Earthshine Emmeline Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) I thought I'd put this out there. I'm personally divided on her ideas. Your personal opinions? Edited June 28, 2011 by Earthshine Emmeline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancient Ways Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (Earthshine Emmeline @ Jun 28 2011, 06:56 PM) I thought I'd put this out there. I'm personally divided on her ideas. Your personal opinions? i think if you take the idea you should strive to do your best from her you're ok. This whole concept of not compromising is ridiculous. It's the difference between living in a society and total anarchy. Everyone compromises at times, the challenge is knowing what is up for review and what is off limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioc Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 The words myopic and unrelenting spring to mind. The scope of her life experience was far too limited for the inflexibility her philosophy espoused. It only makes sense in the minimum of contexts. Unfortunately for most of her drivel, the number and structure of social systems are far more complex and diverse than "objectivism" allows. It betrays a lack of understanding towards social dependence and collective values borne from survival. Essentially, it just doesn't add up. (at least, to me. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jun 28 2011, 10:35 PM)QUOTE (Earthshine Emmeline @ Jun 28 2011, 06:56 PM) I thought I'd put this out there. I'm personally divided on her ideas. Your personal opinions? i think if you take the idea you should strive to do your best from her you're ok. This whole concept of not compromising is ridiculous. It's the difference between living in a society and total anarchy. Everyone compromises at times, the challenge is knowing what is up for review and what is off limits. That's the trouble with philosophical idealists, extremists, purists, or whatever we may call them. They refuse to see and live in the real world, in which people do indeed compromise. At any given time, we cooperate, we tolerate, we give in, we back down, and sometimes, we do work for the good of others (which would annoy Ms. Rand quite a bit). Human beings are social beings, regardless of what Rand thought. We are not just a huge group of independant individuals. We DO need to be with each other and work for each other. We can be selfish and self-centered, but we also work together. We cooperate with and depend on each other. Our species would have never survived this long without the basic desire to work as One. Rand had some very good ideas for sure, but it seemed like she wanted all of us to be Vulcans - logical, analytical, and dispassionate. I don't like that kind of existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (ioc @ Jun 28 2011, 11:39 PM) The words myopic and unrelenting spring to mind. The scope of her life experience was far too limited for the inflexibility her philosophy espoused. It only makes sense in the minimum of contexts. Unfortunately for most of her drivel, the number and structure of social systems are far more complex and diverse than "objectivism" allows. It betrays a lack of understanding towards social dependence and collective values borne from survival. Essentially, it just doesn't add up. (at least, to me. ) Wow. Said much better than I could say, and I consider myself an excellent writer. QUOTE The scope of her life experience was far too limited for the inflexibility her philosophy espoused. Much of her writing is a gross over-reaction agaist the communist Russia where she came from. I can understand not wanting communism to happen again, but going ridiculously in the other direction isn't the way to go, either. There are things which can be done collectively, and they should be, and there's nothing wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetaxe&saw Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 There's a lot of good stuff in her writings, I'd encourage any young person to read Anthem, but she was one pitiless cold fish, and it comes out in her writing. Like any philosophy, take the good stuff & use it and bin the crap. And, for Atlas Shrugged, she was badly in need of a good editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jun 29 2011, 08:33 AM)And, for Atlas Shrugged, she was badly in need of a good editor. Would she have even let an editor near her "ideas"? No compromise, you know.... When the film The Fountainhead was made (starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal), she would not let the writers edit Howard Roark's closing arguments to the jury. It was a HUGE speech, and Cooper had a hell of a time doing it during filming. Rand was a pain in the ass. Idealists usually are.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetaxe&saw Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jun 29 2011, 01:59 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jun 29 2011, 08:33 AM)And, for Atlas Shrugged, she was badly in need of a good editor. Would she have even let an editor near her "ideas"? No compromise, you know.... When the film The Fountainhead was made (starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal), she would not let the writers edit Howard Roark's closing arguments to the jury. It was a HUGE speech, and Cooper had a hell of a time doing it during filming. Rand was a pain in the ass. Idealists usually are.... The Fountainhead I love, but Atlas Shrugged, in parts, is like walking through molasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioc Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jun 