Right Wing Movies & the 2012 Election

Yes, that is true. I'd say he's the same as Bill Gates. IOWs, he was clever and also lucky. There's nothing 'special' about Zuckerberg per say. What happens, I think, is when some people (like Zuckerberg) read a book like Atlas Shrugged they get an ego boost and think, hey, wait a minute, yes, I AM GREAT!!!

Did you know dopamine is as addictive as cocain?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Probably.

Initiation of force can be discussed outside of an economic context. Anyway, you could think of it as an ideal.

Suppose you write a regulation that requires a licence to practice dentistry, accounting, law, medicine or a million other things.

Maybe I wouldn't know for sure. But, I know a lot of relatively wealthy people and quite a bit think highly of themselves for their success.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

She was friends with Ludwig von Mises as an example.

You kind of veered off with the who 'wack objectivist'. Do YOU think apriori exist? What do you think of David Hume? Was he a wack? How about Galileo Galilei? To many, he was probably a wack. While I wouldn't put Ayn Rand into the same basket as Galileo, it does seem that those who dare to think outside the box are labeled as wacks.....

What's an 'Objectionist' anyway? What are the wacky ideas they hold?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To my knowledge, von Mise's work was primarily in economics; he only "dabbled" in philosophy. Regardless, a "friend" wasn't what I had in mind when requesting some names of philosophers who hold Rand in high regard.

As far as economists go, I'm sure there are more than a few who dig Rand--and I'm also sure that most of them don't know a whole lot about Kantian epistemology (or Quine, for that matter). And they most certainly haven't got a grasp of Kantian ethics!

That said, there are some economic works that do, in fact, reflect an understanding of such things and are fairly scientifically grounded to boot--though they're almost entirely antithetical to Randian economics. Try Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread and Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Pierre Proudhon's What is Property?, or--one of my favorites--Marshall Sahlin's Stone Age Economics.

First of all, the question would be more like this: Do I regard a priori knowledge as (possibly) valid or true? Absolutely.

But my point isn't that one who disagrees here is wack; rather, their "wackness" derives from the nature of their disagreement. Peikoff, for instance, had all the makings of an unthinking and wholly subservient lackey. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy ate flies. But more importantly, his (and Rand's) work is not terribly rigorous and neither is it reflective of any thorough understanding of the concepts they wish to elucidate, nor the antecedents from which they derive. It's very much like the wackos on this forum who are always trying to poke holes in some aspect or another of relativistic theory, when clearly they don't even understand that which they're trying to dismantle!

So: No, Hume was not wack. Not a huge fan of his--I'll take Berkeley over Hume any day--but he wasn't wack.

What you seem to be missing here is that my (and others') criticisms of Rand's philosophy have nothing to do with it's radical departure from "tradition" (I mean, seriously: I'm an anarchist who holds Deleuze in high regard and who vastly prefers Wittgenstein's post-Tractatus work), but rather more with it's sheer sloppiness and ineptitude.

Likewise, I've got nothing against so-called "popular" philosophy: Robert Pirsig is great, as is Derrick Jensen, Bob Black, Teddy Kacszinsky, et al, are great. But Rand is more like that dude who wrote Ishmael (of course, at least it's got some better ideas). In fact, like Plato, I regard dogs as the quintessential philosophers--the ultimate guardians of Truth.

And for the record: I do kinda like Rand's theories on aesthetics, but I don't like that she is sometimes compared with Max Stirner--that makes no sense!

I'm assuming you mean "Objectivist" here. Anyhow, it's never been entirely clear to me--but the first paragraph of the wiki entry is problematic:

Say whaa?!

 

And they go in for Objectivism?

I know plenty of successful people as well, and essentially none of them go in for that stuff. Almost all of them are, in fact, liberals - they got their success through extensive education which is correlated with liberal political views.

 

I pretty much devoured the bulk of Rand's fiction and non-fiction when I was 14/15, 'cuz I was really into Rush (of course). And I really dug it, for a month or three.

BUT, I was also really into Herman Hesse, Thomas Mann, and the like as well, which naturally led me to Nietzsche. And I was just getting into more "proper" (i.e., less cheesy and crassly commercial) prog as well, like Soft Machine, Henry Cow, Magma, Gong, etc., which in turn led me to Pynchon, Burroughs, various existentialists, and eventually Marx and other adversarial Young Hegelians (by way of Marcuse and Adorno, oddly enough). So....

The funny thing is, I specifically recall being utterly confounded by Rand's "interpretations" of Nietzsche, existentialism, and "collectivist thinking" (in various essays throughout Philosophy: Who Needs It? and The Virtue of Selfishness) at the time, and thinking to myself, "how is it that a 15 year old kid has a better grasp on this shit than an adult, and published author, no less?" I've undoubtedly a far better understanding now, than I did as an adolescent--so that says a lot.

