Topic started by sandy (@ 203.197.42.84) on Sat Mar 10 03:23:03 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.
|
I have been a great fan of Ayn Rand and her novels have really fascinated me. Her philosophy of selfishness is really appealing |
Responses:
- Old responses
- From: Sumithra (@ h80ad2b7c.dhcp.vt.edu)
on: Sat Jun 16 15:12:19
The most amusing thing is the pseudo intellectuals you see around these days, just because they're Rand admirers / followers.
- From: Sumithra (@ h80ad2b7c.dhcp.vt.edu)
on: Sat Jun 16 15:30:43
To Sruti: Could you please write whole sentences without indundating your passages with dots ? :-)
- From: Sruthi (@ 203.197.49.192)
on: Sat Jun 16 16:34:43
Sumithra,
fine:)
Actually...its a habit formed outa writing e letters...(oops!!there I go again!!)
Lemme try:)
Psuedo Intellectuals!Why do u think that if u ahppen to like Rand's books,u become a psued????
A normal person tries to think,rationalise,and understand.If something appeals,it becomes a liking.Rand did definitely appeal to me.(this is tuff...I like my dots:)Now why she appeals.This is because of a statement,Love is the ultimate recognition one grants to superlative values.There was a passage"Show me the woman a man sleeps with and I shall tell u about his character"(Made by Frisco in Atlas)It makes a lot of sense.Think about it.This is not "profound" statement thrown about here and there for the sole purpose of appearing bombastic.I think at a certain level,all our likes dislikes,wants needs are all driven by one sole thing,the values we cherish,our foundation,the basis we build our thoughts on.She just seemed to put my (ususally very very random thoughts...proof my dots...:)into words.
well,do continue the arguements!(Its my exam time... and this seems like a perfect way to spend my multi 10 minute breaks...and I'll try to cut down my dots:)
tata for now.................(that felt good!!)
- From: Sumithra (@ h80ad2b7c.dhcp.vt.edu)
on: Sat Jun 16 17:13:25
Here I discuss objectively, certain very fundamental aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy:
Ayn Rand stands for the importance of thinking and associates "non-thinking" with depravity.
It is true that a philosophy or a law or a code of conduct can be formed, for the peaceful co-existence of all men, only by thinking. Law and justice have been formed by thinking and reasoning. For instance, the law that we today have, in any country, has not just come out of the skies. It's been framed out after careful thought. And this is a reason we respect it. Now, if you look at the whole thing from an ethical point of view, would you say that it is unethical (unjust) that we are expected to obey law? Would you argue, "Just because I have been born in a society (I had no control over my birth anyway), why should I, by default obey the law- was I consulted before the law was made?"
This is when you submit to men of the earlier days for the mere fact that they have worked on it and have come up with law legitimately.
The point is, if you can believe that law has come into existence after extensive reasoning, you should logically respect it. If you want to question it, you are welcome to study it extensively and try to make amendments, if you find the need for it. So the society does let you study Law!
The detriment of Ayn Rand's emphasis on thinking is that, if everyone begins to think about, say justice which I feel is an inseparable part of philosophy, every person of every generation would start thinking and we would only be thinking to frame laws and would not be able to do anything else, because the law that you form, even if agreed upon by everyone at present, will be pondered over by the generations to come. So in what way would we make an overall progress at all? I therefore think that a threshold level of "taking for granted" becomes necessary. If you would talk of thinking from the point of view of thinking at every step of your mundane duties, then that, every man does, anyway.
And if you talk of thinking for making major decisions in one's life, let me take an example. Just think about the mindless people in India having 10-12 children, who are a burden on the economy (population explosion)). If such a man says "I know Ayn Rand's philosophy. I should be selfish. I want to have children, so I'm having them.", then what would you say? He HAS become a thinking man, because he has thought that he is, say creatively endowed, and thinks he should pass on his positive gentic traits to as many beings as possible. And he is selfish too, right?
There is a point at which one needs to think of the global / societal implications of one's actions too.
Therefore, at such junctures, it should be the duty of those forming laws to impose necessary restrictions on the actions of people. At this point, I would say, non-thinking on the part of people having a responsibility, is depravity, for the simple reason that it is their duty in society.
Indiscriminate emphasis on thinking, individualism and selfishness are this way, often miscontrued. They are very subjective. And Ayn Rand has not made this point at all, or atleats not strongly enough.
