In what way do you relate to Ayn Rand's experiences

Posted by LarryHeart 6 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
108 comments | Share | Flag

I relate to her childhood experiences since they mirror my own experiences and actions exactly.

In this interview she says that she was the smartest in her class,
- that she did not have to make much of an effort to excel in school, All she had to do was read ahead once,
- that she was bored in class and wrote novels behind her textbook.

She found writing novels challenging and I assume worthy of her intellect and much harder than reading ahead in a text book.

Like her my childhood "Novel" was ahem ... not worth mentioning. Also I wrote in such small letters that even with glasses I can''t read my writings.from that time. lol .

She says the object of a Philosophy is to understand the nature of existence. Religion too is a philosophy.

I also have tried to point out here that Religion is a philosophy and as She says it is immoral to accept it on "faith" but if arrives at through reason there is nothing wrong about it or to discuss it.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • -2
    Posted by 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    All people not just theists fall prey to emotion and respond based on any wrongly perceived challenge to their opinion which they cling to as reality rather than trying to see objective reality. .It is impossible to argue with many people here too for the same reason of starting their "Logic" based on false premises. Specifically responding to an argument for REASON as though it is an argument for faith because religion is mentioned.
    Some people here view Ayn Rand's writings as a Religion and respond just like a theist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly. You are talking about ewv. If he were rational he wouldn't cling to his false assumptions and see the objective reality of what was written and all the explanations given to him.
    All people not just theists fall prey to emotion and respond based on any wrongly perceived challenge to their opinion which they cling to as reality rather than trying to see objective reality. .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What theist? Do you see a theist? It is in your mind only. One cannot argue with a person that only sees through their own prejudgments. But you are only here to argue and get attention as all your comments show. That is motivated by emotion rather than reason. Know thyself.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is amazing how hard it is for people to understand what is written and not twist it into something else and create a straw man argument. of course one can not come to faith through reason as they are opposite. I wrote about coming to a moral code through reason even if it is based on something said in a Religion or a principle of a religion. .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I did read what you wrote, and responded to it. Religion is not "about a moral code that can be arrived at by reason", nor have you done so youerself. You associate your beliefs with religion yourself, then denounce in advance anyone who rejects your posts as "triggered" by and "closed minded" about religion. The ten commandments you take as your basis, interpreting them as what you have called a personal "translation", are religion. Their dogmatic content pronounced in the name of God are the opposite of a rational approach to morality and do not address man's need for morality nor provide the basic standards required.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Read what is written. This is not an argument for Religion.It is about a moral code that can be arrived at through reason that should not be rejected off hand just because it is mentioned in a religion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Philosophy is not "belief". Philosophy is a body of general knowledge pertaining to the most fundamental aspects of existence, the nature of man and his relation to existence, and the most general principles of how to think and standards for making choices in life. It is distinguished from the special, narrower, sciences, but all knowledge requires establishing how you know in reason; it does not allow for "belief" without regard to that. If you believe something is true you had better know why.

    If you don't regard yourself as an end it itself, and do not think rationally as required to know and choose, you will not attain self-esteem.

    You should read Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It? and the essay "Philosophy and Sense of Life" in her The Romantic Manifesto.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -3
    Posted by 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Th only ones confused here are you and ewv.

    You misinterpreted what i wrote. I wrote that one can come to those principles by RATIONAL means and NOT by faith.

    Perhaps people who don't bother to understand what is written and just go off on a rant based on viewing through their own bias and not seeing the objective reality of what is written don't belong here or in any discussion anywhere. .Especially ones who judge and pull the "You don't belong here" or You are violating the rules" card. Even if I was championing faith, which I am not, you should still be able to carry on a rational discussion and not just Knee-Jerk, emotionally based demeaning rejection and dismissal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Religion is a primitive form of philosophy attempting to fill the need for understanding reality beyond a succession of disparate moments. It fails because faith is not a means to knowledge. Faith is the opposite of a rational philosophy, not a requirement for it. Confidence in what one knows rationally is not faith.

    Philosophy is not a matter of "what you think of others rather than yourself". Proper social relations are not a primary, they are a consequence of ethical standards for making choices of all kinds for one's own life, which in turn depend on rational methods of thinking, which in turn requires an objective view towards reality.

    Religion, faith, and putting others above oneself are all the opposite of Ayn Rand's novels and philosophy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -4
    Posted by 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You again. I am describing you in particular as unable to understand what is written because of prejudice to Religion triggering anti-Religion and faith rants.based on what you THINK you are reading and not what is actually written or meant. Clear your mind and maybe you can see that I am AGREEING with reason over faith. Unbelievable. Read the reply to martimus.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Literally everyone can reason, and everyone outside an insane asylum does to some extent. The issue is what else they do: emotions are not tools of cognition. Once going down that path, reason is confused with rationalization of the subjective premises. Rationalization is not reason, it's a false use of the methods of logic.

