<p>Well, her affair with Nathaniel Branden wasn’t meant to be sketchy. Her husband and his wife knew it, while it was happening. Marriage is simply a contract, and either no where on this contract said “You can’t sleep with someone else’s spouse” or both sides consented and changed this contract. I don’t think she was acting contrary to her philosophy at all. (Then Branden defected, and it was all over.)</p>
<p>Many say her books are more parables than realistic fiction, which is true. Her fictional protagonists represent her ideals.</p>
<p>SHE CONSIDERED errors to be “evil.” Errors can be just human mistakes. Not everyone will make the right, <em>objective</em> decision right away. SHE DIDN’T EVEN. To just call other views irrational or evil without discussion is intolerant and stubborn.</p>
I never said it was. I merely said the main purpose of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead is to produce fiction, or works of art. But in order to create art, ideals must be defined. Thus, promoting philosophy is a consequence of her fiction and only a secondary purpose.</p>
<p>Chocolate, away from Rand a bit - i’m sorry to hear how you feel about Wuthering Heights. I LOVED it, absolutely! There are other classics made me feel how you feel about this one, but I certainly loved this book. (Like Ayn Rand, I do not care for Charles Dickens. She went to extremely with him, that’s just her character.)</p>
<p>Not sure I agree. Yes, obviously she wrote fiction…to write fiction. But in those fictions, she believed in using concretes to explain abstracts. That was the primary purpose of her fiction. The abstract was Objectivism, the concrete was John Galt, Howard Roark, and so on. So I still say her primary objective in fiction was explaining her abstract philosophy using concretes—it was not simply a consequence, which is more in order with the Naturalistic school of writing than her school of writing, Romanticism.</p>
No, she considered errors to be misinformed. If one has all the evidence for a certain course of action and one does something else, then that is evil. But notice that to make that decision, one must be aware that he is evading reality, and consequently his decision is not an error. On the other hand, if one does not have all the evidence and he chooses the wrong path by analyzing the little that he does know and makes an objectively correct decision based on this, then it is an error.</p>
<p>In hindsight, that was somewhat convoluted.</p>
<p>@ChocolateBanana:
What you say makes sense, but:
If her primary objective in creating fiction is to explain her philosophy using concretes, then she would have sat down at the typewriter with the intent of writing about her philosophy. Her story would have spiraled out of this, and every part of her novel would exist because it furthers its purpose. Yet the purpose of fiction, as she defined it and as I put simply, is to tell an interesting story. Creating fiction that the main purpose of which is not to tell a story but to write about philosophy is contradictory.
(Also, Leonard Piekoff, I think, spoke of her writing fiction for fiction’s sake in one of his Objectivist podcasts.)</p>
<p>^^^I just hope the other Bronte sisters are better. Haha. I’m on a mission to read every classic book…wondering if I will have time though. I’ve really been slacking on my (personal) reading this semester, unfortunately.</p>
<p>^^But she failed to consider other ideas other than her own. Her philosophy was a closed system, which I see as a problem. Plus, her objective standards aren’t right. She would automatically deem dissenting opinions EVIL without examining them. There is a difference between (her sometimes right, sometimes wrong point of view of) wrong and evil. She was contradictory in that her philosophy is supposed to promote individualism and yet she was one of the most restrictive people–read up on her cult a little (if you haven’t) and you will see what I mean.</p>
<p>@theReach: Well then, all my suspicions have been proven. (Notice that you don’t address any of my points and would rather use the ad hominem again.) It’s futile debating to an obstinate five year old about philosophy. If you make your way to the Lost and Found I’m sure you would find your mother.</p>
<p>@ChocolateBanana</p>
<p>I disagree: Philosophies are disjoint, meaning that if one has one philosophy one cannot have another (due to contradictory tenets, that multiple philosophies may never be completely satisfied). That she did consider any other philosophy cannot be supported by her solid stance on Objectivism; she was adamantly against Kant, for example, and this implies that she has considered Kant’s philosophies (categorical imperatives, the morality of duty, etc.) and rejected them because of her conclusions. She calls Kant evil, yes - but she has reasons for doing so (and has written about her reasons in some of her nonfiction works).</p>
