GENIUS FORUMS

Faust13 wrote:
if you have the intellectual rigour to read it, it blasts 'Objectivism' quite well. It's a shame because Objectivist Art is very good.

I did read it.Some points were well made but much of it was pro-Nazi dissembling.

Someone should point out to Mr Porter that Ayn Rand rather than a champion of the Talmud was an avowed and outspoken atheist.

Faust13 wrote:

Sue: She was very Slavic in her thinking – a lover of fantasy, and a romantic. I feel it weighs down her thinking; making it heavy and lifeless.

why is this considered Slavic?

She was Russian, and to my mind she exemplifies the Slavic temperament: dreamy and imaginative, contrasted against a deep morbidity and brutality. I see this in her need to contain and thereby control her characters by portraying them as being in a constant state of emotional inner fury. And there is no mystery as to why she did this, for that was the way she loved to live her own life – seeped in a melodrama, with her as the central heroine.

Sue: That part of her that was masculine drove the focus and the dedication her life took – but it appears that the feminine was a much larger component, for it was by far the major controlling force.

i think she had alot more masculine clarity and reasoning and analyticalness than the usual fantasy woman.

“Fantasy Woman”? Are you talking about Wonder Woman or Xena: Warrior Princess, or what?

She claimed that women cannot be Presidents because they wouldn't be able to psychologically handle it,

Yes, and she never backed up that statement – obviously because she couldn’t.

she also claimed that 'woman qua woman' 'looks up to the man', similar to Weininger's "woman's beauty is in her love of man".

Rand’s ideas about the sexes are mediocre to say the least. She doesn’t possess Weininger’s deeper understanding of the feminine and masculine psychology, and therefore, her thinking on the matter cannot be compared.

You should read the Gender Roles section on Wikipedia's webpage of her, it's highly interesting.

Like I said above, her thoughts about gender spring forth not from any real need or desire to understand reality; instead they come from her own unresolved needs and wants. This explains why her ideas are so heavily wrapped up in fantasy, and why she chose to surround herself with a bunch of emotionally confused young people whom she called her “intellectual heirs”.

She was able to find Nietzsche's main flaws, and atleast had a genuine interest in western philosophy.

Only if you believe as she did that Nietzsche’s philosophy fostered emotionalism over rationality. And also, if you, like she, didn’t understand the importance of the subjective in understanding reality.

I agree that she had a genuine interest in Western Philosophy – as genuine as any academic philosopher, or populist writer of philosophy. What she didn’t have was a genuine interest in truth – and without that, her thinking is temporary and petty.

.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:I agree that she had a genuine interest in Western Philosophy – as genuine as any academic philosopher, or populist writer of philosophy. What she didn’t have was a genuine interest in truth – and without that, her thinking is temporary and petty.

.

Perhaps she added alot of-what seemed to me unecessary reference to fantasy and romance-so as to appeal to a wider 'mills and boon' type buying audience and therefore be able to disseminate her more core philosophy of objectivism to a larger audience.Intellectual dishonesty granted and utimately 'petty'(as you say), but maybe a reason?

Ataraxia,

I don't think so. She was always going on about "intellectual integrity", so I doubt she'd ever consciously consider writing something popular in order to spread her "core philosophy". She considered her writings to be works of genius - so no 'mills and boon' for her.

No, the core of her philosophy was herself - her desires, her longings - she invested into it her own psychology and intellect, but neither are particularly interesting, or inspiring.

.

Ataraxia wrote:I did read it.Some points were well made but much of it was pro-Nazi dissembling.

Uhh no. National Socialism does not have to be associated with Nazism. It is a political philosophy, and many times, MUCH better than the modern Feudalistic-Imperialism you have with global "free" trade, cheap and degrading foreign labour, outsourcing national jobs, anti-unionization, monopolies, corporate welfare and subsidies, corporate conglomerates, International Banking controlling Western central banks, World Bank, IMF, and so on and so on.

Someone should point out to Mr Porter that Ayn Rand rather than a champion of the Talmud was an avowed and outspoken atheist.

It's the Jewish love of money that Mr Porter is criticizing, Karl Marx an ex-Jew, claimed the same thing. Also, last time I checked Judaism doesn't go against uncontrolled abortions and the general killing of future humans dubbed "abortion." He criticized specifically what Rand had to say about it, "it's in the woman's self-interest if she wants to have an abortion." Self-interest? It's in the fetus's self interest to also want to stay alive, and so on and so on.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:And there is no mystery as to why she did this, for that was the way she loved to live her own life – seeped in a melodrama, with her as the central heroine.