In fact, I quite vividly recall one time reading the--admittedly over-the-top--lyrics to the final section of Henry Cow's "Living in the Heart of the Beast"--the Adorno Rockin' section (oxymoron intended)--over and over and over again, and trying to figure out how and why Rand's ideas on "rational selfishness" and capitalism ever appealed to me in the first place. After all, my mother was raising us on a single income (just slightly above the minimum wage) and had to continue working aginst the advice of her doctors (she has lupus), as s.s.d.i. wouldn't have been nearly sufficient. Escapism perhaps?

Anyways, adolescents aside, WHO goes for this stuff? In my adult life, I've hardly met any; and indirectly (i.e., "lurking" online) I only occassionally come across one of those rabid American Rush fans, who tend not to be a terribly discerning bunch (no offense intended), and who presumably overlooked those Neil Peart interviews in which he clearly states that he was only ever really drawn to the "individualist" stuff in Rand and had no interest in the capitalistic b.s. But otherwise...

The "rockin" section of "Living in the Heart of the Beast":

[video=youtube;zdCAz7sQo3g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1E417C260BCC3D89&v=zdCAz7sQo3g&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

 

Rand would have opposed Greenspan because Rand would have opposed speculation because speculators don't create anything and to boot they gamble with other peoples hard earned money. Rand would have opposed "bailouts" because it would have been a form of government welfare where you take from one to give to another through force. Rand would have opposed subsidies to large industries. Rand would have detested the unregulated greed because it was derived from fraud and not genuine business; defrauding money from pensioners wouldn't have been her style. Rand always insisted that the government was there to keep the "rule of law" in which case regulations that kept people from dealing fraudulently in an finances would have been just for her. What she meant by deregulation wasn't rich men using politicians to change policy to meet their own needs, she ranted against it in Atlas Shrugged, what she championed was a level playing field where the law get's out of the way of the industrious, the smart the strong and the able. Propping up a failing car industry would have seemed absurd to her, she would have said let it fail and make way for those who could actually be successful in that industry. Rand would have banks fail in favor of those financial institutions that acted responsibly. In fact if you pay attention to what she admired she would have found the men you mentioned without virtue. Rand didn't find her heroes in politicians nor speculators, she admired men of industry. If she were alive she would have adored someone like Steve Jobs for his innovation and creativity NOT the lot you mentioned. This is why I say she is being used by men (or a party) that are distorting her principles in the same way Nietzsche would have loathed the Nazi's.

 

You seem to be talking past the fact that Greenspan was a close personal associate of Rand and member of her inner circle of Objectivists. They were as tight as two pigs in a poke.

In all fairness, it is very much true that Rand portrayed businessmen who collude with politicians as the worst-of-the-worst of the "leech" class.

 

Ha! I wonder if you have the same feeling when Obama is cast as a card carrying radical for being associated with William Ayers. I know Greenspan went to her group meetings and he heavily supported her work but what I am saying is that her work is being distorted by the Republicans for their own use. Greenspan is the one who concedes error on regulation (or rather deregulation) and he didn't blame that error on Rand; it would be interesting to know if he felt he didn't strictly stick to the ideology. Rand would have supported regulation that protected the "rule of law" which she felt was the ONLY role of government, she supported deregulation yes but not the kind Greenspan encouraged, not the kind that led to fraud and bailouts and people running around being unaccountable.

 

bullshit rand supported the "successful (read as the powerful) to do what ever the fuck they wanted. hell she once painted a sociopathic serial killer as the hightest pinacle of morality.

 

Well I'll count you as one person who's NEVER read anything from Rand. I challenge you to go and find the text where she equates success as a lack of discernment and the sociopathic serial killer as the highest pinnacle of morality. I suggest you discuss something you know something about instead of spurting out nonsensical BULLSHIT. Rand definitely has her ideological flaws but those ain't on the list sunshine.

 

And you would be wrong read atlas shrugged

 

It's in Atlas Shrugged. The climax of the whole plot consists of Dagny Taggart murdering a terrified man in cold blood, as he cowers in fear. Shit, the entire book is about a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of America via a campaign of piracy and sabotage, in the hopes of instituting a radical political regime of their own devising.

 

Of course. As I pointed out, most of the public Rand acolytes would be villains in an Ayn Rand novel. And as I also pointed out, that does not place them outside of Rand's own "philosophical" world - any more than Rand herself was. She also confused agreement with her poorly informed or ill-considered opinions on things and alignment with her "philosophy" - if her acolytes share that basic and important feature of her personality and intellectual approach, they remain followers in good standing.

Obama is "associated" with William Ayers by political enemies only, on no relevant grounds, as a matter of dishonest political smearing by a couple of yahoos with national media privileges.

Rand is associated with Greenspan, Paul, et al, on the basis of multiple claims of philosophical and political and otherwise intellectual influence by Greenspan, Paul, et al, themselves; on the basis of repeatedly and easily drawn parallels in language and conceptual framework between Rand and Greenspan, Paul, et al, in published writings and transcripts; on the basis of multiple anecdote and retailed event by the friends as well as the enemies of Greenspan, Paul, et al; and so forth.

