Atlas Shrugged

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Actually being truly objective is not possible. But engineers like to think they have that ability. That is part of the irony.

Only if you are outside the system and not interacting.

The problem with Schrödinger's cat, is the cat get's annoyed, as well as PETA

[Vintage Racer]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

I understand Rand's tenants of Objectivism...which is based on selfishness and does not permit sacrificing oneself to others.

You never read the book. You should read it.

It isn't about selfishness. Successful people fund poor people through the tax code. They also give to charity. They give away more than many people earn.

Ayn:

"....This is a mystery story, not about the murder of a man's body, but about the murder-- and rebirth-- of man's spirit. It is a philosophical revolution, told in the form of an action thriller of violent events, a ruthlessly brilliant plot structure and an irresistible suspense. Do you say this is impossible? Well, that is the first of your premises to check."

If you would read it, you may check your premises.

Ayn is about property rights, laissez-faire capitalism, small government, and individualism. She would be called a Libertarian in today'his society.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by LubeMaster77

Selfishness is a virtue...

Except she gave up much of her own life to care for her failing husband. She should have left him in a home and gotten a new stud.

I read Fountainhead long ago but found it as invigorating(yawn) as the Frank Herbert series, Moby Dick, and War and Peace.
Alvin Toffler's "Futureshock" was much more relevant to solutions.

I'd rather memorize all of Great Tabbdula's posts from the beginning than have to wade through that blather again. There are so many inconsistances that it's not worth bothering. Just media hype to promote another expensive film.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Vintage Racer

You never read the book. You should read it.

It isn't about selfishness. Successful people fund poor people through the tax code. They also give to charity. They give away more than many people earn.

In ayn's world - hahahahahah - fund poor people with taxes - hahahahahahaha

Ayn is about property rights, laissez-faire capitalism, small government, and individualism. She would be called a Libertarian in today'his society.

I have read the book 3 times - And she is an objectivist - through and through - which is not a libertarian by any means. Maybe Vintage you should learn the difference - read 'The Voice of Reason' which has a lot of her essays in it - there is a whole essay about why she bristled at the very idea of being grouped with libertarians.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by john70t

Except she gave up much of her own life to care for her failing husband. She should have left him in a home and gotten a new stud.

I read Fountainhead long ago but found it as invigorating(yawn) as the Frank Herbert series, Moby Dick, and War and Peace.
Alvin Toffler's "Futureshock" was much more relevant to solutions.

I'd rather memorize all of Great Tabbdula's posts from the beginning than have to wade through that blather again. There are so many inconsistances that it's not worth bothering. Just media hype to promote another expensive film.

Well - she did do that for a while - the affair with one of her disciples is well known - she even basically told her husband - heck, if you don't like it I don't care (just as the disciple told his wife the same thing).

And I have to agree with you on Dune - gak - sand worms and 'spice' - you should find Doon at some point - a rather funny uptake of Dune - and the whole bit on The Cheese That Cannot Die - comic genius.

[Brando]

Originally Posted by Tobra

No, you can be truly objective about certain things 2+2=4, what is the wavelength of the light that hydrogen gives off when you burn it. Whether or not Elvis is the King, well, that is open to debate

Tobra... keep in mind this is a community where there was a debate on 48÷2(9+3) = x ...

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Only if you are outside the system and not interacting.

The problem with Schrödinger's cat, is the cat get's annoyed, as well as PETA

My original point was about bias, which still exists outside the system. When you bring the cat into things, then even 2+2=4 comes into question

[Vintage Racer]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

I understand Rand's tenants of Objectivism...which is based on selfishness and does not permit sacrificing oneself to others.

It becomes very obvious to me that many of you have never read the book. You are using internet Cliff notes.

The "selfishness" is just something that a business owner must do to protect the company and its employees. It's a minor point.

Ayn is all about:

"....This is a mystery story, not about the murder of a man's body, but about the murder-- and rebirth-- of man's spirit. It is a philosophical revolution, told in the form of an action thriller of violent events, a ruthlessly brilliant plot structure and an irresistible suspense. Do you say this is impossible? Well, that is the first of your premises to check."

Your premises is wrong.

Entrepreneurs and business owners are very generous. They are the driving forces of American exceptionalism. They give millions to poor people through the tax code. They also give graciously to charity causes.

Ayn was about property rights, laissez-faire capitalism, small government, and individualism. She would be called a Libertarian today.

She had no respect for parasites, looters, and moochers (Obama people) who demand the benefits of my hard work and labor.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Vintage Racer

It becomes very obvious to me that many of you have never read the book. You are using internet Cliff notes.

The "selfishness" is just something that a business owner must do to protect the company and its employees. It's a minor point.

So, ever read 'The Virtue of Selfishness' - another must read if you really want to understand Rand - again, a collection of her essays, going into the morality of selfishness. It isn't a 'minor' point, it is at the very foundation of objectivism - without selfishness in all parts of your life, objectivism doesn't work... love life, personal life, professional life, heck, even family life...

Entrepreneurs and business owners are very generous. They are the driving forces of American exceptionalism. They give millions to poor people through the tax code. They also give graciously to charity causes.

