if you read her collection, The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (1971), she compare "hippies" to the comprachicos (Spanish for child-stealers), a group once known for kidnapping kids, physically deforming them over time, and selling them to sideshows. she thought that hippies believed too much in the power of the mind and spirit to shape the world, and therefore, their philosophy twisted the world with its anti-objectivist perspective just as the comprachicos mutilated children.

LegoLewdite

April 5th, 2009

8:56:09 AM CDT

(1)

not too inflammatory, huh? the problem with Ayn Rand is that her ethics are logically flawed. She believed in the virtue of Selfishness. She believed all acts to be self-motivated and all intentions to be self referential (the whole "well, Mother Theresa was only helping lepers because it made her feel good to do so argument). What's wrong with this is that it's not an either/or situation like she makes it out to be. You can both help others and feel good about it.

GaryGnu

October 23rd, 2010

1:22:44 AM CDT

(1)

I don't think she really ever makes it out to be an either/or statement like you claim.

madDogSoldier

January 29th, 2011

1:42:38 PM CST

(-1)

Selfishness is a virtue. If you yourself are not valuable, then why should anyone else be? What is the logic in thinking that another person is more important than yourself?

To deny selfishness is to argue against not only pleasure and fun, but also independent thinking, creativity and even basic survival. Selfishness is moral and justifiable.

Selflessness is to deny yourself and your needs and wants.

2 replies hidden

LegoLewdite

April 5th, 2009

9:00:48 AM CDT

(1)

Also, it comes from a very limited definition of self, imo. As Derrida said, "I am not the one, simply the one, was says 'I.'" Ayn Rand would have you believe in complete individualism, as though you were a brain in vat. Yeah, in this world where we have capitalism (and competition) for the poor and socialism (and incorporation) for the rich, well, g'd luck with that point of view.

madDogSoldier

January 29th, 2011

1:38:29 PM CST

(-2)

She had the actual definition of self, not some mystical collective "we" or some other fabricated nonsense. Brain in vat, strawman.

Your argument against Rand favoring individualism is no different from saying that Thomas Paine and John Locke were wrong for supporting democracy and liberty because most countries in his time had kings and emperors.

4 replies hidden

LegoLewdite

January 31st, 2011

12:09:31 PM CST

(2)

You are either misunderstanding me or intentionally misrepresenting me. I am not arguing against the concept of the individual, nor am I speaking holistically. Thomas Paine and John Locke did not, as Rand did, believe that the individual should be considered to the exclusion of all else. Rather, they wrote of the relationship between an individual and society. If you can't see the distinction, this conversation cannot progress...

madDogSoldier

February 9th, 2011

9:41:40 PM CST

(-1)

[i]"You are either misunderstanding me or intentionally misrepresenting me."[/i] Nope. You made a complete non-sequitor analogy of Ayn Rand's belief in invidualism with the words that you used 'brain in vat'. I simply asserted that it is a strawman. The reason being is that you are equating individualism with isolationism. If you read anything that Ayn Rand wrote, you would know that she proudly celebrated cooperation and interaction between people

[i]"I am not arguing against the concept of the individual"[/i] oh, I've heard that one before. That is usually followed by something like "but the rights of society take priority"

[i]"Thomas Paine and John Locke did not, as Rand did, believe that the individual should be considered to the exclusion of all else. Rather, they wrote of the relationship between an individual and society."[/i] That's nice. The only thing you have done here is assert that Paine and Locke have differining views on the individual from Rand. Which is likely correct, but unimportant. In other words, your assertion does nothing to disprove the validity of individualism as an axiom (unless you count appeals to authority).

[i]"If you can't see the distinction, this conversation cannot progress"[/i]

Distinction between what and what? Between the philosophies of the enlightenment era philosophers vs. that of Ayn Rand or did you mean the distinction between the individual and society?

LegoLewdite

January 31st, 2011

12:12:14 PM CST

(2)

The "brain in a vat" line was a Descartes reference by the way. And I said "as though you were" in an effort to make an analogy and to tease out the implications of Rand, not to quote her party line...

madDogSoldier

February 9th, 2011

9:44:19 PM CST

(-1)

I have heard of that line before, thanks. It is a strawman because the idea has nothing in common with Rand's justification for individual liberty and the ego. Maybe you should work with her actual arguments and claims instead: http://marsexxx.com/ycnex/Ayn_Rand-The_Virtue_of_Selfishness.pdf

madDogSoldier

January 29th, 2011

1:43:41 PM CST

(-2)

mcearlgrey = typical dim bulb conservative who thinks that everyone who does not agree with them is a flaming leftist.

madDogSoldier

January 29th, 2011

1:35:07 PM CST

(-1)

5 for Rand, rather than site quality. Although I think that a site that deserves a 5 for both is [site altruism:site]

AynRand

February 3rd, 2011

11:32:33 PM CST

(-2)

I approve :)