Post: #1

Really good stuff.

Post: #2

No offense but I am getting sick of all these political diatribes even if I have participated in the past. I didn't try the No-Fap challenge but I'm not going to read any political threads for 90 days.

Post: #3

No offense taken. Wasn't really trying to get on a political grind. But she drops some good stuff about man's purpose and ideals

Post: #4

I can't see any interview? I recommend her book atlas shrugged.

Post: #5

peter, are you referring to the reprinted 1964 interview in the July/August issue of Playboy? I just read that, and yes, that content was very interesting. The interview actually wasn't very political at all, and I would definitely recommend guys read it. I too don't participate in political discussions with strangers on the net, or even friends in person, but I found the interview interesting.

Post: #6

video updated. apologies.

Post: #7

I feel obliged to post this picture.

Post: #8

If she paid into it why wouldn't she accept a check?

Post: #9

(08-07-2012 11:08 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  If she paid into it why wouldn't she accept a check?

I agree. She lives in a society where social security exists. She is part of the system. She contributed to the system. She is entitled to her fair share. I'm sure if she had a choice to not pay into social security, she would have opted out of receiving benefits as well.

Post: #10

I enjoy her works, but god damn what an ugly bitch.

Post: #11

(08-07-2012 11:35 PM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

(08-07-2012 11:08 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  If she paid into it why wouldn't she accept a check?

I agree. She lives in a society where social security exists. She is part of the system. She contributed to the system. She is entitled to her fair share. I'm sure if she had a choice to not pay into social security, she would have opted out of receiving benefits as well.

Because she railed against socialist government programs and advocated for laissez faire capitalism, yet when it mattered most she turned her back on her own philosophy and became a "moocher", the same variety of which she demonized.

Shouldn't be surprised though. Woman who says one thing when it suits her, and does a 180 when SHE needs help? Par for the course.

I like some of her ideas, but in the end she was just another cult leader. Preaches a strict philosophy, casts out the unfaithful, predicts doom and gloom, then when you aren't looking she's "sinning" like a mofo.

Post: #12

So she should have just kissed that money goodbye that she was required to pay in...

Interesting...

Post: #13

Ayn Rand would have been a super alpha male if she were a male. Hell, she's more of a male than most men anyway. Her ideas about man as a heroic being are some of the most inspirational things I've ever read. I first read The Fountainhead in highschool and it changed my life.

If you want to be a true alpha male, studying her work is a must IMO. I'm not talking about a guy that fucks women. I'm talking about a guy who wants to be the best possible incarnation of himself.

Post: #14

What Fisto said.

Any Rand's, "man as heroic expression" is untouchable.

Her political philosophy....I went through an Objectivist phase in college.

I'm much older now.

You won't meet any Objectivists or radical libertarians in their 30s and beyond. (Well, not working men. Academics and others who are insulated from the real world might not grow out of it.)

It's not because we are clueless or forgot the arguments.

As you get older you start appreciating the role luck plays.

You'll have friends go to jail for being at the wrong place, wrong time. Friends will die, get mugged, have their businesses stolen, etc.

You'll realize, "That could've just as easily have been me."

That doesn't mean you don't strive. But you also get away from the idea that society should have a bed of nails as a safety net.

You also learn that the universe is not rational. Luck is huge. Winners don't always deserve to win and losers don't always deserve to lose.

But I don't wanna argue. Ten years ago and I'd be right with the rest of you fan boys. (I was college president of Objectivist Club.)

You'll grow out of it, though.

Post: #15

Very interesting woman for sure. I have always been curious about her philosophies.

(08-08-2012 01:17 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  "man as heroic expression" is untouchable.

Mike,

Would you please explain what this is?

Post: #16

MikeCF, I've had some of the most terrible luck in the pursuits I've taken. I'm 34 now and I am still convinced I'll accomplish the things I set out to do. In the end, I don't believe it will be luck that helps me achieve what I have to. I don't believe in luck. I believe in myself.

Post: #17

Fisto, too bad we couldn't meet in Vegas. Hopefully next time..

Post: #18

Blarsen,

Actually she said in an interview documented in a book called Ayn Rand: Answers, that it is not a conflict to participate in social programs that you have paid into. So your comment "Preaches a strict philosophy, casts out the unfaithful, predicts doom and gloom, then when you aren't looking she's "sinning" like a mofo" is of course, complete bullshit. You're just another person that was told by someone else what her ideas and philosophy are about rather than discovering the truth for yourself.

Post: #19

(08-08-2012 01:38 AM)Giovonny Wrote:  Fisto, too bad we couldn't meet in Vegas. Hopefully next time..

I was disappointed man! I just read you were going through a bad breakup at the time you met one of the other forum members. That's also some of the things I've been dealing with. It's probably best. I haven't been myself when it comes to gaming girls the last couple of months. I'm training at my new job in Utah right now and I'll be back in Vegas in another week or two.

Post: #20

(08-08-2012 01:33 AM)Giovonny Wrote:  Very interesting woman for sure. I have always been curious about her philosophies.

(08-08-2012 01:17 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  "man as heroic expression" is untouchable.

Mike,

Would you please explain what this is?

“Howard Roark built a temple to the human spirit. He saw man as strong, proud, clean, wise and fearless. He saw man as a heroic being. And he built a temple to that. A temple is a place where man is to experience exaltation. He thought that exaltation comes from the consciousness of being guiltless, of seeing the truth and achieving it, of living up to one’s highest possibility, of knowing no shame and having no cause for shame, of being able to stand naked in full sunlight. He thought that exaltation means joy and that joy is man’s birthright. He tho...ught that a place built as a setting for man is a sacred place. That is what Howard Roark thought of man and of exaltation.”

