Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959

#41

Post by dantheman »

pw0ncakes wrote: post #13
_lc1i wrote: post #4

Despite Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead being amongst my favorite books, Ayn Rand always has me so polarized. Her moral philosophies and ability to write characters earns my unmatched admiration. But her blinding hatred for socialism (as conveyed from her very first book) keep her economic views from ever being realistic or even interesting. For the same reason communism fails, her free market would fail, because…

I can understand her dislike for Soviet-style socialism, but this would only lead me to have more contempt for 21st-century corporations, which combine the worst of both worlds between socialism and capitalism.

I don't know if you've read atlas shrugged or not, but a large part of it is about collusion between government and private corporations.

Re: Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959

#42

Post by Radix »

pw0ncakes wrote: post #13
_lc1i wrote: post #4

Despite Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead being amongst my favorite books, Ayn Rand always has me so polarized. Her moral philosophies and ability to write characters earns my unmatched admiration. But her blinding hatred for socialism (as conveyed from her very first book) keep her economic views from ever being realistic or even interesting. For the same reason communism fails, her free market would fail, because…

I can understand her dislike for Soviet-style socialism, but this would only lead me to have more contempt for 21st-century corporations, which combine the worst of both worlds between socialism and capitalism.

She really really did. I have read up to that last long (very long) speach by Atlas, which is plenty to note: most of the worst characters are business men. One of the most disfavorable characters in the entire book is Dagny's brother James, who unlike her grasps at the government for support.

Also, she anchors her book in America. Imagining how America could go wrong, but uses the socialism in Argentina and Mexico as a backdrop. She spends quite a lot of time giving examples of good selfish capitalism and bad selfish "capitalism"

Re: Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959

#43

Post by jbooth »

_lc1i wrote: post #21
jsz0 wrote: post #9

I never understood why people were so keen on Ayn Rand. Seems like a philosophy built to justify being a jerk.

As written in her books, following her moral can often lead to the unfair perception of being a jerk. Many people briefly exposed or misunderstanding Rand choose to remember (and spread) the jerk self interest part without laying out her moral framework.

Meh, John Galt went out and convinced all the rich people who were allegedly being preyed on by unions and special interests to.. go on strike? And become a special interest? Wow, that's great.

First off, if my boss left to go do that I'd say "Thanks for the promotion" and take the payraise.

Second off -- and much more importantly -- you should live your life for something more than your own crappy temporary luxuries.

Re: Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959

#44

Post by jbooth »

_lc1i wrote: post #17
tokenadult wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html

Those kinds of condescending and trite dismissals are just not interesting. Rand draws more than her fair share of them and I don't think an honest debate can be held over her (good) philosophies because of their prevalence.

Actually, her points are so black-and-white, oversimplified, childish, naive, take your pick.. that, yeah.

What do you think America was built by? A bunch of man-babies who took their toys and went home when someone else wanted help?

Re: Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959

#45

Post by maxharris »

shaddi wrote: post #32
Tycho wrote: post #16

a remarkable thing about Objectivism is the overlap between Rand's epistemology and the paradigm of Object-Oriented Programming. It's uncanny. (if you want to know more, you might be able to find her 70 page essay 'An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology', also there was an academic paper about the OOP link written recently)

That would be an interesting overlap. It begs the question, however, if our society should be modeled after an object-oriented program, or if people should be treated like objects within it. My problem with objectivism is that it fails to account for the complexity that exists in our world. It might work better if we were truly rational beings, or if people were only constrained by their own decisions or a set of fai…

Objectivism says a lot more about what individuals need (and need to do) to flourish than about how to organize society. The political stuff is important, but it's not the central point of the philosophy.

America isn't ready for a political system that's acceptable to Objectivists (Americans would reject it.) What it really needs is to discover Objectivism's deep, practical and consistent moral message.

