna

P.S I was reading a post earlier about the submissive slut arguement, thanks everyone for some great input. i loo forward to talking on these forums more often!

Wow Squashbuckler, there is little to disagree with in your post. There are some problems with Rand's philosophy i.e she could not fully appreciate society's demand for big business to moniter their behavior so as not to negatively impact nature. But even
Rand would admit to swallow her whole would be a sign of moral weakness...individuals don't need a sermon on how to live.

You wrote: "Kant, Hegel, plato,......... when dealing with philosophers who believe in the abstract, that what you see isnt what you really see, will lead you through a neverending loop of " what the hell is real? "
AVOID THEM. "

Well they do pass the time.

Now if we could only get fredx to understand this!

What Rand is missing is simple..
True compassion, Caring, loving...helping others. She says this is a second hand pleasure.

I don't entirely agree with this. From my reading, it would seem that it is her definition of what "helping others" is, or has become, that you would disagree with. She can seem somewhat uncaring from some perspectives, and perhaps she is, but I don't believe that she was uncaring in her philosophy, more that she despised "charity" in it's more common forms.

I might have to revisit.. it's been some time since I read her.

she could not fully appreciate society's demand for big business to moniter their behavior so as not to negatively impact nature.

I think we have to consider time periods when looking at this. Most of her most influential writing was done between the 30's and the 50's... was environmentalism a major concern or issue back then?

Not only that, but her writing was more concerned with individuals rather than big business. If you read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead" you'll find they're more concerned with people rather than companies. There is nothing there to indicate Henry Reardon was not concerned with environmental impact... it just wasn't a concern at that time. Moreover, her "heroes" were concerned with doing their jobs well and efficiently. Reardon's (as an example) focus was to bring profit to himself by creating the most benefit for the most amount of people. His "selfishness" resulted in humanity profiting from him... this was his purpose, his life. I find it difficult to imagine an uncaring attitude towards the environment when you understand his character.

I imagine Rand didn't really foresee the devolvement of business from the hands of individuals to the hands of corporations... or the multi-national conglomerates we're seeing today. I'm not even sure she would have entirely approved of the lessening of the importance of the individual in business, but that's my opinion.

To The Marquis:

I was mostly referring to a section of an interview I had read where she became indignant about government not allowing a major company to utilize certain lands which were being held for environmental reasons (sanctuary or a reserve I cannot remember.) Anyway she went on to say that it is the right of man to conquer the earth and mold it to his will and for his purposes.

Never saw that. In which case, I stand corrected.

Perhaps her characters were "more" than she was, not unlike Zarathusra and Nietzsche really. Or at least, my interpretation of a character like Reardon would suggest that.

To The Marquis:

I will look for the book which is not fiction (fountainhead or atlas shrugged) but rather a compilation of essays about rand and interviews with rand.

I will look for it tomorrow...it is nearly 4am here in NY

Greetings, fellow insomniac ;)

To The Marquis:

Okay I found it. The title is "It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand" by Jerome Tuccille. I read this quite some time ago but I remember it was quite humorus, anyway the interview took place during a television appearance and it was actually not a land/company issue but nature/technology, here's the excerpt from the book:

"Ayn Rand had something to offer on the issue of pollution...On Sunday afternoon in May 1971, she appeared before a nation-wide television audience and denounced the ecology movement for being anti-life, anti-man and anti-mind. Among other things she said it was a last ditch effort to destroy what remained of the capitalist system...

Her position on the technology issue went something like this:

All of you out there beyond the age of 29 should get down on your knees everytime you see a smokestack. It is the symbol of human achievement, without technology and pollution we would all still be living in the stone age. We are locked in a life and death struggle between nature and technology, between rocks and trees and the boundless genius of the human mind."

So yea I imagine this was the beginning of the environmental movement and its concerns. The chapter goes on to describe land and property debates within the libetarian movement and Objectivist philosophy which is where I mixed up public and private land in my mind with her interview

Thanks, I'll give it a read. If I can be bothered.

Ayn Rand is a selfish bitch, self-contradictory slut, run-away commie.:m: