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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting. There is some small truth to that. But to suggest that McDonald's is on a par with Rolex or Mercedes Benz is to significantly narrow the definition of "quality" to the point that it is stretched like a fun house mirror stretches an image. Yes, McDonald's has achieved a remarkable degree of quality control -- a hamburger in New York tastes almost exactly the same as a hamburger in Seattle. But that doesn't mean either hamburger is as good as one made at home by an expert cook.

... though a gourmet hamburger made by an expert cook wouldn't be as good at being a McDonald's hamburger in important respects.

If I had to pay $20 for a hamburger and wait half an hour for it, it would fail at being a "McDonald's hamburger" regardless of how good it tastes.

... but this is all getting really off-topic. How about that Ayn Rand?

 

[Reptillian]

I'd rather be drunk.

*sigh*

Its overrated, I've had too much to drink for the past couple nights due to peer pressure...plus I've had at least two beers a day for the last fortnight. I'm starting to put on a bit of weight since I can't exercise as much...(cold weather and short days) My brain needs some recovery time. I plan to not drink anything until my 30th birthday near the end of the month. Its time for more moderation in my drinking habits I think.

 

[linwood]

It strikes me as the sort of opinion a person might gain by sitting in a room by onesself, reading Marx and disagreeing with him. I don't see how a person could arrive at it by actually interacting with "the masses".

Really?

I interact with "The Masses" daily and truthfully I share Rands opinion to a great extent.

Perhaps it`s a geographical situation.

The people around me on a daily basis generally fit that quote quite well.

 

[Sunstone]

The people around me on a daily basis generally fit that quote quite well.

Look harder!

 

[Midnight Pete]

Really?

I interact with "The Masses" daily and truthfully I share Rands opinion to a great extent.

Perhaps it`s a geographical situation.

The people around me on a daily basis generally fit that quote quite well.

Ayn Rand = narcissistic sociopath

 

[linwood]

Look harder!

Are you telling me that ignorance and the eager acceptance of shallow vapid obviously untrue discourse doesn`t deeply infect my society?

I don`t know where to look for evidence of the opposite anymore.

Perhaps only an American could be dumb enough to think ayn Rand was smart enough to be called a philosopher.

You seem to be supporting my (and Rands) point.

For someone who gave plenty of lip service to reason and rationality, she didn't seem to put a lot of thought into her philosophy.

Agreed, well said.

Ayn Rand = narcissistic sociopath

Agreed but even narcissistic sociopaths can be right about some of the things some of the time.

Like I said, maybe my opinion is skewed due to my geographical location.
If so please forgive me, take a look at my states political bent and try to understand.

 

[Penumbra]

“What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it? What is the people but millions of puny, shrivelled, helpless soulsthat have no thoughts of their own, no dreams of their own, no will of their own, who eat and sleep and chew helplessly the words others put into their mildewed brains?…I know no worse injustice than justice for all.”

– Ayn Rand, first edition of the semi-autobiographical novel, We The Living

“The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains. “

–Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

I’ve been drinking tonight.

I notice when I drink, I (1) become immodest, and I (2) thoroughly enjoy becoming immodest.

Drinking makes me pretty stupid, though, not as stupid as Ayn Rand was.

So, without further introduction, let me assert that, perhaps, it would astonish Rand’s speed-addicted mind – I am certain it would astonish her slavish followers — that the stupidity of her opinion here is proven by the fact that someone as smart as me (I test at 141 IQ –which is marginal genius) can actually learn — a lot about life — from those less intelligent than me. For instance: I once learned a great deal about life from my bimbo ex-secretary. I learned a lot about love, acceptance, and understanding form her. Indeed, I have manged to learn a thing or two from Rand herself. And I fully expect that someday I will even learn a thing or two from one or more of her frickin’ ******* followers.

Rand is mere mind candy for high school sophomores, which is when I first read her.

Opinion courtesy of the New Belgium Brewing Company’s “Trippel Ale”. ”Good tasting drink for drunks with good taste.

wanna fight?

Yeah, those quotes of hers are pretty stupid, as were most of her views.

It's Saturday night. I've run out of beer and have switched to rum. You should know this. Maybe.

I like rum. What kind did you switch to?

