Ms. Rand

[rgraham666]

Personally, I've never seen why people find her so influential. My own opinion is that there are rather large dichotomies in her philosophy, and personality.

As far as her political/economic philosophy goes, she seems to me to be the Marxist equivalent of a Satanist. A Satanist accepts the Christian theology but reverses it. What is good to a standard Christian is bad to a Satanist and vice versa.

So it is with Ms. Rand. Growing up in Soviet Russia, she learnt the Marxist theology that capitalism is a vicious Darwinian struggle, where the marketplace runs free regardless of the damage it does. Your standard Marxist accepts this theology. And Ms. Rand reversed it, believed that this class struggle was a good thing. But she does share the tenets of the Marxist theology.

And it strikes me that she was an extreme submissive. In her novels, the central character is always an apparently strong woman who only finds joy once she's found an even stronger man to give herself to.

I understand she was much like this in real life as well. I gather her husband was an emotionally distant, somewhat abusive drunk. And she absolutely doted on him. Never talked back or challenged him in any manner.

Shrugs. If that's what she believes and how she fulfilled herself, I've got no say in the matter. But I'm not going to share that. Doesn't work for me.

Just needed to get that out. Feel free to comment, threadjack, flame or whatever.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I think most people who develop philosophies, theories, etc. about "life" and "the way it is" so to speak... really say much more about their inner world, their psyche and their way of being, than they do about "The Way"... if that makes sense. There are always some bits and pieces of universal, apriori Truth in it all... but all of it gets slanted by the personal psyche... look at the difference between Freud and Jung. I always find it funny that Freud had a young, beautiful mother and Jung an old, ugly one... their views on "Mother" are very different, subsequently...

Christ said not to follow his way, but the way of your own heart... Jung said, don't be a Christian, or a Jungian... only he or I can do that... be whatever it is you are meant to be, travel the road that you alone were meant to travel. Most good philosophers or "gurus" will tell you so. That only they can follow their path, that you must follow your own.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Personally, I've never seen why people find her so influential. My own opinion is that there are rather large dichotomies in her philosophy, and personality.

As far as her political/economic philosophy goes, she seems to me to be the Marxist equivalent of a Satanist. A Satanist accepts the Christian theology but reverses it. What is good to a standard Christian is bad to a Satanist and vice versa.

So it is with Ms. Rand. Growing up in Soviet Russia, she learnt the Marxist theology that capitalism is a vicious Darwinian struggle, where the marketplace runs free regardless of the damage it does. Your standard Marxist accepts this theology. And Ms. Rand reversed it, believed that this class struggle was a good thing. But she does share the tenets of the Marxist theology.

And it strikes me that she was an extreme submissive. In her novels, the central character is always an apparently strong woman who only finds joy once she's found an even stronger man to give herself to.

I understand she was much like this in real life as well. I gather her husband was an emotionally distant, somewhat abusive drunk. And she absolutely doted on him. Never talked back or challenged him in any manner.

Shrugs. If that's what she believes and how she fulfilled herself, I've got no say in the matter. But I'm not going to share that. Doesn't work for me.

Just needed to get that out. Feel free to comment, threadjack, flame or whatever.

I'm going to reccomend a book to you Rob. You won't agree with much of it, although I think you will like some. It's called through a jaundice eye, by Florence King. She's a self-proclaimed misanthroe. In it, she takes a prety critical look at people who have been handed that appellation. rand is among them.

IN King's judgement, rand's philosophy is a backlash to the rampant anti-semitism she witnessed as a youth. If you're interested, and don't have the free dollars let me know and I'll type the main points up for you in a pM, just remember the typos are mine and not Ms. Kings

 

[rgraham666]

I'm going to reccomend a book to you Rob. You won't agree with much of it, although I think you will like some. It's called through a jaundice eye, by Florence King. She's a self-proclaimed misanthroe. In it, she takes a prety critical look at people who have been handed that appellation. rand is among them.

IN King's judgement, rand's philosophy is a backlash to the rampant anti-semitism she witnessed as a youth. If you're interested, and don't have the free dollars let me know and I'll type the main points up for you in a pM, just remember the typos are mine and not Ms. Kings

Thanks Colleen.

I've been meaning to start using my local library again. This book gives me a good reason to do so.

