Ayn Rand's sudden increase in (internet) popularity?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I mainly dislike it because of its overt hostility towards charity and philanthropy in general.

GabuEx

Basically, that people who are homeless, unemployed, or basically anyone who needs the services provided by charitable organizations, are lazy and thus unworthy of help, and that there is therefore nothing moral or virtuous of any kind in giving these people help. It separates people into groups of those who "deserve" what has happened to them and those who don't, and states that only those in the latter bucket should be given assistance. It's callous as **** and is something that I could never abide by, as I strongly believe that there is no such thing as truly "deserving" something.

Do you have an exact quote to back that up?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I mainly dislike it because of its overt hostility towards charity and philanthropy in general.

GabuEx

Basically, that people who are homeless, unemployed, or basically anyone who needs the services provided by charitable organizations, are lazy and thus unworthy of help, and that there is therefore nothing moral or virtuous of any kind in giving these people help. It separates people into groups of those who "deserve" what has happened to them and those who don't, and states that only those in the latter bucket should be given assistance. It's callous as **** and is something that I could never abide by, as I strongly believe that there is no such thing as truly "deserving" something.

It reminds me of a certain OT user...

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]What are her reasons?

Teenaged

Basically, that people who are homeless, unemployed, or basically anyone who needs the services provided by charitable organizations, are lazy and thus unworthy of help, and that there is therefore nothing moral or virtuous of any kind in giving these people help. It separates people into groups of those who "deserve" what has happened to them and those who don't, and states that only those in the latter bucket should be given assistance. It's callous as **** and is something that I could never abide by, as I strongly believe that there is no such thing as truly "deserving" something.

It reminds me of a certain OT user...

I often wonder just how many of the right winger accounts are alts of other right winger accounts or are simply troll accounts. At least a few have to be, I would think. This is how all forums work.

Ayn Rand was an absolute moron.

I find her an her "philosphy" to be utterly disgusting, but that's me.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]What are her reasons?

QuistisTrepe_

Basically, that people who are homeless, unemployed, or basically anyone who needs the services provided by charitable organizations, are lazy and thus unworthy of help, and that there is therefore nothing moral or virtuous of any kind in giving these people help. It separates people into groups of those who "deserve" what has happened to them and those who don't, and states that only those in the latter bucket should be given assistance. It's callous as **** and is something that I could never abide by, as I strongly believe that there is no such thing as truly "deserving" something.

Do you have an exact quote to back that up?

"Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others—misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement—failure is not a mortgage on success—suffering is not a claim check, and its relief is not the goal of existence—man is not a sacrificial animal on anyone's altar nor for anyone's cause—life is not one huge hospital."

"To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism's terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver's virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such." (emph. added)

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." (emph. added)

She makes it sound all well and good by saying that there is nothing wrong in helping other people, but if one really reads what she's saying, she is effectively saying that as long as one assures oneself that a person is not "worthy" of one's help then there is nothing wrong with not giving that person help. Couple this in with her rather clear apathy towards the plight of the impoverished and the way in which she effectively ties together poverty with failure and the implications in what she has to say seem rather evident to me.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Basically, that people who are homeless, unemployed, or basically anyone who needs the services provided by charitable organizations, are lazy and thus unworthy of help, and that there is therefore nothing moral or virtuous of any kind in giving these people help. It separates people into groups of those who "deserve" what has happened to them and those who don't, and states that only those in the latter bucket should be given assistance. It's callous as **** and is something that I could never abide by, as I strongly believe that there is no such thing as truly "deserving" something.

GabuEx

Do you have an exact quote to back that up?

"Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others—misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement—failure is not a mortgage on success—suffering is not a claim check, and its relief is not the goal of existence—man is not a sacrificial animal on anyone's altar nor for anyone's cause—life is not one huge hospital."

