What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand

[Bfgrn]

Thank you for proving all of my points. The reason the Left so often misses the boat on Ayn Rand (the point of the OP and the linked article) is that they have never read Ayn Rand, or if they had, never understood Ayn Rand.

This is why you and the first two responders to this thread sound like aliterate morons. (at least C_Clayton_Jones attempted to argue on substance) This is why you sound like a moron. As noted in the OP you did not read or understand, you confuse Ayn Rand the woman with Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

For example: You can not call Rand a hypocrite for accepting Medicare without accepting Rand's definition of said recipients of being "looters" or "moochers" of society. More than that, you are blaming Rand for living in a society not of her own making. This is the intellectual (though not moral) equivalent of blaming Jews for living in Nazi Germany. Intellectually it's the same as calling a pacifist a hypocrite for defending her family from a would be killer.

Beyond that, you proved my point (again from the OP you did not read) that the Left is suffering from a dearth of intellectuals by evoking the (correctly called "brilliant") name of Oscar Wilde. Not only did he not "sum up" Rand's philosophy, he died decades before it was born. If you read (or understood) the OP you would have an inkling of the difference between Wilde's definition of "selfishness" and the "enlightened self internist" of Objectivist philosophy.


Selfishness — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

Oh, now I see. An "enlightened self internist" can accept Medicare and Social Security and not be a "looter" or "moocher" of society. Because the reason they are not a self-respecting, self-supporting man (or woman)—who supports his life by his own effort is because of living in a society not of their own making.

Bingo. You are essentially doing the moral equivalent of blaming slaves of the antebellum American South for not leading more productive lives because they lived "in a society not of their own making".

You are falling further and further behind arguing from ignorance.

You're conceptual faculty is failing you. In short, you haven't understood a word I've said because you have never integrated the point of the original post. Likely because you never read it. Basically you're a talking points robot who STILL can't differentiate the philosopher from the philosophy.

Oscar Wilde didn't need to meet Ayn Rand to KNOW her and succinctly define her.

Yeah, he would have. That is the fracking, everlasting and Objectivist point small brain.

Identity — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.

For the New Intellectual

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 125

Brilliant though he was, Wilde never knew Rand. It is impossible for him to define her.

Thank you for providing the intellectual justification for Ayn Rand's victim-hood.

Here is an axiom that Rand or you never learned: Actions speak louder than words.

 

[uscitizen]

We've already learned that she thought poor people were parasites on society. Every man for himself.

The policy of "let him die" fits right in with her philosophy. Too bad she was allowed to have Medicare and wasn't forced to live within her own "ideas". Only this country actually believes in "brotherhood". At least half of it does. Not the right half. They applaud executions.

Another aliterate boob missed the point.

... denounced as a prophet of greed and narcissism by many liberals. Yet, if Rand admirers tend to ignore the flaws of her vision, her detractors reduce her to grotesque caricature—and invoke her popularity as proof of right-wing nuttiness.

Philosophy is harder for some than others.

Double speak is easier for some than others.

 

[Ragnar]

I got through 3/4 of the Fountainhead and found it amazingly bereft of any tangible reality, made up or otherwise. It dealt with an archeitect so dogmatic in his ideals he refused to yield to any outside influences. Constuction, by it's very nature, is a collective endeavor. It would be impossible for someone like Howard Rourke to thrive in it..at all.

Rand's heroes all live in what generally seems to be America, a well established society based on human interaction. That interaction involves give and take..not just take. Without that simple idea, society becomes impossible.

Originally I was using the term "aliterate" to refer to leftist who failed to read the OP or the link I provided therein.

I expanded the term later to refer to leftist who had nothing to offer but "talking points" provided by their masters who also had little to no knowledge of Objectivism.

However, it takes a (true leftist) proud ignoramus like Sallow to admit that the completion of a longish novel is beyond their capacity. Few but Sallow would admit that the completion of a novel witch held complicated and challenging ideas was flat out beyond their ability to comprehend (let alone finish).

Fair warning... SPOILER ALERT... ahead. Thankfully some fair minded soul has Sallow's limited capacity in mind when they made The Fountainhead into a movie more than half a century ago. Below is the climax...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3YxIVakw5Q]The Fountainhead - 1949 - Court Speech : I am an Architect. - YouTube[/ame]


Sallow could not be bothered to read the OP or link. Please do him the kindness of not referring to his opinion of the book he could not be bothered to finish. Obviously that would not be fair to him.

