driver on 19/8/2009 at 09:55
Quote Posted by heywood
That's pretty much true of any idealistic philosophy. Ignoring or dismissing human nature is always easier than understanding it.
It wasn't only that, the characters in her book that lived by her philosophy were super-human, they excelled at everything they turned their hand to. I was suppressing laughter through the last few chapters when she started channeling Ian Fleming and her characters suddenly became crack-shot action heroes.
the_grip on 19/8/2009 at 15:13
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
It looks like a great intro. I rate Genealogy of Morals as the most important of his works to read, and Beyond Good & Evil a close second, and both of them are self contained enough that they work in a vacuum. Birth of Tragedy and Case of Wagner are great to read together, seeing the development of his application of aesthetic philosophy from the very beginning of his career juxtaposed against the end of it.
Zarathustra is his best known work and it is fantastic, but more of an expression of his ideals than an intellectual exploration of them. I'd recommend picking it up once you've worked through that anthology. It is best read once you are familiar with his basic philosophy (especially The Gay Science, which inspired Zarathustra). I'd save Ecce Homo, which is sort of his commentary on his whole career rather than an independent work, until you've read most of the other primary ones.
Oh, and unless you're fluent in German and can read the original text, make sure you read the Kaufman translations (which that anthology contains). They tend to be not only the most accurate, but the most lyrical as well. I've read other translations, and they're always clumsy.
Thanks RBJ... he's on my short list to catch up on as well. I read
Beyond Good and Evil in high school, but I don't remember enough of it. Maybe I'll move on soon b/c I'm definitely not going to be patient enough to move past
The Fountainhead into
Atlas Shrugged.
The real shame to Rand is that she came up with some fantastic titles for her books lol.
CCCToad on 19/8/2009 at 15:41
Quote Posted by Muzman
My, admittedly not in-depth, reading of her stuff always led me to think that she was driven not by any sort of imagination but a desire to refute Marxist thought by taking the polar opposite view. It seems so precisely engineered to do that you'd swear she was commissioned by Ford and Rockefeller or something.
Not likely, as the Ford and Rockefeller foundations have traditionally funded collectivist causes.
Muzman on 20/8/2009 at 05:36
Seem so, in a way. Rockerfeller, sure. Ford wasn't exactly a closet lefty though. Community minded causes aren't collectivist just because they aren't about individuals. The whole question of philanthropy does get kind o complicated with Rand anyway, I'd think: the great are free to do what they like with their greatness, except help others? (not that I really feel like digging in to the particulars. I've got these angels on this pin head that need counting first).
Toss in your own more Randian tycoons if you wish.
demagogue on 20/8/2009 at 06:26
Quote Posted by Muzman
Toss in your own more Randian tycoons if you wish.
There doesn't seem to be much of any actual debate going on in this thread, but whatever, to run with that invitation anyway...
If you look at the kinds of things she's actually admiring, somebody that's relentlessly pursuing excellence in their own work and developing not just an original style you can identify immediately, but also very influential and having a "force of nature" quality, where it's almost a pure expression of their will on the thing on a big scale, on the whole field for that matter -- and if you take her preferred profession, architecture -- there's someone like IM Pei. But what's subversive about him as a paradigm is his start first in academia, and then largely with low rent housing projects, which if anything contributed more than detracted to what developed as his ideals.
His break was on the JFK Library project where as a "nobody" at the time in a field of really big names it was the sheer force of his ideas themselves that won him the project, a very Randian kind of scenario except it's a public project for a Democratic president of all people. And following that model his most influential and brilliant works are all in non-profit, "public benefit" sorts of sectors ... public museums, research libraries, concert halls, religious centers... where as often as not it's the state footing the bill and the needs of the masses guiding his purposes.
That kind of story strikes me as much a blatant self-refutation of the Randian ideal of how things are "supposed" to happen as the Warsaw Pact economies were to Marx.
jay pettitt on 20/8/2009 at 10:27
Quote:
There doesn't seem to be much of any actual debate going on in this thread
It's tempting, laughing at wingnuts is always good sport - but truth be told I just don't think Rand is relevant. You can't say that people should look after their own interests by ignoring other people's interests and keep a straight face. We're social creatures, evolution has wired us up to be happy when we're generous toward other people and unhappy, stressed and anxious when we're not. Pursuing an ideology that makes people unhappy, stressed and anxious - and eventually unwell, there's only so much stress hormones the body can take before it starts taking it's toll - isn't all that attractive.
Kolya on 20/8/2009 at 11:08
Jay Pettitt's "Egoist's guide to Altruism" can prevent YOU from becoming "ugly women".
Watch out for the upcoming: "Asperger's Empathy" and "Charity Sex".
Angel Dust on 20/8/2009 at 11:10
Ugh. I was potentially interested in checking out some Rand but after reading that drivel that Aja posted I'm going to give it a miss.
the_grip on 20/8/2009 at 18:20
Quote Posted by Angel Dust
Ugh. I was potentially interested in checking out some Rand but after reading that drivel that Aja posted I'm going to give it a miss.
Yeah no doubt. I'll probably finish
The Fountainhead, but I'm glad I paid $2 for a used Atlas Shrugged. I doubt I'll ever get to it.
