Ayn Rand?

[MrJohnGalt]

Any 2+2ers like Ayn Rand?

[fluxrad]

I think you'll find about 50+ libertarians on this board who think she embodied the second coming.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you'll find about 50+ libertarians on this board who think she embodied the second coming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this one.

As I've posted before, I find (what I know of) her philosophy to be:

1) lacking in any sense of empathy or compassion for others

2) moralistic and somewhat controlling

3) overly simplistic

All of the above, in my opinion, are very serious flaws.

That's not to say she doesn't have *some* good ideas. The flaws however verge on being rather ruinous to her philosophy as a whole, in my opinion.

Also, she *doesn't* have enough of a laissez-faire outlook, such as would befit a true free thinker, Classic Liberal, or Libertarian.

[ACPlayer]

We agree.

Cheers

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
We agree.

Cheers

[/ QUOTE ]

So do we. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
1) lacking in any sense of empathy or compassion for others

2) moralistic and somewhat controlling

3) overly simplistic

...

Also, she *doesn't* have enough of a laissez-faire outlook, such as would befit a true free thinker, Classic Liberal, or Libertarian.

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) Compassion is actually a secondary value within Objectivism. Goodwill is a natural consequence of the philosophy. What sets it apart from other philosophies is its rejection of altruism, which many interpret to mean that it is spiteful or hateful of the "I don't care how much others suffer as long as I get what I want." People who have that attitude before they discover her work might keep that attitude and say that she agrees with them; don't judge the philosophy by its adherents. Debate about the role of compassion within Objectivism usually twists on the difference between the consequence of a nest of rational values and the plain meaning of the core values identified by her Ethics.

(2) There are disagreements within Oist factions about the amount of personal responsibility that the intellectually dishonest bear, within a society that actively encourages it. Rand, herself, took a strong moralist approach. Basically she refused to allow the dishonest to apologize but continue being dishonest; there is no excuse for lying to yourself.

(3) I'm not sure what you mean by 'simplistic'. I normally see this term used by people who think that her metaphysics is too trivial, or by academics that feel that "proper philosophy" must address hundreds of years of critique and thereby dismiss her fresh start. Would you care to elaborate?

(4) As for "enough" laissez-faire, this again suggests to me the distinction between Rand's proper purpose of government and the competing-mafias ideas popular in some libertarian fiction. Would you care to elaborate?

[lehighguy]

Never read her. And I'm a Libraterian. I suppose I should.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You should be aware that Rand had no use for libertarians, calling us "The hippies of the right."

That being said, I appreciate a great deal of the objectivist philosophy.

[coffeecrazy1]

I'd say that "hippies of the right" is a fairly accurate label for us. We exhibit pretty much classical laissez-faire conservatism, and boil out any moralism in the law to allow the most freedom possible.

I don't think Rand would have wanted that...because people, while not naturally atruistic, are generally so, anyway, because of the spiritual benefit they derive from it.

Side question: Would Gordon Gekko be almost a perfect Objectivist?

[lehighguy]

I don;t really know alot about Objectivism.

But I love that Gekko.