More on Ayn Rand’s Cult of Personality:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
I don’t see what the above “cult of personality” thing has to do with the discussion. Do we dismiss Isaac Newton because he was an obnoxious jerk who dabbled in alchemy and engaged in petty squabbles with other scientists?
First, I don’t understand your use of quotations? It is not a novel expression. Perhaps you mean it ironically? OMG I know you didn’t just put quotes around something I typed 
Well let me put this as simply as possible. It is a contradiction to preach on and on about individualism, when you’re just worshipping Ayn Rand or John Galt. Wait contradictions don’t exist, perhaps a change of premise is in order, then? She is held in far too high esteem, to the point I would consider it irrational :eek:
Please provide some sort of justification of your analogy with Isaac Newton. It feels like my brain is trying eat itself having read that.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8017
This is what I don’t get about Rand and her followers, their favoring of industry over even freedom itself. I know capitalism is the only moral economic system. To me the best aspect of a free market is my freedom to decide for myself how I value my labor in relation to goods and services. Who’s to say John Galt was any happier than Henry David Thoreau?
This author apparently has no idea how Wal Mart has benefited from and contributed to America’s decline towards corporate-state socialism.
Sorry for not posting on this thread sooner (elars I’ll PM you back soon).
I am too trying to understand what you are getting at with the “cult of personality” (there are some more quotes for you) of Ayn Rand. I fail to see how people cannot believe in individualism and hold another in a high light as well. Have you read The Fountainhead? Ayn Rand’s ideal man, Roark, holds in very high esteem the architect Cameron. This does not take away from his individualism in any way. Does Cameron affect and have some influence on Roark? Probably, but there is a difference between guiding somebody (and the person choosing whether or not they wish to follow) and forcing somebody into something conciously or subconciously (see Ellsworth Toohey). Rand herself held into very high esteem people like Frank Lloyd Wright, among others. Does this mean that she was not an individual because Wright probably had some sort of affect on the way she thought? Not a chance, in my opinion.
Wal-Mart is an extremely poor example of a free-market capitalism situation gone wrong. The fact is, the government financially supports Wal-Mart to a very large extent and I would hardly consider Wal-Mart any less of a freeloader than people bumming the welfare system. In a situation where Wal-Mart was not on welfare essentially, I wouldn’t see a big deal with it. Plus, we are the ones allowing for this to happen. Wal-Mart is not the only superstore around and people have a choice to go there or not to go there. Personally, I hate what Kanye West stands for and I refuse to listen to any of the music he releases that has any political or social message in it as I do not have any respect for him outside of making catchy beats (a couple okay songs that are completely not political or social oriented). Am I making a huge difference as one? No, but if other people think the same way, maybe something would happen (although it won’t in this case as he happens to have catchy music).
Isaac Newton… well he was rather anti-social to say the least. The point is, looking at the ideas is important in these discussions as anybody can bring up other points irrelevant to the ideas. Howie Day raped a girl in his van, but I still listen to his music with the ladies ;).
It’s also important to note that property (which is what a lot of Objectivists feel is most important) is necessary for freedom, not the other way around. If property rights are not maintained, how can one consider themselves free? That is the argument you will hear from most and, from a historical perspective, seems to hold a lot of weight (places w/o defined property rights have little or no freedom while no place with defined and strict property rights could be considered not free).
I entirely agree with this. I just feel that it would be better to approach this from the perspective of the Chicago school, which is more based in reality. Objectivism is too absolute. I also believe that we should advocate for capitalism as what is best for civilization, not just that it is a moral imperative. I’m confused on Rand’s stance on this. Also I’m not anti-Rand in any way, but
to quote Thoreau
“Read the best books first, or you may not have a chance to read them at all.”
The case F.A. Hayek makes against collectivism in The Road to Serfdom is amazing. It made me realize how apt a name National Socialism really was.
Alright. Can we think of business (and it’s interaction w/ government) in a Keynesian world, as in a pre-keynes, pre-roosevelt world?
This is what I’m saying. Rand herself was pro-capitalism. Many of her followers, including writers at the ARI have betrayed this and are now clearly biased towards supply side. Hence the wal-mart article. They’re worse on foreign policy.