Re: Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959

#46

Post by brg »

greenlblue wrote: post #40
RevRal wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confusing the map and territory needs to be classified as a psychological disorder, where sanity is below a minimum threshold. This kind of thinking is too easy. This is basic stuff, and you call it "obviously wrong." That's an indication that you haven't thought about it enough; there is very little which is "obviously" this or that. You must examine an idea and it's surrounding evidences, or established ideas. If y…

Making vague analogies with no relevance should be one as well. When you figure out a way of putting my perception, the map, and "reality", the territory, side by side on the screen then you can call me crazy for denying its existence. Until then be a little more courteous and respectful of other people's opinions and don't accuse them of confounding variables.

Experimentation: Reality is different from your memory of perception in that one can always go back to re-examine it.

Re: Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959

#47

Post by gnosis »

_lc1i wrote: post #25
idlewords wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Her moral philosophies and ability to write characters earns my unmatched admiration." Rand's characters are cartoon heroes and villains whose distinguishing characteristic is a leaden humorlessness. Her moral philosophy is as cartoon-like as that of the communists she hated so much. The world consists of a few beleaguered (and attractive!) supermen, and the great mass of sponging inferiors who bleed them dry. This…

Her characters are certainly often exaggerated and unrealistic, but they are so in her crafted fictional world setup to convey her philosophy while a telling a good story. However, the dialogue and surrounding thoughts of her characters still provide incredible insight (at least to me). Maybe I am an ignorant jerk needing to read more sophisticated philosophy (likely on both accounts), but she introduced to me, throu…

If you like this sort of thing, you should read Nietzsche (which is where Rand appropriated this sort of thing from).

Nietzsche is not only a much more eloquent writer, but his ideas are far more profound.

Re: Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959

#48

Post by RevRal »

RevRal wrote: post #39
greenlblue wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I meant reality. Unless you give me a means of separating my perceptions from the reality then there is no useful distinction to be drawn here.

Confusing the map and territory needs to be classified as a psychological disorder, where sanity is below a minimum threshold. This kind of thinking is too easy. This is basic stuff, and you call it "obviously wrong." That's an indication that you haven't thought about it enough; there is very little which is "obviously" this or that. You must examine an idea and it's surrounding evidences, or established ideas. If y…

Crap.

The world is not very colorful in an objective reality.

The world is very colorful in an objective reality, is what I meant.

Re: Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959

#49

Post by pw0ncakes »

dantheman wrote: post #41
pw0ncakes wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand her dislike for Soviet-style socialism, but this would only lead me to have more contempt for 21st-century corporations, which combine the worst of both worlds between socialism and capitalism.

I don't know if you've read atlas shrugged or not, but a large part of it is about collusion between government and private corporations.

That's corporatism, which Mussolini named as a synonym for fascism (and is largely held to be a precursor to totalitarian rule).

It's also what we see today in the healthcare mess: private insurers buying off politicians and blocking any real progress.

Re: Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959

#50

Post by dantheman »

pw0ncakes wrote: post #49
dantheman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you've read atlas shrugged or not, but a large part of it is about collusion between government and private corporations.

That's corporatism, which Mussolini named as a synonym for fascism (and is largely held to be a precursor to totalitarian rule). It's also what we see today in the healthcare mess: private insurers buying off politicians and blocking any real progress.

I'm going to have to disagree with your second part. Yes the reason that healthcare is a mess is because the government is involved, but not because they need to be more involved.

1. Tax structure that makes a market place for insurance impossible. 2. Medicare reimbursement system, it's method of calculating costs is seriously flawed. 3. The inability to buy insurance across state lines. 4. The inability to sign a contract with your doctor, i.e. waive/limit liability. 5. Massive amounts of regulation and red tape that must be complied with. 6. The strangle hold the AMA has on the production of doctors, granted by the government.

and those are just a few of the major problems.

What we have today and these future proposals are all forms of regulatory capture -- i.e. influencing and controlling those who make the rules. Every time you see a new standard or regulation it can probably be assumed that it's being proposed to cement the position of vested interests.

Post reply on HN