Rands philosophy is a failure because it attempts to radically rewrite the social contract. Like Marx, her vision of society ignores human nature and attempts to replace it with an abstract ideal.
Human beings are both cooperative and competitive, more akin to wolves than to ants or spiders. To deny the inevitability of compassion indicates Rands rejection of the "reality" she claims to hold so dear. "A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others" is unrealistic; many people are not 'creative' in this sense, and are in fact motivated by vanity, etc. Therefore, Rands imagined society would quickly devolve into a situation where the social contract crumbles, and people are reduced to predator/prey relationships. She expects a generation of Nietzschean supermen to rise up out of nowhere as soon as they are freed from having to deal with the rest of pathetic humanity. Perhaps this is why she was so fond of capes.
"Every aspect of Western culture needs a new code of ethics - a rational ethics - as a precondition of rebirth". Is this realistic, or is it the same type of idealism that she constantly damns people for? In any case, I would hardly call it an 'objective' point of view - she really should have named her pseudo-philosophy "Subjectivism", but I guess that was already taken.
Rand is also the West’s laughable answer to the rich philosophical tradition developed in Russia during the19th/ 20th centuries. The way she was paraded around West Point, TV, etc. is suggestive of the same type of petty bullshit that both the Soviets and Americans engaged in during this period. Her subtle and not-so-subtle theatrics, as well as the support she garnered from the powers that be, earned her a cultish following, and she became a pop culture darling (remind you of anyone?). She gave people an ethical foundation for selfish behavior, and naturally they embraced it. As far as I'm concerned, Rand, as a thinker, is no better than a dancing bear (and yes, that is a poke at her heritage).
Now, on to your behavior. Do you see how I made my argument without attacking your character, "John"? Are you here to transform the way people think, or simply to piss people off? Are you just venting your own frustrations? I, for one, am simply going to cease engaging you until I see that you’re willing to participate in a mature, productive exchange of ideas.
Mama said "Don't feed the Troll", but....
Human beings are both cooperative and competitive, more akin to wolves than to ants or spiders. To deny the inevitability of compassion indicates Rands rejection of the "reality" she claims to hold so dear. "A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others" is unrealistic; many people are not 'creative' in this sense, and are in fact motivated by vanity, etc. Therefore, Rands imagined society would quickly devolve into a situation where the social contract crumbles, and people are reduced to predator/prey relationships. She expects a generation of Nietzschean supermen to rise up out of nowhere as soon as they are freed from having to deal with the rest of pathetic humanity. Perhaps this is why she was so fond of capes.
"Every aspect of Western culture needs a new code of ethics - a rational ethics - as a precondition of rebirth". Is this realistic, or is it the same type of idealism that she constantly damns people for? In any case, I would hardly call it an 'objective' point of view - she really should have named her pseudo-philosophy "Subjectivism", but I guess that was already taken.
Rand is also the West’s laughable answer to the rich philosophical tradition developed in Russia during the19th/ 20th centuries. The way she was paraded around West Point, TV, etc. is suggestive of the same type of petty bullshit that both the Soviets and Americans engaged in during this period. Her subtle and not-so-subtle theatrics, as well as the support she garnered from the powers that be, earned her a cultish following, and she became a pop culture darling (remind you of anyone?). She gave people an ethical foundation for selfish behavior, and naturally they embraced it. As far as I'm concerned, Rand, as a thinker, is no better than a dancing bear (and yes, that is a poke at her heritage).
Now, on to your behavior. Do you see how I made my argument without attacking your character, "John"? Are you here to transform the way people think, or simply to piss people off? Are you just venting your own frustrations? I, for one, am simply going to cease engaging you until I see that you’re willing to participate in a mature, productive exchange of ideas.