Why Ayn Rand Seems to Me So Pathetically Stupid Even When I am Drunk

[linwood]

What if I show you the opposite?

Originally Posted by Albert Camus "The Myth of Sisyphus"
Of whom and of what indeed can I say: “I know that!” This
heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I
can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my
knowledge, and the rest is construction. For if I try to seize this self
of which I feel sure, if I try to define and to summarize it, it is
nothing but water slipping through my fingers. I can sketch one by
one all the aspects it is able to assume, all those likewise that have
been attributed to it, this upbringing, this origin, this ardor or these
silences, this nobility or this vileness. But aspects cannot be added
up. This very heart which is mine will forever remain indefinable
to me. Between the certainty I have of my existence and the
content I try to give to that assurance, the gap will never be filled.
Forever I shall be a stranger to myself. In psychology as in logic,
there are truths but no truth. Socrates’”Know thyself” has as much
value as the “Be virtuous” of our confessionals. They reveal a
nostalgia at the same time as an ignorance. They are sterile
exercises on great subjects. They are legitimate only in precisely so
far as they are approximate.

That`s good stuff!!

 

[dust1n]

Such a comedian you are!

My forte.

You quote a cheese eating surrender monkey to me, of all posters?
I don't see how your Camus quote relates to my post. His premises are still just his opinion.

Surrender? To what? Camus was active in the French resistance through WW2.

For whatever reason, she's the one who gets the job done. Perhaps Sunstone has publishing envy?

Don't know. But if he did, it would probably be similar to me envying Brittney Spears for her record deals.

Yeah, many people have much to say about freedom. We each pick the interpretation we like. Bakunin
doesn't suit me, since he favors a powerful central government to control us....a Borgtopia, as it were.
But I wouldn't call him "stupid" for thinking so very differently from me.

You might want to reconsider reading Bakunin some more. You must be getting him confused:

"The State is the organized authority, domination, and power of the possessing classes over the masses the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity. It shatters the universal solidarity of all men on the earth, and brings some of them into association only for the purpose of destroying, conquering, and enslaving all the rest. This flagrant negation of humanity which constitutes the very essence of the State is, from the standpoint of the State, its supreme duty and its greatest virtue Thus, to offend, to oppress, to despoil, to plunder, to assassinate or enslave one's fellowman is ordinarily regarded as a crime. In public life, on the other hand, from the standpoint of patriotism, when these things are done for the greater glory of the State, for the preservation or the extension of its power, it is all transformed into duty and virtue This explains why the entire history of ancient and modern states is merely a series of revolting crimes; why kings and ministers, past and present, of all times and all countries — statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats, and warriors — if judged from the standpoint of simply morality and human justice, have a hundred, a thousand times over earned their sentence to hard labor or to the gallows. There is no horror, no cruelty, sacrilege, or perjury, no imposture, no infamous transaction, no cynical robbery, no bold plunder or shabby betrayal that has not been or is not daily being perpetrated by the representatives of the states, under no other pretext than those elastic words, so convenient and yet so terrible: "for reasons of state."

 

[Revoltingest]

"The State is the organized authority, domination, and power of the possessing classes over the masses the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity. It shatters the universal solidarity of all men on the earth, and brings some of them into association only for the purpose of destroying, conquering, and enslaving all the rest. This flagrant negation of humanity which constitutes the very essence of the State is, from the standpoint of the State, its supreme duty and its greatest virtue Thus, to offend, to oppress, to despoil, to plunder, to assassinate or enslave one's fellowman is ordinarily regarded as a crime. In public life, on the other hand, from the standpoint of patriotism, when these things are done for the greater glory of the State, for the preservation or the extension of its power, it is all transformed into duty and virtue This explains why the entire history of ancient and modern states is merely a series of revolting crimes; why kings and ministers, past and present, of all times and all countries — statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats, and warriors — if judged from the standpoint of simply morality and human justice, have a hundred, a thousand times over earned their sentence to hard labor or to the gallows. There is no horror, no cruelty, sacrilege, or perjury, no imposture, no infamous transaction, no cynical robbery, no bold plunder or shabby betrayal that has not been or is not daily being perpetrated by the representatives of the states, under no other pretext than those elastic words, so convenient and yet so terrible: "for reasons of state."

I'm the one confused, eh? Actually, he struck me as conflicted. He rails against domination by the state, yet was a communist.
I'm not saying I've no common ground with the guy, but he falls short of inspiring me.