"To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism's terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver's virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such." (emph. added)

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." (emph. added)

OK, and what's wrong with this? This reflects my views precisely. Most people help other because they choose to. The only problem here appears to be your interpretation of it. All that is being said here in a roundabout way is that the moral view of charity is that it is done in rational self interest. Same as if I helped a friend of my own will for my own selfish interest. The relationship is important to me and I want to see my friend do well.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"]To those who said they "hate" her philosophy, why? What makes it worse then any other philosophy faulting out there? Which philosophical ideology do you feel trumps her's? Im not challenging you or anything, Im just curious of why you think its bad?wslacker2

There is a reason why Objectivism is not really taken seriously by philosophy professors.

There is a reason why Objectivism is not really taken seriously by philosophy professors.

GreySeal9

She makes it sound all well and good by saying that there is nothing wrong in helping other people, but if one really reads what she's saying, she is effectively saying that as long as one assures oneself that a person is not "worthy" of one's help then there is nothing wrong with not giving that person help. Couple this in with her rather clear apathy towards the plight of the impoverished and the way in which she effectively ties together poverty with failure and the implications in what she has to say seem rather evident to me.

GabuEx

There is a reason why Objectivism is not really taken seriously by philosophy professors.

GreySeal9

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]She makes it sound all well and good by saying that there is nothing wrong in helping other people, but if one really reads what she's saying, she is effectively saying that as long as one assures oneself that a person is not "worthy" of one's help then there is nothing wrong with not giving that person help. Couple this in with her rather clear apathy towards the plight of the impoverished and the way in which she effectively ties together poverty with failure and the implications in what she has to say seem rather evident to me.

bobaban

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

There is a reason why Objectivism is not really taken seriously by philosophy professors.

Theokhoth

LOL.

And it's not even just the questionable morality that makes it crappy, it's the astounding lack of depth that makes it so not worthy of being taken seriously. It claims to be derived from the nature of reality, yet it doesn't attempt to explain why things are the way they are, but instead simply preaches about the way Rand would like life to be.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

There is a reason why Objectivism is not really taken seriously by philosophy professors.

HAHAITHINKNOT

Yep.

"During this period there was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left"

Interesting...She's a Liberterian though so, not exactly the same ideology.

Snipes_2

And pray tell why is this "interesting"?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

"During this period there was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left"

Interesting...She's a Liberterian though so, not exactly the same ideology.

GreySeal9

And pray tell why is this "interesting"?

They also did not have a problem with her ideas until she appeared on Glenn Beck it seems.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

"During this period there was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left"

Interesting...She's a Liberterian though so, not exactly the same ideology.

Snipes_2

And pray tell why is this "interesting"?

Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness, so I don't see what so funny about that.

And as for the bit about free markets, how about putting the criticisms into context? What do you mean by "they blamed her support of free markets"? Where are getting that from?

[QUOTE="bobaban"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]She makes it sound all well and good by saying that there is nothing wrong in helping other people, but if one really reads what she's saying, she is effectively saying that as long as one assures oneself that a person is not "worthy" of one's help then there is nothing wrong with not giving that person help. Couple this in with her rather clear apathy towards the plight of the impoverished and the way in which she effectively ties together poverty with failure and the implications in what she has to say seem rather evident to me.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

And pray tell why is this "interesting"?

GreySeal9

Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness, so I don't see what so funny about that.

And as for the bit about free markets, how about putting the criticisms into context? What do you mean by "they blamed her support of free markets"? Where are getting that from?

"Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness"

Arent you a Liberal?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

"During this period there was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left"

Interesting...She's a Liberterian though so, not exactly the same ideology.

Snipes_2

And pray tell why is this "interesting"?

They also did not have a problem with her ideas until she appeared on Glenn Beck it seems.

Who didn't have a problem with her ideas? Who is they? Are liberals some kind of hive mind? :roll:

Also, I'm pretty sure leftists have always found Ayn Rand's philosophy to be morally bankrupt.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] They blamed her support of Free Markets for the economic crisis and they called her "Selfish" :lol:Snipes_2

Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness, so I don't see what so funny about that.

And as for the bit about free markets, how about putting the criticisms into context? What do you mean by "they blamed her support of free markets"? Where are getting that from?

"Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness"

Arent you a Liberal?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="bobaban"] So you think its fine to help the bum on the street that asks you for food money only to go spend it on booze? She has a point, some people aren't worthy of help.

bobaban

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

And pray tell why is this "interesting"?

