BF2S Forums Ayn Rand Introduction Excerpt

I disagree.

A better and more succinct life rule from Rand's Atlas Shrugged:

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2008-12-31 00:50:27)

What's so special about it? Why do you need to be reminded that reality drums innocent idealistic hope and purpose out of you?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-12-31 08:35:49)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

One person is by definition useless.

im not sure i understand that statement completely...

can you expand on that thought?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Ayn Rand wrote:

Yet this is the view with which - in various degrees of longing, wistfulness, passion and agonized confusion - the best of mankind's youth start out life. It is not even a view, for most of them, but a foggy, groping, undefined sense made of raw pain and incommunicable happiness. It is a sense of enormous expectation, the sense that one's life is important, that great achievements are within one's capacity, and that great things lie ahead.

It is not in the nature of man - nor of any living entity - to start out by giving up, by spitting in one's own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption whose rapidity differs from man to man. Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one's mind; security, of abandoning one's values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future, at the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man's nature and of life's potential.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to the 25th Anniversary Edition of The Fountainhead, May 1968

I think this passage may very well be the most beautiful thing I have laid eyes on. It should be pasted on every single goddamn person's bathroom mirror.

haha, nice passage, but I'm sure you could find something better. For instance,  One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Great movie, with amazing acting by Jack Nicholson

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I've heard different iterations of this idea from you before, but I simply don't agree.  One person is by definition useless, yet one person could influence the masses?  Sounds contradictory to me.

It's paradoxical, I'll grant you that. I don't think that means it's contradictory.

Have you read Outlier, Malcom Gladwell's recent book? I think he explains the vast majority of the point better than I ever could, and with much better examples.

One person has to be able to work with society to make it work for him, not against him. It's true that one person may be at the head of the pack and that those surrounding him are little more than yes men, but the source of that one man's influence is the free will given to him by his followers. The power lies in the group, even if it is steered by a single captain.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The fact that there are 1000 people in a community, or 300 million in a state, or 6 billion in the world has no bearing on how useless one person is.  Each person can have significance in some way, or each person can't have significance - it is up to that one person to decide.  Society doesn't decide how significant you are, you do.

Maybe in a touchy-feely sort of way, but in reality your influence is measured by the group. It's up to your drive and skills how much influence you have, but when it comes down to measuring that influence you have no control. It's the same reason you don't get to write your own check at the office.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

BTW I pretty much despise the idea of objectivism, but something as generic and boring as the quote in the OP isn't one of the more profound ideas she's spewed from her mouth.  Respect her storytelling, hate her views and sheeple followers.

It's not profound, it's central. It's the idea that holds both her ideas and herself together, it's the core belief that man has great potential and that man knows it. I feel that the above quote suffers a bit from lack of context on either side of it, but I took what I believed to be the most important part to promote a broader audience.

What exactly do you dislike about her views and followers, and what makes you like her storytelling so much?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

BTW I pretty much despise the idea of objectivism, but something as generic and boring as the quote in the OP isn't one of the more profound ideas she's spewed from her mouth.  Respect her storytelling, hate her views and sheeple followers.

The fact that you'd call individualists "sheeple followers" pretty much robs you of any credible commentary on Rand's works or those who admire and aspire to them.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

BTW I pretty much despise the idea of objectivism, but something as generic and boring as the quote in the OP isn't one of the more profound ideas she's spewed from her mouth.  Respect her storytelling, hate her views and sheeple followers.

The fact that you'd call individualists "sheeple followers" pretty much robs you of any credible commentary on Rand's works or those who admire and aspire to them.

I have a friend that recently joined the Ayn Rand Institute.  He's the son of a CEO, and while I get along with him fine, he is a bit naive.

The point is...  Objectivism is like any other form of idealism.  In some areas, it works well, but in others, it fails miserably.

Still, there are undeniably sheeple followers of Objectivism just like there are of any other ideology.  No matter how individualistic a belief system might be, there will always be sheep that adhere to it.  Some people, regardless of how vigorously they may deny it, are simply followers.

It all goes back to Nietzsche's duality of the Ubermenschen and the Untermenschen.

rdx-fx wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The point is...  Objectivism is like any other form of idealism.  In some areas, it works well, but in others, it fails miserably.

Still, there are undeniably sheeple followers of Objectivism just like there are of any other ideology.  No matter how individualistic a belief system might be, there will always be sheep that adhere to it.  Some people, regardless of how vigorously they may deny it, are simply followers.

It all goes back to Nietzsche's duality of the Ubermenschen and the Untermenschen.

Funny that you mention Nietzsche and Rand in the same space.

Both had brilliant insights into fundamental philosophical & social issues - and both tended to get lost in their own philosophical constructs and overly poetic flowery writing.

Again, both have some brilliant insights in their works - but their original insights are exceptionally easy to misinterpret.
If someone is interpreting their works for you, they are doing it wrong.
Both authors, you either understand the point they're getting at as an epiphany or blatantly obvious observation.

For Ayn (pronounced like pine), read The Fountainhead up until the author turns Roark into a rapist, and no further.
(First part of the book covers the essential ideals.  The rest is schadenfreude and doodling around with dogma)

For Nietzsche (pronounced like peachy), read Human, all too Human for some good insights and observations.  Skip most of the rest of it (Zarathustra et al) then read Dostoyevsky's Crime & Punishment for a scathing rebuttal of how sheeple can get confused on the whole Overman/Underman later-Nietzschean philosophy.

understand the ideas, don't follow the institution

And, Turqoise, as any good "agent of Chaos" and film fan should know;
"A man has an idea. The idea attracts others, like-minded. The idea expands. The idea becomes an institution. The idea has become the institution, boys. Time to move on."

understand the ideas, don't follow the institution

Excellent points...   and I love the Crow reference

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The point is...  Objectivism is like any other form of idealism.  In some areas, it works well, but in others, it fails miserably.

