Girls are fucked up!

[Diekan]

The sooner we (as a race, the human race) realize that men and women ARE different the better we'll get along. Now, I didn't say un-equal, I said different - two very different things.

We are physically different. Psychologically different. Emotionally different. And, for the most part I'd venture to say spiritally different as well (to some extent). We're different, period.

[Tadpole]

I thought I saw an article that stated female and male were different species or something.

[Diekan]

We're not different species... and again (this is for the skim artists who are to lazy to read the entire post) - we're not un-equal, but we ARE different.

[Gidan]

Some of the women on that list truely are notable names in their fields.

[xaoshaen]

Damn Xao, wake up cranky today?

I woke up feeling fine. I'm just allergic to stupid. Allergies are enough to make anyone a bit cranky.

[Rust]

In general, woman can be smarter .

I have to disagree.

Name 15 major geniuses that were female. From any discipline: Physics, Music, Philosophy, Psychology, Inventing, anything.

Can you?

Ayn Rand is the only example I can think of. There are more I'm sure, but there aren't a lot.

I'm not going to say women can't be geniuses, because Ayn is a shining example that they can be, but I think it is much harder for women to be ultra-smart for some reason.

Ayn Rand? I think you could find someone who was a bit more of a coherent thinker. Marie Curie for example? Mary Wollestonecraft. Lise Meitner. Rosalyn Franklin. Picking 'Ayn Rand' as a genius female is like picking L. Ron Hubbard for 'genius male'.

--R.

[Yamori]

Ayn Rand? I think you could find someone who was a bit more of a coherent thinker. Marie Curie for example? Mary Wollestonecraft. Lise Meitner. Rosalyn Franklin. Picking 'Ayn Rand' as a genius female is like picking L. Ron Hubbard for 'genius male'.

--R.

Ayn Rand was a psycho as a person, and a sloppy thinker when it came to details, thats for sure, but she was astonishingly inventive. She created a whole philosophical system, that arguably does not contradict itself in all the fields it covers.

Can you name any other people who were alive 10 decades ago who came up with a unified philosophical system - let alone one that started a political movement?

If you're lumping her in the same boat as L Ron Hubbard, I'm convinced you've never read her philosophical works (not her novels, but her actual philosophical works), and are just going off her negative (but true) media hype as a "cult leader." As I said, she was a rotten person, but a brilliant thinker.

[Lyion]

I've read all Ayn Rands works.. And for once I am in complete agreement with Rust.

[Harrison]

Is it wrong to believe that Men and Women are different?

It's been beaten and thrown down our throats that it is so far...and it's sad that common sense is thrown out in favor for bullshit.

[xaoshaen]

I haven't read all of Ayn Rand's works... I'd much rather be rereading better authors. I've read enough to be fairly conversant with them however, and I'm in with Rust and Lyion.

[Yamori]

I'd love to hear your reasons as to why you think so then.

I hear a lot of older people vaguely saying they "grew out of" her philosophy, saying "you have to compromise sometimes" and leaving it at that.

The rest of the critics I've heard never bothered to actually read much, if any of her works and just say it's about doing whatever you want to whoever and whatever you want.

So this could be interesting - whats wrong enough with her philosophy that you don't consider her to be a genius for it?

There are some philosophers I can't stand (like Kant), but I at least give them credit for being very smart people.

[Diekan]

Is it wrong to believe that Men and Women are different?

It's been beaten and thrown down our throats that it is so far...and it's sad that common sense is thrown out in favor for bullshit.

I agree, and to add.

Anyone who's had sex knows that men and women are different... unless they're gay... and even then I'm sure they noticed the huge bumps on ole *Susie's* chest at least ONCE in their lives...

It's logical that if we are different in our physiology than we can be different in other aspects, which by the way WE ARE.

[Lyion]

I think bringing up an Ayn Rand thread could start a Holy War that would dwarf any political, religious, or science discussions we've previously had. Sounds good.

Her philosophies are superficial, weak, and smouldering with anger. The best comparison I can give to her points, is they are like a shiny fake coin with no value, but they 'appear' good to those who don't understand the difference between real and fake wealth.

Atlas Shrugged is a narcissitic piece of shit. All her novels have the same premise based on her 'view' that life will be good once the evil peoples are gone.

Her philosophies are based on her life. As her life is a pretty good example of how not to live, it's kinda hard to take what she represents seriously.

[mofish]

A few in my circle were Ayn Rand converts when we were in our early mid-20s. My oldest friend, in particular. They have all since de-converted. Thank goodness.