 

[uscitizen]

Worship Rand if you want.

 

[Ragnar]

We've already learned that she thought poor people were parasites on society. Every man for himself.

The policy of "let him die" fits right in with her philosophy. Too bad she was allowed to have Medicare and wasn't forced to live within her own "ideas". Only this country actually believes in "brotherhood". At least half of it does. Not the right half. They applaud executions.

Another aliterate boob missed the point.

... denounced as a prophet of greed and narcissism by many liberals. Yet, if Rand admirers tend to ignore the flaws of her vision, her detractors reduce her to grotesque caricature—and invoke her popularity as proof of right-wing nuttiness.

Philosophy is harder for some than others.

Double speak is easier for some than others.

One major misconception is that Rand worshipped the rich and saw moneymaking as life’s highest goal. In fact, most wealthy characters in her novels are pathetic, repulsive, or both: businessmen fattened on shady deals or government perks, society people who fill their empty lives with luxury. (There are also sympathetic poor and working-class characters.)

You will no doubt note there is not a link to the above quote in this post.

That is because the link is in the OP which I've noted again and again (and further proved now) that you never read in the first place.

Those reading this thread (other than you) will recognize this tactic by it's more commonly known name of "single speak". You, of course, are exempted from any possible shame due to the lowered expectations of anyone who knows your posting habits.

 

[Ragnar]

Oh, now I see. An "enlightened self internist" can accept Medicare and Social Security and not be a "looter" or "moocher" of society. Because the reason they are not a self-respecting, self-supporting man (or woman)—who supports his life by his own effort is because of living in a society not of their own making.

Bingo. You are essentially doing the moral equivalent of blaming slaves of the antebellum American South for not leading more productive lives because they lived "in a society not of their own making".

You are falling further and further behind arguing from ignorance.

You're conceptual faculty is failing you. In short, you haven't understood a word I've said because you have never integrated the point of the original post. Likely because you never read it. Basically you're a talking points robot who STILL can't differentiate the philosopher from the philosophy.



Yeah, he would have. That is the fracking, everlasting and Objectivist point small brain.

Identity — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.

For the New Intellectual

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 125

Brilliant though he was, Wilde never knew Rand. It is impossible for him to define her.

Thank you for providing the intellectual justification for Ayn Rand's victim-hood.

Here is an axiom that Rand or you never learned: Actions speak louder than words.

Thank you for providing further proof that one need not understand, or even read, a previous post in order to respond to it.

Do you "blame slaves of the antebellum American South for not leading more productive lives because they lived in a society not of their own making"? It's the intellectual equivalent of blaming ay Rand for accepting Medicare for not living in a Laissez-faire capitalist society.

Do you blame Socrates' "victim-hood" for his suicide?

 

[Truthmatters]

Rand was an idiot

anyone who holds on high an idiot is an idiot

 

[del]

i'm sure rand and hoffer seem brilliant to someone of limited capacity.

frankly, theodore geissel runs rings around both of them.

 

[Sallow]

I got through 3/4 of the Fountainhead and found it amazingly bereft of any tangible reality, made up or otherwise. It dealt with an archeitect so dogmatic in his ideals he refused to yield to any outside influences. Constuction, by it's very nature, is a collective endeavor. It would be impossible for someone like Howard Rourke to thrive in it..at all.

Rand's heroes all live in what generally seems to be America, a well established society based on human interaction. That interaction involves give and take..not just take. Without that simple idea, society becomes impossible.

Originally I was using the term "aliterate" to refer to leftist who failed to read the OP or the link I provided therein.

I expanded the term later to refer to leftist who had nothing to offer but "talking points" provided by their masters who also had little to no knowledge of Objectivism.

However, it takes a (true leftist) proud ignoramus like Sallow to admit that the completion of a longish novel is beyond their capacity. Few but Sallow would admit that the completion of a novel witch held complicated and challenging ideas was flat out beyond their ability to comprehend (let alone finish).

Fair warning... SPOILER ALERT... ahead. Thankfully some fair minded soul has Sallow's limited capacity in mind when they made The Fountainhead into a movie more than half a century ago. Below is the climax...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3YxIVakw5Q]The Fountainhead - 1949 - Court Speech : I am an Architect. - YouTube[/ame]


Sallow could not be bothered to read the OP or link. Please do him the kindness of not referring to his opinion of the book he could not be bothered to finish. Obviously that would not be fair to him.