The ends of idealism is idealism itself. You skipped from theory to practice across a sentence.

Contrary to Allen Iverson, practice is all that matters.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Still, there are undeniably sheeple followers of Objectivism just like there are of any other ideology.  No matter how individualistic a belief system might be, there will always be sheep that adhere to it.  Some people, regardless of how vigorously they may deny it, are simply followers.

Only a testament to either the charisma or the cunning of the ideology. It does not speak poorly of the belief system itself in any way.

That wasn't my intention.  I think we can agree that human nature is universal.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

understand the ideas, don't follow the institution

If the point of the idea is to not follow the institution, then how can that uncorrupted ideal become the institution? If you truly understand the ideas then you know that you shouldn't follow the ideas.

There is another pertinent part of the introduction that I think I should post on this point, I'll edit that in a bit later.

rdx-fx wrote:

"A man has an idea. The idea attracts others, like-minded. The idea expands. The idea becomes an institution. The idea has become the institution, boys. Time to move on."

Haven't seen the movie/book/whatever it is, but I've seen the quote a few times and never liked it. Weak minded people are the only ones attracted to anything. Two strong people are never attracted to each other, they may work together or even collaborate, but if they are both strong individuals they will butt heads on certain points to keep their identities pure. The forming of an institution demands a group of weak minded people following either a single brilliant person or the ideological overlap of a series of brilliant people.

It sounds like you're demeaning teamwork.  In order for society to work, there has to be followers and leaders.  Someone isn't necessarily weak for being a follower.  In politics, we often see the reverse, actually.   For example, I can think of quite a few soldiers (followers) that are much stronger in mind and spirit than their leaders (politicians).

It's all a matter of working together.  The central flaw in Ayn Rand's ideology is how she places so much emphasis on self-centered pursuits.  I suppose her early exposure to the evils of collectivism skewed her perception of the balance that must exist in society.  On one extreme, there is collectivist autocracy.  On the other, there is individualistic greed.  Ayn definitely leans toward the latter.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The ends of idealism is idealism itself. You skipped from theory to practice across a sentence.

Contrary to Allen Iverson, practice is all that matters.

If you're so dim-witted as to take objectivism as Ayn Rand writes it and put it directly into practice, you have no business reading and making a poor attempt to understand Ayn Rand. The implementation stems from the theory, but is not the theory itself.

Flaming, there's no need to get defensive.  I just have to focus on the practical side of something in order for it to be of any interest to me.  What is the practical side of Objectivism other than maybe callous disregard for the fate of others?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It sounds like you're demeaning teamwork.  In order for society to work, there has to be followers and leaders.  Someone isn't necessarily weak for being a follower.  In politics, we often see the reverse, actually.   For example, I can think of quite a few soldiers (followers) that are much stronger in mind and spirit than their leaders (politicians).

It's all a matter of working together.  The central flaw in Ayn Rand's ideology is how she places so much emphasis on self-centered pursuits.  I suppose her early exposure to the evils of collectivism skewed her perception of the balance that must exist in society.  On one extreme, there is collectivist autocracy.  On the other, there is individualistic greed.  Ayn definitely leans toward the latter.

Politicians are leaders only in the most shallow sense of the word, practically by definition. If you would call someone a politician before you would call them a leader, they aren't much of the latter.

A follower is only acceptable if they have the competence to lead but choose not to, as there is already capable leadership. Otherwise as an individual they mean little.

The only good in mankind that exists at all is in the individual. The only hope for society is if the whim of the ubermensch aligns with the good of the whole.

Considering that politicians are at the top of most "legitimate" governments, then your definition of leadership is rather... unusual.

Leadership is definitely important, but again, nothing major gets done without followers.  It's a symbiotic relationship.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Defensive? Eh wot? Perhaps I was a bit blunt...I think you mistake me though?

what you think > what everyone else thinks^nth

It seems very simple, but it is seen so rarely in application it's downright saddening.

I'm not following you here...  explain.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Politicians are leaders only in the most shallow sense of the word, practically by definition. If you would call someone a politician before you would call them a leader, they aren't much of the latter.

A follower is only acceptable if they have the competence to lead but choose not to, as there is already capable leadership. Otherwise as an individual they mean little.

The only good in mankind that exists at all is in the individual. The only hope for society is if the whim of the ubermensch aligns with the good of the whole.

Considering that politicians are at the top of most "legitimate" governments, then your definition of leadership is rather... unusual.

Leadership is definitely important, but again, nothing major gets done without followers.  It's a symbiotic relationship.

True power doesn't come from a piece of paper. I'm not really sure how else to say that, it seems obvious to me. Formal authority may follow power, but you aren't powerful because you are given formal authority. I think that's one of the good things about the system the U.S. has set up, because it emphasizes this fact. I also think the worst aspect of it is the part in direct contradiction to this fact, the part where power follows informal authority, and this is what is currently biting us in the ass.

It's a parasitic relationship, the best taking advantage of everyone else.

Define "best."  It's only parasitic when the "best" are too shortsighted to see that the interests of the common man are the same as their own.