shepardess_us

I was under the impression that for many years her books were listed among the most influential books in the world..... I thought that I heard, that in the western world, they were second only to the bible( before I get slammed with posts, I am not saying anything by that other than her massive inffluence in the world). Go figure? She used to even frequent television shows such as Donahue! She seems to have been part of pop cultural since it existed, afterall how did all of you come across her texts?

I am sorry to piggyback on Christopher's post here, but I previously missed this reference to "Ayn" when I stopped reading WilliamB's post midstream. I would like to remind WilliamB, and other posters here, that to refer to Ayn Rand by the familiarity of solely her first name is extremely presumptuous and disrespectful of one of the greatest geniuses in history -- certainly THE greatest genius of our time -- and should only be done by those who were, in fact, on a first-name basis with Miss Rand (and, even then, only in the proper context). We show our respect by referring to "Ayn Rand" or "Miss Rand," as is done throughout the proper Objectivist corpus. And so my point is proven again.

Thank you Charles, I didn't feel like wasting my time again responding to driveby, But then I was no where near as informed on the matters he tried to discuss as you.

Geeze, I am really sorry if what I said upset you. It wasn't intended to. I have just seen a large amount of people throughout the world who do change the philosophy into something they follow almost religously. I wasn't adressing anyone here specifically if you noticed, I don't think anything was said that directly related to my thoughts. After reading the thread I did however see an overall tone to this thread as well as others and I thoughtmy post would have been an intresting discussion. I am not an enemy and I said nothing of blind faith. I don't think what I said was rude by any means. I will now mention that your tone in responce to my post is more specifically what I was talking about, you seem to tie your identity to your beliefs rather than the other way around. You seem to feel the need to to talk in terms of "us versus them." I have heard few people other than the very religous use words like "enemy" for people who don't follow or find truth in thier own belief system. As For "having my objectivism and eating it too(?)" I can't think where I said anything that exhibited such behavior. I think it would be wise for you to reconsider your reactions, you may find that they upset not because they were wrong but because of just the opposite. As for lecturing, if that was how my post was interpretted, I don't find that it was in anyway out of place. I see much of that around here, what was so upsetting to you about my remarks?

Would I be out of bounds by suggesting that Objectivism is not a religon and Ayn Rand not its prophet. I think that a person could do damage by following AR's life as though it were the Messiah's. Her philosophy has so much to offer but it does not lay out "Objectivist "guidelines for matters of personal taste. She may herself had held opinions about art and music that tied back into her own philosophy, but that does mean that an individual should not like something because she didn't. One should remember how much the era in which an individual was raised effects their personal opinions on art and music. Most people her age hated folk music and alot of them probably didn't hold anything near Objectivist views. She also made allusions in AS that she didn't like the countryside and prefered the city. I love being in the countryside that does not make me an alltruist or a non-Objectivist. She also LOVED hollywood movies, I imagine alot of us out there don't care much for hollywood movies of today or of her time. These types of personal preferences should not be cast in with the information she gives on personal and political philosophy. A person stands to make a religon out of an atheist philosophy when doing so. On the topic of Bob Dylan or other similar folk musicians, I for one like much of the music. I would never defend however much of the socialist setiment that was prevalent at the time, but still enjoy hearing a really good Dylan song. But those are my own feelings that do not affect anybody elses.

I am just trying to say that their were many people who were so off topic by saying that the reason that the governmant shouldn't give these people our money was because of various attributes these people had, not plainly focusing on whether or not the government had right to send our tax dollars to those countries. They were attaching a general value to the lives of all of the people in the struck areas and making suggestions of the worth of thier lives based on political or personal views they assumed these people had. I am not saying that these people deserve help because they are in need, I am saying that some people were alluding to the idea that the disaster there was some how warranted and that we should be glad that all those people are dead They were making suggestions that some people "deserved" to live while others do not based on social, political, personal and economic factors. Which is not a call for anyone to make. I only wanted to point out how sentiments such as those negate clearly so much of Ayn Rand's own feelings of the importance of life.