Insults aside..I gave the book a pretty fair shot. It was poorly written..and even with that..I struggled through it.

It was just to much of a ridiculous yarn to get through. I've read ridiculous books too but at least they constructed an alternate universe first.

Rand didn't bother with any of that. She married her love of aristocracy with American success.

It doesn't work.

Neither does the term "Objectivism". She's hardly objective.

 

[Sallow]

This is why America and Randian ideals don't work..

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Because in order to make a country, successful, you must be willing to sacrifice and you must be willing to compromise.

Those things are alien to Randian philosophy.

 

[manifold]

We've already learned that she thought poor people were parasites on society. Every man for himself.

The policy of "let him die" fits right in with her philosophy. Too bad she was allowed to have Medicare and wasn't forced to live within her own "ideas". Only this country actually believes in "brotherhood". At least half of it does. Not the right half. They applaud executions.

Another aliterate boob missed the point.

... denounced as a prophet of greed and narcissism by many liberals. Yet, if Rand admirers tend to ignore the flaws of her vision, her detractors reduce her to grotesque caricature—and invoke her popularity as proof of right-wing nuttiness.

Philosophy is harder for some than others.

Nice rant yo

 

[Bfgrn]

What liberals DO understand about Ayn Rand

We DO understand the vile anti social contempt that comes from the mouths of her believers. We DO understand the horrible implications of policies proposed by Ayn Rand followers like Paul Ryan.

Ayn Rand is dead. So there is nothing to understand, EXCEPT what her true believers believe and what they perceive her philosophy to be.

 

[Ava]

What liberals DO understand about Ayn Rand

We DO understand the vile anti social contempt that comes from the mouths of her believers. We DO understand the horrible implications of policies proposed by Ayn Rand followers like Paul Ryan.

Ayn Rand is dead. So there is nothing to understand, EXCEPT what her true believers believe and what they perceive her philosophy to be.

But her wisdom lives on, as noted in the amount of her books that 50 years later, are selling wildly. Atlas Shrugged sold 500,000 copies in `09 and is the second highest ranking book sold, next to the Bible, to this day. Nice. Go Ayn.

 

[Ava]

Thank you for proving all of my points. The reason the Left so often misses the boat on Ayn Rand (the point of the OP and the linked article) is that they have never read Ayn Rand, or if they had, never understood Ayn Rand.

This is why you and the first two responders to this thread sound like aliterate morons. (at least C_Clayton_Jones attempted to argue on substance) This is why you sound like a moron. As noted in the OP you did not read or understand, you confuse Ayn Rand the woman with Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

For example: You can not call Rand a hypocrite for accepting Medicare without accepting Rand's definition of said recipients of being "looters" or "moochers" of society. More than that, you are blaming Rand for living in a society not of her own making. This is the intellectual (though not moral) equivalent of blaming Jews for living in Nazi Germany. Intellectually it's the same as calling a pacifist a hypocrite for defending her family from a would be killer.

Beyond that, you proved my point (again from the OP you did not read) that the Left is suffering from a dearth of intellectuals by evoking the (correctly called "brilliant") name of Oscar Wilde. Not only did he not "sum up" Rand's philosophy, he died decades before it was born. If you read (or understood) the OP you would have an inkling of the difference between Wilde's definition of "selfishness" and the "enlightened self internist" of Objectivist philosophy.


Selfishness — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

Oh, now I see. An "enlightened self internist" can accept Medicare and Social Security and not be a "looter" or "moocher" of society. Because the reason they are not a self-respecting, self-supporting man (or woman)—who supports his life by his own effort is because of living in a society not of their own making.

Bingo. You are essentially doing the moral equivalent of blaming slaves of the antebellum American South for not leading more productive lives because they lived "in a society not of their own making".

You are falling further and further behind arguing from ignorance.

You're conceptual faculty is failing you. In short, you haven't understood a word I've said because you have never integrated the point of the original post. Likely because you never read it. Basically you're a talking points robot who STILL can't differentiate the philosopher from the philosophy.

Oscar Wilde didn't need to meet Ayn Rand to KNOW her and succinctly define her.

Yeah, he would have. That is the fracking, everlasting and Objectivist point small brain.

Identity — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.

For the New Intellectual

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 125

Brilliant though he was, Wilde never knew Rand. It is impossible for him to define her.

And Wilde, my favorite poet and playwright, was a socialist, don't forget. It will help you understand his statements, better whether you agree with him.

