Need help with a Ayn Ran hater and the true facts about her..
Posted by TrueLiberty 10 years, 1 month ago to Politics
I am more familiar with her philosophy then I am her entire background so any information to combat this person would be greatly appreciated. Or head on down to the forum and straighten out this person yourself.
Will be going to the Oviedo, Florida theater to see Atlas Shrugged tomorrow if anyone lives in this area. Was hoping to have my special edition shirt to where when I invested in the movie but I doubt it will be here by today.
Maybe now you're starting to see what some political theorists and philosophers proposed, when they suspected that most of Ayn Rand's objectivist theory was just an inversion of social with individual, and worker with capital. If Rand came along first, it could be said that she had an original theory and Marx copied her. But instead, she came along decades after Das Kapital and his theorizing on setting up communism, had already been done. That, and the fact that libertarian economists claimed some of her writings stole from stuff they had already written previously, and there's not a lot of substance to it.
What is fascinating though, is that like any large organized religion, the Rand Collective has re-interpreted and refined some of her dogmas that don't make a whole lot of sense. So, real economists have gone to work making a few added touches to her economic and political theory. But, starting with her notions on metaphysics....the foundation of her dogmas, she wrote without any realization that her theory of mind was dependent on a 19th century understanding that would be upended in the 20th century, as the study of the brain/mind would not leave any room for libertarian free will - which is essential for a dogma that claims the individual is 100% the author of their own success or failure. It should be noted that libertarian free will is also a problem for mainstream JudeoChristian and Islamic doctrines dependent on having an immortal and separate soul from a physical body...but that's another issue. Later Randians, who have academic credentials...and are getting money from the Ayn Rand Institute, try to harmonize objectivism with the real world....just like every religion does after it makes factual claims that are out of synch with later scientific discovery, and they are struggling every bit as much as any theologian to find room for free will. It's a whole nother issue in itself, but the free will believers have had to retreat to the fallback position of Compatibalism, which tries to claim both - yes, we our minds are not separate from physical brain function, but we still have free will within this physical system....to me, it's sort of like God is three/God is one etc.. enough of that unless you really want to pursue it further.
In his time, Karl Marx himself described his theory as a work in progress that would have to be developed as it was applied in the world. Some later followers of Marx did wrap their nuanced versions of Marxism in infallibility....like Mao Tse Tung, but that was his own doing, not from Marx and Engels. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, claimed to have something of an infallible theory of mind and how to apply the teachings in the realms of ethics, and political and economic theory. That was why she purged her little group in New York from time to time. She was threatened by anyone else who might develop their own following....just like any other cult leader!
The fact that her disciples today are trying to broaden out the religion of Randianism.....not only making it compatible with mainstream libertarianism, but also going silent on religion and the irrationality of believing in God....shows the same evolution from cult to mainstream acceptable religion that so many other cults-turned-religions have made over the eons. No religion will allow the tent to get too big. They have to maintain it as an exclusive club, but they (especially the big money supporters) want that tent to be broad enough to allow in enough people....or the right people to make the religion of Randianism a powerful, and potentially controlling force in the world.
http://www.boardforus.com/topic/42304-fa...
Will be going to the Oviedo, Florida theater to see Atlas Shrugged tomorrow if anyone lives in this area. Was hoping to have my special edition shirt to where when I invested in the movie but I doubt it will be here by today.
Maybe now you're starting to see what some political theorists and philosophers proposed, when they suspected that most of Ayn Rand's objectivist theory was just an inversion of social with individual, and worker with capital. If Rand came along first, it could be said that she had an original theory and Marx copied her. But instead, she came along decades after Das Kapital and his theorizing on setting up communism, had already been done. That, and the fact that libertarian economists claimed some of her writings stole from stuff they had already written previously, and there's not a lot of substance to it.
What is fascinating though, is that like any large organized religion, the Rand Collective has re-interpreted and refined some of her dogmas that don't make a whole lot of sense. So, real economists have gone to work making a few added touches to her economic and political theory. But, starting with her notions on metaphysics....the foundation of her dogmas, she wrote without any realization that her theory of mind was dependent on a 19th century understanding that would be upended in the 20th century, as the study of the brain/mind would not leave any room for libertarian free will - which is essential for a dogma that claims the individual is 100% the author of their own success or failure. It should be noted that libertarian free will is also a problem for mainstream JudeoChristian and Islamic doctrines dependent on having an immortal and separate soul from a physical body...but that's another issue. Later Randians, who have academic credentials...and are getting money from the Ayn Rand Institute, try to harmonize objectivism with the real world....just like every religion does after it makes factual claims that are out of synch with later scientific discovery, and they are struggling every bit as much as any theologian to find room for free will. It's a whole nother issue in itself, but the free will believers have had to retreat to the fallback position of Compatibalism, which tries to claim both - yes, we our minds are not separate from physical brain function, but we still have free will within this physical system....to me, it's sort of like God is three/God is one etc.. enough of that unless you really want to pursue it further.
In his time, Karl Marx himself described his theory as a work in progress that would have to be developed as it was applied in the world. Some later followers of Marx did wrap their nuanced versions of Marxism in infallibility....like Mao Tse Tung, but that was his own doing, not from Marx and Engels. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, claimed to have something of an infallible theory of mind and how to apply the teachings in the realms of ethics, and political and economic theory. That was why she purged her little group in New York from time to time. She was threatened by anyone else who might develop their own following....just like any other cult leader!
The fact that her disciples today are trying to broaden out the religion of Randianism.....not only making it compatible with mainstream libertarianism, but also going silent on religion and the irrationality of believing in God....shows the same evolution from cult to mainstream acceptable religion that so many other cults-turned-religions have made over the eons. No religion will allow the tent to get too big. They have to maintain it as an exclusive club, but they (especially the big money supporters) want that tent to be broad enough to allow in enough people....or the right people to make the religion of Randianism a powerful, and potentially controlling force in the world.
http://www.boardforus.com/topic/42304-fa...
Imagine if a man murders another. Whether he was free to make the choice to kill or it was determined by other factors makes no difference, the man is capable of murdering innocent people and should be dealt with accordingly.