Most people's personal philosophies have a large component of backlash to them. It's certainly true in my case at least.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks Colleen.

I've been meaning to start using my local library again. This book gives me a good reason to do so.

Most people's personal philosophies have a large component of backlash to them. It's certainly true in my case at least.

I think I gave you the wrog title. It's in With Charity towards none I think

 

[Pure]

thoughts--- and where is RA...

the motives and family backgrounds of philosophers, and thinkers generally, is not really the main issue.

but rg's main point is pretty accurate: Rand found intellectual 'refuge' in a vision of a 'pure capitalist' state, where there would be 'free market' (which she confused with freedom) and virtually NO state authority-- yes, an understandable reaction to Lenin and Stalin.

This was similar to the vision of classic 'liberals' (so known in their time) as Adam Smith and JS Mill. Of course there was never a 'free market,' and the government of 19th century England was not exactly 'minimal.' But the IDEAL was important to Rand: the 'invisible hand' that rationally allocated production and distribution of goods and services, rather than Uncle Joe's 'heavy hand' with a pistol in it.

She at least had the consistency to be 'pro choice', since she did NOT like the state guarding women's wombs. And I don't believe, generally, she had much use for 'morals' legislation, like criminalization of prostitution or marijuana use, of provision of subsidies for Christian causes, etc. These are excellent and sane positions.

We are fortunate to have a very literate and sane representative--so to say-- of Rand's approach, though not exactly a disciple. Roxanne Appleby. Maybe you can coax her to a thread discussing issues if the amateur psychological analysis of Ms. Rand is shelved.

 

[Rope64]

I understand she was much like this in real life as well. I gather her husband was an emotionally distant, somewhat abusive drunk. And she absolutely doted on him. Never talked back or challenged him in any manner.

Actually, as I understand it, Rand's husband was a doormat whom she openly cheated on with a favorite disciple, with (typically) a justification grounded in her ideology. Rand also, however, was apparently an adolescent-level mentality stalker of Frank Lloyd Wright.

I sometimes recommend "Interview With History" by Orianna Falacci -- and in particular its introduction, in which Falacci explains why she sought out interviews with famous, powerful people, and what she discovered in doing so -- to anyone who thinks there might be something to Rand's ideology.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Some of Rand's stuff sounds cool, but I prefer Nietzsche. Maybe that's because he emphasized not belonging to the herd and correctly predicted the decline of criminal justice under the herd's influence. Of course, he was not perfect, and he was certainly no liberal democrat.

Face it, every philosophy has the imprint of the philosopher. It is the brainchild of the philosopher and his unique world-view. That's why even adherents adjust the philosophy to their own personal mindset. Just look at what Paul did to the teachings of Jesus. Talk about twisting!

That being said, what's so wrong about a jaded philosophy? Is it not as valid as any other? What I find odd is those people who are SOOO tolerant of every opinion- except that of a Cynic. Hey, it is a legitimate philosophy, founded by Diogenes the Cynic, a famously jaded fellow. I wonder how people can quote Diogenes one minute and dismiss his philosophy the next. There is something to be said for a pessimistic world-view at times. For one thing, it is often accurate.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

That being said, what's so wrong about a jaded philosophy? Is it not as valid as any other?

nothing... as long as you know it's jaded. It is just as valid as any other I agree. I just happen to find the psyche of the individual more interesting than the collective... <shrug> my personal bias

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You, my dear, should be a shrink, if you aren't one already!

 

[Selena_Kitt]

LOL!

Good call. Am.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

That explains a lot.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

That explains a lot.

LOL!

Of course it does. We all come with our personal bias...

 

[3113]

I think most people who develop philosophies, theories, etc. about "life" and "the way it is" so to speak... really say much more about their inner world, their psyche and their way of being, than they do about "The Way".

Very aptly put. I like what you had to say and think it hit the nail on the head.

I'll take it one further--those who subscribe to "A Way" often are saying more about their psyche than whether the "Way" really works. Such philosophies usually present themselves as magic forumulas. Cure-alls--and that's what a lot of people who subscribe to such philosophies are after. If everyone would just pray, they'd find happiness and peace. If everyone would share the wealth, we'd all be happy. If everyone was just allowed to be themselves and do exactly as they liked, the world would be a creative paradise.

