Jump to content


Rush, Ayn Rand, and Philosophy In Your Life


  • Please log in to reply
337 replies to this topic

#321 LedRush

LedRush

    The Counterparts Remain The Same

  • Members *
  • 24832 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Very small southeast Asian island
  • Interests:Family, guitar, classic video games, Ted Nugent, non-fiction books

Posted 14 April 2015 - 11:31 AM

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 13 April 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.
In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...
Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

Sponsored Post

#322 LedRush

LedRush

    The Counterparts Remain The Same

  • Members *
  • 24832 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Very small southeast Asian island
  • Interests:Family, guitar, classic video games, Ted Nugent, non-fiction books

Posted 14 April 2015 - 11:33 AM

View PostTheBluePhoenix, on 13 April 2015 - 07:15 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 03:29 PM, said:

View PostTheBluePhoenix, on 13 April 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

View PostTheBluePhoenix, on 13 April 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

It’s interesting to me how Ayn Rand is considered insane by some and a genius by others.  I read “Anthem” and while I appreciated the message I hated the book itself simply because it was very boring.  I felt the same way about “Atlas Shrugged.”  It contains lots of great points but she makes those same points over and over and over.  It’s just sooooooooooo long.  I have not yet read “The Fountainhead’ but it is on my list.  I actually prefer to listen to Ayn Rand interviews.  There are a handful of interviews on YouTube and I enjoy hearing her philosophy from her own mouth.  Here’s a good one from 1959: https://www.youtube....h?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y

Her philosophy is often twisted and considered “ultra-rightwing” when the truth is that she hated conservatives as much if not more than liberals.  If anything I think she is closest to a libertarian.

One aspect of her philosophy that her critics like to focus on is “the virtue of selfishness” which many people misunderstand.  They assume she meant that you should get whatever you can, be as greedy as you can and don’t share anything with anyone ever which isn’t what she meant at all.  What she meant was that putting yourself and your loved ones first is perfectly moral.  In other words, if your family is starving and your neighbor’s family is starving you should feed your family first.  After you feed your family, if there’s anything left, then giving that to your neighbor is also moral.  Giving food to your neighbor first and letting yourself and your family go hungry is very immoral.  It’s just like when you’re on an airplane.  If the oxygen masks drop they tell you to put your mask on first then help children or others who need help.  Why is that?  Obviously, if you help others first you may pass out and then you’re of no help to anyone.  She was never against charity as long as you don’t sacrifice yourself or your loved ones.  She was against the forced charity of income taxes.

I’ll jump off the soapbox now.

Given that she's dead now, she won't be able to answer this question, but why is it moral to see to your own needs before anyone else's? I can see why it's pragmatic, but why is it moral?

She actually covers that very thing at the beginning of the interview that I linked to in my post.  Give it a listen.  Basically, in Ayn Rand’s philosophy morality is based on reason and logic.  It’s not based on faith or emotion.

I listened up to the 7:00 mark. Does she ever get around to saying why putting your interest ahead of others is immoral? She claims that reason will lead one to an objective morality, and that's a pill many of her followers (or former followers, as I was) unthinkingly swallow, but she never goes beyond assertion.

I’m surprised that you call yourself a former follower of Rand’s yet you don’t seem to know what Objectivism is all about.  By the way, you got it backwards.  Putting the interests of others ahead of yours is immoral.  That is because when you do you become a sacrificial animal.  Do you believe that it is moral to, for example, feed your neighbor’s kids first and let your kids starve?  You can take that example to the extreme.  If your child and your neighbor’s child were dying of the same disease and you could only save one of them, who would you choose?

I think that he thinks that morality is subjective, and so making a statement that x = moral will usually fail, and at the least needs persuasive reasons for such beliefs.

#323 JARG

JARG

    Pinky Moe

  • Members *
  • 18885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just east of Lyra, northwest of Pegasus...
  • Interests:Cycling, guitar playing

Posted 14 April 2015 - 11:50 AM

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

View PostTheBluePhoenix, on 13 April 2015 - 07:15 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 03:29 PM, said:

View PostTheBluePhoenix, on 13 April 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

View PostTheBluePhoenix, on 13 April 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

It’s interesting to me how Ayn Rand is considered insane by some and a genius by others.  I read “Anthem” and while I appreciated the message I hated the book itself simply because it was very boring.  I felt the same way about “Atlas Shrugged.”  It contains lots of great points but she makes those same points over and over and over.  It’s just sooooooooooo long.  I have not yet read “The Fountainhead’ but it is on my list.  I actually prefer to listen to Ayn Rand interviews.  There are a handful of interviews on YouTube and I enjoy hearing her philosophy from her own mouth.  Here’s a good one from 1959: https://www.youtube....h?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y

Her philosophy is often twisted and considered “ultra-rightwing” when the truth is that she hated conservatives as much if not more than liberals.  If anything I think she is closest to a libertarian.