    It isn't just false premises that make it impossible to argue with a theist -- a rational person can correct false assumptions and wants to -- the theist does not. You can't argue with a theist because you can't argue with the arbitrary.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes it's confused and yes it's proselytizing -- along with an attempt to intimidate people into taking it seriously by demeaning slurs in advance against those who reject it, denouncing rejection as nothing but a mindless "trigger" adhering to "closed" dogma. Nothing could be further from the truth. But no, you can't debate with faith. There are no standards for the arbitrary and he's been pushing this for quite a while, it's not just something he temporarily lapsed into by simple innocent mistake. It's fundamental.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rewriting the Big 10 religious duties into something else is not an argument for religion, and even with that, with mixed results, none of it addresses the fundamental nature of morality and man's need for it, or the basic virtues required for man's life.

    Religion is mysticism, not "lumped", and the attempts at its rationalization are not reason, they confuse reason with turning, in the name of "reason", what is not reason into a handmaiden of faith.

    Religion is rejected by rational people because of what it is, not a mindless "trigger". There is no reason to "open" one's mind to it. Rational people have active minds, not minds "open" to variations on what is known to be false.

    Claiming to have "arrived" at religion in the name of "reason" rationalizing it does not change the content of the religious beliefs and is not like the way Ayn Rand pursued philosophy. Such rationalization of religion does not "relate to Ayn Rand's experiences".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello, LarryHeart,

    I must completely reject you defense of basing one's life on faith rather than on reason and philosophy. That is the basic choice each individual human has to make, if wishing to live the best life that an individual is capable of achieving.

    Do you not kill other humans because a god or gods forbid it or because you think that using force against others is counterproductive from the point of view of you trying to live the best life you can achieve in a human community?

    To be honest, I think that you are confused and do not belong here. Unless, of course, you seek learning. To me, you sound proselytizing.

    I am convinced that objectivist philosophy is infinitely better guide for rational humans than any faith.

    Of course, we can debate this ad infinitum, but I have better things to do. It is your basic responsibility to find your way in your own life.

    Good luck!

    Sincerely,
    Maritimus
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by 6 years, 2 months ago
    Perhaps stomaching a religion in it's entirety is vomit inducing but not all of Religion should be dismissed in general nor the thinkers of those Religions.
    Even Aristotle believed in their gods and yet his writings on reason are well...arrived at through reason. . lol.

    The 10 codes of morality, for instance which Moses brought out can be arrived at through Reason and do not need faith or god except Perhaps one depending on how one interprets it.

    Don't Murder except in self defense.Good idea otherwise no one could live with anyone else.

    Don't steal (collectivism is based on theft),

    Manage Jealousy and don't covet which is making plans based on Jealousy to take your neighbor's spouse, employees, property, reputation etc.. (socialism and all Collectivist ideologies are based on Jealousy.that all should be equal in results and it is only fair that there are no rich. capitalism is evil etc.)

    Pay attention to your Father and Mother and history and learn from their mistakes and good ideas. It does not mean blindly obey once your reasoning faculties develop. Only when you are very young when you have to take everything on faith since you have no experience or knowledge yet.

    Would you or Ayn Rand reject those principles just because they came through a religion?

    The one that is Translated as I am the Lord your God ...etc. is actually about rejecting all forms of servitude to earthly power, Kings, Governments. Monarchs, etc. on faith. That part is reasonable and prevents Collectivist governments and un-reasoned Altruistic slavery to the collective on faith.

    The founders of the USA used reason that we have individual rights and that government is only legitimate and only has power if it is given to the government by the people.

    So maybe we can discuss things that are related to religion without lumping everything in a religion as Mysticism, lack of reason and faith alone. Can we stop letting "Religion" be a trigger word for closing our minds?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DennisKebrdle 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    sorry then, misread it, between stuff at work, should just leave this kind of interaction until sitting with feet up, glass of wine or bourbon in hand and a chunk of cheese at the side.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DennisKebrdle 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    not in my book. if you don't see yourself in some fashion that allows you self worth and belief in your ability to be where you want for who or what you want then you are nothing. philosophy=belief
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It actually isn't a phil. of Life; it is quite anti-life.
    And how you interface with others is a by-product of the values you hold. Of utmost importance is "what you think of yourself". Only be being a person of self-esteem who chooses rational values can you interface well with others.
    Being an altruist does not work for oneself.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry one to many not's in there.
    "...so they do not know that their premises do have to be true..."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Most all humans can reason and do so. Most do not know the reasoned out rules of logic, so they do not know that their premises do not have to be true and those who do know so believe that their premises are true within the context that they are reasoning. Thousands of years have passed as theists continue to argue with false premises. If one does not consciously understand that with a false premise one can prove anything to be true. That is why it is near impossible to argue with a theist as to the validity of their ideas where the reasoning proves to them that they are right. It need not be religion but can be politics, science, philosophy, etc.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 6 years, 2 months ago
    I just see it all happening right before my eyes. What a visionary she was!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 6 years, 2 months ago
    I attended many of Ayn's lectures for NBI in NYC as a college student...in later years had lunch with Nat Branden in L.A. on my layovers as an airline pilot...very insightful....
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo