3 ms·

Interesting. Are you saying that Ayn Rand's ideas are so obvious that anyone could come up with them?

philwelch 16y ago
I'm saying that if you've read Ayn Rand at all, or for that matter run into Randroids on the internet at any other point in your life, you can pretty much predict what they're going to say within a given context. As a result, Randroids don't really add much to a conversation once they join in; rather than presenting original ideas, they just harp on the same Randian talking points everyone who's argued with a Randroid or read an Ayn Rand book is already well familiar with.
- maxharris 16y ago
  Wrong. There are a whole lot of people who have never heard of Ayn Rand, and don't know anything about her ideas. You are not everyone, and (fortunately) not everyone has or will come to the same conclusions you have. On top of that, I don't think you have a deep understanding of her ideas (specifically her epistemology and metaphysics.) -- Folks, would you judge Newton by his critics, or by reading the Principia and working through it yourself? Don't trust anyone to tell you what you shouldn't read!
  - philwelch 16y ago
    By "his" I was referring to you, under the assumption that "max harris" is a male name. The fact that the ideas aren't yours is something I'm glad to see you admit to, but you are the one signing your name to them all over this thread and behaving like they're original, thoughtful comments on the subject rather than a pseudo-religious recitation of someone else's dogma. Pop quiz: What would Ayn Rand call someone who just parroted someone else's intellectual work instead of coming up with their own? P.S.: I'm very supportive of people reading Ayn Rand, if they're so inclined. In fact, if anyone wants to reimburse me for shipping, I'm willing to send them a free copy of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. That's an inclusive or; I'm trying to get rid of a lot of stuff before I move, so if you want both, let me know. I only have one copy of each, though. My email is in my profile.
    - maxharris 16y ago
      Yes, I am male. > Pop quiz: What would Ayn Rand call someone who just parroted someone else's intellectual work instead of coming up with their own? Why do you assert that I am a mere parrot? A student that draws free-body diagrams and calculates torques can't be said to be a parrot of Newton. Are we obligated to mention Newton's name every time we talk about a third-law pair, or in front of every use of "momentum"? Clearly, there is nothing illegitimate about communicating an idea without attribution in this context. When I quote, I usually put in a link to the source, but that's not absolutely essential. In a web forum, just putting quote marks around a paragraph is enough, because people have search engines if they care enough to look. -- Incidentally, have you ever tried to read Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?
      - philwelch 16y ago
        "Incidentally, have you ever tried to read Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?" Yes. I was pretty fanatically into Ayn Rand and probably a lot like you when I was 17 years old. I've grown out of it; while I appreciate Ayn Rand's influence on my intellectual development and genuinely encourage people to try and understand her ideas, I've found points of disagreement with much of her philosophy. More to the point, I don't find it particularly useful or honest to contribute to discussions if one have nothing more to say than simply applying someone else's opinions to the topic at hand. It's not like physics at all; the solution to a physics problem can be non-obvious, whereas applying Objectivism to the idea of a guaranteed minimum income is a very straightforward exercise. (And, more to the point, not in the least bit convincing if you don't already believe in the Objectivism!)
        maxharris 16y ago
        > whereas applying Objectivism to the idea of a guaranteed minimum income is a very straightforward exercise I could not disagree more. You should read the debates Objectivists had over the NYC mosque issue, for example. > I've grown out of it I'm 30, and I've been studying it on and off for the last decade. I don't think I'm going to "grow out of it." I'm interested in hearing what your most fundamental criticisms actually are.
- Benjo 16y ago
  If they are so predictable then you must know how they will respond to being provoked with condescending names such as "Randroids?" Is there a specific response you want to see? Are you trying to exploit some known stack overflow bug in this specific Randroid model? Why be so dismissive and insulting and then respond to the same poster you advised others to ignore? I'd much rather read the predictable respectful discussion than a presumptive judgement designed to prevent discourse. Edit: removed a redundant adjective.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    When the topic is government assistance to the needy, it's indeed trivial to predict what one of Rand's disciples would argue about the subject. My point (which you can view either as a tangent, or as a point of order) is that most of us are contributing original thoughts from our own perspectives, not simply adopting and commenting from the perspective of some novelist with some admittedly seductive ideas. If we were interested in Ayn Rand's ideas, we could read Ayn Rand herself. It's not useful to have her ideas proselytized to us.
    - maxharris 16y ago
      > It's not useful to have her ideas proselytized to us. But you can't properly speak for other users on this site ("us.") You can (and certainly have) spoken for yourself, but a claim to represent more seems pretentious at the least.
    - Benjo 16y ago
      Again, "some novelist" and "disciples" are dismissive terms that you're using to shut down the conversation by belittling the source of one poster's ideas. If you think the discussion is not useful, make an argument to support that claim. Link to criticism. Or demonstrate that the Randputer is not arguing in earnest. If you don't consider the fact that you might be wrong, that there might be something useful about the discussion in question, then how are you any better than someone who won't consider that Rand might be wrong?