Listen to Leonard Peikoff on Iraq
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=1150
If he represents modern Objectivism, than it’s nothing more than an intellectual apologist for neo-cons, if anything chastising them for what little restraint they have shown (not invading Iran…yet.)
I’m sorry but if you take this provincial moral superiority, interventionist foreign policy, and corporatism and put into action you end up with something pretty ugly, mainly fascism.
Objectivism, Subjectivism, Relativism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Conservatism, Fascism, Fatalism… or any ism… are useful abstractions (tools) when describing social life. Nevertheless, they are deductions ‘from reality’, hence should perhaps not completely induce our perception ‘of reality’.
Politics is hard to argue, and it’s even harder to argue for and against ideological concepts because people tend to talk about “facts” and “causalities” only from a limited pool of conceptual preference they like or dislike. Perhaps we can blame Aristotelian logic for this, I don’t know, but it tends to limit discussion to simple exchange of preferences (or to logical puzzles inside a particular concept).
So, in a way, “freedom” might require “personal property” from an objectivist reality tunnel. However, in this reality tunnel, ‘freedom’ and ‘personal property’ might not exactly mean the same thing as from the point of another reality tunnel. Hence the difficulties in deciding what’s correct since people tend to talk about slightly different things all the time (same denotations, different connotations). I guess we’re only kidding ourselves when we state our view of reality as the most valid.
I concur, somewhat. My conceptual framework has always been geared towards solving the problems of society as I see them (is that altruistic?) Ayn Rand seems to be hell bent on making demi-gods of successful businessmen. Perhaps this is a reaction against the Progressive Era of “robber barons”. I might agree in a situation anywhere close to a free market which was not the case.
Rand was too busy writing thousand page novels and was rather “insulated” from reality due to her cult-like following, to get a real sense of how prevalent so-called “political entrepenuers” are compared to “market entrepeneurs”. The granting of special privileges by the government over a firm’s competitors is what causes monopolies. To me Objectivism has been hi-jacked to become no more than a justification of why the rich are rich and the poor are poor. This is why I hopped in on this thread. Objectivists seemingly believe that adopting their philosophy is a pre-requisite for understanding free-market capitalism or the world in general. This isn’t the case. Liberal Economists like Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek are perfect examples.
You use the term “reality tunnel”. Are you suggesting that we can’t objectively value these as good or bad? (Yes I understand the irony, that’s what objectivism is all about)
I don’t see a problem with that per see; she is making a point like any other writer – her reality, her perspective, and her points. A problem arises when these points are taken for literal “truths” outside their particular context. ‘Coherence’ is not the same thing as ‘causality’; ‘consistency’ is not the same thing as the ‘truth’. Things get really sad when contrasting arguments are automatically dismissed and labelled as irrational, immoral, evil, communistic, socialistic, altruistic etc. This usually invites further partisanship into the discussion – it creates fideism. Simple dichotomies are just that: simple. Society appears to show much more complexity if one is willing to notice.
Whether objectivism is hijacked or not, I can’t really say? It doesn’t really concern me either because I have never recognized that particular system as more than a distinct – but closed – set of principles (almost an ideology). Hence, in my opinion, it is perhaps natural that people are trying to use is politically… to fit their arguments and needs? I guess we all do this in one way or another; but we should realize this, not be blinded by it.
Yes, that was my suggestion. I see a contradiction when ‘values’ such as good and bad are said to be derived from “objectivity”. “Objectivity” because we can’t really be objective in our observations, albeit we can try to make an effort to come as close as possible – which ironically (and ultimately) makes it necessary to use many different perspectives. Values appear to stem from subjectivity, if not by themselves, then by perception in accordance to a particular “reality tunnel” (the latter seems to be much more likely). Thus ironically; objectivity appears to be a subjective value in some sense.
On a side note, I know Timothy Leary used the term reality tunnel, but I’m not sure he was the first to come up with it. This is the second time I mention Mr. Leary on this board; perhaps it’s time for me to snap out of it…? :rolleyes: