AYN RAND MARILYN MONROE

Questions about Objectivism
21

I’m pretty sure that was supposed to read “It was in 1964 Playboy magazine,” referring to the Rand article. I doubt Suvine was even alive in '64 if her avatar is her photo.

Who cares? You’re always nitpicking the least relevant sentence of a whole paragraph.

It could have been an old photo, or I could not have cared about the new user herself, but about what she had to say.

Of course I stand corrected, not that anybody should care. But since you replied, I’m giving you the courtesy of a quid pro quo.

My regards GRam

22

Who cares? You’re always nitpicking the least relevant sentence of a whole paragraph.

The idea that one and the same person could both pose for Playboy and post on OO.net was too wild to leave unexamined or leave unrefuted when I concluded it doesn’t hold up. That idea overshadowed the rest of your post which was fairly unobjectionable.

edit: grammar

23

I truly apologize, I have to admit I felt you were poking ridicule at my assumption (since I misread Suvine’s first post) while I had no reason to think it.

The idea that one and the same person could both pose for Playboy and post on OO.net was too wild to leave unexamined…

I know that statistically Objectivism seems to attract (at least temporarily) more exConservatives than exLiberals (hence that thread, ‘when did you become a Conservative’ (!!!) )

But considering the importance Ayn Rand gave to openly discussing sexuality and the contempt she held for prudish Conservatives and religion, I would not be that surprised if a softcore model beame interested in her philosophy and posted in this rather popular and successful forum. And Suvine only had a couple of posts when she opened this thread.

I have unfortunately met White Supremacists in this forum who had to learn from me that Ayn Rand was born a Jew, even if atheist, a member of Yisroel in the diasporah. One of those individuals reached dozens of posts before understanding how irreconcilable his mindset was from Objectivism. And I know you have met religious fundamentalists here who tried to temporarily forgo the fact that Objectivism owes its name to a principle irreconciliable with anything supernatural.

After those encounters I wouldn’t find it that wild to find a proud Miss September interested in Objectivism. But statistically you have a point and maybe it shouldn’t go unexamined:

How come a philosphy as adverse to Conservatism as it is to Liberalism, seems to attract more stock from the former (at least superficially)?

This is not a rhetorical question by any means, but one that in fact has sparked much debate and doesn’t have a clear answer.

Maybe the answer is simple, there are more religious fundamentalists than libertarians, so there’s more stock from one extreme.

Or is it that Objectivism arose in America where the population is rather Conservative, yet the country as a whole is the most literally Progressive?

24

After those encounters I wouldn’t find it that wild to find a proud Miss September interested in Objectivism. But statistically you have a point and maybe it shouldn’t go unexamined:

I can agree with this because being interested is a low bar. What I would find more surprising, even shocking, would be “a proud Miss September” who posted on OO.net which is a level of participation greater than being merely interested in Objectivism. It is possible but unlikely.

How come a philosphy as adverse to Conservatism as it is to Liberalism, seems to attract more stock from the former (at least superficially)?

I think it has to do with the psycho-epistemology of accepting the idea that one should live one’s life according to a positive method. It is possible switch from one method to what is perceived as a better method, but to switch away from the nihilism of Progressivism and “all truth is subjective, all cultures equally worthy” and Post Modern snark and cynicism is a much bigger task.

25

What I would find more surprising, even shocking, would be “a proud Miss September” who posted on OO.net which is a level of participation greater than being merely interested in Objectivism. It is possible but unlikely.

OTOH, a couple years ago I came across a case where a genuine Randroid was out to convert the denizens of an online S&M community, and I followed it enough to conclude that the guy running the thing, an online porn producer, knew more about Objectivism than the Randroid. And agreed, was living it, so to speak.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9557&#entry114258

26

OTOH, a couple years ago I came across a case where a genuine Randroid was out to convert the denizens of an online S&M community, and I followed it enough to conclude that the guy running the thing, an online porn producer, knew more about Objectivism than the Randroid. And agreed, was living it, so to speak.

http://www.objectivi…57

What’s a “genuine Randroid” ? Someone who claims to follow Objectivist principles but doesn’t (out of whatever reason) apply them to the concretes in his life?

27

How come a philosphy as adverse to Conservatism as it is to Liberalism, seems to attract more stock from the former (at least superficially)?

I think it has to do with the psycho-epistemology of accepting the idea that one should live one’s life according to a positive method.

It is possible switch from one method to what is perceived as a better method, but to switch away from the nihilism of Progressivism and “all truth is subjective, all cultures equally worthy” and Post Modern snark and cynicism is a much bigger task.

You seem are clearly implying that one side, Conservatism, is more positive, or a more positive method than Liberalism.