So??? There's nothing wrong with idealistic heroism. It's certainly not boring to use art to portray this.

“Fantasy Woman”? Are you talking about Wonder Woman or Xena: Warrior Princess, or what?

ok fine she had more analyticalness and more objective reasoning than the usual woman.

Yes, and she never backed up that statement – obviously because she couldn’t.

Apparently women CEO's aren't as succesful as men. I think she derived this woman president theory from her own experiences and observations. What do you think? Do you think women can be more organized and efficient and logical than men?

Rand’s ideas about the sexes are mediocre to say the least. She doesn’t possess Weininger’s deeper understanding of the feminine and masculine psychology, and therefore, her thinking on the matter cannot be compared.

she doesn't possess all of it, but she certainly possessed alot of it. Infact, the whole "phallus worshipping" thing is totally Weininger. I wouldn't be surprised if she personally realized that women were somewhat inferior to men.

Like I said above, her thoughts about gender spring forth not from any real need or desire to understand reality; instead they come from her own unresolved needs and wants. This explains why her ideas are so heavily wrapped up in fantasy, and why she chose to surround herself with a bunch of emotionally confused young people whom she called her “intellectual heirs”.

Rubbish, these emotional reactions and objections seem to be coming from a so far unknown motive. What are her unresolved needs and wants?? She definitely desired to understand reality, she just made some mistakes. Which ideas are wrapped up in fantasy??? Yes those confused people I hope she didn't turn them that way. For I don't think she would be a warmonger to attack Iraq purely for profit, I certainly hope not, because that's definitely how the Ayn Rand "Institute" thinks, it gives me the shivers.

Only if you believe as she did that Nietzsche’s philosophy fostered emotionalism over rationality

It DID foster emotionalism over rationality, totally. What do you think Dionysus is???? What's ironic is that he lived an essentially Apollonian lifestyle, perhaps he couldn't admit it that Dionysus living just destroys everything. It's clear that you only want to believe your own desires for Nietzsche's image, and Rand's criticism of him was definitely correct. Just read some of Nietzsche's quotes:

"something something, then you realize the limits of reason"

"No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically "unjust," since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise. Even more disturbingly, we have to admit that from the biological [i.e. Darwinian] point of view legal conditions are necessarily exceptional conditions, since they limit the radical life-will bent on power and must finally subserve, as means, life's collective purpose, which is to create greater power constellations. To accept any legal system as sovereign and universal -- to accept it, not merely as an instrument in the struggle of power complexes, but as a weapon against struggle (in the sense of Dühring's communist cliché that every will must regard every other will as its equal) -- is an anti-vital principle which can only bring about man's utter demoralization and, indirectly, a reign of nothingness."

you and Kelly give Nietzsche far too much credit, especially Kelly, she's over the top, perhaps it's her ugliness that bugs her and forces her to bring everyone down to her level.

And also, if you, like she, didn’t understand the importance of the subjective in understanding reality.

uhhh? there's no such thing as subjectivity since everything is part of the Totality. Tell me what is the importance of subjectivity in understanding reality?? In fact, "subjectivity" can easily block reality.

I agree that she had a genuine interest in Western Philosophy – as genuine as any academic philosopher, or populist writer of philosophy.

Hah!! She DESPISED academics, especially philosophy and literature professors. Shows what you know.

What she didn’t have was a genuine interest in truth – and without that, her thinking is temporary and petty.

she definitely had genuine interest in truth, she just made some mistakes that's all. perhaps you just have something against artistic creativity and inventive minds.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: No, the core of her philosophy was herself - her desires, her longings - she invested into it her own psychology and intellect, but neither are particularly interesting, or inspiring.

i beg to differ, her sexual fantasies were quite titillating, which only agrees with Weininger. Sure she didn't learn the whole thing of Weininger, but the gender differences and probably the superiority of men were quite apparent to her. I mean a feminist called her, "a traitor to her own sex."

She showed the value and importance of innovative and inventive minds, although that's pretty obvious her artistic side to this was pretty good. Also, you should take the word Objectivism with a grain of sand. Ultimate Reality is quite Objective, in the traditional sense of that word, so I think she was striving to find Objectivity where ever it existed, that is, what is Real and Ultimate.

