Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Sea Wasp <seawaspobvious@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>
>>Kaos wrote:
>>
>>>on Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:10:03 -0400, Invid Fan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <1157905323.254724.95550@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Bill
>>>>Wayne <HWayne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No different then getting it from a book. Suppose Ayn Rand had skipped
>>>>the book and done The Fountainhead as a movie. Would the ideas in it
>>>>have less meaning?
>>>
>>>
>>>Is it possible for it to have less meaning in the first place?
>>>(Outside of an objectivist "our groupthink isn't groupthink at all"
>>>camp, that is...)
>>
>> Your above comment shows you have either not read, or have not
>>understood, Rand's philosophy.
>
>
> Why does it show that? Demonstrate.
>
> This *assertion* is always the first defense of the Randroids. Since I
> hold you more intelligent than that, I think you can do better.
If you can manage to do better yourself. The claim you make is, put
quite simply, wrong.
>
> And Kaos is right, the content of Rand's fiction is almost zero, aside
> from 'Egoism rules!'.
Not at all. Rand's basic philosophy, summed up, would be roughly:
1)individuals, not governments, are the fundamentally important
elements in the world. 2)No one has the right to take material goods
from, or to force work from, another individual. 3) All human
interactions are fundamentally transactions, even emotional ones.
>
>
>>It is easily possible to show that her philosophy has FLAWS --
>
>
> Fundamental flaws even, making it an untenable position.
Again, you miss the actual substantial objection. The real
fundamental problem with Rand's philosophy is that it ASSUMES THAT
HUMAN BEINGS ARE INHERENTLY RATIONAL, and that irrational emotional
triggers do not, or should not, exist.
This is, of course, the same basic flaw that communism or socialism
tends to run into, just manifested in a different way. "From each
according to his ability, to each according to his need", for
instance, assumes that people are rational enough to not feel that
they should get more for their efforts than other people, rather than
to be happy getting their needs met. People aren't ants, which dooms
collectivist schemes. People aren't logical computers with a full
knowledge of their emotional content, which dooms pure Randian approaches.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
|