Deregulation, which Rand supported, does in fact lead directly to fraud and piracy and people running around being unaccountable. That is historical record - bankers and financiers are no more immune to human temptation or free of human foibles than the rest of us, and long cons or high-level financial crimes are just the kinds of deeds - of daring and skill and superior insight and belief in oneself - that the self-considered superior and "rational" man is often attracted to.

 

Don't forget the claims from Rand herself - she was quite tight with Greenspan, appears standing next to him in photos of his appointment to high economic office, etc. This idea that Rand "would have" disapproved of someone whom she emphatically, publicly, consistently approved of throughout their entire decades-long association is very strange.

Even if we trim the assertion down to "Rand would have disapproved of some decisions Greenspan took after her death," we still run up against the point that, as one of her leading avatars, Greenspan is himself about as credible an authority of what Rand would or would not have approved of as exists.

 

not what I was refering too

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html



this is what i was refrencing.

 

And what is her argument? I mean in your words what do you think is Ayn Rand's argument when she suggests' that a priori knowledge is not valid or true? How is her argument different from, say, David Hume whom you don't think is wacky.

I personally have no problem with wacky. If a person were to have a million wacky ideas an one novel good idea that was valid and meaningful - I'd say they lived a worthwhile life. Particularly compared against the vast press of humanity with little interest in thinking in the least.

Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic...

It seems this sentence is suggesting we have a subjective contact with an objective reality through sensory organs (retina for example). The cortex is primarily wired to deeper cerebral structures and the vast majority of 'traffic' is internal. It's thought that the brain takes in fragmented sensory data (at best) and then tries to create a 'reality' that suites it's past experiences. Thus, for the most part, most of our subjective experiences actually originate internally.

I wonder, would Rand say we "see" blue or we "experience" blue or we 'sense' blue or what? Is blue a color? A wavelength of light? An experience? Does it exist as a priori knowledge? Is it only a posteriori? Of course she'd say a posteriori - yes? What of 'is'? Does 'is' exist a priori?

I read Rand's Atlas Shrugged and thought of it as a fantasy novel. I'm kind of shocked people are so aghast and taken back. I'd hate to hear what they'd say of Koontz or King - even Stephen Donaldson starts out with a rape and his books were basic Fantasy. I really can't even remember the story that well and I have a hard time rereading stories I've previously read :S Even Game of Thrones... I loved the books so much that when the TV series started I wanted to go back and reread them and the best I could do was try and listen to the audio. And I read those books at a time when I had just moved to a different country, had no real friends to hang out with and no TV. Just happened to see his first book on sale (hard cover) for $3 and thought it looked thick enough to be worth the $3 I barely had on me....


That aside, what were your ideas about "capitalism" and "anarchy"?

 

Is the problem Rand or Rand's philosophical conclusions? I'm analyzing Greenspan et al with Rand's conclusions, not the woman herself. Pictures of Greenspan with Rand who went to her home meetings is not evidence that Rand approved of every decision Greenspan made in his career. Unless of course you have evidence towards your case. Greenspan has admitted personal error, he has never admitted error in terms of Rand's philosophy. You don't have a shred of evidence Greenspan lived his life completely according to Rand's philosophy anymore than you have evidence that a pedophile priest is living up to Christian ethics.

Can you go back and look at Greenspan's actions and show how they are all supported by Rand's beliefs? Some of them will be but some of them will not as they fall into that grey area where Rand would have noted:

"

Does the Fed produce anything? Wall Street? How is she defending in this quote, Wall Street or Main Street? Who are the men of "graft"? Wouldn't that be the corrupt financiers who gain their favor in Washington? Do you really really believe Rand would have been a fan of bloody Goldman Sachs? Lehman Brothers? Banksters and industrialists involved in government posts? REALLY? She hated that. She said in fact

Greenspan's deregulation allowed for graft at the expense of the rule of law. Greenspan's deregulation allowed for men to use their freedoms to not only violate others but use government as an instrument to do so. This has nothing to do with Rand's ideals or her philosophy. If Greenspan erred it was his to bear. The American people did not formally consent to deregulation. What was it that Brooksley Born was warning Clinton about anyway? She said it was a "dark market", not transparent in the least which means that anything in the dark cannot be consented towards. I don't see how you can say Rand supported this kind of fraud.

 

Ah no actually the premise is that the creators, innovators, inventors and industrialists decided NOT TO PARTICIPATE in the society any longer. They decided they wouldn't be leeched upon and that is what brought about the demise of the system. They didn't go about actively destroying the system, they just decided not to put their hands on the lever that kept the system functioning. In other words they didn't feel a "duty" to feed a corrupt, degraded society of dependence (so unlike a society of interdependence) their duty was to themselves not to make themselves a slave to others.

About Dagny's choices, You fail to mention that the armed guard (that terrified man) was a direct and immediate accomplice to an innocent man being tortured to death.

 

it assumes that those special people are irreplaceable..... their not