29 2011, 08:59 AM) Rand was a pain in the ass. Idealists usually are.... Idealist usually are...a lot of things. Sadly, pain in the ass is one of the more virtuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earthshine Emmeline Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jun 29 2011, 09:35 AM) QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jun 29 2011, 01:59 PM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Jun 29 2011, 08:33 AM)And, for Atlas Shrugged, she was badly in need of a good editor. Would she have even let an editor near her "ideas"? No compromise, you know.... When the film The Fountainhead was made (starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal), she would not let the writers edit Howard Roark's closing arguments to the jury. It was a HUGE speech, and Cooper had a hell of a time doing it during filming. Rand was a pain in the ass. Idealists usually are.... The Fountainhead I love, but Atlas Shrugged, in parts, is like walking through molasses. That would be the perfect way to describe it. I started Atlas Shrugged recently. It was a bitter struggle to finish the first chapter >.> I think I'll stick with Anthem, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invisible To Telescopic Eye Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Read Anthem about 25 years ago or so...Didn't leave much of an impression though. I don't remember a thing about it. Tried reading The Fountainhead but it was too much put it down quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancient Ways Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Reading Rand reminds me of reading Heinlein when I was young. At the time I had no idea how much influence his philosophy (yes, even though it was "just sci-fi" it was full of his philosophies) was having on me. I re-read some of his works as an adult and I was a bit shocked at his influence on the younger me and at how much his ideas are not agreeable to me. Rand seems even more dangerous to young minds who do not have the experience in the real world to recognize the BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdFireYYZ Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I am planning on reading Anthem soon, I just haven't gotten around to it. From what I do know about her philosophies, I think she had some good ideas/concepts that I agree with, but they she went a little too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jun 29 2011, 06:55 PM)Rand seems even more dangerous to young minds who do not have the experience in the real world to recognize the BS. I'm not sure if her ideas are really "dangerous", but some of them sure are loony! One of Rand's ideals that totally reeks: Know me by my ideas, not by my family and childhood. That's complete BS. The best way to know someone is by knowing the complete person - his history, family, experiences....it's the best way to understand WHY he has his ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancient Ways Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jun 29 2011, 08:11 PM) QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jun 29 2011, 06:55 PM)Rand seems even more dangerous to young minds who do not have the experience in the real world to recognize the BS. I'm not sure if her ideas are really "dangerous", but some of them sure are loony! One of Rand's ideals that totally reeks: Know me by my ideas, not by my family and childhood. That's complete BS. The best way to know someone is by knowing the complete person - his history, family, experiences....it's the best way to understand WHY he has his ideas. Dangerous in terms of allowing themselves to be unduly influenced by a philosophy that promises to make them awesome but actually makes them a dickhead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioc Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jun 29 2011, 07:28 PM) QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jun 29 2011, 08:11 PM) QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jun 29 2011, 06:55 PM)Rand seems even more dangerous to young minds who do not have the experience in the real world to recognize the BS. I'm not sure if her ideas are really "dangerous", but some of them sure are loony! One of Rand's ideals that totally reeks: Know me by my ideas, not by my family and childhood. That's complete BS. The best way to know someone is by knowing the complete person - his history, family, experiences....it's the best way to understand WHY he has his ideas. Dangerous in terms of allowing themselves to be unduly influenced by a philosophy that promises to make them awesome but actually makes them a dickhead... EXACTLY!! This is why it's rare to hear of anyone out of high school, or possibly university (if they're especially pretentious) feeling enlightened by having read Rand books. Once you've got some (or almost any) living under your belt, those ideas just don't smell right. Even Pratt said that he only read them way back then because he noticed that it was what all the other kids were reading. 