One aspect of her philosophy that her critics like to focus on is “the virtue of selfishness” which many people misunderstand.  They assume she meant that you should get whatever you can, be as greedy as you can and don’t share anything with anyone ever which isn’t what she meant at all.  What she meant was that putting yourself and your loved ones first is perfectly moral.  In other words, if your family is starving and your neighbor’s family is starving you should feed your family first.  After you feed your family, if there’s anything left, then giving that to your neighbor is also moral.  Giving food to your neighbor first and letting yourself and your family go hungry is very immoral.  It’s just like when you’re on an airplane.  If the oxygen masks drop they tell you to put your mask on first then help children or others who need help.  Why is that?  Obviously, if you help others first you may pass out and then you’re of no help to anyone.  She was never against charity as long as you don’t sacrifice yourself or your loved ones.  She was against the forced charity of income taxes.

I’ll jump off the soapbox now.

Given that she's dead now, she won't be able to answer this question, but why is it moral to see to your own needs before anyone else's? I can see why it's pragmatic, but why is it moral?

She actually covers that very thing at the beginning of the interview that I linked to in my post.  Give it a listen.  Basically, in Ayn Rand’s philosophy morality is based on reason and logic.  It’s not based on faith or emotion.

I listened up to the 7:00 mark. Does she ever get around to saying why putting your interest ahead of others is immoral? She claims that reason will lead one to an objective morality, and that's a pill many of her followers (or former followers, as I was) unthinkingly swallow, but she never goes beyond assertion.

I’m surprised that you call yourself a former follower of Rand’s yet you don’t seem to know what Objectivism is all about.  By the way, you got it backwards.  Putting the interests of others ahead of yours is immoral.  That is because when you do you become a sacrificial animal.  Do you believe that it is moral to, for example, feed your neighbor’s kids first and let your kids starve?  You can take that example to the extreme.  If your child and your neighbor’s child were dying of the same disease and you could only save one of them, who would you choose?

I think that he thinks that morality is subjective, and so making a statement that x = moral will usually fail, and at the least needs persuasive reasons for such beliefs.

Rand frequently touted that Objectivist morality is, well, objective. Morals could be "discovered" (and I believe that's actually the word she used from time to time) via reason. It's somewhat tragic that Objectivist ethics fails due to the fact that it hinges on a ridiculous notion.

As I said, I'm down with her metaphysics and epistemology, but her ethics goes off the rails.

The reason why Rand believes it's moral to put ones own interests ahead of anyone else's is because she said so. It's not like there are morals floating out there in the ether just waiting to be "discovered". Morals are a human mental constructs and are thus completely subjective. They aren't discovered. They're invented/made up.

Edited by JARG, 14 April 2015 - 11:51 AM.


#324 TheBluePhoenix

TheBluePhoenix

    Prime Mover

  • Members
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 14 April 2015 - 12:20 PM

You can take any philosophy or religion that teaches right and wrong and ask “why is this moral and that isn’t?”  And then for every answer you can still ask “why?”  Why is it wrong to kill, to steal, to covet, etc?  In many cases you eventually get to the core of the belief system where the truth is self-evident and you either agree with it or you don’t.

At this point I have to ask the obvious question: why is it immoral to pursue your own self-interest?  Why should you put others people’s interests ahead of your own?  Ayn Rand rejected the idea that we are our brother’s keeper.  Everyone is responsible for their own happiness.  Obviously if someone is mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves then of course we should help them.

#325 TheBluePhoenix

TheBluePhoenix

    Prime Mover

  • Members
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 14 April 2015 - 12:42 PM

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 07:47 PM, said:

Quote

Do you believe that it is moral to, for example, feed your neighbor’s kids first and let your kids starve?
Nope.

