I was wondering what you guys think about Ayn Rand's objectivism theory. I can say it is definately interesting. I have read anthem, the fountainhead and have just begun to read Atlas shrug. I also read her essay book. Her ideas captured me right away, for it always seemed logical to me to achieve your means without the casulty of others. This philosphy has helped me to not feel like I am wrong for not believing in a higher power and collectivism. I really like her ideas though overall and think that it is a smart idea to live by the standards she sets out, which I have but until now I thought of my tendacy to do things for my advancement to be bad and often was made really mad by people calling me selfish or concieted. So I was just wondering your guys thoughts on this philosophy.

i`d like to hear your opinion

thanks




"poker face" flextone.

I think she stole her best ideas from Nietzsche and then feminized them as only she could. Her own original contributions seem lacking or meager at best. Maybe I'm being somewhat chauvinistic, but personally, I would never ever take seriously any philosophy formulated by a female, in large part because my own experience has shown me again and again, without exception, that women are not cut out for that type of thought. If you want the real meat, instead of milk for babes, go to the source; read Nietzsche and Schopenhauer directly from their own works.

Wow, ld, you just trumped your own mother of all provocative posts with this one. Why do you suppose women aren't cut out for "that type of thought"? Get this--I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would like you to explain why you think the way you do. In truth, I'm the only woman I know of personally who has any desire to explore beneath the apparent surface of life. Sometimes, I think there must be something wrong with me. That being said, is it really wise to blanket dismiss the philosophy of all women? Isn't it possible that you have a little chip on your shoulder because of your pre-conceived notions about how you think women think? Just asking. I say this because it sounds to me that you actually like Rand's "best ideas" because you've concluded that she must have stolen them from Nietzsche.

I have read many of Rand's books, including her Romantic Manifesto and I have never seen "Objectivism" well defined. Rand strikes me as somewhat of a lightweight in philosophy, a pseudo-philosopher, not because she is female, but because she never directly answers the fundamental questions.

A professional philosopher friend of mine agrees that Rand is not in the category of philosophers (Rand is more of a populizer), and she really likes Nietzsche, too, just like L_D.

However, I have also read Nietzsche, including a modern translation of his Zoroaster Spoke, and I disagree with both Nietzsche and Rand in their philosophies. Will to power does not necessarily make one self-centered. The heart of the over-man does not exclude community--quite the opposite.

Political populizers like Rand (and many Republicans these days, too) will imply that the alternative to individualism is collectivism (or communism). Not so. A fully actualized person is a social being who realizes the importance of community.

"All things are full of Gods" Thales

In the spirit of dialogue, and one who values community, I agree.

By the way, Canada comes from an Algonquin word meaning, 'my community'.

IMHO, consider the following metaphor, having to do with birds: For example, when we think in terms of the left wings or right wings of birds, we need to remind ourselves of the importance of feathers, which cover both wings, as well as the whole bird.

Interestingly, I understand that it is impossible for birds to take off, or to maintain flight--even if dropped from a plane, a great height--without the use of the humble tail feathers. I value this actualized, or feathers, approach--the balance between individualism and collectivism.

Hey Hey, I thought Thales said all things were made of water.

OnlyNow, I didn't intend for my post to be provocative. If I go into how women are developmentally designed for child-bearing and not for penetrating the secrets of Nature, I will be called, perhaps rightfully, a chauvinistic pig. My experience with women has been that they do not have a strong drive to pursue truth and understanding, but tend to be more materialistically-inclined and concerned about child-rearing, whereas for me, the solving of the puzzle of my self-awareness and existence is my whole reason for being. The problem with Rand is that she came across as superficial, or as Rick put it, more as a popularizer of a particular philosophy instead of an actual philosopher who has struggled with the mystery of existence and the reason for being. I found that she echoed many of the sentiments of Nietzsche, but contained none of his depth. Nietzsche sacrificed his life to the pursuit of truth; read his biography sometime, it's quite touching. What did Rand sacrifice? Nothing in comparison. And that is the mark of superficiality.