 

[Revoltingest]

Seeing the vitriol heaped upon Rand & any sympathetic souls makes me reluctant to barge in on the ranting cyber sisters, but here it goes anyway.
Yes, she is an awkward & verbose writer. (Really.... 50+ pages for one soliloquy.) But she spoke to us. We, who slogged thru her interminable Atlas
Shrugged, grew up in a seemingly unquestioned statist environment which didn't favor the individual much.
- We were to ask what we can do for our country, rather than require that our gov't do its job for us.
- We had compulsory noon prayer in my public school.
- We were subject to a capricious draft into a misused military.
- Some were denied dominion over their own body.
- I was to accept a government employee at a state university refusing my job application cuz I'm the wrong race & gender.
Rand was the first voice we bumped into, who addressed our discomfort, & she favored upsetting the government's apple cart. We also discovered that
we weren't alone in our minority perspective & values. Sure, some of us created a bad image for ourselves by becoming annoyingly exuberant newbies,
much like that formerly fun drunk friend who now only drones on about being clean, instead of partying with us. Fortunately, that fades as we find our
political niche. (Ironically, many become Libertarian, a party she described as "monstrous".)

Philosophers are a sorry lot. They start with nothing (ie, invented premises) & then reason from there. They all reach conclusions which are no more "true"
than anyone else's. Rand is no exception, except for her own different perspective. Is she more "stupid" or misguided than any other philosopher? I think not.
Show me the one claiming access to inerrant universal truth, & I'll show you a charlatan.
Socialist, statist & other zealots may rail against our "stupidity". But they fail to appreciate that intelligence & reason are generally irrelevant to basic values,
which we get from genetics & environment. We don't arrive at them by reasoning from absolutely true premises, even those who mistakenly believe in such.
Woe unto the pious extremist who believes he is righteous, & that the other side is just low, dishonest, stupid & backward. To him I advise empathy. Try to
sincerely understand a contrary position & skip the insults. Oh, it would help to sober up too.

 

[Penumbra]

Seeing the vitriol heaped upon Rand & any sympathetic souls makes me reluctant to barge in on the ranting cyber sisters, but here it goes anyway.
Yes, she is an awkward & verbose writer. (Really.... 50+ pages for one soliloquy.) But she spoke to us. We, who slogged thru her interminable Atlas
Shrugged, grew up in a seemingly unquestioned statist environment which didn't favor the individual much.
- We were to ask what we can do for our country, rather than require that our gov't do its job for us.
- I had compulsory noon prayer in my public school.
- I was subject to a capricious draft into a misused military.
- Some were denied dominion over their own body.
- I was to accept a government employee at a state university refusing my job application cuz I'm the wrong race & gender.
Rand was the first voice we bumped into, who addressed our discomfort, & she favored upsetting the government's apple cart. We also discovered that
we weren't alone in our minority perspective & values. Sure, some of us created a bad image for ourselves by becoming annoyingly exuberant newbies,
much like that formerly fun drunk friend who now only drones on about being clean, instead of partying with us. Fortunately, that fades as we find our
political niche. (Ironically, many become Libertarian, a party she described as "monstrous".)

Philosophers are a sorry lot. They start with nothing (ie, invented premises) & then reason from there. They all reach conclusions which are no more "true"
than anyone else's. Rand is no exception, except for her own different perspective. Is she more "stupid" or misguided than any other philosopher? I think not.
Show me the one claiming access to inerrant universal truth, & I'll show you a charlatan.
Socialist, statist & other zealots may rail against our "stupidity". But they fail to appreciate that intelligence & reason are generally irrelevant to basic values,
which we get from genetics & environment. We don't arrive at them by reasoning from absolutely true premises, even those who mistakenly believe in such.
Woe unto the pious extremist who believes he is righteous, & that the other side is just low, dishonest, stupid & backward. To him I advise empathy. Try to
sincerely understand a contrary position & skip the insults. Oh, it would help to sober up too.

I liked her short book Anthem.

 

[Sunstone]

Seeing the vitriol heaped upon Rand & any sympathetic souls makes me reluctant to barge in on the ranting cyber sisters, but here it goes anyway.
Yes, she is an awkward & verbose writer. (Really.... 50+ pages for one soliloquy.) But she spoke to us. We, who slogged thru her interminable Atlas
Shrugged, grew up in a seemingly unquestioned statist environment which didn't favor the individual much.
- We were to ask what we can do for our country, rather than require that our gov't do its job for us.
- We had compulsory noon prayer in my public school.
- We were subject to a capricious draft into a misused military.
- Some were denied dominion over their own body.
- I was to accept a government employee at a state university refusing my job application cuz I'm the wrong race & gender.
Rand was the first voice we bumped into, who addressed our discomfort, & she favored upsetting the government's apple cart. We also discovered that
we weren't alone in our minority perspective & values. Sure, some of us created a bad image for ourselves by becoming annoyingly exuberant newbies,
much like that formerly fun drunk friend who now only drones on about being clean, instead of partying with us. Fortunately, that fades as we find our
political niche. (Ironically, many become Libertarian, a party she described as "monstrous".)