Quote

You can take that example to the extreme.  If your child and your neighbor’s child were dying of the same disease and you could only save one of them, who would you choose?
My own kid, of course. But that's just my sense of morality.

Why is it moral to see to your own interests before seeing to a stranger's? How is the morality of choice determined to be objective?

This is where Objectivism falls apart. It took me a while to get clear of it to see its failings, but it's so plain to see once you're on the outside looking in.

I really don’t understand your point.  You say that Objectivism falls apart but in the two examples above you are right in line with it.  You would choose to put your self-interest ahead of your neighbor’s.  The truth is, we do it every day without even thinking about it because it makes sense.  Putting our self-interest first doesn’t mean that we’re greedy, unkind or don’t care for others.  That’s another misconception about Objectivism.

#326 Tony R

Tony R

    Prog Archivist

  • Members *
  • 16912 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Close To The Edge
  • Interests:stuff

Posted 14 April 2015 - 12:52 PM

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 13 April 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.
In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...
Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

You're  a fanboy, I get that.
Britney Spears has fanboys too.

#327 condemned2bfree

condemned2bfree

    Rushaholic

  • Members
  • 1772 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:I'm always here.

Posted 14 April 2015 - 12:54 PM

This has to be one of the best threads in this forum......for a long long time.

Great conduct, respect for others opinions, providing a thoroughly good read. Bravo!

#328 LedRush

LedRush

    The Counterparts Remain The Same

  • Members *
  • 24832 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Very small southeast Asian island
  • Interests:Family, guitar, classic video games, Ted Nugent, non-fiction books

Posted 14 April 2015 - 12:55 PM

View PostTony R, on 14 April 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 13 April 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.
In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...
Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

You're  a fanboy, I get that.
Britney Spears has fanboys too.

You're incapable of discussing a topic on its merits, I get that.

#329 JARG

JARG

    Pinky Moe

  • Members *
  • 18885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just east of Lyra, northwest of Pegasus...
  • Interests:Cycling, guitar playing

Posted 14 April 2015 - 12:56 PM

View PostTheBluePhoenix, on 14 April 2015 - 12:42 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 07:47 PM, said:

Quote

Do you believe that it is moral to, for example, feed your neighbor’s kids first and let your kids starve?
Nope.

Quote

You can take that example to the extreme.  If your child and your neighbor’s child were dying of the same disease and you could only save one of them, who would you choose?
My own kid, of course. But that's just my sense of morality.

Why is it moral to see to your own interests before seeing to a stranger's? How is the morality of choice determined to be objective?

This is where Objectivism falls apart. It took me a while to get clear of it to see its failings, but it's so plain to see once you're on the outside looking in.

I really don’t understand your point.  You say that Objectivism falls apart but in the two examples above you are right in line with it.  You would choose to put your self-interest ahead of your neighbor’s.  The truth is, we do it every day without even thinking about it because it makes sense.  Putting our self-interest first doesn’t mean that we’re greedy, unkind or don’t care for others.  That’s another misconception about Objectivism.

Yes, I see where your confusion about my point lies. I don't have a particular issue with some of Rand's specific moral pronouncements, just as I don't have issue with some of Christ's. My beef with Rand's morality requires a deeper understanding of Objectivism and philosophy, and I think this may be where you're struggling a bit.

Rand was very big on drawing a sharp dividing line between the rationality of her ethics and the mysticism of others, yet what she failed to grasp is that in trying to cast Objectivist ethics as objective, she committed the very sin she hoped to avoid. It was her failure to understand the fundamental nature of morality that caused me to reject it as advertised.

#330 LedRush

LedRush

    The Counterparts Remain The Same

  • Members *
  • 24832 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Very small southeast Asian island
  • Interests:Family, guitar, classic video games, Ted Nugent, non-fiction books

Posted 14 April 2015 - 01:08 PM

View PostJARG, on 14 April 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:

View PostTheBluePhoenix, on 14 April 2015 - 12:42 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 07:47 PM, said:

Quote

Do you believe that it is moral to, for example, feed your neighbor’s kids first and let your kids starve?
Nope.

Quote

You can take that example to the extreme.  If your child and your neighbor’s child were dying of the same disease and you could only save one of them, who would you choose?
My own kid, of course. But that's just my sense of morality.

Why is it moral to see to your own interests before seeing to a stranger's? How is the morality of choice determined to be objective?

