Re: An Open Letter To Open-Minded Progressives

"raven1" <quoththeraven@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:aghp045pa95p2c2pmhguhdav081o8qg77t@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:21:54 -0500, "skysi" <feur@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"raven1" <quoththeraven@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:h62p049efrpht316cetfe3vru0gj7hup8v@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:01:00 -0500, "skysi" <feur@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"raven1" <quoththeraven@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:fl1o045f6j2qri8laeamurgfnd679eoc2j@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:09:30 -0500, "skysi" <feur@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"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,
>>>>>
>>>>> Missed the point much?
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>
>>>>> Galt's speech is a prime example of what I mean; as the Caterpillar
>>>>> put it to Alice in another literary work, "it is wrong from
beginning
>>>>> to end".
>>>>
>>>>That's all you have to say? Not much, considering you really said 
>>>>nothing
>>>
>>> As did Rand in Galt's speech. Somewhere around 100 pages worth of
>>> nothing, IIRC.
>>>
>>>>:o)
>>>>Do I still have to repeat the word non-fictional works?
>>>
>>> If her own fictional character can't adequately present her philosophy
>>> in an endless speech that she wrote for him, her non-fictional works
>>> are unlikely to be any more rewarding, but I'm willing to give it a
>>> shot. What single non-fictional work of Rand would you recommend to
>>> someone looking for a basic overview?
>>
>>
>>Well, too bad you didn't get it.
>
> I understand it. I just don't buy it.
>
>> But try "the Virtue of Selfishness". If you
>>want to understand a philosophy on a deeper level, you have to read the
>>major works. In the case of Objectivism it would be Introduction to
>>Objectivist Epistemology and Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal (the unknown
>>because we never really had it).
>
> Which puts her on just as shaky grounds as Marx in her idealistic
> claims. Nice "own goal" on your part.
>
>>If you are really interested in this, also
>>read Alan Greenspan's the Age of Turbulence. Btw, Ayn Rand has a few 
>>serious
>>followers, and there's Rand Institute. Google it.
>
> I'm already aware of the Rand Institute. It confirms my opinion of her
> writings and philosophy.
>
>>That said, something tells me that you are not serious and all you are 
>>after
>>is outlines.
>
> I am serious in asking for a non-fiction work of Rand's that might
> lead me to think of her as other than the intellectual lightweight,
> philosophical hack, and delusional economist, that her fictional works
> inadvertently reveal her to be.
>
>> If that's the case, forget about understanding Objectivism or
>>any other philosophy on an intimate level.
>>Lastly, understanding the truth of this particular philosophy requires
>>courage to look deep into the issues of mankind and re-think many a
dogma. 
>>I
>>personally started my studies of philosophy  from the Greeks (Plato and
>>Aristotle).
>
> A good place to start with, but Rand is an asinine point to end your
> exploration.

I end my exploration when I'm dead :o), but I'm not going to venture any 
more into philosophies that do not include man and his relation****p to 
existance as an individual into the subjects of their study.

I know some folks don't like Rand because she always sounded so radical
and 
forceful. Definitelly, she was not soft-spoken and entertaining. Yet, this

didn't hinder my understanding of her philosophy. For me, content is most 
im****tant, not presentation. As to buying it, there's no way right now to 
prove that her system can work -- the world is too deeply rooted in its 
destructive ways, so things like her system sound Utopian and Idealistic. 
Yet, I do buy its intent and straightforwardness.

As to Marx, Marx' and Rand's philosophies are in direct opposition, as 
opposite as collectivism and individualism can be.