Re: An Open Letter To Open-Minded Progressives

"raven1" <quoththeraven@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:bv1m04pbm2jn2e77sfm0rl7l7ro5rhm7g4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:20:00 -0500, "skysi" <feur@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"raven1" <quoththeraven@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:olpk04tue3kq03av4g3etauv9mfglauuod@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:08:32 -0500, "?????? ????????" <feurio@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Folks, read works of Ayn Rand and a lot of your confusion in life,
>>>>politics
>>>>and economics will go away.
>>>
>>> That would be a feat, given Rand's total muddle-headedness on each of
>>> the topics. Like Marxism, Libertarianism is an excellent example of
>>> "nice idea, wrong species".
>>
>>Hmm... and what exactly did you read to come up with the conclusion.
Care 
>>to
>>comment on examples of muddle-headedness?
>
> The entirety of the philosophy contained in "Atlas Shrugged" and "The
> Fountainhead" would be a good start.

Yes, It's a good start, but only in a poetic sense. What you see in Atlas 
Shrugged and Fountainhead is a condensed idea.
It is impossible to lay out your entire philosophy in detail in a novel.
Here's what she wrote in  "For the New Intelectual" which was an organised

collection of exerpts from her previous works :

The full system is implicit in these excerpts (particularly in Galt's
speech), but its fundamentals are indicated only in the widest terms and
require a detailed, systematic presentation in a philosophical treatise. I

am
working on such a treatise at present; it will deal predominantly with the
issue which is barely touched upon in Galt's speech: epistemology, and
will
present a new theory of the nature, source and validation of concepts.
This
work will require several years; until then, I offer the present book as a

lead
or a summary for those who wish to acquire an integrated view of
existence.
They may regard it as a basic outline; it will give them the guidance they
need, but only if they think through and understand the exact meaning and
the full implications of these excerpts.

You will have to read her non-fiction philosophical works to have a CLEAR 
view of her philosophy.






>
>>Libertarianism has little to do with Objectivism, btw.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>You probably heard of Atlas Shrugged,
>>>
>>> A political polemic in the form of an excruciatingly long and poorly
>>> written novel. One of those books about which it can be said that "it
>>> does not permit itself to be read".
>>
>>
>>This  "poorly written novel" is still selling in large numbers, long
after
>>her death.
>
> So are any number of other poorly written novels.
>
>>>> but that's
>>>>not enough.
>>>>She is the founder of philosophy of Objectivism.
>>>
>>> Which carries as much weight around alt.atheism as being the founder
>>> of Scientology.
>>
>>
>>I'm not posting in alt.atheism
>
> I'm reading it here.
>
>>>>The fundamentals of her
>>>>philosophy are set forth in such nonfiction books as:
>>>>For the New Intelectual, The virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The
>>>>Unknown
>>>>Ideal., and Romantic Manifesto. Also read the following: Introduction
to
>>>>Objectivist Epistemology, edited by Harry Bibswanger and leonard 
>>>>Peikoff.
>>>>
>>>>This will open your eyes on a lot of things.
>>>
>>> Such as why most Randroids tend to be socially inept 15-16 year old
>>> males?
>>
>>
>>Alan Greenspan is one of them, I presume
>
> It's really hard to equate Greenspan's actions as Chairman of the Fed
> with an Objectivist or Libertarian philosophy.

Unfortunately Greenspan was a one-man army in Wa****ngton -- not a fighter.
He could explain things, though which people didn't want to understand.

>
>> :o). Rand Institute is full of
>>those too.
>>I'm not talking about people whos convictions are based on a passing
>>fa****on, rather of people whos convictions are based on a certain
>>philosophy.
>>When that's the case you stop to be a droid of anything,but a thinking
>>individual.
>
> You must know some different ones; all the ones we get passing through
> alt.atheism are complete kooks.

There are no kooks amonf folks I know. Every movement/philosophy has its 
kooks, though.
Misrepresentation of a philosophy does not degrade that philosophy.