SaltGirl
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2013
- Messages
- 178
rdmayo21 said:SaltGirl said:Nathaniel Branden was an associate and romantic partner of Ayn Rand so I see where he comes from.
However, as is the problem with Objectivism, it is very ethnocentric, bigoted, and overall a bad system(it's optimal if you are a white heterosexual cismale). It's as if people just needed a belief system to justify their bad behaviour and Rayn Rand delivered like Moses from the mountain. Doesn't change the fact that I consider Objectivists to be almost inherently bad people at heart. If you need to justify your actions with pseudophilosophy then it is time to review your own life choices.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
- John Rogers
Sigh, there's not one single argument in your post.
Because philosophy has more or less discarded Objectivism(because it is basically ***t). It's especially interesting to see people who were once Objectivists talk about how bad an ideology it is.
Robert Anton Wilson said:“The first new dogmatism I embraced after rejecting the Marxist BS (belief system) was Ayn Rand’s philosophy (not yet called Objectivism in those days.) _The Fountainhead_ had exactly the appeal for me that it has retained, decade after decade, with alienated adolescents of all ages. (The average youthful reader of _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ decides he is the Superman, and the average youthful Randroid decides she is an Alienated Super Genius.) LIke most Randroids, I went around for a few years mindlessly parroting all the the Rand dogma and imagining I was an ‘individualist.’
“Some years later, after becoming a published writer, I actually was invited to meet Ayn Rand once. (I was ‘summoned to the Presence,’ as Arlen said.) I confessed my doubts about certain Rand dogmas and was Cast Out Into the Darkness forever to wail and gnash my teeth in the Realm of Thud. It was weird. I thought the Trots and Catholic priests were dogmatic, but Ayn Rand made both groups look like models of tolerance by comparison.
“I thought she was a clinical paranoid. It was nearly 30 years later that I found out Rand was merely on Speed all the time, which creates an effect so much like paranoia that even trained clinicians cannot always tell the difference, and some even claim there is no difference.”
I am not going to hide it or dance around the subject, but I find anyone who adheres to Objectivism, thinks Ayn Rand was a visionary, or that republican ideas of libertarianism is the ultimate answer, to be especially stupid(I mean, I am talking about people who were raised in a bubble) and myopic people. This is coming from someone(ie. me) who is an outspoken Social Anarchist(which surprisingly is also called Social Libertarianism. It's also the end game of Marx which meant socialism without a government since you're so obsessed about State Socialism).
I actually find these three things so beneath me that I can't even bother arguing with it as I've had that conversation a million times. In fact, the idea of capitalistic libertarianism is to me nothing more than an irrational belief in a higher power that will somehow make everything right. I see no reason to believe a Libertarian more than your average pastor.
Here is an interesting thing:
Some of the more intriguing results reported in this study involve the Empathizer-Systemizer scale. The scale measures the tendency to empathize, defined as "the drive to identify another person's emotions and thoughts, and to respond to these with an appropriate emotion," and to systemize, or "the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system." Libertarians are the only group that scored higher on systemizing than on empathizing—and they scored a lot higher. The authors go on to suggest that systemizing is “characteristic of the male brain, with very extreme scores indicating autism.” They then add, “We might say that liberals have the most ‘feminine’ cognitive style, and libertarians the most ‘masculine.’” They speculate that the “feminizing” of the Democratic Party in the 1970s may thus explain why libertarians moved into the Republican Party in the 1980s.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/02/t ... ibertarian
Yep, that kinda supports what I have always believed, that libertarians are really not connected with mankind, and I just can't see anything good coming from that. Also supports RAW's assertion about the "alienated super genius" mentality.
Sometimes I wish I could be a libertarian. I imagine being full on delusional would be a blast, for more or less the same reasons why being highly religious would be fun.
I think this might be my favourite jab at libertarians:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-sh ... department
(btw, I know I won't be changing your belief system more than you'll change mine. There is no change without suffering and I have suffered enough at libertarian ideas about capitalism to know that it is a poisonous well of evil.)