[Lyion]

Same here Mo. I know many on all sides of the political fence who went through the Ayn phase and matured out of it.

[Yamori]

I think bringing up an Ayn Rand thread could start a Holy War that would dwarf any political, religious, or science discussions we've previously had. Sounds good.

Her philosophies are superficial, weak, and smouldering with anger. The best comparison I can give to her points, is they are like a shiny fake coin with no value, but they 'appear' good to those who don't understand the difference between real and fake wealth.

Atlas Shrugged is a narcissitic piece of shit. All her novels have the same premise based on her 'view' that life will be good once the evil peoples are gone.

Her philosophies are based on her life. As her life is a pretty good example of how not to live, it's kinda hard to take what she represents seriously.

There are a lot of details of her philosophy that do fit the description. I won't argue that her philosphy is flawless, because it has a lot of mistakes. Atlas shrugged was unrealistic and too simplistic in its attitude towards good and evil, and had a basically philosophy spewing super robot for a hero.

However, I'm curious as to how you see the following as superficial, weak, and smoldering with anger...

-The primary rule of human conduct is not to initiate the use of force or fraud against rational beings. (this alone is worth the title of genius, imo, its the TRUE golden rule)

-One should always treat rational beings as an end in themselves.

-The senses are accurate, and we can know about things.

-Economic rights are just as important as social rights, as any economic infringement can be reduced to sending men with guns after non cooperating individuals.

-Your happiness is more important than leading a mediocre life for the sake of pleasing others.

-Businessmen are under appreciated, considering they provide us with all our basic necessitites, and make work far more efficient and productive than old fashioned working for mere survivial.

She is really the first person to have said these things (ok, except for the senses one, but she is the first modern thinker to truly reinforce it), I think its worthy of praise in spite of all her flaws that tainted her life and philosphy.

[Harrison]

She wasn't the first to say "Your happiness is more important than leading a mediocre life for the sake of pleasing others."

I'd tack that one up to common sense.

[Lyion]

How can you follow a philosophy that espouses that the greatest evil of mankind is a sense of humor?

Its late and tired, but I must enlist my NT brethren, across all political beliefs to save you from the cult of Ayn tomorrow.

[Yamori]

I'll agree with you there, her whole beef with humor is lame. She definitely didn't say that a sense of humor was the most evil thing in the world though.

However, she was accurate when she said the things we laugh at reveal our value judgements. (However, I have yet to figure out what the hell my value judgements are, seeing as how I laugh hardest at stuff like THIS: http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/aaaaaaaaaaaaahaha/ )

She wasn't the first to say "Your happiness is more important than leading a mediocre life for the sake of pleasing others."

I'd tack that one up to common sense.

Nowadays you would think it is common sense, but if you look back to the 50s you'll realize it really was a radical concept back then. Part of the reason why this is accepted as at least argubly common sense IS because of Ayn's influence.

She was the first philospher, asides from Nietzche (whose "selfishness" was an insane predatorial kind of one - he thought power was more important, as it would lead to happiness) and Aristotle (whose happiness wasn't really the same thing, his was more like a state of balance) to really say anything about it.

[xaoshaen]

-The primary rule of human conduct is not to initiate the use of force or fraud against rational beings. (this alone is worth the title of genius, imo, its the TRUE golden rule)

These two principles aren't new though. They've been around for thousands of years in one form or another. I don't give Rand genious credit for restating them.

-The senses are accurate, and we can know about things.

Except that, as anyone with a basic knowledge of quantum physics can tell you, the senses are most certaintly not accurate.

-Economic rights are just as important as social rights, as any economic infringement can be reduced to sending men with guns after non cooperating individuals.

Again, not a new principle. It's been an accepted corrolary of Clausewitz's not-entirely-accurate posit that warfare is an extension of politics by other means.

-Your happiness is more important than leading a mediocre life for the sake of pleasing others.

This is a recodification of the age-old "Be yourself" theme, that we've all had drummed into us at one time or another.

She is really the first person to have said these things (ok, except for the senses one, but she is the first modern thinker to truly reinforce it), I think its worthy of praise in spite of all her flaws that tainted her life and philosphy.

I'm with Lyion. Rand but a very shiny wrapping on her ideas, but they tend to be old ideas repackaged or some logically questionable theories. I'm not accusing her of stealing ideas, as I do believe she cooked up most of them herself, but they're not as groundbreaking as her devotees would have you believe.

[xaoshaen]

She was the first philospher, asides from Nietzche (whose "selfishness" was an insane predatorial kind of one - he thought power was more important, as it would lead to happiness) and Aristotle (whose happiness wasn't really the same thing, his was more like a state of balance) to really say anything about it.

