I don’t have a wife, but if I did, "I hope she'd be a fool -- that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool."
Chomsky vs Ayn Rand ?
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
I don’t have a wife, but if I did, "I hope she'd be a fool -- that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool."
Oh, now. I'm not sure you're playing fair.
It's actually occurred to me that Rand's "philosophy" was inherently based upon her own moral standpoint, and, as a result, tended to shift and waver as that morality shifted and wavered. It's evident from some interviews she did in later life that she was consciously unsure of herself (I got the impression of fear, from one or two), but clinging desperately nonetheless to the something which defined her as a person - as people tend to do as they get older.
The statement "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" effectively says nothing, because it relies completely upon the moral standpoint of the interpreter - and once you understand that that moral standpoint is largely based upon ones own fiscal situation, or rather in the western world one's interpretation of it (let's not go into another pet hate of mine just now), it becomes more clear.
Which makes Dinosaur's reference above all the more interesting. I'm not certain how to interpret it, given there is more than one interpretation that comes to mind. First and foremost, however, it simply becomes a rallying cry for those who need, and a point to despise for those who have ability.
I think that Rand may have despised it not necessarily because she had "ability" herself, but knew and admired those who did. As I do.
The dichotomy in interpretation comes from knowing that while those with ability might be greedy, so are those who would seek to benefit from them.
People like electricfetus and iceaura appear to have a tendency to think in terms of the "noble poor" and the "fat cats". While they may deny it, those images form a primary part of their political and economic viewpoint.
I can read Steinbeck and think the same way. And then I'll read Rand.
There is no reason to despise either.
I think that the reason I come down so hard upon the anti-Rand brigade is that, given the examples presented here, they aren't even aware that their point of view can be so obnoxious to those who can understand Rand while still able to pay respect to Steinbeck. And, for me, there's that cognitive dissonance that Trooper mentioned.
The statement "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" effectively says nothing, because it relies completely upon the moral standpoint of the interpreter - and once you understand that that moral standpoint is largely based upon ones own fiscal situation, or rather in the western world one's interpretation of it (let's not go into another pet hate of mine just now), it becomes more clear.
Which makes Dinosaur's reference above all the more interesting. I'm not certain how to interpret it, given there is more than one interpretation that comes to mind. First and foremost, however, it simply becomes a rallying cry for those who need, and a point to despise for those who have ability.
I think that Rand may have despised it not necessarily because she had "ability" herself, but knew and admired those who did. As I do.
The dichotomy in interpretation comes from knowing that while those with ability might be greedy, so are those who would seek to benefit from them.
People like electricfetus and iceaura appear to have a tendency to think in terms of the "noble poor" and the "fat cats". While they may deny it, those images form a primary part of their political and economic viewpoint.
I can read Steinbeck and think the same way. And then I'll read Rand.
There is no reason to despise either.
I think that the reason I come down so hard upon the anti-Rand brigade is that, given the examples presented here, they aren't even aware that their point of view can be so obnoxious to those who can understand Rand while still able to pay respect to Steinbeck. And, for me, there's that cognitive dissonance that Trooper mentioned.
Death: Your child or hers?
Hers.
Death: Your child or ten.
Ten.
Death: Your child or fifty.
*Hesitates* Fifty.
Death: Your child or one hundred.
Who are they, the hundred?
Death: Your child or you?
Me.
Death: You will die for your child. Will you take a life for your child?
No, I cannot.
Reflecting neurons; what do they tell you about yourself? What can you justify? What can you live with? What do you hate, poverty or poor people?
Idiot compassion and self-deception; it’s a bitch, isn’t it?
Thoreau thought that philanthropy was overrated, as well, and adds that, ‘it is our selfishness which overrates it’. And like Thoreau, Steinbeck writes as a visionary, soliloquizing, and self-reflecting for the whole.
The whole; (unity vs. individualism), it’s sort of an oxymoronic desire, eh?
Allen Wheelis…Now, he was sexy.
Strange, isn't it, how we travel in time like the crest of a wave, always in pursuit of a future just beyond the grasp of the present?
"The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
Tell me, Marquis, what Nietzsche meant by “I love you for not knowing how to live today.”
Hers.
Death: Your child or ten.
Ten.
Death: Your child or fifty.
*Hesitates* Fifty.
Death: Your child or one hundred.
Who are they, the hundred?
Death: Your child or you?
Me.
Death: You will die for your child. Will you take a life for your child?
No, I cannot.
Reflecting neurons; what do they tell you about yourself? What can you justify? What can you live with? What do you hate, poverty or poor people?
