|
Post by Big Lin on Nov 19, 2009 17:16:30 GMT
I've been rereading a couple of Rand's books lately - one is significantly better than the other even though it includes the weird essay on racism - and I still have a lot of respect from her.
To begin with, she tries to be logical and argue on the basis of reason; secondly, she's totally against the 'thought-crime' nonsense of the political extremists of both left and right; thirdly, she's about as close to an anarchist as it's possible to get without being one which makes her libertarian views very necessary in a world where so-called conservatives in America are increasingly becoming so authoritarian that they might as well join Aryan Nations or the Communist Party for all the respect they have for the liberties guaranteed in the constitution.
Mike is rereading her book on epistemology which is a bit too tough for me and he'll post his own comments on it in a few days. He's said so far that she is an excellent arguer but that she often starts from false premisses and therefore her conclusions turn out wrong. He's said a lot else but some of it is almost beyond me (apparently it's Rand's most 'technical' book).
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 19, 2009 19:47:17 GMT
Lin, I used to think she was clear-eyed, brave and valiant - one of my heroes for a long time. Then, I realized she was too black-white dogmatic, not enough gray in her scheme of things. Apparently, the Russian revolution caused her family to lose the business from which they had, previous to that, earned a comfortable livelihood. I think she was at a very impressionable age when that happened, and it fed her obsession with personal achievement to the point that it morphed into a kind of decadent greed. jmo
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Nov 19, 2009 21:52:19 GMT
Logic is only a tool, not a complete form of reasoning. Totalitarian systems thrive on logic driven by emotions they won't admit and suppressing more unifying ones that get in their way. I'm always very wary of people who say they operate on pure reason, usually meaning 'pure logic' because underneath it is usually a fear of personal involvement and anything that might take that into account.
I think the psychology underlying her stated views and her personal life need to be taken into account. Then she sounds much more like rationalising a creed familiar enough to social Darwinists and criminals that life is a war of all against all and somebody has to come out on top. Rarely do such people have somebody else in mind. She reduces people to economic functions - as do most Industrial-based systems - where the personal 'animal' relationships and emotions are a hindrance.
I see life exactly the other way, where it is the personal that takes precedence, and all economic functions should be geared to allowing the greatest freedom to interact and relate to others as emotional (and 'spiritual') beings, not as commodities. I think that economic commitments should exist for and come from co-operation on a personal level for mutual benefit so I'll choose Trotsky over Rand any time and Gandhi over both.
Even my current identity had to find themselves working for mutual benefit to survive even though they would all originally have been quite happy to ditch the others and sell out to do their own thing!
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Nov 20, 2009 22:11:38 GMT
It occurs to me that were we to put any credence in biblical prophecy, then Ayn Rand fulfills the image of the Antichrist perfectly. All she ultimately wants is to undo th whole of human civilisation and return us to the life of animals.
|
|