This is where Objectivism falls apart. It took me a while to get clear of it to see its failings, but it's so plain to see once you're on the outside looking in.

I really don’t understand your point.  You say that Objectivism falls apart but in the two examples above you are right in line with it.  You would choose to put your self-interest ahead of your neighbor’s.  The truth is, we do it every day without even thinking about it because it makes sense.  Putting our self-interest first doesn’t mean that we’re greedy, unkind or don’t care for others.  That’s another misconception about Objectivism.

Yes, I see where your confusion about my point lies. I don't have a particular issue with some of Rand's specific moral pronouncements, just as I don't have issue with some of Christ's. My beef with Rand's morality requires a deeper understanding of Objectivism and philosophy, and I think this may be where you're struggling a bit.

Rand was very big on drawing a sharp dividing line between the rationality of her ethics and the mysticism of others, yet what she failed to grasp is that in trying to cast Objectivist ethics as objective, she committed the very sin she hoped to avoid. It was her failure to understand the fundamental nature of morality that caused me to reject it as advertised.

When I started reading Rand's novels, I really liked a lot of the ideas in her books (though they weren't entertaining, or particularly good, on a literary level), but when I started reading more about objectivism as a philosophy I almost immediately rejected it for the same reason.  Perhaps it was easier for me as I had just gone through the exercise of rejecting religion once and for all for the same reasons.

But I think all of the talk of how Objectivism fails in its stated goals or a comprehensive philosophy misses the point: that there are a lot of good ideas in her works that can be used in the formation, augmentation, and strengthening of your own beliefs, whether or not you agree with her. Of course, the same can be said for countless writers, philosophies, and ideas.

#331 bathory

bathory

    Book Würm

  • Members *
  • 9561 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 April 2015 - 01:23 PM

the fountainhead is pretty entertaining, imo. elsworth toohey is a hilarious character

so's howard and his biatch.

Edited by bathory, 14 April 2015 - 01:24 PM.


#332 Tony R

Tony R

    Prog Archivist

  • Members *
  • 16912 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Close To The Edge
  • Interests:stuff

Posted 14 April 2015 - 01:53 PM

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 14 April 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 13 April 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.
In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...
Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

You're  a fanboy, I get that.
Britney Spears has fanboys too.

You're incapable of discussing a topic on its merits, I get that.

You posted:

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

and

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

The first is so banal I'm having serious doubts as to whether you actually interact with normal people. If you seriously believe there are lots of people out there who have heard of  Ayn Rand then you really aren't worth discussing anything with. Baring in mind that I am from the UK I probably have as much chance of guessing a stranger's mobile phone number as them having heard of Ayn Rand un;less they are a Rush fan or a philosophy major.

As for the second statement, well I refer you back to my response just above.

#333 Narps

Narps

    Official TRF Pace Car Driver

  • Members
  • 27718 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Myrtle Beach SC
  • Interests:Exercise, my children, my new grandchildren(twin boys), the rest of my life...

Posted 14 April 2015 - 02:01 PM

View PostTony R, on 14 April 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 14 April 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 13 April 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.
In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...
Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

You're  a fanboy, I get that.
Britney Spears has fanboys too.

You're incapable of discussing a topic on its merits, I get that.

You posted:

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

and

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

The first is so banal I'm having serious doubts as to whether you actually interact with normal people. If you seriously believe there are lots of people out there who have heard of  Ayn Rand then you really aren't worth discussing anything with. Baring in mind that I am from the UK I probably have as much chance of guessing a stranger's mobile phone number as them having heard of Ayn Rand un;less they are a Rush fan or a philosophy major.

As for the second statement, well I refer you back to my response just above.
I had only seen her name a few times on an album of mine prior to age 22 and honestly didn't know who she was and the significance of her name being there. Wasn't the curious or intellectual sort I guess. I didn't really know much about her or her significance until the last few years...

Edited by Narpsberg, 14 April 2015 - 02:39 PM.


#334 LedRush

LedRush

    The Counterparts Remain The Same

  • Members *
  • 24832 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Very small southeast Asian island
  • Interests:Family, guitar, classic video games, Ted Nugent, non-fiction books

Posted 14 April 2015 - 02:31 PM

View PostNarpsberg, on 14 April 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 14 April 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 14 April 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 13 April 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.
In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...
Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

You're  a fanboy, I get that.
Britney Spears has fanboys too.