Faust13 wrote:

Sue: No, the core of her philosophy was herself - her desires, her longings - she invested into it her own psychology and intellect, but neither are particularly interesting, or inspiring.

i beg to differ, her sexual fantasies were quite titillating, which only agrees with Weininger. Sure she didn't learn the whole thing of Weininger, but the gender differences and probably the superiority of men were quite apparent to her. I mean a feminist called her, "a traitor to her own sex."

Her notion about the “superiority of men” is pure fantasy, built on her own desire to have men worthy of her attention and love. She showed no real understanding about the life of man, or his relationship with women. For that reason alone, you can’t even begin to compare her to Weininger.

And the fact that feminists called her “a traitor” just shows how unfocused and petty minded they were/are.

She showed the value and importance of innovative and inventive minds,

She helped prepare “minds” only capable of living in the shallows – made clear by the people who profess to be influenced by her thought: Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, James Clavell, Alan Greenspan, Hugh Hefner, Angelina Jolie, David Kelley, Billie Jean King, Leonard Peikoff, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

although that's pretty obvious her artistic side to this was pretty good.

Yes, at base she was an artist – and not a thinker.

Also, you should take the word Objectivism with a grain of sand. Ultimate Reality is quite Objective, in the traditional sense of that word, so I think she was striving to find Objectivity where ever it existed, that is, what is Real and Ultimate.

If you believe that Rand showed through her thought and her life a real desire to understand ultimate reality, then both you and she must share a very skew-whiff idea about what that is – for all I see in Rand is a slightly more than average egotist hell-bent on playing the Diva.
.

Faust13 wrote:

Sue: And there is no mystery as to why she did this, for that was the way she loved to live her own life – seeped in a melodrama, with her as the central heroine.

So??? There's nothing wrong with idealistic heroism. It's certainly not boring to use art to portray this.

No, it’s perfectly fine when you are just starting out thinking about life – but it can become a huge blockage to your development if you continue to hold onto it. The idea is to just use it as a stepping stone for a brief moment whilst you are finding your own feet. To base a whole body of thought upon the idea shows immaturity and an avoidance, or inability to think deeper about life.

Sue: “Fantasy Woman”? Are you talking about Wonder Woman or Xena: Warrior Princess, or what?

ok fine she had more analyticalness and more objective reasoning than the usual woman.

Yes, but sadly not nearly enough to turn her into a thinker, but more than enough to make her an artist.

Faust13: She claimed that women cannot be Presidents because they wouldn't be able to psychologically handle it,

Sue: Yes, and she never backed up that statement – obviously because she couldn’t.

Apparently women CEO's aren't as succesful as men.

Well, for good reason - they don’t need to be!

Women have something that men can only dream of – women, whether they fail or win in any of life’s employments have always the fact that they're a woman to fall back on. Men don't have this luxury, for their whole standing as a man depends entirely on their employment. Being a CEO may bring her wealth and power, but it will never surmount the power she already possesses as a woman.

I think she derived this woman president theory from her own experiences and observations.

Well, she needs glasses. Open any history book and there is evidence going back some five thousand years showing that women have been leaders of nations and peoples.

What do you think? Do you think women can be more organized and efficient and logical than men?

I didn’t know that those were the prerequisites for leading a nation. ; )

Women definitely can be all those things; especially when you look at the quality of man that mostly exists today - and the poor sickly thing that is usually paraded out as 'logic'.

For most of life’s activities, women are equally qualified to do the same jobs as men. The only occupations that they can struggle with are ones that require a great deal of physical strength, and the occupation of becoming an individual. The strength issue is self-explanatory, but the individual issue requires an understanding of the psychology of the feminine and masculine. To put it simply, most females completely lack an inner-life. There are a few females that do possess inner-lives, but most of those inner-lives are ill-formed due to lack of use. It is extremely rare to find a female with a well formed, working inner-life. But if found, they are using it to discriminate and discern truths - as only true individuals can.

Sue: Rand’s ideas about the sexes are mediocre to say the least. She doesn’t possess Weininger’s deeper understanding of the feminine and masculine psychology, and therefore, her thinking on the matter cannot be compared.

she doesn't possess all of it, but she certainly possessed alot of it. Infact, the whole "phallus worshipping" thing is totally Weininger. I wouldn't be surprised if she personally realized that women were somewhat inferior to men.

The "phallus worshipping" thing is superficial, and not important to understanding the relationship between the sexes.

Her ideas about women and men aren’t at all well thought out. Her failure in this area only goes to show how little she understood its significance to understanding reality.