Good for them - but that doesn't have squat to do with objectivism.

Ayn was about property rights, laissez-faire capitalism, small government, and individualism. She would be called a Libertarian today.

Once again - look at the Ayn Rand reading list I am compiling for you - she would not be called a libertarian - she started objectivism, she is the core of that ideal, which is not libertarianism.

She had no respect for parasites, looters, and moochers (Obama people) who demand the benefits of my hard work and labor.

Obviously there were "parasites, looters, and moochers" long before Obama - and plenty of them didn't vote for Obama in the last election - labeling is easy - but you really need to make sure the label fits before you slap it on...

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Vintage Racer

It becomes very obvious to me that many of you have never read the book. You are using internet Cliff notes.

The "selfishness" is just something that a business owner must do to protect the company and its employees. It's a minor point.

Ayn is all about:


Your premises is wrong.

Entrepreneurs and business owners are very generous. They are the driving forces of American exceptionalism. They give millions to poor people through the tax code. They also give graciously to charity causes.

Ayn was about property rights, laissez-faire capitalism, small government, and individualism. She would be called a Libertarian today.

She had no respect for parasites, looters, and moochers (Obama people) who demand the benefits of my hard work and labor.

Well, each to their own.

But do not make blanket statements like "It becomes very obvious to me that many of you have never read the book". Because all you have is opinon to back up your interpetation of what Rand really meant. You really do not know for sure 100%. All you have is opinion.

I have read the book several times. I have also read everything else Rand wrote that I had access to. I have read interviews with people who knew her and worked with her. I have read what others have said about her both pro and con. I have studied her "phylosophy".

In my opinion, history does not support any of her conclusions. Absolutely none. She was a shallow minded selfish person who aspired to greater attainments than her talents could provide. Her writting is borderline vapid at best.

Her books were in fashion for a very brief time and are only resurrected when some person or group "cherry picks" some aspect of her rants and proclaims it to be wisdom. I have never seen any group adopt her ideas in totality as many of them are too selfish and uncaring for the vast majority of people. No group has been able to swallow her nonsense completely. They just try to make up some "explanation" about what Rand really was trying to say, all the while harping on some aspect that they approve of.

In short, there are reasons why Rand is not considered to be a serious social commentator or leader.

[BeyGon]

Hmmm

His books were in fashion for a very brief time and are only resurrected when some person or group "cherry picks" some aspect of his rants and proclaims it to be wisdom. Only the extreme left would adopt his ideas in totality as many of them are too selfish and uncaring for the vast majority of people. No group has been able to swallow his nonsense completely. They just try to make up some "explanation" about what obama really was trying to say, all the while harping on some aspect that they approve of.

In short, there are reasons why obama is not considered to be a serious social commentator or leader.
__________________
Who Dares, Wins!

I had to make a couple changes, it looks better now.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

Hmmm

His books were in fashion for a very brief time and are only resurrected when some person or group "cherry picks" some aspect of his rants and proclaims it to be wisdom. Only the extreme left would adopt his ideas in totality as many of them are too selfish and uncaring for the vast majority of people. No group has been able to swallow his nonsense completely. They just try to make up some "explanation" about what obama really was trying to say, all the while harping on some aspect that they approve of.

In short, there are reasons why Bush II/Chenny is not considered to be a serious social commentator or leader.

I had to make a couple changes, it looks better now.

Fixed it for you. No thanks required.
__________________
Who Dares, Wins!

[BeyGon]

No problem, I guess you didn't read it or you would have made some real changes.

[Vintage Racer]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

So, ever read 'The Virtue of Selfishness' - another must read if you really want to understand Rand - again, a collection of her essays, going into the morality of selfishness.

No, but this thread is about Atlas Shrugged. Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

What character started "The Order of Public Benefactors"?

What was behind that locked door of John Galt?

What happened at the Wayne-Falkland Hotel?

What happened when the Police Chief ordered his officers to kill Hank?

Who is Agnar Danneskjold?

What happened while listening to Hally's Fifth Concerto?

[foxpaws]

So, it has been a while - but... let's see what grade I get....

Originally Posted by Vintage Racer

What character started "The Order of Public Benefactors"?

Mouch

What was behind that locked door of John Galt?

nothing but nothing - it symbolized that you can't force things

What happened at the Wayne-Falkland Hotel?

Dagny meets Fransisco for the first time in years - Which one is slug?

What happened when the Police Chief ordered his officers to kill Hank?

the tables are turned...

Who is Agnar Danneskjold?

How about Ragnar - is this a trick question?

What happened while listening to Hally's Fifth Concerto?

I am not sure what you mean by this - you mean when he did it for Dagny - and he explains (in yet another boring speech) about how art fits into Objectivism.

Boy - did you hit a wrong one with me on that - the idea that art is judged by how it appeals to your intelligence - that how it is all based on some sort of conscious thought...

crap... if all you have is art based on intellect, than you have Escher, Godel and Bach. You never, ever have Pollack, Wittgenstein, or Mozart.