You're incapable of discussing a topic on its merits, I get that.

You posted:

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

and

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

The first is so banal I'm having serious doubts as to whether you actually interact with normal people. If you seriously believe there are lots of people out there who have heard of  Ayn Rand then you really aren't worth discussing anything with. Baring in mind that I am from the UK I probably have as much chance of guessing a stranger's mobile phone number as them having heard of Ayn Rand un;less they are a Rush fan or a philosophy major.

As for the second statement, well I refer you back to my response just above.
I hade only seen here name a few times on an album of mine prior to age 22 and honestly didn't know who she was and the significance of her name being there. Wasn't the curious or intellectual sort I guess. I didn't really know much about her or her significance until the last few years...

30 million books sold, movies based on her books (including one with Gary Cooper), postage stamps with her image/name on them, academy award winning documentary on her, mentions in TV shows, video games, movies, and repeated references in the media.  Plus, liberals hate her so much they probably promote her more than the numerous politicians, business people and artists that publicly cite her as an inspiration.  Unless you think that TRF is inhabited mostly of uneducated non-Americans, your assertion that most people here wouldn't have heard of her if not for Rush seems absurd.  I mean, you can't read a story about Rand Paul, Ron Paul, or Paul Ryan without her name being thrown around.  I don't think I could find 10 Americans who haven't heard of her without polling McDonald's workers...or at least engaging in asking a lot of people.

#335 Narps

Narps

    Official TRF Pace Car Driver

  • Members
  • 27718 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Myrtle Beach SC
  • Interests:Exercise, my children, my new grandchildren(twin boys), the rest of my life...

Posted 14 April 2015 - 02:34 PM

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

View PostNarpsberg, on 14 April 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 14 April 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 14 April 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 13 April 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.
In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...
Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

You're  a fanboy, I get that.
Britney Spears has fanboys too.

You're incapable of discussing a topic on its merits, I get that.

You posted:

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

and

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

The first is so banal I'm having serious doubts as to whether you actually interact with normal people. If you seriously believe there are lots of people out there who have heard of  Ayn Rand then you really aren't worth discussing anything with. Baring in mind that I am from the UK I probably have as much chance of guessing a stranger's mobile phone number as them having heard of Ayn Rand un;less they are a Rush fan or a philosophy major.

As for the second statement, well I refer you back to my response just above.
I hade only seen here name a few times on an album of mine prior to age 22 and honestly didn't know who she was and the significance of her name being there. Wasn't the curious or intellectual sort I guess. I didn't really know much about her or her significance until the last few years...

30 million books sold, movies based on her books (including one with Gary Cooper), postage stamps with her image/name on them, academy award winning documentary on her, mentions in TV shows, video games, movies, and repeated references in the media.  Plus, liberals hate her so much they probably promote her more than the numerous politicians, business people and artists that publicly cite her as an inspiration.  Unless you think that TRF is inhabited mostly of uneducated non-Americans, your assertion that most people here wouldn't have heard of her if not for Rush seems absurd.  I mean, you can't read a story about Rand Paul, Ron Paul, or Paul Ryan without her name being thrown around.  I don't think I could find 10 Americans who haven't heard of her without polling McDonald's workers...or at least engaging in asking a lot of people.
I think you need to read my post again. I made no such assertions about anyone but me. Pretty sure I used the word "I" a sh*tload of times and never us or we...

Edited by Narpsberg, 14 April 2015 - 02:37 PM.


#336 LedRush

LedRush

    The Counterparts Remain The Same

  • Members *
  • 24832 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Very small southeast Asian island
  • Interests:Family, guitar, classic video games, Ted Nugent, non-fiction books

Posted 14 April 2015 - 02:39 PM

View PostNarpsberg, on 14 April 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

View PostNarpsberg, on 14 April 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 14 April 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 14 April 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 13 April 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.
In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...
Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

You're  a fanboy, I get that.
Britney Spears has fanboys too.

You're incapable of discussing a topic on its merits, I get that.

You posted:

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

and

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

The first is so banal I'm having serious doubts as to whether you actually interact with normal people. If you seriously believe there are lots of people out there who have heard of  Ayn Rand then you really aren't worth discussing anything with. Baring in mind that I am from the UK I probably have as much chance of guessing a stranger's mobile phone number as them having heard of Ayn Rand un;less they are a Rush fan or a philosophy major.