Idiot compassion and self-deception; it’s a bitch, isn’t it?
Thoreau thought that philanthropy was overrated, as well, and adds that, ‘it is our selfishness which overrates it’. And like Thoreau, Steinbeck writes as a visionary, soliloquizing, and self-reflecting for the whole.
The whole; (unity vs. individualism), it’s sort of an oxymoronic desire, eh?
Allen Wheelis…Now, he was sexy.
Strange, isn't it, how we travel in time like the crest of a wave, always in pursuit of a future just beyond the grasp of the present?
"The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
Tell me, Marquis, what Nietzsche meant by “I love you for not knowing how to live today.”
Perhaps your not doing it is directly proportional to the freckled ball growing out of your torso.
At any rate, ahem, SMOOCH.
Iceaura:
Slightly off topic but there’s no way something like that up there gets by unscathed, so answer:
given what’s essentially protectionism of private wealth, the social engineering by government via taxes, loop holes, subsidies, the deliberate weakening of currency, the successful lobbying and outright advocacy of Business as Person with the same rights your mother has when she goes to the polls, from what recess of your interminable colon did you pull that bullshit from?
Say it with me, you hippies are used to chanting: “Laissez faire does not mean corporate welfare. Laissez faire does not mean corporate welfare”
ON TO OUR FAVORITE BOSTON TERRIER, AYN RAND:
Enmos:
No, she was addicted to amphetamines and was a heavy, heavy smoker.
There are scores of you attributing her tick to insecurity or hate when actually knowing anything about the woman would answer it for you.
To wit, some of you even speculate on the paranoia of her later years as though it were the first blush of senility staining an otherwise rational little philosopher scribbling about bromides...... when in fact she was a pampered, volatile, domineering hysteric from the time she was born.
Hence the irony that more voluptuous readers have enjoyed since Obama took office: that a short little atheist who was as misogynist as she was a whore has been brought to you nice and pruned of its ugly feathers on a silvered platter for your personal consumption...……by a dump of Christian hics who can barely read Twilight.
It gives us people like ElectricFetus, that little neckbreather that hasn’t read a single thing the woman wrote yet has structured an argument using what one Christian faggot said another Christian faggot said that Rand said.
Case in point:
Smashing!!
Because, Mr. Electric Fetus, did you know that in her world man’s relation to man is an investment?
In other words, in Rand's world, the “fuck everyone else” part of your dribble up there is the equivalent of buying a hundred shares of corn and then leveraging out all the industries to grow it because you’re too greedy to reason you need them.
In other words, adopting a pose of fucking everybody else is antithetic to a rational expectation of profit.
In other smaller, more Facebook friendly tiny words for your fucking slurping, greed is dumb.
There is a problem with a morality that impregnates humanity and births people like you and Chomsky, people so far removed from the chaos of poverty they can afford to glamorize the mud that it grows in.
You know, slumming
(Don’t tell me you don’t, ‘cause you do.)
There is something wicked in a moral code that would redact its respect for Jimmy Hendrix the moment Jimmy acknowledged being the greatest guitarist alive.
Sound familiar?
Never mind that acknowledging it has not changed his ability to finger “Purple Haze”, no , suddenly he’s an egotistical bitch not worth listening to when all he’s done is acknowledged what you just told him.
I know why. Do you?
Bloody hypocrite.
Pot shot to the Marquis:
It’s spelled Rearden.
And I bet you the little cowlick won’t answer me.
Fuck us both, huh?
Dinosaur:
Yeah, and you know what they did with it? Wiped their asshole.
Hence the tradition of referring to the Sears catalog as toilet paper.
You’re being a romantic, like the fetus up there with the Chomskyes and the Hartmans and the Rosseaus—just because it was in the catalog did not mean an Okie had a grand piano by the hearth.
Trooper:
Transcendence.
And the envy every young tyke feels in their floundering through Nietzsche as he did when he wrote it (I know I did). Only the rare survive the malice of being mothered and he didn’t and, to some extent, neither have I.
Which brings me to:
Yes, she is.
And the stupid whore loves wearing heels as it keeps her skirts clean when she’s shitting all over you.
Last edited:
And yet everyone who has been around long enough knows the importance of saving themselves from those who want to save them.
Or, to quote Oscar Wilde - 'Philanthropic people lose all sense of humanity. It is their distinguishing characteristic.'
And yet anyone who has ever managed to acomplish anything in their lives, is keeping to that kind of philosophy.
It's just not PC to spell it out, that's all.