<p>If Ayn Rand were alive today she would be very much against a “cultist” Objectivist following. She had high standards for her friends and the people she interacted with, in that they had to truly understand the logical and objective basis behind her philosophy instead of accepting her standards as true simply because she said it.</p>
<p>And yes, I know she is against Kant—and has reason for it.</p>
<p>But, I think (one Objectivist, David Kelley holds the same viewpoint, while Leonard Peikoff does not) that one must hold the basic tenets of a philosophy (you agree with that part), but when it comes down to specifics, people CAN change opinions. I don’t mean a drastic change, but I think it shows Rand’s lack of knowledge of developmental psychology in that she doesn’t expect people to evolve–to change. Basics should stay the same. Specifics can change, though, as long as it still fits with basic tenets. </p>
<p>I think she sort of subconsciously did mean to create her cult, although not at first. I haven’t read enough into it (I must admit this…) but from what I read it sounded like she manipulated her followers to be at her beck and call—to automatically agree with almost anything she said. Many former members have talked about how straining their relationship with Rand was (yes, Nathaniel Branden–so it could be <em>part</em> bitterness) and how much better they felt outside the cult/religion/circle.</p>
<p>I think Rand was self-righteous and intolerant and would not consider views not her own. She even states herself her views hadn’t change since she was, like, 12 (seriously–I’m reading a biography on her right now, actually).</p>
<p>P.S. I love the Humanities. I…respect math and I suppose I’m alright, but I like the humanities much more. Everyone should enjoy it though…if you don’t, it’s like you don’t appreciate culture haha.</p>
<p>Let’s criticize people for using ad hominem by using ad hominem, shall we? Typical disregard for logic by morons like you right of the center. Here, I’ll respond to your “points”:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I accept your point that captains of industry were somewhat righteous capitalists. However, your usage of a quote that can be applied to you as well is laughable. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reagan was the main reason behind the last recession. Deregulation of the banks caused the bubble collapse. He also tripled the national debt. Andrew Carnegie was a good captain of industry. Greatest philanthropist that ever lived…no, what world do you live in? </p>
<p>Capitalism is a good concept in theory, just as communism is, which you rabidly hate because your parents probably ran from Communist China/Vietnam. Unfortunately, they both lead to disproportion of power due to greed.</p>
<p>When I discuss politics with friends, I’m always half joking. So I always say “go pray to Ronald Reagan” or stuff like that. Bad habit when I’m trying to make a valid point, I guess.</p>
<p>her philosophy seems appealing to certain situations, but it just doesnt work in some situations. although she is right when it comes to economics</p>
<p>Excuse me for a moment, Chocolate. I’ll be back.</p>
<p>
Of course. One can’t fight fair with someone who doesn’t.</p>
<p>
No it can’t be applied to me. I have no reason to submit a rebuttal to nothing. It would be a waste of my time. Just putting that out there.</p>
<p>
Deregulation did not cause the bubble collapse. You’re saying that the no one is worthy enough to head a private bank and hence must surrender all rights to the government. The bubble collapse was caused by bad decisions made by some people, but the argument you’re making is like arguing that it is the murderer’s mother’s fault for bringing a murderer into the world.
There is little, if any, that suggests that such a recession would not have hit had the banks been centralized. (Look at the Winter of Discontent in Britain and the ousting of the Labour Party; centralization is far from guaranteeing economic success.) Read Adam Smith.
I’ll give you that point, but also under Reagan, unemployment rates dropped, and GDP growth recovered, rising approximately 3% per year.</p>
<p>
What does the ‘which’ refer to?
If capitalism: You do realize that I support Ayn Rand and Libertarianism, right? Both philosophies have capitalism as one of their main tenets.
And I live in the US - by the way.
If communism: Yes, I do “rabidly hate” communism, but not because of the reason you gave. I hate it because it is immoral, because it takes resources from those who have earned them and reallocated them to those who have not. When I was younger I used to believe that [Marxist] communism was good in theory, but it is neither workable nor desirable.</p>
<p>
Then you are one of those non-absolutes? What do you support then? (No really. I’m honestly curious.)</p>