GreySeal9

They also did not have a problem with her ideas until she appeared on Glenn Beck it seems.

Who didn't have a problem with her ideas? Who is they? Are liberals some kind of hive mind? :roll:

Also, I'm pretty sure leftists have always found Ayn Rand's philosophy to be morally bankrupt.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness, so I don't see what so funny about that.

And as for the bit about free markets, how about putting the criticisms into context? What do you mean by "they blamed her support of free markets"? Where are getting that from?

HAHAITHINKNOT

"Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness"

Arent you a Liberal?

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Just Wikipedia "Ayn Rand" to find the answers you're looking for.

"Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness"

Arent you a Liberal?

Snipes_2

Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness,

GreySeal9

This is the first accurate statement you've made in this thread.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] They blamed her support of Free Markets for the economic crisis and they called her "Selfish" :lol:Snipes_2

Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness, so I don't see what so funny about that.

And as for the bit about free markets, how about putting the criticisms into context? What do you mean by "they blamed her support of free markets"? Where are getting that from?

"Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness"

Arent you a Liberal?

Yes, I'm a liberal, but this discussion isn't about me, so let's not try to make it about me.

You put a little laughing emoticon after the notion that her ideology was selfish, which it was. Objectivism basically contends that selfishness is a virtue.

Also, what quotes from the Wikipedia article support the "free markets" bit? It'll take but a few seconds to post them.

Lastly, why are you trying to make this thread some thread a liberal bashfest.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Don't you think she was selfish?HAHAITHINKNOT

[

Just Wikipedia "Ayn Rand" to find the answers you're looking for.

"Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness"

Arent you a Liberal?Snipes_2

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Selfish because she felt giving money to alcoholics was a waste?Snipes_2

edit: BAH THEOKHOTH ;[

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness,

QuistisTrepe_

This is the first accurate statement you've made in this thread.

Yet Snipes thinks there is something deeply amusing at that assertion.

Also, which of by statements were not accurate. As far as I can remember, my others statements were opinions with no positive or negative truth value.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="bobaban"] So you think its fine to help the bum on the street that asks you for food money only to go spend it on booze? She has a point, some people aren't worthy of help.

bobaban

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]She makes it sound all well and good by saying that there is nothing wrong in helping other people, but if one really reads what she's saying, she is effectively saying that as long as one assures oneself that a person is not "worthy" of one's help then there is nothing wrong with not giving that person help. Couple this in with her rather clear apathy towards the plight of the impoverished and the way in which she effectively ties together poverty with failure and the implications in what she has to say seem rather evident to me.

bobaban

But maybe thats just me.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness, so I don't see what so funny about that.

And as for the bit about free markets, how about putting the criticisms into context? What do you mean by "they blamed her support of free markets"? Where are getting that from?

GreySeal9

"Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness"

Arent you a Liberal?

Yes, I'm a liberal, but this discussion isn't about me, so let's not try to make it about me.

You put a little laughing emoticon after the notion that her ideology was selfish, which it was. Objectivism basically contends that selfishness is a virtue.

Also, what quotes from the Wikipedia article support the "free markets" bit? It'll take but a few seconds to post them.

Lastly, why are you trying to make this thread some thread a liberal bashfest.

2). "he financial crisis of 2007–2010 spurred renewed interest in her works, especially Atlas Shrugged, which some saw as foreshadowing the crisis.[172] Conservative talk show hosts such as Glenn Beck,[173] Neal Boortz[174] and Rush Limbaugh[175] recommended the novel to their audiences, and opinion articles compared real-world events with the plot of the novel.[176] Signs mentioning Rand and her fictional hero John Galt appeared at Tea Party protests,[177] while the Cato Institute's Will Wilkinson quipped that "going Galt" had become the "libertarian-conservative's version of progressives threatening to move to Canada."[151] During this period there was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left, with critics blaming her support of selfishness and free markets for the economic crisis, particularly through her influence on Alan Greenspan.[178] For example, the left-leaning Mother Jones remarked that "Rand's particular genius has always been her ability to turn upside down traditional hierarchies and recast the wealthy, the talented, and the powerful as the oppressed",[151] while The Nation alleged similarities between the "moral syntax of Randianism" and fascism.[152]"

3). "Liberal Bashfest" :?