Second, she believes that religion was an early philosphy and that way, a positive happening, but not beyond it. She says that religion calls reality as unknoweable, and the mind as impotent.
Sorry, this is grossly wrong, if I have understood Hinduism atleast to the minimal level, I'd rather not talk about other religions since I do not know about them. My impression though, is that, all religions do assume that reality is knoweable but not restricted to just the world as we see it. Religion does not underrate the physical faculties used by humans for perceiving the world around, though. Nor is mind considered impotent, although there is an additional emphasis on the power of intuition. While the existence of intuition (or for that matter God), may not be proven through complex derivations, so also, they cannot be disproven either. So why the vociferous talk against these beliefs? Ofcourse, mysticism and superstitions should be shunned and these are not the only ingredients of a religion. Perhaps they are not at all, and they came about only by the gross misinterpretation of original writings.
Ayn Rand's writings would be very pertinent to an oppressed lot in a communist society, whose conciousness needs an awakening. In that context, only if EVERY man thinks, and decides to act against forces that subjugate him, there can be a dramatic change. It is not applicable universally.
And btw, if India has to rid itself of the nastiness of corruption, poverty and all other evils, it would need thinking, and thinking IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, by EVERYBODY.
At the same time, if a man thinks he just wants to live happily, and hedonistically, if he is euphoric despite the present state of affairs, but at the same time, does nothing that is flagrantly wrong socially or legally, should it be a law that this wouldn't suffice, that he SHOULD contribute something positive too to the society, like giving donations to a charity organization? If people who have give, the society would be much different. But if he does not give willingly and is forced to, then it would be altruism being forced upon him. So should the law making authorites make laws with a focus on the individual or on the society? I leave this question to the reader.
- From: E. T. Agnosticus (@ user108.216.19.141.dsli.com)
on: Sat Jun 16 19:26:59
Miss Sruthi:
Lets take your infatuation with "Love is the ultimate recognition one grants to superlative values." Is this definition complete? Can it define the unconditional love that Parents have for their children? Perhaps the concept of unconditional love completely alien to Rand. So too is fidelity, or the cultural togetherness of people sharing similar heritage, language, etc. She was really incapable of understanding such things, even though she hid behind a mask of rationality to justify her absence of such 'feelings.' If you think about it, all definitions are incomplete and partial. This is more so when one defines 'Truth', 'Religion' 'Love', etc.
I am agnostic myself, and I think Rand was correct in emphasizing rationality. But my agnosticism is informed by the understanding that pain is a universal fact of life; this recognition makes compassion an essential virtue. Whatever the sophistry Rand uses to show selfishness as virtue, human experience shows compassion is a fundamental virtue. Life is not all about achievements. In her self-apotheosis, Rand is delusional. It is a pity that her fans are unable to recognize her delusions. There are so many people much more accomplished than Rand--a mere novelist. These people have shown far more compassion in their lives. Einstein comes to my mind. Yet Rand thought selfishness was essential to achievement. I have strongly suspected that she had manic-depressive illness. It is the manic energy during the manic phase that allows manic depressives to keep on writing; and she did write well, but her arguments are deeply flawed.
If you think about it, all definitions are incomplete and partial. This is more so when one defines 'Truth', 'Religion' 'Love', etc. Yet Rand looks persuasive to some people becuase they focus on selective and partial definitions.
- From: Sruthi (@ 203.197.49.175)
on: Sun Jun 17 02:56:01
Mr Agnosticus...
(dont be surprised if ur words pop in between...I ahve done a cut and paste of ur writing and given a reply types....)
Lets take your infatuation with "Love is the ultimate recognition one grants to superlative values." Is this definition complete? Can it define the unconditional love that Parents have for their children?
My infatuation with this statement...Interesting(Forgive the dots...:)
Lemme tell u why I really like this statement...
I ahve always thought on lines of what prompts us to like soemhting and dislike somehting...Especially,the person whom u love..(iam at that point in life where this seems like an all important question...)