I have to say that this is a pretty gross misrepresentation of Nietzche. Too many people today view his philosophy through the distorted mirror of the lunatics who have twisted his writings to their own ends.

[Rust]

I think bringing up an Ayn Rand thread could start a Holy War that would dwarf any political, religious, or science discussions we've previously had. Sounds good.

Her philosophies are superficial, weak, and smouldering with anger. The best comparison I can give to her points, is they are like a shiny fake coin with no value, but they 'appear' good to those who don't understand the difference between real and fake wealth.

Atlas Shrugged is a narcissitic piece of shit. All her novels have the same premise based on her 'view' that life will be good once the evil peoples are gone.

Her philosophies are based on her life. As her life is a pretty good example of how not to live, it's kinda hard to take what she represents seriously.

There are a lot of details of her philosophy that do fit the description. I won't argue that her philosphy is flawless, because it has a lot of mistakes. Atlas shrugged was unrealistic and too simplistic in its attitude towards good and evil, and had a basically philosophy spewing super robot for a hero.

However, I'm curious as to how you see the following as superficial, weak, and smoldering with anger...

-The primary rule of human conduct is not to initiate the use of force or fraud against rational beings. (this alone is worth the title of genius, imo, its the TRUE golden rule)

-One should always treat rational beings as an end in themselves.

The above two are restatements of Kant's Categorical Imperative. From wikipedia:

In his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant formulates the Categorical Imperative in three different ways:

* The first (Universal Law formulation): "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
* The second (Humanity or End in Itself formulation): "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."
* The third (Kingdom of Ends formulation) combines the two: "All maxims as proceeding from our own [hypothetical] making of law ought to harmonise with a possible kingdom of ends."

So... no, she's not original here. Rand's first claim you mention follows from the fact you can't universalize 'I get to cheat and lie'.

-The senses are accurate, and we can know about things.

This is simply empiricism. It's one of the three standard axioms of what one could call 'science'. Ayn Rand sre as hell wasn't the first person to posit this. Sort of a correspondance theory of truth.

-Economic rights are just as important as social rights, as any economic infringement can be reduced to sending men with guns after non cooperating individuals.

Marx would have agreed that economic rights are important. How is Rand original here?

-Your happiness is more important than leading a mediocre life for the sake of pleasing others.

Is this her insane hatred of altruism popping up?

-Businessmen are under appreciated, considering they provide us with all our basic necessitites, and make work far more efficient and productive than old fashioned working for mere survivial.

She is really the first person to have said these things (ok, except for the senses one, but she is the first modern thinker to truly reinforce it), I think its worthy of praise in spite of all her flaws that tainted her life and philosphy.

So far, as far as I can tell, where she's original she's nuts, and where she's not nuts, she's not original.

--R.

[Yamori]

The two major original contributions Ayn made was her theory of concepts rendered from the senses being the key component of knowledge, and her "golden rule" of not initiating force and fraud.

She didn't invent empiricism, but she is not a traditional empiricist either - her theory of concepts is what seperates her from dorky empiricists like Hume (who basically say we can't know anything about anything).

I'll give it to you that she did not originate 'treat rational beings as ends in themselves' - brain fart there, it was Kant. However I won't accept that her golden rule of not initiating force and fraud is equal to Kant's universalization theory. The two come from radically different lines of reasoning, and the two have no where near the same results.

What you guys haven't addressed is the fact that she did make an integrated philosophical system, that links metaphysics, ethics, and politics together. Whether you love it or hate it, thats a pretty impressive feat.

[Rust]

The two major original contributions Ayn made was her theory of concepts rendered from the senses being the key component of knowledge, and her "golden rule" of not initiating force and fraud.

She didn't invent empiricism, but she is not a traditional empiricist either - her theory of concepts is what seperates her from dorky empiricists like Hume (who basically say we can't know anything about anything).

Oh, yeah. Rand derives 'ought' from 'is'.

That alone should have warned you off. Like I said, where she's original, she's wrong.

She's got a great following among Young Republicans and John Birchers. Most of them (called 'Randroids') grow out of it.

She didn't make any 'major' contributions to anything, least of all philosophy, any more than Hubbard made a 'major' contribution to religion.

Here's a free hint: if your school of philosophy requires calling David Hume *and* Immanuel Kant idiots, you need to get a new school of philosophy, because you're a fool.

--R.

[Diekan]

This topic went from cool to yawn in 0.5 seconds.