Thread: Kant v. Rand?

Our Daughter Isn't a Selfish Brat; Your Son Just Hasn't Read Atlas Shrugged.

It made me laugh...How about you?

Hehe!

Yep, made me laugh too..!

Yep - pretty funny.

I've studied both philosophies - couldn't be more diametrically opposed.

I imagine this post is going to create a feces storm of responses.

I've never read Ayn Rand and only know of her philosophy from reading about it/her. The rugged individualism has a certain attraction for Americans in particular due, I suppose, to our frontier heritage. I've read her outlook was largely a result of her youthful experience after the Russian Revolution IIRC ? She hated communism although it was more totalitarianism in practical application. I prefer a "New Deal" or "Great Society" approach such as FDR and LBJ put forth rather than a Darwinian society such as Rand espoused. YMMV. I didn't find the article cute BTW.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I've never read Ayn Rand and only know of her philosophy from reading about it/her. The rugged individualism has a certain attraction for Americans in particular due, I suppose, to our frontier heritage. I've read her outlook was largely a result of her youthful experience after the Russian Revolution IIRC ? She hated communism although it was more totalitarianism in practical application. I prefer a "New Deal" or "Great Society" approach such as FDR and LBJ put forth rather than a Darwinian society such as Rand espoused. YMMV. I didn't find the article cute BTW.

Neither did I

I am a firm believer in Ayn Rand's philosophy (see my sig). Hague does not fully understand Objectivism as evidenced by his writing in this article. While I agree with the overall theme of this article, some points were disturbing.

For instance, by living an Objectivist lifestyle, this does not in any way preclude you from "donating to charity." In the article Hague says, "...we never give to charity..." This is a menial understanding and interpretation of Objectivism and kind of discredits the rest of the writing. As a basic explanation, giving to charity would only be considered wrong if it was sacrificial. So if you can give to charity, and it is not sacrificial in nature, and it makes you happy, it is perfectly fine.

Also, Hague states, "You should never feel guilty about your abilities. Including your ability to repeatedly peg a fellow toddler with your Elmo ball as he sobs for mercy" This is actually very disturbing and I do not need to explain why. In fact, this is the exact type of thinking that gives Rand and Objectivism a bad name and people misinterpret her philosophy.

So, I generally do agree that Johanna is not required to share her ball at the playground with any other child if she does not wish to. If she is forced to share, that would be sacrifice, similar to forced taxation at the point of a gun. However, if she is happy about sharing her ball voluntarily, it gives her joy and she suffers no sacrificial harm from it, she should be allowed to and in fact encouraged to by her parents.

Like most philosophies this has been taken to the extreme by someone who disdains that philosophy, nothing cute about it, it just shows the author for the ass that they are. Though I am not a follower, I am very familiar with Rand and know that the implementation of her philosophies hurt no one, they are based on respect for the individual.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Like most philosophies this has been taken to the extreme by someone who disdains that philosophy, nothing cute about it, it just shows the author for the ass that they are. Though I am not a follower, I am very familiar with Rand and know that the implementation of her philosophies hurt no one, they are based on respect for the individual.

I have a very large box of the book Atlas Shrugged. When I meet someone that I think would benefit from reading it I give them a copy. I cannot believe hoe many people think they are a Hank Reardon or even a John Galt and nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of learning, they use it to justify their poor behavior in life - contributing nothing, taking everything, and somehow bastardizing Rand's philosophy to rationalize a kind of selfishness that Rand would surely object to.

Originally Posted by Alembic

I have a very large box of the book Atlas Shrugged. When I meet someone that I think would benefit from reading it I give them a copy. I cannot believe hoe many people think they are a Hank Reardon or even a John Galt and nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of learning, they use it to justify their poor behavior in life - contributing nothing, taking everything, and somehow bastardizing Rand's philosophy to rationalize a kind of selfishness that Rand would surely object to.

Hard copies or paperback? btw "The Fountainhead" would be much cheaper and how many of them have actually read through Galts speech entirely. If you really wanted to be cheap( Im not saying you are or should be) Anthem would be the best bet.

I thought parts were pretty funny. Whether or not its true to what Rand intended, its pretty close to what many people take away from her books.

I think it is pretty close, though. I remember Rand went out of her way to say that the only reason Dagney saved the bum who was about to get pushed off her moving train and killed was that he grabbed his belongings in a way that made her realize he was once "a man of possession" or something like that.