Unconditional love...Love for parents for their children is the same as probably Dagny's love for the galt line...(lemme clarify...iam not a manic fan of Rand,but I definitely DO like her works,and have found it a lil bit above the ordinary trash that people dish out saying its "profound")U ahve a friend whom u love unconditionally...ie it does not matter what the person looks like..acts like...etc...But,why did u like that person initially????What made u love that person to that extent that it becomes totally unconditional????Can u have such love for every human being u meet????I tried to....really...be totally unjudgemental and love everyone I met...realised I was fooling myself...there are some people whom you simply cannot like...no fault of theirs(iam not talking about extremes here...like rapists and child killers...)generally...Now what drives people to like somehting and not like soemhting else???I found an inkling of an answer here..So far as my experience says,(which is definitely not authoritative)u can at least have a definitive idea..i ahve friends whom I love passionately...If they hurt me nyways...I wud be hurt,but cud never stop oving them...Now why did I love them so much in the first place???Coz they gave a fundamental sanction to my values in life...Now...about the statement of love...Its defined in soooo many ways....This particular one makes a lot more sense than any other...
Perhaps the concept of unconditional love completely alien to Rand. So too is fidelity, or the cultural togetherness of people sharing similar heritage, language, etc. She was really incapable of understanding such things, even though she hid behind a mask of rationality to justify her absence of such 'feelings.'
To me Rand seems like a person who gave a definition to Love...
Let me explain...Many ppl came i came across claimed they were blindly in love with someone...and it seemed implausible...how cud they be so...I needed an answer...In the finale of Atlas,Dagny says..."All I ahve stood for so far...Is so that today when I stand before u...I know Iam worthy of u...and u r worthy of me..."Why do we all struggle in our lives...Why do we try adhering to principles strictly without sparing ourselves(I do..and expect...rational...moral people do so too...)
There should be some reason...For the society???Somehow doth not satisy...maybe...Tommorrow when u meet a person with as high ideals u ahve ...U cna meet the person in the eye and say..."Iam worthy of u..."Why not???
I am agnostic myself, and I think Rand was correct in emphasizing rationality. But my agnosticism is informed by the understanding that pain is a universal fact of life; this recognition makes compassion an essential virtue.
Firstly, we believe all truth beautiful, no matter how hideous its face may seem. We think pain good, because it is the most profound of all human feelings. We accept life in its entirety, without making moral judgements. We think the prostitute as good as the countess, the concierge as good as the general, the peasant as good as the cabinet minister, for they all fit into the pattern of nature, and are woven into the design of life...
I wish I had written this...but havent...this has no relevance to the current rand good bad or ugly arguement...but just thought will put this in...
It is a pity that her fans are unable to recognize her delusions.
Aha...contempt changes to pity:)
There are so many people much more accomplished than Rand--a mere novelist. These people have shown far more compassion in their lives. Einstein comes to my mind.
True...compassion...thats a definite contradiction...personally when I see slums(I see a lot of them...)i know...even if these people worked 24 hours a day...there can never be any improvement in their lives...Children...who are destitutes....U shudder when u think about children in distress...
Now..even though I do not agree with her statements that the "poor" needn't be shown compassion...Yet some parts definitely are wonderful in their concept...
Her treatment of love...was more believable than most...and that appeals to me...
If you think about it, all definitions are incomplete and partial. This is more so when one defines 'Truth', 'Religion' 'Love', etc. Yet Rand looks persuasive to some people becuase they focus on selective and partial definitions.
Partial definitions...can't say...but a certain part of the whole...definitely...About love...she comes closest to what i think will be a definition...
tata for now..!
Sruthi...
- From: Naveen (@ tcache-wm01.proxy.aol.com)
on: Sun Jun 17 15:41:06
I read Ayn Rand years ago; I enjoyed reading her, but I would have to be really bored to attempt a second reading.
My impression of her from the three or four novels that I have read is that she is a good story-teller and a bad dialogue writer. I suspect that her dialogues are so unconvincing (often, a series of monologues) because she has a hidden agenda - the need to state her own opinion -that prevents her characters from appearing natural. They resemble the arguments I win in my mind: I put words in my opponent's mouth that are calculated to elicit my punch line. Her novels seem like vehicles to impose her thoughts on the world.
Her philosophy - if you can call it that - seemed to me a collection of self-contradictory and hysterical pronouncements. Viewed dispassionately and disregarding her bombastic rhetoric, I find her villians with their pity, more likeable than her heroes. I think that she had a fundamentally flawed view of genius, especially the genius for science.
I did find her very readable. The stories are gripping and the characters exact strong responses; her novels are definitely enjoyable. She writes 'unputdownable' books.
List all pages of this thread