As for the second statement, well I refer you back to my response just above.
I hade only seen here name a few times on an album of mine prior to age 22 and honestly didn't know who she was and the significance of her name being there. Wasn't the curious or intellectual sort I guess. I didn't really know much about her or her significance until the last few years...

30 million books sold, movies based on her books (including one with Gary Cooper), postage stamps with her image/name on them, academy award winning documentary on her, mentions in TV shows, video games, movies, and repeated references in the media.  Plus, liberals hate her so much they probably promote her more than the numerous politicians, business people and artists that publicly cite her as an inspiration.  Unless you think that TRF is inhabited mostly of uneducated non-Americans, your assertion that most people here wouldn't have heard of her if not for Rush seems absurd.  I mean, you can't read a story about Rand Paul, Ron Paul, or Paul Ryan without her name being thrown around.  I don't think I could find 10 Americans who haven't heard of her without polling McDonald's workers...or at least engaging in asking a lot of people.
I think you need to read my post again. I made no such assertions about anyone but me. Pretty sure I used the word "I" a sh*tload of times and never us or we...

My post was directly addressing what TonyR said.

#337 Narps

Narps

    Official TRF Pace Car Driver

  • Members
  • 27718 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Myrtle Beach SC
  • Interests:Exercise, my children, my new grandchildren(twin boys), the rest of my life...

Posted 14 April 2015 - 02:41 PM

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

View PostNarpsberg, on 14 April 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

View PostNarpsberg, on 14 April 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 14 April 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 14 April 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 14 April 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

View PostLedRush, on 13 April 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

View PostJARG, on 13 April 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

View PostTony R, on 13 April 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.
In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...
Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

You're  a fanboy, I get that.
Britney Spears has fanboys too.

You're incapable of discussing a topic on its merits, I get that.

You posted:

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

and

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

The first is so banal I'm having serious doubts as to whether you actually interact with normal people. If you seriously believe there are lots of people out there who have heard of  Ayn Rand then you really aren't worth discussing anything with. Baring in mind that I am from the UK I probably have as much chance of guessing a stranger's mobile phone number as them having heard of Ayn Rand un;less they are a Rush fan or a philosophy major.

As for the second statement, well I refer you back to my response just above.
I hade only seen here name a few times on an album of mine prior to age 22 and honestly didn't know who she was and the significance of her name being there. Wasn't the curious or intellectual sort I guess. I didn't really know much about her or her significance until the last few years...

30 million books sold, movies based on her books (including one with Gary Cooper), postage stamps with her image/name on them, academy award winning documentary on her, mentions in TV shows, video games, movies, and repeated references in the media.  Plus, liberals hate her so much they probably promote her more than the numerous politicians, business people and artists that publicly cite her as an inspiration.  Unless you think that TRF is inhabited mostly of uneducated non-Americans, your assertion that most people here wouldn't have heard of her if not for Rush seems absurd.  I mean, you can't read a story about Rand Paul, Ron Paul, or Paul Ryan without her name being thrown around.  I don't think I could find 10 Americans who haven't heard of her without polling McDonald's workers...or at least engaging in asking a lot of people.
I think you need to read my post again. I made no such assertions about anyone but me. Pretty sure I used the word "I" a sh*tload of times and never us or we...

My post was directly addressing what TonyR said.
Ok...

#338 TheBluePhoenix

TheBluePhoenix

    Prime Mover

  • Members
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 15 April 2015 - 07:44 AM

View Postcondemned2bfree, on 14 April 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

Great conduct, respect for others opinions, providing a thoroughly good read. Bravo!

I was thinking the same thing.  A discussion of philosophical, religious, or political beliefs can easily and quickly deteriorate into childish name-calling.  It seems to me that the first person that resorts to name-calling loses the argument because they failed to respond with an intelligent counter-point.  We know very little about each other so we don’t know how or why a person has come to believe what they do.  Ayn Rand, for example, was born and raised in Communist Russia until she fled to the USA when she was 21.  So her early life was very different compared to what one would experience if born and raised in the USA or a similar country.  Her first hand experiences growing up under a Communist regime had a profound effect on her which can be seen in her writing.

Edited by TheBluePhoenix, 15 April 2015 - 07:45 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users