theaynrandforum.com is engaging highly knowledgeable individuals from a wide variety of philosophic fields in debate. If you are interested, feel free to jump into any discussion, or start your own!
Wow. That’s actually the exact opposite of the truth.
If you think so, present your case.
Yeah, Objectivism seems quite consistent in Rand’s books. . . but they are works of fiction designed to make the philosophy work. Hardly a proper treatise.
She has the notion of individuality reversed from its origins, at least from a structuralist perspective, and then compounds this factor by rejecting anything remotely Dionysian in favor of a radical Apollonian worldview.
Naturally, such a system detached from basic humanity is as bound to fail as something like soviet-style Communism because it fails to consider that it is dealing with human beings and not robots.
Ayn Rand wrote 23 nonfiction books describing her philosophy.
aynrand.org/site/PageServer? … nonfiction
I would be happy to discuss such claims in the forum, but not here.
James, it seems like you have control issues. Ayn Rand isn’t even a philosopher. I consider her to be somewhat of a children’s writer. Her philosophy is shallow and poorly constructed. That’s why it takes a cult of followers to argue in favor of it on a special forum. If you think she’s so great, then defend her here to her critics.
Ayn Rand led a cult of personality. Read Michael Shermer’s “Why People Believe Weird Things”, or something.
While I don’t necessarily agree, this is quite an entertaining post - and it’s worth noting that it wasn’t responded to.
Ayn Rand… 
not a fan.
Morality of Altruism must be rejected? ROFL That hurts.
Does she even know what that means? No wonder I have never read her.
Hmm, might have to now, I laughed too hard, she may have some more.
Interesting Xunzian , she fails to consider the human factor? That is like making an infant a CEO. ROFL.
She might be worth some reading.
Sorry to bring this thread back from the dead, but I seem to have missed some replies to it.
First of all, I have defended Ayn Rand on this forum several times on several issues, quite successfully.
However, it does not surprise me that you would over look such a fact, given that your paragraph consists of assertions that lack any foundation. Also, your first sentence constitutes an ad hominid attack against me personally; so what makes you think that I would wish to have a serious discussion about anything, least of all Ayn Rand, with you?
That is interesting given that she named her philosophy “Objectivism,” instead of “Randism” in an effort to distance her philosophy from her person. As an aside, she once wrote to a fan that “A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult.” (The Letters of Ayn Rand)
Very clever. Thank you for persuading me to your view. Way to open people’s eyes to what you believe!!
It is very good that you name is Smears, because it seems that is all you are capable of. On this second showing of your inability or unwillingness to engage in rational discussion, I choose to no longer make that effort.
You’ll be missed. Feel free to come back anytime!
The offer is still open, if anyone would like to engage in discussion on various topics in philosophy.
Of course, I won’t be leaving this forum, just refusing to discuss anything with people without a preliminary understanding of debate, philosophy, or logic.
Once again you make fallacious assumptions about the people that you claim to be trying to debate. If you are in fact trying to have a debate then you’re failing miserably.
Is there anything about Ayn Rand that you feel we should be informed about? Is there anything else that you’d be willing to debate? Throughout this thread you’ve made no real reference to her at all, nor have you provided any substantive statement about what it is that you’re seeking clarification on.
Ayn Rand is an objectivist. That’s old news. Most of the people here consider her to be more of a pop culture phenomenon than one who has contributed anything original or relevant to current philosophical discourse beyond that which lends itself to teenage angst and the alienation that some feel upon being exposed to oversimplified notions of existentialism and social philosophy. The idea that you don’t think I’m suitable to debate you, is a red herring. I think you know that you can’t defend a view or present anything that could withstand any real scrutiny. Don’t be afraid. Tell me about Ayn Rand. I’m all ears.
ad hominid? Thats a new one, could you please define that for me?
Smears shame on you, ad hominid attacking someone, tsss, tsssk, you should know better (Psst ,Smears, what the deuce is an ad hominid attack?)
Please excuse my typo, the correct term is ad hominem.