I'm saying that if you've read Ayn Rand at all, or for that matter run into Randroids on the internet at any other point in your life, you can pretty much predict what they're going to say within a given context. As a result, Randroids don't really add much to a conversation once they join in; rather than presenting original ideas, they just harp on the same Randian talking points everyone who's argued with a Randroid or read an Ayn Rand book is already well familiar with.

maxharris 16y ago
Wrong. There are a whole lot of people who have never heard of Ayn Rand, and don't know anything about her ideas. You are not everyone, and (fortunately) not everyone has or will come to the same conclusions you have. On top of that, I don't think you have a deep understanding of her ideas (specifically her epistemology and metaphysics.) -- Folks, would you judge Newton by his critics, or by reading the Principia and working through it yourself? Don't trust anyone to tell you what you shouldn't read!
- philwelch 16y ago
  By "his" I was referring to you, under the assumption that "max harris" is a male name. The fact that the ideas aren't yours is something I'm glad to see you admit to, but you are the one signing your name to them all over this thread and behaving like they're original, thoughtful comments on the subject rather than a pseudo-religious recitation of someone else's dogma. Pop quiz: What would Ayn Rand call someone who just parroted someone else's intellectual work instead of coming up with their own? P.S.: I'm very supportive of people reading Ayn Rand, if they're so inclined. In fact, if anyone wants to reimburse me for shipping, I'm willing to send them a free copy of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. That's an inclusive or; I'm trying to get rid of a lot of stuff before I move, so if you want both, let me know. I only have one copy of each, though. My email is in my profile.
  - maxharris 16y ago
    Yes, I am male. > Pop quiz: What would Ayn Rand call someone who just parroted someone else's intellectual work instead of coming up with their own? Why do you assert that I am a mere parrot? A student that draws free-body diagrams and calculates torques can't be said to be a parrot of Newton. Are we obligated to mention Newton's name every time we talk about a third-law pair, or in front of every use of "momentum"? Clearly, there is nothing illegitimate about communicating an idea without attribution in this context. When I quote, I usually put in a link to the source, but that's not absolutely essential. In a web forum, just putting quote marks around a paragraph is enough, because people have search engines if they care enough to look. -- Incidentally, have you ever tried to read Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?
    - philwelch 16y ago
      "Incidentally, have you ever tried to read Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?" Yes. I was pretty fanatically into Ayn Rand and probably a lot like you when I was 17 years old. I've grown out of it; while I appreciate Ayn Rand's influence on my intellectual development and genuinely encourage people to try and understand her ideas, I've found points of disagreement with much of her philosophy. More to the point, I don't find it particularly useful or honest to contribute to discussions if one have nothing more to say than simply applying someone else's opinions to the topic at hand. It's not like physics at all; the solution to a physics problem can be non-obvious, whereas applying Objectivism to the idea of a guaranteed minimum income is a very straightforward exercise. (And, more to the point, not in the least bit convincing if you don't already believe in the Objectivism!)
      - maxharris 16y ago
        > whereas applying Objectivism to the idea of a guaranteed minimum income is a very straightforward exercise I could not disagree more. You should read the debates Objectivists had over the NYC mosque issue, for example. > I've grown out of it I'm 30, and I've been studying it on and off for the last decade. I don't think I'm going to "grow out of it." I'm interested in hearing what your most fundamental criticisms actually are.
Benjo 16y ago
If they are so predictable then you must know how they will respond to being provoked with condescending names such as "Randroids?" Is there a specific response you want to see? Are you trying to exploit some known stack overflow bug in this specific Randroid model? Why be so dismissive and insulting and then respond to the same poster you advised others to ignore? I'd much rather read the predictable respectful discussion than a presumptive judgement designed to prevent discourse. Edit: removed a redundant adjective.
- philwelch 16y ago
  When the topic is government assistance to the needy, it's indeed trivial to predict what one of Rand's disciples would argue about the subject. My point (which you can view either as a tangent, or as a point of order) is that most of us are contributing original thoughts from our own perspectives, not simply adopting and commenting from the perspective of some novelist with some admittedly seductive ideas. If we were interested in Ayn Rand's ideas, we could read Ayn Rand herself. It's not useful to have her ideas proselytized to us.
  - maxharris 16y ago
    > It's not useful to have her ideas proselytized to us. But you can't properly speak for other users on this site ("us.") You can (and certainly have) spoken for yourself, but a claim to represent more seems pretentious at the least.
  - Benjo 16y ago
    Again, "some novelist" and "disciples" are dismissive terms that you're using to shut down the conversation by belittling the source of one poster's ideas. If you think the discussion is not useful, make an argument to support that claim. Link to criticism. Or demonstrate that the Randputer is not arguing in earnest. If you don't consider the fact that you might be wrong, that there might be something useful about the discussion in question, then how are you any better than someone who won't consider that Rand might be wrong?