The scary thing about such philosophies is that adherents seem to think that if it's just imposed on the population, everyone will see the light and all will be well. Truth is, everyone really has to be under that mind-control satellite and think all the same (ironically enough in Rand's case) for the philosophy to create a utopia. I mean, consider Rand's philosophy. Everyone's supposed to be an individual and do as they like. But...as individuals who can do as they like, they can also join a cult where they all dress alike, act alike, share the wealth, etc., etc.. If everyone is free to do as they like, then...some can chose to not be individuals, right? How does the philosophy get around this strange contridicton?

Well, it assumes that once the world comes under the sway of this philosophy, there will be no one who ever choses that lifestyle. Likewise, the philosophy *assumes* that if we both open taco stands we'll let the customer decide which one is better and should succeed...not that I'm going to secretly sabotague your operations. It assumes that companies will pay their workers, not enslave them; that things we all rely on (water, air), will not be polluted or poisoned by neglegent industries. LOGICALLY, if we think long term and follow the "Way," all this makes sense. You pay workers well so that they can buy stuff, and everyone profits, and you don't poison the water, right? Unfortunately for Rand's philosophy...people often think short term, not long. Make a quick, selfish buck then bail...not create a company that will last and benefit everyone for generations.

Things can be made better or worse by more or less free market or socialism or public prayer...or common sense for that matter. But nothing is going to magically create a utopia. And what works for some societies won't work for others. Unless someone's got a mind-control satellite?

And yes, Rand was a "fan" of Frank Lloyd Wright. Her architect in The Fountain Head was based on F.L.Wright. Though I sincerely doubt Wright would have blown up his building if those who hired him fouled up his vision.

 

[rgraham666]

The quest for 'utopia' that 3113 mentioned is, in my mind, a symptom of one of the bigger problems in the human psyche, perfectionism.

So many of us are so certain that if the world becomes perfect life will be easy and wonderful forever.

I believe a lot of this has to do with our dislike of responsibility. In a perfect world, all actions are inevitable, so there is no responsibility attached to them. With choice taken away, we no longer have to deal with emotions like guilt or regret.

Odd isn't it? In a "perfect world" where everyone is "free" we have no choices to make.

 

[MasterPhoenix]

I like her fiction. Its not great writing neccessairily, but the characters are very strongly created. (I admit to skipping over a big chunk of John gualt's speech in Atlas Shrugged)

I think that her philosophy is out of whack, but its very understandable considering her background of growinh up in early Lennist Russia.

the irony of ironies is that I think she would be disgusted by current corporate America in that they have lost the drive to create.

 

[3113]

I like her fiction. Its not great writing neccessairily, but the characters are very strongly created. (I admit to skipping over a big chunk of John gualt's speech in Atlas Shrugged)

You know, I've been thinking about her fiction...and...with exceptions, of course...I wonder if a lot of these "philosophies" are really just frustrated pulp writers (or maybe not so frustrtrated).

I mean, creating utopias (or dystopias that need to magically be changed by some hero with a vision) is usually the provance of...well, didactic science fiction. And a lot of these (can we call them "Cult" leaders?) philosophers start out this way...writing a fiction. Usually a not so good fiction...pot boilers with straw-men, black-hatted villians that the white-hatted heros need to destroy, philosophically if not really.

Which makes me wonder not just about these writers, but also their readers. Why is such fiction so appealing that it can make readers take up a religion or philosophy? Such books might or might not be entertaining...but they're rarely that good.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Personally, I don't see what is so bad about such sci-fi. Utopias and dystopias (particularly the latter, I admit) are fascinating scenarios to me. They show a lot of imagination, to dream of a world that isn't.

 

[amicus]

rgraham666]Personally, I've never seen why people find her so influential. My own opinion is that there are rather large dichotomies in her philosophy, and personality.

As far as her political/economic philosophy goes, she seems to me to be the Marxist equivalent of a Satanist. A Satanist accepts the Christian theology but reverses it. What is good to a standard Christian is bad to a Satanist and vice versa.

So it is with Ms. Rand. Growing up in Soviet Russia, she learnt the Marxist theology that capitalism is a vicious Darwinian struggle, where the marketplace runs free regardless of the damage it does. Your standard Marxist accepts this theology. And Ms. Rand reversed it, believed that this class struggle was a good thing. But she does share the tenets of the Marxist theology.