 

[dust1n]

I'm the one confused, eh? Actually, he struck me as conflicted. He rails against domination by the state, yet was a communist.
I'm not saying I've no common ground with the guy, but he falls short of inspiring me.

I don't understand where this is coming from? Bakunin was a staunch opponent to Marxism.

 

[Revoltingest]

He joined the Communist Party in 1935. Sure, he didn't get along too well with them, but it certainly isn't the party of liberty & small government.
That strikes me as conflicted.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Is it not obvious to anyone else that the only reason Ayn Rand got anything is because she wrote books that satisfied the rich and justified their terrible actions for so long? Does it not follow? Compliment rich people in exchange for 10 bucks a book, you will make a lot of cash.

Now that you mention it, yes. A narcisisstic sociopath writing for an audience of other nasrcisisstic sociopaths.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now that you mention it, yes. A narcisisstic sociopath writing for an audience of other nasrcisisstic sociopaths.

We narcissistic sociopaths hereby request that you spell "narcissistic" correctly.
Were I to call you a brain dead lemming for worshiping a Jewish zombie because
a book tells you to, I would give you the respect of spelling the words correctly.
After all, Rand fans, commies & fundies make the best of friends!

Perhaps we should brand ourselves as "Narciopaths". Narpaths?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm the one confused, eh? Actually, he struck me as conflicted. He rails against domination by the state, yet was a communist.

The rhetoric of communism is largely about freedom: "the workers control the means of production" and all that.

Communism as it was implemented in the Soviet Union certainly didn't meet this goal, but originally, the whole idea to take power from "the state" or the industrial establishment and give it to the people.

 

[Revoltingest]

The rhetoric of communism is largely about freedom: "the workers control the means of production" and all that.

Communism as it was implemented in the Soviet Union certainly didn't meet this goal, but originally, the whole idea to take power from "the state" or the industrial establishment and give it to the people.

I don't argue with their goals of empowering the people. I agree with my card carrying commie friends about that.
I just don't think communism is the best approach, since a centrally planned economy requires great control over people.

 

[Sunstone]

Define "Gourmet" and you`ll see how useless the descriptive actually is.

Subjectivism to extreme.

What is the objective definition of "good"?

Are you seriously suggesting that you, of all people, cannot tell the difference in quality between a McDonald's hamburger and a hamburger you make at home out of fresh, lean beef? Either your home cooking is the *****, Linwood, or you are simply pulling my leg. Which is it?

 

[Requia]

You're only considering the taste of the hamburger. There are a lot of other things to consider too, like the cost, the time it takes to make, etc.

 

[Troublemane]

You know Ayn Rand actually experimented with her ideas in relationships once. It went the way of most things,....once you involve other people, one's untarnished idealism tends to collapse, miserably.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

You know Ayn Rand actually experimented with her ideas in relationships once. It went the way of most things,....once you involve other people, one's untarnished idealism tends to collapse, miserably.

I wish my world view was as stable as hers must be.

eh...no, I don't.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wish my world view was as stable as hers must be.

eh...no, I don't.

You betcha!
She's very dead....a pretty stable & unenviable worldview.

 

[no-body]

You know Ayn Rand actually experimented with her ideas in relationships once. It went the way of most things,....once you involve other people, one's untarnished idealism tends to collapse, miserably.

Was that before or after the relationship she had with a serial killer?

 

[Sunstone]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves hobbits."

-- Author Unknown

 

[Revoltingest]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves hobbits."

Yeah....well my poetry is less atrociouser than yours. So there!

 

[Midnight Pete]

Was that before or after the relationship she had with a serial killer?

Ayn Rand dated a serial killer? Sounds about right. The only thing more terrifying than an Ayn Rand would be an Ayn Rand who kills people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ayn Rand dated a serial killer? Sounds about right. The only thing more terrifying than an Ayn Rand would be an Ayn Rand who kills people.

Worse yet....an Ayn Rand who got religion.
I shudder to think what she could've written.....
Atlas Prayed
The Virtue of Unselfishness
We The Giving

 

[Sunstone]

Ayn Rand dated a serial killer? Sounds about right. The only thing more terrifying than an Ayn Rand would be an Ayn Rand who kills people.

Actually, she never dated him. She just had a crush on him. Source:

So what, and who, was Ayn Rand for and against? The best way to get to the bottom of it is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten by Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"
​