 

[Ragnar]

Rand was an idiot

anyone who holds on high an idiot is an idiot

See the above. Nothing refuting the OP. Nothing demonstrating knowledge of the OP or Ayn Rand in general or specific. An automaton unworthy of regard. For proof of my statement see, "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand". Yeah. This thread, which was above the comprehension of Truthmatersnot.

Worship Rand if you want.

No "worship" is necessary or called for in noting "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand". Warship of anyone or thing is antithetical to Objectivist philosophy. Warship of Ayn Rand herself is idiotic.

(Had any left of center responder to this thread bothered to read the OP then criticism of Ayn Rand might have flowed directly from there and provided therein an interesting point of argument or arguments)

Instead we have all of the above which you have read for yourselves, and all the below which is a given...


- Zero twentieth century philosophers held as on par with Ayn Rand

- Zero refutations of the philosophy of Objectivism

- Zero criticisms of Rand drawn from the multiple criticisms at the link in the OP

- Robotic anti-Randian talking points uttered faster than the OP could be read or responded to.

- Robotic anti-Objectivist talking points entirely unrelated to the OP or link

- Zero use of debate skills common to High School debate teams across America

- Zero refutations (or any note of understanding at all) from multiple notes drawn from the Ayn Rand Lexicon
The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z — Ayn Rand Lexicon

- Zero contrary philosophical arguments from any philosopher in history

- No attempt to engage in the OP/original link whatsoever

- No attempt to engage in independent thought at all or any evidence given whatsoever that any anti-Objectivist poster has even read an entire book on Objectivist philosophy


I am not saying that said books must or should have been read by anyone. There are multiple philosophical world views I have never explored myself and might never (time depending). I admit there are multiple philosophies on this planet I have not heard of or may not understand. Some of them may very well be brilliant. Some of them may well put Ayn Rand to shame. However, unlike some of USMB's typical leftist, I do not reflexively condemn any of them.

The small article "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand" and the typical liberal response to it in this very thread are a modest proof I offer as an America wide problem. The Left is as intolerant, the Left is as anti-intellectual and the Left is as uncompromising as they pretend the Right is.

They fail to see their limitations and they fail to see our common humanity. Rand, for some reason, is verboten in Leftist circles. They don't read her, they don't understand her yet they all fear and despise her ideas.

I wonder why.

 

[Bfgrn]

What liberals DO understand about Ayn Rand

We DO understand the vile anti social contempt that comes from the mouths of her believers. We DO understand the horrible implications of policies proposed by Ayn Rand followers like Paul Ryan.

Ayn Rand is dead. So there is nothing to understand, EXCEPT what her true believers believe and what they perceive her philosophy to be.

But her wisdom lives on, as noted in the amount of her books that 50 years later, are selling wildly. Atlas Shrugged sold 500,000 copies in `09 and is the second highest ranking book sold, next to the Bible, to this day. Nice. Go Ayn.

I am not surprised.

I have been around since Truman was in the White House. My parents were part of the Greatest generation and my grandparents raised their children during the Great Depression.

What I hear coming out of today's conservatives is the antithesis of what those generations believed.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh, now I see. An "enlightened self internist" can accept Medicare and Social Security and not be a "looter" or "moocher" of society. Because the reason they are not a self-respecting, self-supporting man (or woman)—who supports his life by his own effort is because of living in a society not of their own making.

Bingo. You are essentially doing the moral equivalent of blaming slaves of the antebellum American South for not leading more productive lives because they lived "in a society not of their own making".

You are falling further and further behind arguing from ignorance.

You're conceptual faculty is failing you. In short, you haven't understood a word I've said because you have never integrated the point of the original post. Likely because you never read it. Basically you're a talking points robot who STILL can't differentiate the philosopher from the philosophy.



Yeah, he would have. That is the fracking, everlasting and Objectivist point small brain.

Identity — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.

For the New Intellectual

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 125

Brilliant though he was, Wilde never knew Rand. It is impossible for him to define her.

And Wilde, my favorite poet and playwright, was a socialist, don't forget. It will help you understand his statements, better whether you agree with him.

Wilde was also a homosexual, but it doesn't diminish the truths he espoused.

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde

 

[Ravi]

We've already learned that she thought poor people were parasites on society. Every man for himself.

The policy of "let him die" fits right in with her philosophy. Too bad she was allowed to have Medicare and wasn't forced to live within her own "ideas". Only this country actually believes in "brotherhood". At least half of it does. Not the right half. They applaud executions.