As I said in my first post, I wasn't suggesting that a government is in anyway obligated to give money to the victims of such disaters. My statements were directed to the all too many people in this thread that confused thier arguments by saying that somehow the victims didn't deserve money because they were anti-american, or suggested that it was far better that these people die as they hold no value in society, to the ones that called such people the enemy, to those that suggested they got what was coming to them because of thier own fautly governments that make for such poor living conditions. I for one do not agree with many of the decisions that my government makes, I vote and I get by. As it is not my intention to spend my life as a martyr trying to change the ways of my government at the cost of my own happiness, am I then at fault for its desicions. The suggestion that much of this thread was making was that the value of someones life was somehow tied to thier beliefs or country and NOT, as I said, focusing on the fact that it is not the function of a government to aid other strugging countries and spend unwilling people's tax dollars on such ventures. If you read back many people put some amount of focus on whether or not these people were deserving of said money. That is what I am taking issue with.

Perhaps the problem lays in trying to debate with them in the first place. It could be assumed that by engaging in a debate with someone you already know to hold a different belief system you are simply trying to showcase you intellectual superiority. Also have you found yourself expressing your objectivist ideas in ways that would make people call Ayn Rand's ideas a cult. By that I mean do you talk of it as an absolute and make suggestions that those who do not believe as you do are somehow morally flawed, do you ever use the term "we" when detailing your concepts. Watch and make sure that although your arguments are far more solid than say a fundemental religous person's, you don't argue for the sake of changing some one or winning an argument. It is not intellectual superiority we need, it is full understanding of the concept. And that cannot come when you attack a persons beliefs and make them feel stupid, they cannot listen to anything past that. I would suggest not engaging in debates with people who are non-objectivist unless of course they have a real interest in at least understanding the philosophy. A person brings themselve down to the level of a dunce when they argue with a dunce. I do not mean to suggest that you do any of the things I mentioned as I do not know you , however, these are the mistakes that I see most often made by people who get responses such as the ones you get. Think about a little bit and it could be possible to find that the mistake lays with you, you cannot change those people only yourself.

Thanks Betsy, That was the first thread I read, I've been poking around and have found that thier are some people with really intresting and well thought out arguments not based on hate but objectivist ideals. I look forward to finding more of them. And of course not everyone in that thread was expressing such volitile thoughts, I think the people I was adressing know who they are.

These post cause my heart to palpitate. It saddens me so much to hear so many references to to words like "evil" "enemy" and the most discusting of all "felicitous disaster." Ayn Rand put it that nothing was more important to an individual than their own life and that should be understood. It implys that if you respect the need for you to watch out for yourself alone you would likewise understand that everybody elses life is as important to them as yours is to you. That then should translate into a great appreciation for life...everyones. I am not making any suggestions about whether a truly capialist government should give aid to countries in need, but the feelings of hatred expressed by so many of you is apalling. I feel quite sure that if Ayn Rand, who spoke so often of the importance of life, were aware that these people were referencing her works she would be heart broken. It is so hard to see her philosophy that did so encompass personal integrity being quoted by what seems to be ignorant oafs. Thus ignoring all of the time and effort she put into discussing the importance of an individuals appreciation for life. Having a great respect for life in no ways falls under the veil of altruism. To take just half of her philosophy I liken to those fundemental christians who reek havoc by holding fast to half of thier scriptures while ignoring the rest. Its the old story of how a little bit is knowledge is worse than none. Suggesting that individuals of a country not deserve aid based on its govermental objectives, views, practices or its overall slumbering economy is an overwhelmingly clear sign that those who wrote such things don't understand the philosophy at all and have so turned it into another way to discriminate and hate. To propose that someone not "deserve" to live based on his or hers assumed beliefs is absurd. THE REAL QUESTION WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PERFORM SUCH ACTS, NOT TO WHOM! I thought I could come to this site to hear interchanges between intelligent people and get away from the banter of extremist liberals or fundemental republicans, I find myself more disheartened by the gross amount of UNintelligence here. This now seems a forum of so many "fanatical objectivists"