Philosophers are a sorry lot. They start with nothing (ie, invented premises) & then reason from there. They all reach conclusions which are no more "true"
than anyone else's. Rand is no exception, except for her own different perspective. Is she more "stupid" or misguided than any other philosopher? I think not.
Show me the one claiming access to inerrant universal truth, & I'll show you a charlatan.
Socialist, statist & other zealots may rail against our "stupidity". But they fail to appreciate that intelligence & reason are generally irrelevant to basic values,
which we get from genetics & environment. We don't arrive at them by reasoning from absolutely true premises, even those who mistakenly believe in such.
Woe unto the pious extremist who believes he is righteous, & that the other side is just low, dishonest, stupid & backward. To him I advise empathy. Try to
sincerely understand a contrary position & skip the insults. Oh, it would help to sober up too.

Jeebers! You could make a rancid McDonald's hamburger sound like gourmet food. Good luck eating it, though!

 

[Sunstone]

I like rum. What kind did you switch to?

Seagram's.

I'm never getting drunk again. I no longer enjoy it.

 

[Sunstone]

Are you telling me that ignorance and the eager acceptance of shallow vapid obviously untrue discourse doesn`t deeply infect my society?

I don`t know where to look for evidence of the opposite anymore.

The essential problem is that, when it comes to the value she places on people, Rand is little more than a reductionist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I liked her short book Anthem.

Atlas Shrugged was the only book of hers which I finished. (I just didn't get along with her writing style.)
I find Kurt Vonnegut a more enjoyable purveyor of libertarian values....although I have no idea if he would've accepted that label.

Jeebers! You could make a rancid McDonald's hamburger sound like gourmet food. Good luck eating it, though!

Libertarianism is like kimchee....rancid to some, and a delight to others. Tis all a matter of taste.
One ought not think that one's personal preferences rise to the level of a truth spoken by God Himself.

 

[dust1n]

Seeing the vitriol heaped upon Rand & any sympathetic souls makes me reluctant to barge in on the ranting cyber sisters, but here it goes anyway.
Yes, she is an awkward & verbose writer. (Really.... 50+ pages for one soliloquy.) But she spoke to us. We, who slogged thru her interminable Atlas
Shrugged, grew up in a seemingly unquestioned statist environment which didn't favor the individual much.
- We were to ask what we can do for our country, rather than require that our gov't do its job for us.
- We had compulsory noon prayer in my public school.
- We were subject to a capricious draft into a misused military.
- Some were denied dominion over their own body.
- I was to accept a government employee at a state university refusing my job application cuz I'm the wrong race & gender.
Rand was the first voice we bumped into, who addressed our discomfort, & she favored upsetting the government's apple cart. We also discovered that
we weren't alone in our minority perspective & values. Sure, some of us created a bad image for ourselves by becoming annoyingly exuberant newbies,
much like that formerly fun drunk friend who now only drones on about being clean, instead of partying with us. Fortunately, that fades as we find our
political niche. (Ironically, many become Libertarian, a party she described as "monstrous".)

Philosophers are a sorry lot. They start with nothing (ie, invented premises) & then reason from there. They all reach conclusions which are no more "true"
than anyone else's. Rand is no exception, except for her own different perspective. Is she more "stupid" or misguided than any other philosopher? I think not.
Show me the one claiming access to inerrant universal truth, & I'll show you a charlatan.
Socialist, statist & other zealots may rail against our "stupidity". But they fail to appreciate that intelligence & reason are generally irrelevant to basic values,
which we get from genetics & environment. We don't arrive at them by reasoning from absolutely true premises, even those who mistakenly believe in such.
Woe unto the pious extremist who believes he is righteous, & that the other side is just low, dishonest, stupid & backward. To him I advise empathy. Try to
sincerely understand a contrary position & skip the insults. Oh, it would help to sober up too.

Touching really, if there had not been like 300 other people to get the same idea's from.

"Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries." - Ayn Rand

Whooo... freedom?