Some people just don't like Rand because she said what so many others - including the anti-Rand brigade - think but don't think it's appropriate to say.
At some point, this hypocrisy becomes tedious to watch ...
Last edited:
Oh, but you're not loved by Jay, not even remotely.
Wynn:
That book needs pictures, an Amazon discount when you buy 3 lbs of Gouda no shipping and handling, free tickets to Talyor Swift, and a thin spine because everyone knows that means less than 10 pages.
What do you mean 'everyone knows'? Fetus doesn't.
If only.
That book needs pictures, an Amazon discount when you buy 3 lbs of Gouda no shipping and handling, free tickets to Talyor Swift, and a thin spine because everyone knows that means less than 10 pages.
What do you mean 'everyone knows'? Fetus doesn't.
Everyone who has been around long enough knows it.
(I added to that post, did you see?)
And yet even the Dalai Lama promotes it, so it shouldn't be a foreign idea, nor foreign to see it in others who speak favorably of selfishness -
Selfishness is good – if it is wise selfishness.
http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2013/10/dalai_lama_helping_others_is_w.html
I often joke that if you really want to be selfish, you should be very altruistic! You should take good care of others, be concerned for their welfare, help them, serve them, make more friends, make more smiles, The result? When you yourself need help, you find plenty of helpers! If, on the other hand, you neglect the happiness of others, in the long term you will be the loser. And is friendship produced through quarrels and anger, jealousy and intense competitiveness? I do not think so. Only affection brings us genuine close friends.
http://www.dalailama.com/messages/compassion
“It is important that when pursing our own self-interest we should be “wise selfish” and not “foolish selfish”. Being foolish selfish means pursuing our own interests in a narrow, shortsighted way. Being wise selfish means taking a broader view and recognizing that our own long-term individual interest lies in the welfare of everyone. Being wise selfish means being compassionate.”
http://www.goyourownway.org/GOYOUROWNWAY/DOCUMENTS/QUOTES/Quotes of The Dalai Lama.pdf
It's one of the first scholarly works that dares to acknowledge that there is a dark side to the drive for altruism.
There's plenty on it online, e.g. Violence of the lambs, here, Concepts and implications of altruism bias and pathological altruism.
Its..very difficult getting used to the new foramat, patience.
And, in my mental obesity, I'd forgotten this PERFECT clipping of Wilde's:
Cold-blooded kindness.
Like Rand's Catherine, a sweet little reptile helping the poor.
There was an evil cynicism coiled inside Mother Teresa-- you could hear it hiss when she described the poor's suffering as 'beautiful'.
Her poor were given prayers and opiates, but did you know that she was treated at the best hospitals? Paid for by the pope?
When was it published? Just read in conjunction with some article about a Doctor's fanaticism to help a patient that he eventually killed him. Written in 2011, so I'm guessing this book is just as recent.
And, in my mental obesity, I'd forgotten this PERFECT clipping of Wilde's:
Cold-blooded kindness.
Like Rand's Catherine, a sweet little reptile helping the poor.
There was an evil cynicism coiled inside Mother Teresa-- you could hear it hiss when she described the poor's suffering as 'beautiful'.
Her poor were given prayers and opiates, but did you know that she was treated at the best hospitals? Paid for by the pope?
It links to some of the most delicious titles as well.
When was it published? Just read in conjunction with some article about a Doctor's fanaticism to help a patient that he eventually killed him. Written in 2011, so I'm guessing this book is just as recent.
Yeah because not like Bill Gates has not given $28 billions to charity. Heck its not like one can find a list of rich philanthropists.
How does one 'get rich' in a free-market while at the same time 'fucking everyone else'?
Yes, that remains to be explained by the anti-Randites ...
That explains why she eventually began to doubt whether God exists or not.
As an aside - Bertolt Brecht, so big on the rights of workers and all that - wore shirts tailored the same way as those of workers -- except that his were made of silk.
I figured you'd like it.
Yes, it's recent.
wynn said:
No, but maybe by James, (the only way he knew how.)
gendanken said:
Hmm…will to nothingness? Are you sure about that?
What about women, gendanken? What were his views on women? Why does he use an old woman to express them? What sort of men does she say that women hate? And the whip, have you floundered through the whip?
His sister wrote: "How did it come about that my brother is generally considered a misogynist?"
You know that's a poor consolation.
Solitude is a social thing: to work out in regard to whom one is alone.
Many people are alone in regard to people who don't care whether they (ie. the alone) live or die, this is why for many people, solitude has an icy breath.