Post: #21

(08-08-2012 01:34 AM)Fisto Wrote:  MikeCF, I've had some of the most terrible luck in the pursuits I've taken. I'm 34 now and I am still convinced I'll accomplish the things I set out to do. In the end, I don't believe it will be luck that helps me achieve what I have to. I don't believe in luck. I believe in myself.

Unless you were born into wealth, you are a car accident or serious medical condition away from destitution.

In a Randian society, if someone drove into your lane of traffic, smashing into you head on....Sorry for you. Enjoy your crippling injuries.

There would also be debtor's prisons.

Company towns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town#United_States

If you were born into a poor family, you'd be forced to lick the boots of the landed gentry. Your sisters would be sold into sexual slavery.

"Freedom of contract," this would be called, although it'd be more accurate to say you never had any opportunity.

There's no such thing as freedom when scarce resources have been claimed by those who came before you.

If some old man owns property, why is he entitled to it? Because he got there first? Well, fuck him. I never got a chance to compete with him. He didn't win it fair and square. I should thus be able to take it from him.

Yet Rand would say that I have to respect the old man's property rights. I reject that premise.

Where Rand and others "radical libertarians" fail is in their "No compulsion" rule.

Under Rand's view, man is free to do anything but enslave another man.

Well...Why?

If I can slap a dog collar around another man's neck, why shouldn't I be able to do so?

Why shouldn't my will to power remain totally unbridled?

There are no sustainable arguments for the no compulsion rule.

Shouldn't the only rule be, "Do as thou wilt."

If you can rape, kill, murder, slaughter, destroy, enslave, then that's what you should do.

But, "Do as thou wilt" goes too far for Rand and others, and thus they create the no compulsion rule as a first principle.

Post: #22

(08-08-2012 01:50 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(08-08-2012 01:33 AM)Giovonny Wrote:  Very interesting woman for sure. I have always been curious about her philosophies.

(08-08-2012 01:17 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  "man as heroic expression" is untouchable.

Mike,

Would you please explain what this is?

“Howard Roark built a temple to the human spirit. He saw man as strong, proud, clean, wise and fearless. He saw man as a heroic being. And he built a temple to that. A temple is a place where man is to experience exaltation. He thought that exaltation comes from the consciousness of being guiltless, of seeing the truth and achieving it, of living up to one’s highest possibility, of knowing no shame and having no cause for shame, of being able to stand naked in full sunlight. He thought that exaltation means joy and that joy is man’s birthright. He tho...ught that a place built as a setting for man is a sacred place. That is what Howard Roark thought of man and of exaltation.”

Beautiful! Thanks dude!

Post: #23

(08-08-2012 01:50 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(08-08-2012 01:33 AM)Giovonny Wrote:  Very interesting woman for sure. I have always been curious about her philosophies.

(08-08-2012 01:17 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  "man as heroic expression" is untouchable.

Mike,

Would you please explain what this is?

“Howard Roark built a temple to the human spirit. He saw man as strong, proud, clean, wise and fearless. He saw man as a heroic being. And he built a temple to that. A temple is a place where man is to experience exaltation. He thought that exaltation comes from the consciousness of being guiltless, of seeing the truth and achieving it, of living up to one’s highest possibility, of knowing no shame and having no cause for shame, of being able to stand naked in full sunlight. He thought that exaltation means joy and that joy is man’s birthright. He tho...ught that a place built as a setting for man is a sacred place. That is what Howard Roark thought of man and of exaltation.”

Sounds like the foreplay of Rand's rape fantasy performed by the ultimate alpha male.

Post: #24

No MikeCF, insurance companies are still allowed to function in a capitalist society, and police officers are still there to protect your rights as a free person. Debtors prisons wouldn't exist because when two or more entities willingly enter into an agreement, they also understand the risks involved in that. Rand never said anything of the sort about being able to do anything but "enslave" another man. You aren't allowed to impede on anyone's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The succinct statement by Thomas Jefferson that was the main inspiration for Objectivism. These assertions are perversions of select ideas that don't take into account the very foundation of Objectivism. Happiness as a man's highest moral calling and reason as his only absolute. What you're saying is completely irrational and by it's very irrationality, in conflict with Objectivism.

Your company town link is absolutely impossible in a "Randian" society because it doesn't respect the right of Liberty. I'm going to bed man, I hate that you think these things.

The sustainable argument against an unbridled will to power is that slapping a dog collar on another man is a crime and the person doing it would be prosecuted just as he would in our society today.

Post: #25

Gio,

That quote about Howard Roark is in reference to a building he was commissioned to design (he was an architect).

A better explanation for what she means by man as a heroic being is: Man’s life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there’s only one price that pays for man’s survival: reason.

Or:

Man’s unique reward, however, is that while animals survive by adjusting themselves to their background, man survives by adjusting his background to himself. If a drought strikes them, animals perish—man builds irrigation canals; if a flood strikes them, animals perish—man builds dams; if a carnivorous pack attacks them animals perish—man writes the Constitution of the United States. But one does not obtain food, safety or freedom—by instinct.

Or:
In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads.

Check out Aynrandlexicon.com if you're interested in her ideas. I try and read a little every evening.