2112 or not, once he matured, he got over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetaxe&saw Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jun 30 2011, 12:28 AM) QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jun 29 2011, 08:11 PM) QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jun 29 2011, 06:55 PM)Rand seems even more dangerous to young minds who do not have the experience in the real world to recognize the BS. I'm not sure if her ideas are really "dangerous", but some of them sure are loony! One of Rand's ideals that totally reeks: Know me by my ideas, not by my family and childhood. That's complete BS. The best way to know someone is by knowing the complete person - his history, family, experiences....it's the best way to understand WHY he has his ideas. Dangerous in terms of allowing themselves to be unduly influenced by a philosophy that promises to make them awesome but actually makes them a dickhead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddysMullet Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jun 29 2011, 08:28 PM) QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jun 29 2011, 08:11 PM) QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jun 29 2011, 06:55 PM)Rand seems even more dangerous to young minds who do not have the experience in the real world to recognize the BS. I'm not sure if her ideas are really "dangerous", but some of them sure are loony! One of Rand's ideals that totally reeks: Know me by my ideas, not by my family and childhood. That's complete BS. The best way to know someone is by knowing the complete person - his history, family, experiences....it's the best way to understand WHY he has his ideas. Dangerous in terms of allowing themselves to be unduly influenced by a philosophy that promises to make them awesome but actually makes them a dickhead... Very well said, Ancient Ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) Edited June 30, 2011 by GeddyRulz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apetersvt Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 QUOTE (ioc @ Jun 29 2011, 10:51 PM) QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jun 29 2011, 07:28 PM) QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jun 29 2011, 08:11 PM) QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jun 29 2011, 06:55 PM)Rand seems even more dangerous to young minds who do not have the experience in the real world to recognize the BS. I'm not sure if her ideas are really "dangerous", but some of them sure are loony! One of Rand's ideals that totally reeks: Know me by my ideas, not by my family and childhood. That's complete BS. The best way to know someone is by knowing the complete person - his history, family, experiences....it's the best way to understand WHY he has his ideas. Dangerous in terms of allowing themselves to be unduly influenced by a philosophy that promises to make them awesome but actually makes them a dickhead... EXACTLY!! This is why it's rare to hear of anyone out of high school, or possibly university (if they're especially pretentious) feeling enlightened by having read Rand books. Once you've got some (or almost any) living under your belt, those ideas just don't smell right. Even Pratt said that he only read them way back then because he noticed that it was what all the other kids were reading. 2112 or not, once he matured, he got over it. I felt very enlightened when I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time (and yes I was in college at the time). I was amazed that pretty much all of my political thoughts and beliefs at the time were put in print. I wished I had read it sooner. I like the Fountainhead but it didn't do much for me. Anthem was really cool especially having heard 2112 a thousand times or so. I gave up on We The Living about 2/3 into it. I still agree with most of the objectivist philosphies but certainly do not agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 I wish the mention of her name on the forum resulted in an automatic ban. I am so sick of hearing about her on this board. More bacon, less Ann Rand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeddyRulz Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 QUOTE (tick @ Jul 1 2011, 03:40 PM) I wish the mention of her name on the forum resulted in an automatic ban. I am so sick of hearing about her on this board. More bacon, less Ann Rand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioc Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 QUOTE (tick @ Jul 1 2011, 03:40 PM)I wish the mention of her name on the forum resulted in an automatic ban. I am so sick of hearing about her on this board. More bacon, less Ann Rand Yes. Furthermore, the name shall be spoken no more. Henceforth, this one shall be known only as: "She Who Shall Not Be Quoted" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonictheplumber Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 anthem was ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowItIs Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jun 29 2011, 06:28 AM) QUOTE (ioc @ Jun 28 2011, 11:39 PM) The words myopic and unrelenting spring to mind. The scope of her life experience was far too limited for the inflexibility her philosophy espoused. It only makes sense in the minimum of contexts. Unfortunately for most of her drivel, the number and structure of social systems are far more complex and diverse than "objectivism" allows. It betrays a lack of understanding towards social dependence and collective values borne from survival. Essentially, it just doesn't add up. (at least, to me. ) Wow. Said much better than I could say, and I consider myself an excellent writer. QUOTE The scope of her life experience was far too limited for the inflexibility her philosophy espoused. Much of her writing is a gross over-reaction agaist the communist Russia where she came from. I can understand not wanting communism to happen again, but going ridiculously in the other direction isn't the way to go, either. There are things which can be done collectively, and they should be, and there's nothing wrong with that. Both of them. Personally, I think she's not even a good writer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now