Philosophy Now Forum

Ayn Rand was a bitch. I don't know why anyone would quote that creature.

That's right. You obviously don't know, whatever you are. Equally curious is the demonstrably odd compulsion to share one's lack of knowledge, one's not knowing, one's ignorance as it were, the sound of which has a bit of a bleat to the beat.

HexHammer wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:Ayn Rand might say about it?

Who the fuck cares what a tard like him/her has to say about it, if you actually read a WHOLE book about this topic, then you have been scammed, and didn't comprehend it!!!! People who write such long books about such simple things are scammers and only fill you with nonsense and babble, like all other cozy chatters they can't comprehend that what they read has absolutely no relevance!!!

You need others to do very basic thinking for you, which is why you need to read books, I do my own thinking, thus I can think for myself!! ..very simple!!!

I love this.

The unsung mantle-bearer of Yogi Berra should speak up more often.

Walker wrote:Moi? I follow nobody, Bub. You confuse knowledge and reasoning with advocacy while busily seeking answers to questions that pertain to a world of your own creation.

Oh, is that why you give only Rand's opinions and answers, when you even bother to.

You know, it's okay to admit that you masturbate while watching 'The Fountainhead', repeatedly squealing 'I am an architect!'. No one here is going to judge you over it. Right folks?

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:Moi? I follow nobody, Bub. You confuse knowledge and reasoning with advocacy while busily seeking answers to questions that pertain to a world of your own creation.

Oh, is that why you give only Rand's opinions and answers, when you even bother to.

You know, it's okay to admit that you masturbate while watching 'The Fountainhead', repeatedly squealing 'I am an architect!'. No one here is going to judge you over it. Right folks?

This thread is about Ayn Rand, you dummy.

The rest is your world.

Walker wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:Moi? I follow nobody, Bub. You confuse knowledge and reasoning with advocacy while busily seeking answers to questions that pertain to a world of your own creation.

Oh, is that why you give only Rand's opinions and answers, when you even bother to.

You know, it's okay to admit that you masturbate while watching 'The Fountainhead', repeatedly squealing 'I am an architect!'. No one here is going to judge you over it. Right folks?

This thread is about Ayn Rand, you dummy.

The rest is your world.

I spoke of Ayn Rand and her first novel, Walker. I'm completely on topic.

Walker wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Walker wrote:Yes. The quote about selfishness and the link that expands the quote sounds familiar. It likely originated from Osho’s Commentary on Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras.

I had never heard of Osho until now but some of his ideas and circumstances about his life remind me of Epicureanism in some ways, from reading a little of the Wiki article on him.

I took a look. Wiki didn't mention that Osho was the Debate Champ of India.

The Alpha and Omega is available online. It's a transcription of some talks. Entertaining and informative, maybe your cup of tea. Lots has been written about Osho, but not a lot about what he said.

Same could be said for Rand. Most criticisms of her are personal attacks. She was a self-reliant romanticist who believed in selfish pursuit of excellence, not greed, since greed leads to alienating cooperation of suppliers, subcontractors, and any other honest person.

Romanticism does not belong in philosophy. If anything, it must be expunged. Philosophy is reasoning. Romanticism veers from reasoning.

Ayn Rand was not self-reliant. She relied on the people around her to market her, and to abuse when they weren't occupied with that pursuit. And in the end, she accepted social healthcare. Further, to be self-reliant, one must grow the food one eats, and cook it oneself, build the apartments one lives in, make and wash one's own clothes, buys their crappy books to enrich them.... the list goes on. No one is an island.

Walker, how old are you? What stage of life are you at? I'm curious.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what Rand promoted.

Leaving aside her horrible fiction (which is meant as fable, not realism), here's Objectivism (not libertarianism) in a nutshell...

http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atl ... n-one-foot

Plenty of self-reliant folks interact with folks and live on continents, and that one would take such a sophomoric tact of analysis inspires no confidence that philosophy is indeed the intent, but rather suggests that motive force for tip-tapping the keyboard is the prima facie prime directive of some oddball nihilism.

