Author Topic: Inverted Randian Objectivism (Read 8555 times)

Wait a minute Chester · « **on:** July 21, 2011, 08:45:31 AM »

Greetings to all Dudists and what have you. I'm new here. I'm just coming on to my meds and feeling pretty dapper so here goes my philosophical rant.

It recently occurred to me in reading about the influence of Ayn Rand on popular political culture, that I am an Inverted Randian Objectivist. For instance, take your John Galt, your captain of industry, corporate CEO, Big Lebowski or what have you. I believe that this kind of person serves a usefull purpose. Somebody has to do it. But I also believe that they are one of the lowest forms of human expression and should (in a more enlightened society) be kept in their place. They should exist to serve us Dudes and more enlightened folk.

An interesting historical example of this value is ancient India in the time of the Buddha. The wandering mendicants (monks, what have you) were considered the most honored members of society. It was the duty of all other members of society to donate food, land or whatever the mendicants required to purse the religious life. The laypeople who did this were thought to be acquiring spiritual merit.

Jut the opposite of the anxiety driven Protestant work ethic we are up against in our culture.

I realize that this is just my opinion man so taker 'er easy.

May all beings be peaceful,

Chester

meekon5 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2011, 09:47:28 AM »

Interesting point of view, but Rand's influence, or is that just Rand was an acute observer?

Please remember Rand spiraled into depression when she realised that "Atlas Shrugged" was not going to be accept as the master work of genius she herself believed it was.

I have a couple of copies of the thing but friend of mine is the only person I know who has actually read some of it (very tough going according to him).

Also would Murdoch not be more the John Galt figure (with all the logical floors and weaknesses).

I often think Rand's philosophy was merely a vehicle for putting herself at the pinnacle of a society she was ill suited to exist in.

Wait a minute Chester · « **Reply #2 on:** July 22, 2011, 05:35:00 AM »

Quote from: meekon5 on July 21, 2011, 09:47:28 AM

Interesting point of view, but Rand's influence, or is that just Rand was an acute observer?

Good point. For the most part she probably was just observing an existing phenomenon. She does have legions of modern day devotees who worship at her alter of amoral nihilistic greed. This is what I observe as the polar opposite of the Dude.

I admit I've never gotten through any of her books either. They seem incredibly tedious with no payoff that I could see.

Murdoch is certainly the most pathological conclusion to this kind of mentality, but I think it's all of the mini-Galts and Galt wannabees that are allowing our country to be led into the next dark age.

revgms · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2011, 07:14:34 AM »

Rand ended up on SS and medicare, she fed from the hand she bit. Also her philosophy has to assume every individual gets the same exact opportunities, like being born into the same amount of wealth, and the same health situation.

meekon5 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2011, 07:49:29 AM »

Can't disagree there revgms.

There was quite a fuss made about the fact she went back on her own word towards the end. also many claimed it undermined the validity of her philosophy by not being able to stand by its doctrine in the end.

revgms · « **Reply #5 on:** July 22, 2011, 08:05:54 AM »

Randian philosophy sees the world as a giant Monopoly game, except in the real world we are all not given $1,500 to start, some are born already in jail and some are born already owning Boardwalk. It is not fair, nothing is, to base a world view on the premise that everything is fair and equal is ludicrous. Everything is fundamentally equal, but not phenomenally equal.

Life is a game, but not that kind of game.

BikerDude · « **Reply #6 on:** July 27, 2011, 01:07:28 PM »

IMHO Ayn Rand was a product of her time.
Her polarized world view was in keeping with much of the nonsense of the cold war era.
People gravitated toward over simplified world views.
Much like today.
Seems like as the world becomes more difficult to understand these type of over simplified, black and white, good vs bad, explanations become much more appealing to people.

I truly believe this is the same reason why Rush and Hannity and Beck and the ilk are such a big hit.
By not letting things like facts get in the way you can boil the entire universe down to some very simple explanations and ludicrous stereotypes.

Quote

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.
Ayn Rand

She was an idiot.

revgms · « **Reply #7 on:** July 27, 2011, 02:01:52 PM »

At very least she was quite un Dude

DigitalBuddha · « **Reply #8 on:** July 27, 2011, 11:13:56 PM »

Quote from: Wait a minute Chester on July 21, 2011, 08:45:31 AM

Greetings to all Dudists and what have you. I'm new here. I'm just coming on to my meds and feeling pretty dapper so here goes my philosophical rant.

It recently occurred to me in reading about the influence of Ayn Rand on popular political culture, that I am an Inverted Randian Objectivist. For instance, take your John Galt, your captain of industry, corporate CEO, Big Lebowski or what have you. I believe that this kind of person serves a usefull purpose. Somebody has to do it. But I also believe that they are one of the lowest forms of human expression and should (in a more enlightened society) be kept in their place. They should exist to serve us Dudes and more enlightened folk.

An interesting historical example of this value is ancient India in the time of the Buddha. The wandering mendicants (monks, what have you) were considered the most honored members of society. It was the duty of all other members of society to donate food, land or whatever the mendicants required to purse the religious life. The laypeople who did this were thought to be acquiring spiritual merit.

Jut the opposite of the anxiety driven Protestant work ethic we are up against in our culture.

I realize that this is just my opinion man so taker 'er easy.

May all beings be peaceful,

Chester

Personally, I am an Inverted Bowlerist Objectivist Abidist Oat Sodaist Jerk Off Manualist.

............is this, ahhh, what day is this?

BikerDude · « **Reply #9 on:** July 29, 2011, 10:08:25 AM »

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken

DigitalBuddha · « **Reply #10 on:** July 29, 2011, 12:39:15 PM »

Quote from: BikerDude on July 29, 2011, 10:08:25 AM

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken

Awesome quotes. Sort of reminds of another quote...

"...keep em' in the dark, and feed em' bullshit."

apnp · « **Reply #11 on:** August 04, 2011, 04:24:31 PM »

It is an expression of the beauty of the dudely marketplace that the recent "Atlas Shrugged: Part One" movie seriously tanked at the box office this Spring. Not a single drop of Kahlua in the whole thing. Which just goes to show, it's an extra difficult challenge to be a dude when you're also a speed freak.

Quaker Dude · « **Reply #12 on:** September 10, 2011, 02:49:48 AM »

Rand was right about one thing and once thing only, which is that social betterment should arise from individual choice and consent rather than the barrel of a gun. Other than that though, she was pretty hit-and-miss as a philosopher, and I don't think she ever really grokked liberty or freedom as a holistic philosophy, especially as it pertained to charity as a virtue which elevates mankind, or the capacity of man to seek higher spiritual truth without giving into religious dogma.

meekon5 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 10, 2011, 02:59:22 AM »

Quaker I can only agree.

I think she believed that her group as the elite would drive society forward to what they saw as what was best fro the rest of us proles though.

Rev. Ed C · « **Reply #14 on:** September 10, 2011, 07:14:07 AM »

Ayn Rand was an elitist and a hypocrite. She used her own philosophy to try and better her own life and make an excuse for her selfishness, until the point when her affair blew up in her face because the married man she was carrying on with decided to followe her philosophy and start a new affair... the hole in her anti-altruistic society tore asunder and she couldn't handle him doing what he wanted because it stopped her doing what she wanted, which was to stop him doing what he wanted...

I don't often dismiss people and crackpots and "just plain wrong" in their thinking... but I'll make an acception here, just this one

Author Topic: Inverted Randian Objectivism (Read 8555 times)

Recent Posts

Most Viewed

Most Commented

Big Blather Box

New Shit

Store

Recently Posted

Calendar

Facebook Comments