Sue: Like I said above, her thoughts about gender spring forth not from any real need or desire to understand reality; instead they come from her own unresolved needs and wants. This explains why her ideas are so heavily wrapped up in fantasy, and why she chose to surround herself with a bunch of emotionally confused young people whom she called her “intellectual heirs”.

Rubbish, these emotional reactions and objections seem to be coming from a so far unknown motive.

Do you mean that you don’t understand why I’m judging her so harshly?

No mystery there; you’re presenting her as a thinker of absolutes, and I judge her from my own knowledge as a thinker of absolutes. And I conclude, from looking at her work and her life, that she was an artist - not a thinker.

What are her unresolved needs and wants?? She definitely desired to understand reality, she just made some mistakes. Which ideas are wrapped up in fantasy???

When you play Diva as she did, it is obvious that you want to be the center of attention. She attracted attention to herself by exploiting other people’s need for fantasy.

Yes those confused people I hope she didn't turn them that way.

She provided a strong guiding figure for them, scolding them for their infractions against her thinking, and demanding of them dedication to her ideas and goals. These ‘clones’, made in her imagine, were played by her like a child plays with puppets.

In her was no passion for the true individual who depends entirely on their own mind. She was into group think and “Collectives”.

Sue: Only if you believe as she did that Nietzsche’s philosophy fostered emotionalism over rationality

It DID foster emotionalism over rationality, totally. What do you think Dionysus is???? What's ironic is that he lived an essentially Apollonian lifestyle, perhaps he couldn't admit it that Dionysus living just destroys everything. It's clear that you only want to believe your own desires for Nietzsche's image, and Rand's criticism of him was definitely correct. Just read some of Nietzsche's quotes:

"something something, then you realize the limits of reason"

"No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically "unjust," since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise. Even more disturbingly, we have to admit that from the biological [i.e. Darwinian] point of view legal conditions are necessarily exceptional conditions, since they limit the radical life-will bent on power and must finally subserve, as means, life's collective purpose, which is to create greater power constellations. To accept any legal system as sovereign and universal -- to accept it, not merely as an instrument in the struggle of power complexes, but as a weapon against struggle (in the sense of Dühring's communist cliché that every will must regard every other will as its equal) -- is an anti-vital principle which can only bring about man's utter demoralization and, indirectly, a reign of nothingness."

Again you are comparing Rand to Nietzsche. Rand hasn't anything in common with him.

This judgement of mine has nothing at all to do with some desire you imagine I have to protect Nietzsche’s image. He definitely had his more emotional periods where he fell sway to ordinary egotism, but he also had times of deep spiritual insight. Those spiritual insights make him worthy of interest - and sets him completely apart from Rand.

Sue: And also, if you, like she, didn’t understand the importance of the subjective in understanding reality.

uhhh? there's no such thing as subjectivity since everything is part of the Totality. Tell me what is the importance of subjectivity in understanding reality?? In fact, "subjectivity" can easily block reality.

Let me just ask this one question in way of answering your question. How is it that you know “there's no such thing as subjectivity since everything is part of the Totality”?

Sue: I agree that she had a genuine interest in Western Philosophy – as genuine as any academic philosopher, or populist writer of philosophy.

Hah!! She DESPISED academics, especially philosophy and literature professors. Shows what you know.

Pretty women may despise other pretty women, but that doesn’t stop them from still being pretty.

Sue: What she didn’t have was a genuine interest in truth – and without that, her thinking is temporary and petty.

she definitely had genuine interest in truth, she just made some mistakes that's all. perhaps you just have something against artistic creativity and inventive minds.

I’m a great fan of “creativity and inventive minds” when they are used to put stop to ignorance. When they are used to promote ignorance, as Rand’s ideas do, then I find it wholly despicable.

.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Her notion about the “superiority of men” is pure fantasy, built on her own desire to have men worthy of her attention and love. She showed no real understanding about the life of man, or his relationship with women. For that reason alone, you can’t even begin to compare her to Weininger.

tell me what's your view of the understanding the life of man and his relationship with women.

If you believe that Rand showed through her thought and her life a real desire to understand ultimate reality, then both you and she must share a very skew-whiff idea about what that is – for all I see in Rand is a slightly more than average egotist hell-bent on playing the Diva

i know that her philosophy was downright poor and wrong many times, that's why I provided those links that severely criticizes her sloppy thoughts. I don't even know why in these posts | gave her more credit than she deserved.