As Henry suggests, since this a Rand thread a more mature tact exemplified by others in the thread is a philosophical focus. In that light, what’s the beef in the nutshell?

Walker wrote:Plenty of self-reliant folks interact with folks and live on continents, and that one would take such a sophomoric tact of analysis inspires no confidence that philosophy is indeed the intent, but rather suggests that motive force for tip-tapping the keyboard is the prima facie prime directive of some oddball nihilism.

As Henry suggests, since this a Rand thread a more mature tact exemplified by others in the thread is a philosophical focus. In that light, what’s the beef in the nutshell?

Cults and incorrect philosophy. Also people who blindly follow said, without defending it. You quote Rand like its biblical, who h, incidentally, I also don't accept as anything approaching truth.

Why would, or should, I treat this as anything other than a joke, when you never answer a question (properly)? Don't waste my time, Sonny Jim.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:Plenty of self-reliant folks interact with folks and live on continents, and that one would take such a sophomoric tact of analysis inspires no confidence that philosophy is indeed the intent, but rather suggests that motive force for tip-tapping the keyboard is the prima facie prime directive of some oddball nihilism.

As Henry suggests, since this a Rand thread a more mature tact exemplified by others in the thread is a philosophical focus. In that light, what’s the beef in the nutshell?

Cults and incorrect philosophy. Also people who blindly follow said, without defending it. You quote Rand like its biblical, who h, incidentally, I also don't accept as anything approaching truth.

Why would, or should, I treat this as anything other than a joke, when you never answer a question (properly)? Don't waste my time, Sonny Jim.

For example, from Henry’s link to Rand in a Nutshell:
http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atl ... n-one-foot

1. METAPHYSICS: OBJECTIVE REALITY
or “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.”


Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

*

Comment or punchline? (don't feel restricted)

Walker wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:Plenty of self-reliant folks interact with folks and live on continents, and that one would take such a sophomoric tact of analysis inspires no confidence that philosophy is indeed the intent, but rather suggests that motive force for tip-tapping the keyboard is the prima facie prime directive of some oddball nihilism.

As Henry suggests, since this a Rand thread a more mature tact exemplified by others in the thread is a philosophical focus. In that light, what’s the beef in the nutshell?

Cults and incorrect philosophy. Also people who blindly follow said, without defending it. You quote Rand like its biblical, who h, incidentally, I also don't accept as anything approaching truth.

Why would, or should, I treat this as anything other than a joke, when you never answer a question (properly)? Don't waste my time, Sonny Jim.

For example, from Henry’s link to Rand in a Nutshell:
http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atl ... n-one-foot

1. METAPHYSICS: OBJECTIVE REALITY
or “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.”


Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

*

Comment or punchline? (don't feel restricted)

Thanks for the permission buddy. I was starting to feel really stifled and restricted.

We don't command nature. We cooperate with it as best we can. Nature will always win in the long run.

Reality as we perceive it is not an objective absolute. It is a subjective experience. And within that subjective experience, we make the best estimates regarding the facts. The rest of what we don't perceive is the true reality.

And again, you contradict your statement that you don't follow any particular creed. You consistently go back to linking Randian literature, as if it is an absolute. Why should I remotely treat that seriously, when I disagree with it in the first place?

'Fire burns.'

Is this an objective or subjective statement?


'if you touch that hot stove with your nekkid hand, you'll get burned.'

Is this an objective or subjective statement?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:Ayn Rand might say about it?

Who the fuck cares what a tard like him/her has to say about it, if you actually read a WHOLE book about this topic, then you have been scammed, and didn't comprehend it!!!! People who write such long books about such simple things are scammers and only fill you with nonsense and babble, like all other cozy chatters they can't comprehend that what they read has absolutely no relevance!!!

You need others to do very basic thinking for you, which is why you need to read books, I do my own thinking, thus I can think for myself!! ..very simple!!!

I love this.

Why is that?