And it strikes me that she was an extreme submissive. In her novels, the central character is always an apparently strong woman who only finds joy once she's found an even stronger man to give herself to.

I understand she was much like this in real life as well. I gather her husband was an emotionally distant, somewhat abusive drunk. And she absolutely doted on him. Never talked back or challenged him in any manner.

Shrugs. If that's what she believes and how she fulfilled herself, I've got no say in the matter. But I'm not going to share that. Doesn't work for me.

Just needed to get that out. Feel free to comment, threadjack, flame or whatever.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~

Hmmm...this is hard. The threadstarter has, in many many posts, identified himself as one of those the Rand, in her fiction, describes as 'parasites' and 'second handers' those who believe that 'society' owes them an existence.

Thus I question the motive of the subject of this thread.

I have not memorized the biography of Ayn Rand, but picture a young woman, about twenty, I think, arriving in America in the 1920's or early 30's, I should research and be precise, I know, but...

As many of you know first hand, writing is a lonely profession. Few of us even aspire to do what Mrs. O'Conner, Ms. Rand accomplished without speaking a native tongue of English.

What this person, Ayn Rand, psuedonym and all, accomplished in her lifetime is amazing.

A virtually penniless girl from Communist Russia, migrates to America and becomes an icon of literature and philosophy.

What she challenged, was what the threadstarter holds dear in his heart, the socialist utopian dream of self sacrifice for the greater good.

And my oh, my, did she challenge and confront the Marxist theology of sacrifice, on all fronts.

Her early fiction idealized the 'perfect man', that individual who would stand tall and firm to defend honor and dignity against the masses. "Anthem" and "We the Living" portrayed the struggle of the individual to survive and maintain his existence against the grey bureaocracy of totalitarianism.

As she matured, she began to address the many aspects of why common people are swept up in grandiose totalitarian concepts. She did so by illustrating how those who rose above the common place did so and what courage and dedication it took.

"The mind of man" became her theme in her later fictional novels, as she identified the individual as the prime mover in humanity's quest to improve.

She portrayed ignorance, fear and bureaocracy as forces that resisted rational change and progress in society.

At the core and heart and soul of her writing is the theme of the individual mind as the prime mover in all things. She glorified individuality and the strong, brave and courageous and she spread that liberally between male and female, she had strong characters of both genders.

The latter part of her life is even more important than the early fiction she wrote. Her essays on contemporary issues and philosophy, couched with the historical knowledge of the history of philosophy, economics and psychology are an achievement never to be surpassed.

She was a vital, dynamic human being, which her detractors have made the most of. I, personally, am fully aware of the Nathaniel and Barbara Branden 'tell all' psuedo biographies, it is kind of like saying Thomas Jefferson had a black mistress, so what?

The 'Liberal media" made the most of it of course, with a film, "The Passion of Ayn Rand" and another one, more complimentary, but not much.

rGraham notwithstanding; the memory of Ayn Rand, her writings, The Ayn Rand Institute, (on line, search for it), her still selling books and her inclusion in college philosophy classes, and even that you perverts here on the Literotica forum, know all about her, is testimony to her impact.

amicus....

 

[Selena_Kitt]

The threadstarter has, in many many posts, identified himself as one of those the Rand, in her fiction, describes as 'parasites' and 'second handers' those who believe that 'society' owes them an existence.

hm...

so what would I be, Ami?

what would you be?

 

[amicus]

SelenaKittyn]hm...

so what would I be, Ami?

what would you be?

[/I]

~~~~~~~~

Well. bruised and battered, I made my way in this world since age 12, how about you, kid ( you know how to whistle, just put your lips together and blow...}

amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

hm...

so what would I be, Ami?

what would you be?

You would be evil, as are all who question the truth.

Our 'friend' is good, as he knows and understands the truth.

Simple, isn't it?

 

[amicus]

Yup, simple.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You would be evil, as are all who question the truth.

Our 'friend' is good, as he knows and understands the truth.

Simple, isn't it?

as pie... or pi...

 

[amicus]

3.14 to infinity....the ratio ...another universal...I could use that...thanks...


amicus....