But are you actually saying that Post Modern nihilism is worse than Old Fashion Tradition-based-Religion and the epistemology that arises from it? Or more to the point, that someone with a church going hard working background is more likely to study and or accept Ojectivism than someone from an Agnostic bourgeois, necessarily Liberal, family of generations of professionals?

Before resolving her conflict and consummating her love for Howard, Dominique was described as a very sarcastic woman, in fact some of the few humorous pages of The Fountainhead consist of her colorful descriptions of the precedents for Mc Disney architecture

Just as Rearden is described as her analogue on the opposite side of the political, economical, religous and gender spectrum, a conservative Presbyterian man who worked his way p from the bottom.

Ayn Rand was invited to speak at West Point but she shunned the Conservative aspects of the non religious Right as much as she shunned the Anarchist and Relativist aspects of the Libertarian left. More clearly she painstakingly denounced the trap of a Left Wing that had it almost right on Personal Liberties and a Right Wing that had it almost right on economical issues.

Ayn Rand intended Objectivism to be a Futurist Optimist (Benevolent Universe Premise) and her defense of the Right was limited to their shared commitment in the preservation of noble, working but ‘old’ structures from Futurists doing it wrong, specifically in a iatrogenic manner and at an alarming speed. (Socialists and technocrats / materialist futurists).

A border Nihilist Cynic depressed by coldly analyzing life, could as easily or difficultly become an Objectivist as a passionate mystic with unabashed curiosity for the universe.

28

I wrote a brief article about it on my website in support of Marilyn Monroe, and I have a beautifully framed poster of her in that elegant gold dress, and a copy of the original Life Magazine interview of her.

She wanted to play more serious roles, but Hollywood prevented that; and this unfortunately led her to become unraveled at a fairly young age. She was beautiful and intelligent, but Hollywood would never let her shine, and Ayn Rand thinks they actively tried to destroy her spirit.

Thanks for sharing, so very much like that actress in Galt’s Gulch who relocated there so she could play non beauty-being-punished roles. Only that this actress was supposedly invited to parties by John Galt instead than by John F Kennedy

What’s a “genuine Randroid” ? Someone who claims to follow Objectivist principles but doesn’t (out of whatever reason) apply them to the concretes in his life?

In his post he insinuates the distinction between someone who knows a lot a about Objectivist and keeps to himself the degree in which he applies it, and an easy-to-label proselytist.

29

What’s a “genuine Randroid” ?

If you follow the earlier links, you’ll get to see a Randroid in action. It’s not just a matter of unwelcome proselytizing, but some advice I heard Andy Bernstein give comes to mind: don’t act like a Moonie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qse\_wf57tZM

30

…but some advice I heard Andy Bernstein give comes to mind: don’t act like a Moonie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qse\_wf57tZM

In fact I’m a fervent adherent of that last advocacy group mentioned in the video and would love to see more info/promoters at the airports telling people about the benefits of its power.

31

You seem are clearly implying that one side, Conservatism, is more positive, or a more positive method than Liberalism.

But are you actually saying that Post Modern nihilism is worse than Old Fashion Tradition-based-Religion and the epistemology that arises from it?

Yes.

Or more to the point, that someone with a church going hard working background is more likely to study and or accept Ojectivism than someone from an Agnostic bourgeois, necessarily Liberal, family of generations of professionals?

That is not a pair of examples that highlights the distinction I have in mind, so this is less to the point.

Better would be “Walt Kowalski” versus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlRC0nsjtKQ, or the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio.

A border Nihilist Cynic depressed by coldly analyzing life, could as easily or difficultly become an Objectivist as a passionate mystic with unabashed curiosity for the universe.

Actual nihilists are not capable of analyzing, it is too much work and is unnecessary in that world-view.

32

If you follow the earlier links, you’ll get to see a Randroid in action. It’s not just a matter of unwelcome proselytizing, but some advice I heard Andy Bernstein give comes to mind: don’t act like a Moonie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qse\_wf57tZM

I’ve only heard it used as a derogatory term to describe Objectivists, or any person who is supportive (or thinks he is supportive) of Ayn Rand.

33

I’ve only heard it used as a derogatory term to describe Objectivists, or any person who is supportive (or thinks he is supportive) of Ayn Rand.

I once ran a university Objectivist club, and met have actual Randroids because of that (only a few, and I drove them away). They are horrible and embarrassing.

34

I once ran a university Objectivist club, and met have actual Randroids because of that (only a few, and I drove them away). They are horrible and embarrassing.