Another aliterate boob missed the point.

... denounced as a prophet of greed and narcissism by many liberals. Yet, if Rand admirers tend to ignore the flaws of her vision, her detractors reduce her to grotesque caricature—and invoke her popularity as proof of right-wing nuttiness.

Philosophy is harder for some than others.

She reduced herself to a grotesque caricature. But oddly didn't take personal responsibility for it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Rand was an idiot

anyone who holds on high an idiot is an idiot

See the above. Nothing refuting the OP. Nothing demonstrating knowledge of the OP or Ayn Rand in general or specific. An automaton unworthy of regard. For proof of my statement see, "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand". Yeah. This thread, which was above the comprehension of Truthmatersnot.

Worship Rand if you want.

No "worship" is necessary or called for in noting "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand". Warship of anyone or thing is antithetical to Objectivist philosophy. Warship of Ayn Rand herself is idiotic.

(Had any left of center responder to this thread bothered to read the OP then criticism of Ayn Rand might have flowed directly from there and provided therein an interesting point of argument or arguments)

Instead we have all of the above which you have read for yourselves, and all the below which is a given...


- Zero twentieth century philosophers held as on par with Ayn Rand

- Zero refutations of the philosophy of Objectivism

- Zero criticisms of Rand drawn from the multiple criticisms at the link in the OP

- Robotic anti-Randian talking points uttered faster than the OP could be read or responded to.

- Robotic anti-Objectivist talking points entirely unrelated to the OP or link

- Zero use of debate skills common to High School debate teams across America

- Zero refutations (or any note of understanding at all) from multiple notes drawn from the Ayn Rand Lexicon
The Ayn*Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

- Zero contrary philosophical arguments from any philosopher in history

- No attempt to engage in the OP/original link whatsoever

- No attempt to engage in independent thought at all or any evidence given whatsoever that any anti-Objectivist poster has even read an entire book on Objectivist philosophy


I am not saying that said books must or should have been read by anyone. There are multiple philosophical world views I have never explored myself and might never (time depending). I admit there are multiple philosophies on this planet I have not heard of or may not understand. Some of them may very well be brilliant. Some of them may well put Ayn Rand to shame. However, unlike some of USMB's typical leftist, I do not reflexively condemn any of them.

The small article "What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand" and the typical liberal response to it in this very thread are a modest proof I offer as an America wide problem. The Left is as intolerant, the Left is as anti-intellectual and the Left is as uncompromising as they pretend the Right is.

They fail to see their limitations and they fail to see our common humanity. Rand, for some reason, is verboten in Leftist circles. They don't read her, they don't understand her yet they all fear and despise her ideas.

I wonder why.

Common humanity? Coming from people who call fellow Americans on Medicare and Social Security "parasites", "looters" or "moochers" of society?

 

[Ragnar]

Oh, now I see. An "enlightened self internist" can accept Medicare and Social Security and not be a "looter" or "moocher" of society. Because the reason they are not a self-respecting, self-supporting man (or woman)—who supports his life by his own effort is because of living in a society not of their own making.

Bingo. You are essentially doing the moral equivalent of blaming slaves of the antebellum American South for not leading more productive lives because they lived "in a society not of their own making".

You are falling further and further behind arguing from ignorance.

You're conceptual faculty is failing you. In short, you haven't understood a word I've said because you have never integrated the point of the original post. Likely because you never read it. Basically you're a talking points robot who STILL can't differentiate the philosopher from the philosophy.



Yeah, he would have. That is the fracking, everlasting and Objectivist point small brain.

Identity — Ayn*Rand Lexicon

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.

For the New Intellectual

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 125

Brilliant though he was, Wilde never knew Rand. It is impossible for him to define her.

And Wilde, my favorite poet and playwright, was a socialist, don't forget. It will help you understand his statements, better whether you agree with him.

Oscar Wilde was awesome. So was Michelangelo. Both were gayer than any modern stereotypical sitcom sidekick an oh la la who gives a darn. They were brilliant artist each in their own way as well as much in the same way (well, both poets anyway,lol).

I've only read a small handful of Wilde and only seen the most famous works of Michelangelo (and read The Agony and the Ecstasy) so I'm not any kind of expert at all. However, I do recognize that there being gay had as much to do with their artistic talent as Ayn Rand's collection of Medicare had to do with her philosophy decades after it was written. (yeah, exactly nothing)