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Selfish because she felt giving money to alcoholics was a waste?Snipes_2

You obviously are not very familiar with her ideology, which states that selfishness is a virtue.

And you're strawmanning her argument. Weirdly, you're doing it in defense of her, but it's still a strawman.

Her argument wasn't that giving money to alcoholics is a waste.

[QUOTE="bobaban"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The fact that you assume he's going to spend the money on booze says a whole lot. :roll:Snipes_2

And I see a lot of homeless people in Athens who make sure to first eat when they manage to get some money from passers by.

had2be done

[ [QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Just Wikipedia "Ayn Rand" to find the answers you're looking for.

"Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness"

Arent you a Liberal?Theokhoth

Thanks, Now I can quote the book for you :)

""The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and
upholds rational selfishness—which means: the
values required for man's survival qua man—
which means: the values required for human
survival—not the values produced by the desires,
the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational
brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial
practice of human sacrifices.""It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice. The
meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word "selfishness" is not merely
wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual "package-deal," which is
responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral
development of mankind.
In popular usage, the word "selfishness" is a synonym of evil; the image it
conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to
achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but
the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word "selfishness"
is: concern with one's own interests.
This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us
whether concern with one's own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us
what constitutes man's actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such
questions.
The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in
order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with
one's own interests is evil, regardless of what these interests might be, and
(b) that the brute's activities are in fact to one's own interest (which altruism
enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).
For a view of the nature of altruism, its consequences and the enormity of
the moral corruption it perpetrates, I shall refer you to Atlas Shrugged—or to
any of today's newspaper headlines. What concerns us here is altruism's
default in the field of ethical theory."

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="bobaban"] Maybe you should go out in the real world and see how things really go down. It's nice to think all bums are saints that lost their way, but if you've actually spent a nanosecond downtown in a poverty stricken area you'll know that people can be weak, manipulative, and selfish. I've actually volunteered in these places, and it is not pretty. Innocent until proven guilty is for an ideal world, which this world clearly isn't.Teenaged

And I see a lot of homeless people in Athens who make sure to first eat when they manage to get some money from passers by.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]No, just in general.

GreySeal9

You obviously are not very familiar with her ideology, which states that selfishness is a virtue.

And you're strawmanning her argument. Weirdly, you're doing it in defense of her, but it's still a strawman.

Her argument wasn't that giving money to alcoholics is a waste.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[ [QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Just Wikipedia "Ayn Rand" to find the answers you're looking for.

"Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness"

Arent you a Liberal?Snipes_2

Thanks, Now I can quote the book for you :)

""The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and
upholds rational selfishness-which means: the
values required for man's survival qua man-
which means: the values required for human
survival-not the values produced by the desires,
the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational
brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial
practice of human sacrifices.""

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[ [QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Just Wikipedia "Ayn Rand" to find the answers you're looking for.

"Her very ideology was the epitome of selfishness"

Arent you a Liberal?Snipes_2

Thanks, Now I can quote the book for you :)

""The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and
upholds rational selfishness-which means: the
values required for man's survival qua man-
which means: the values required for human
survival-not the values produced by the desires,
the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational
brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial
practice of human sacrifices.""

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Gee, what oh what could lead people to think she's selfish?

Theokhoth

Thanks, Now I can quote the book for you :)

""The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and
upholds rational selfishness-which means: the
values required for man's survival qua man-
which means: the values required for human
survival-not the values produced by the desires,
the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational
brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial
practice of human sacrifices.""

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Gee, what oh what could lead people to think she's selfish?

HAHAITHINKNOT

Thanks, Now I can quote the book for you :)

""The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and
upholds rational selfishness-which means: the
values required for man's survival qua man-
which means: the values required for human
survival-not the values produced by the desires,
the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational
brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial
practice of human sacrifices.""