Cool, same here. Except I didn’t really drive them away, I guess I didn’t have the skill. One of my favorite stories is about one who literally would not hold Barbara Branden’s book in his hands. One of the pictures came up in conversation, the group one from someone’s wedding, and to settle the question meant looking at the book. He insisted on it being held out open in front of him, and he had this disgusted look on his face, nose wrinkled up, squinting…and he’s involved in online Rand-land, knows who I am, and has never so much as said boo, here decades later. At the time I wasn’t a “Kelleyite”, and hadn’t been exposed to that split yet (it was still quite recent, and the internet wasn’t what it is today), but egads(!!!) I owned Branden books. He’s not on OO, I suspect it’s not pure enough for him.

35

Yes.

That is not a pair of examples that highlights the distinction I have in mind, so this is less to the point.

Better would be “Walt Kowalski” versus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlRC0nsjtKQ, or the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio.

Actual nihilists are not capable of analyzing, it is too much work and is unnecessary in that world-view.

Then a nihilist would be just fine in solitary confinement? You’;re not taking into account time, and the process of maturation.

That GIRL testifying in Congress that the taxpayer should pay for avoiding the natural consequence of having sex, might grow up to be a detractor of the system she’s now supporting - particularly after having getting so inside of it; and more than a bimbo who might never even develop the intellectual curiosity for one philosophy or the other (Which I consider more nil, rather than Nihilist, in practice)

I could easily contrast her with a fervent sermon by a right wing ‘nut’.

As for the lady in Michigan, that looks like a cheap blow. Below a certain level the populace can be manipulated as easily anywhere. I suppose an inbred Appalachian could say he’d vote for Romney because ‘Obama kills babies’ referring to the Liberal and Democrat stand on abortion, but I suspect it would be harder to capture on video and come back alive.

@9thDr. I’m sorry but you seem to be just creating that distinction int he service of separating Objectivism from its portion of crazy or crazed followers quiet deliberately. Randroid is just a derogatory term for Objectivist without any further distinction much like Oso says. I commend the service you’re doing this philosophy, but so essiy distancing yourself from that offensive term reminds me of Christian moderates commenting how they met a few extremist nuts but that his church is one of the sane ones.

36

That GIRL testifying in Congress that the taxpayer should pay for avoiding the natural consequence of having sex, might grow up to be a detractor of the system she’s now supporting - particularly after having getting so inside of it; and more than a bimbo who might never even develop the intellectual curiosity for one philosophy or the other (Which I consider more nil, rather than Nihilist, in practice)

Possible, but if that happened she would be making a wholesale repudiation of her current conceptual framework. She could not follow the logic of one part of her thought and thereby save herself. On the other hand, the religious have “methodological naturalism” which is a thread that can lead them entirely out of the woods of supernaturalism. The difference between the two cases is that repudiating what can seem to be one’s entire life and identity is psychologically much more difficult than dropping one half of a contradictory life and keeping the other half.

I could easily contrast her with a fervent sermon by a right wing ‘nut’.

That would not be a contrast at all, but an example of similar ways of thinking. Similar in method, not content.

As for the lady in Michigan, that looks like a cheap blow. Below a certain level the populace can be manipulated as easily anywhere. I suppose an inbred Appalachian could say he’d vote for Romney because ‘Obama kills babies’ referring to the Liberal and Democrat stand on abortion, but I suspect it would be harder to capture on video and come back alive.

Actually ‘Obama in favor of killing babies’ would be accurate based on his legislative record in Illinois.

37

Cool, same here. Except I didn’t really drive them away, I guess I didn’t have the skill.

I cheated. I was in ROTC. Thursdays was both the day to put on the uniform and practice marching in the afternoon and once a month around 7 to have a club meeting. Not having much time to change clothes due to class scheduling, I would often conduct the meetings in uniform especially at the start of a semester. ‘Undesireable elements’ were never a problem for me, and I think that is why.

38

If you follow the earlier links, you’ll get to see a Randroid in action. It’s not just a matter of unwelcome proselytizing, but some advice I heard Andy Bernstein give comes to mind: don’t act like a Moonie.

Oh, I see. A rationalist/Platonist Objectivist (Michael gave a proper description, then identified him as “Fundamentalist Objectivist”, but I don’t think that’s a proper term, honestly.)

39

I cheated. I was in ROTC. Thursdays was both the day to put on the uniform and practice marching in the afternoon and once a month around 7 to have a club meeting. Not having much time to change clothes due to class scheduling, I would often conduct the meetings in uniform especially at the start of a semester. ‘Undesireable elements’ were never a problem for me, and I think that is why.

If Marilyn Monroe were alive today and were sitting here beside me, I wonder if we would have shared a mutual chuckle on that one.