"The materialistic. realistic, and collectivist conception of freedom, as opposed to the idealistic, is this: Man becomes conscious of himself and his humanity only in society and only by the collective action of the whole society. He frees himself from the yoke of external nature only by collective and social labor, which alone can transform the earth into an abode favorable to the development of humanity. Without such material emancipation the intellectual and moral emancipation of the individual is impossible. He can emancipate himself from the yoke of his own nature, i.e. subordinate his instincts and the movements of his body to the conscious direction of his mind, the development of which is fostered only by education and training. But education and training are preeminently and exclusively social ... hence the isolated individual cannot possibly become conscious of his freedom.

To be free ... means to be acknowledged and treated as such by all his fellowmen. The liberty of every individual is only the reflection of his own humanity, or his human right through the conscience of all free men, his brothers and his equals.

I can feel free only in the presence of and in relationship with other men. In the presence of an inferior species of animal I am neither free nor a man, because this animal is incapable of conceiving and consequently recognizing my humanity. I am not myself free or human until or unless I recognize the freedom and humanity of all my fellowmen.

Only in respecting their human character do I respect my own. ...

I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation." - Bakunin

Now we are talking about some freedom.

 

[dust1n]

Philosophers are a sorry lot. They start with nothing (ie, invented premises) & then reason from there. They all reach conclusions which are no more "true"
than anyone else's. Rand is no exception, except for her own different perspective. Is she more "stupid" or misguided than any other philosopher? I think not.
Show me the one claiming access to inerrant universal truth, & I'll show you a charlatan.

What if I show you the opposite?

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.

 

[dust1n]

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.

 

[Sunstone]

Libertarianism is like kimchee....rancid to some, and a delight to others. Tis all a matter of taste.

Why don't you try dealing with what's at issue here, Revoltingest? Why do you always get sidetracked? Why not say something relevant for once?

One ought not think that one's personal preferences rise to the level of a truth spoken by God Himself.

You, of all people, need to take your own advice -- at least now and then.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why don't you try dealing with what's at issue here, Revoltingest? Why do you always get sidetracked? Why not say something relevant for once?

I can't think of a diplomatic way to explain that you just don't get it. Is it the anger?

You, of all people, need to take your own advice -- at least now and then.

If you read my posts instead of merely fuming at them, you'd see that I never have truth, just haphazardly acquired values & insignificant opinions.
Well...I do know a few things about heat engines, engineering, landlording & wei chi. But about religion, truth, morals & meaning.....I don't know diddly.

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.

Such a comedian you are!

What if I show you the opposite?

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.

Touching really, if there had not been like 300 other people to get the same idea's from.

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

"Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries." - Ayn Rand

Whooo... freedom?

"The materialistic. realistic, and collectivist conception of freedom, as opposed to the idealistic, is this: Man becomes conscious of himself and his humanity only in society and only by the collective action of the whole society. He frees himself from the yoke of external nature only by collective and social labor, which alone can transform the earth into an abode favorable to the development of humanity. Without such material emancipation the intellectual and moral emancipation of the individual is impossible. He can emancipate himself from the yoke of his own nature, i.e. subordinate his instincts and the movements of his body to the conscious direction of his mind, the development of which is fostered only by education and training. But education and training are preeminently and exclusively social ... hence the isolated individual cannot possibly become conscious of his freedom.
To be free ... means to be acknowledged and treated as such by all his fellowmen. The liberty of every individual is only the reflection of his own humanity, or his human right through the conscience of all free men, his brothers and his equals.
I can feel free only in the presence of and in relationship with other men. In the presence of an inferior species of animal I am neither free nor a man, because this animal is incapable of conceiving and consequently recognizing my humanity. I am not myself free or human until or unless I recognize the freedom and humanity of all my fellowmen.
Only in respecting their human character do I respect my own. ...
I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation." - Bakunin
Now we are talking about some freedom.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries." - Ayn Rand

Whooo... freedom?

The big problem with this idea is that if "freedom" includes the freedom to infringe on the freedom of others, then none of the links in that chain are demonstrably true.

There are more threats to freedom than government.

 

[linwood]

Jeebers! You could make a rancid McDonald's hamburger sound like gourmet food. Good luck eating it, though!

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

Subjectivism to extreme.

What is the objective definition of "good"?

The essential problem is that, when it comes to the value she places on people, Rand is little more than a reductionist.

Granted, I am no fan of Rand.
I am however able to extract what little "truth" there is within a concept regardless of how confused it may be.