Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

Yup. Right down to enjoying a juicy, fatty, delicious cheeseburger or a real cigarette only in an underground market.
Utterly, utterly eerie.



Absolutely right.
Though I would say that there is also a 3rd camp(albeit smaller), who have read her works; but who did so too early or just didn't grasp it. They then go to college and get immersed in academia and somehow get brainwashed to believe in the whole "government is good, capitalism is bad" bullshit.
And then, sadly they consider themselves more educated and view Rand as just a "phase".
Sad.



Or they are more educated and realize her ideas are pretty sophomoric and her writing amateurish. "Like a community college dropout trying to do philosophy" is a great description.

I've read Atlas and Fountainhead. I think government is terrible, that no government should exist in fact, and still think Rand is a joke.

She's not taken seriously in philosophical circles because she's not a serious philosopher. She's taken seriously almost solely by people whose only experience reading "philosophy" is Rand and are totally unfamiliar with sound and well-expressed ideas by people far smarter, more rational, and accurate in their descriptions of the human condition than her.
 
Yeah, calling Ayn Rand ( a proven Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright and screenwriter ) a joke is a very intelligent first post.

Hooker with a penis, man!
 
Or they are more educated and realize her ideas are pretty sophomoric and her writing amateurish. "Like a community college dropout trying to do philosophy" is a great description.

I've read Atlas and Fountainhead. I think government is terrible, that no government should exist in fact, and still think Rand is a joke.

She's not taken seriously in philosophical circles because she's not a serious philosopher. She's taken seriously almost solely by people whose only experience reading "philosophy" is Rand and are totally unfamiliar with sound and well-expressed ideas by people far smarter, more rational, and accurate in their descriptions of the human condition than her.

Hello, I am Pessimism. You're going to have to do better than that to dismiss adherents here - but that's ok, I like you :)
 
She's not taken seriously in philosophical circles because she's not a serious philosopher. She's taken seriously almost solely by people whose only experience reading "philosophy" is Rand and are totally unfamiliar with sound and well-expressed ideas by people far smarter, more rational, and accurate in their descriptions of the human condition than her.

Such as who? The Sex Pistols?

The more rational part I very highly doubt. Aristoteleans even acknowledge her as a valid expansion of his ideas.
 
So a recent offshoot of Aristotelian based thinkers based on an archaic school of philosophy that is completely wrong about the physical makeup of the world thinks Rand is grand.

Fucking sweet.
 
Essentially yes. Without going into deep specifics on why I believe so, I will say that the average American is a lazy voter. Furthermore they are spoon-fed from our crappy media which is typically biased towards one side or another during any form of election (this certainly doesn't help the lazy aspect). Since most people do not go and hunt for information about "offshoot" political parties/people, they tend to either vote out of habit or misinformation. There is the odd occurrence of an offshoot candidate popping up and garnering attention, but even then their chances of winning a large scale election are slim - and because their views somewhat overlap with other primary party candidates, the term "wasting your vote" became synonymous with essentially choosing to vote for the lesser evil in any given race.

I think you should always vote for who you believe would do a good job given their persona, track record, and core values. Sometimes though, you have to deal with what your given when a major enemy appears (Bush you mother fucker
Aaarrrghhh.gif
) and vote for the party that stands a chance.
 
Hey look, I'm quoting Atlas Shrugged!
Who is John Galt? Who is John Galt? Who is John Galt? Who is John Galt? I'm going to make a sandwich, but fir--Who is John Galt? Who is John Galt? Oh god, my factory! Who is John Galt?
 
And this is for anyone, is voting third party wasting a vote? I don't think so but others do.

Nope. Not at all. If you don't like where either of the "two" major parties are going, well then the choice is simple. You either vote for a third party or not at all(excepting of course when you get a rare maverick like Ron Paul).

If you don't want to settle for "the lesser of two evils" and if you don't like any of the third party candidates, then don't vote at all. Don't encourage the statist duopoly. For if you vote, you are outright condoning those whom you do not agree with; and I have no sympathy for you. They say that if you don't vote then you have no right to complain. This is piss poor reasoning. If you settle for "the lesser of two evils", then you have no right to complain.

The only wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils".
 
So a recent offshoot of Aristotelian based thinkers based on an archaic school of philosophy that is completely wrong about the physical makeup of the world thinks Rand is grand.

Fucking sweet.

No, it makes her just as legitimate a thinker as any of the Greek original three.

Hey look, I'm quoting Atlas Shrugged!

Hey look! I'm quoting the Communist Manifesto!

I don't know shit about economics or human nature and I have nothing but contempt for the truth, but hey I sure got me some humdingers.
 
Not voting at all is a trend I would like to stop in America. History has shown that it doesn't matter if you choose not to vote for one of the two major parties, because one of the major parties always wins. Even currently, with record low turnouts, the only parties that stand to win are either Democratic or Republican.

Not voting is not a valid option.

Granted, by not voting for a party you do not agree with, you are making a personal statement that you do not condone all of the practices a given candidate may hold (which is excellent in my opinion, and something I can personally respect). That uncast vote however does not help or hinder the system in any way though, as parties are still able to win by means of the votes that were cast.

The only way to stop a two party system is by means of spreading knowledge. This, in our current climate, is just not going to happen (statistically at least). Unless a rogue billionaire comes around and starts up an independent news network that rivals the 83% market that Fox news has globally, then it will take a lot of hard work. I do my part on this end, I direct people to credible new sources, teach people how to read between the lines and etc. There is a reason people don't like to follow politics (::cough:: they think it's bullshit ::cough:: ), it's up to those who want to help the world to change their minds. Whether they are going to be biased in their teaching or not I certainly cannot say.

And frankly, you have the right to complain about who you are voting for. Running for office in this day and age is incredibly expensive, and impossible for most (if not all). You can agree and disagree with the positions a candidate takes and still endorse them (or "settle" as you might say). To think otherwise is, well... foolish.



No, it makes her just as legitimate a thinker as any of the Greek original three.
No, it doesn't. Having people who share a root or two with Aristotle who consider her views as an expansion is not the same as being on par with "the main three". And frankly, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are not the whole of Greek philosophy. Plato's works are... god, so hard to swallow. And we must remember that modern Aristotelian's do not hold ideas that Aristotle himself would have held. They work not with transcribed idea's, but evolved ones that are rooted in the modern workings of psychology and physics - they are wildly different in application and text. Dare I say the only thing Aristotelian about said modern thinkers is their school's name. To say Rand is an expansion of modern Aristotelian idea's is to say that my toolshed is akin to my barn (which at one point was built with influences of Victorian architecture!); it's stupid.


Hey look! I'm quoting the Communist Manifesto!

Communists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of a classless and stateless society, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

In all seriousness I was just shitting on her ability to actually write fiction. She is in fact a terrible writer, I mean fuck were those books dragging.
 
No, it doesn't. Having people who share a root or two with Aristotle who consider her views as an expansion is not the same as being on par with "the main three". And frankly, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are not the whole of Greek philosophy. Plato's works are... god, so hard to swallow. And we must remember that modern Aristotelian's do not hold ideas that Aristotle himself would have held. They work not with transcribed idea's, but evolved ones that are rooted in the modern workings of psychology and physics - they are wildly different in application and text. Dare I say the only thing Aristotelian about said modern thinkers is their school's name. To say Rand is an expansion of modern Aristotelian idea's is to say that my toolshed is akin to my barn (which at one point was built with influences of Victorian architecture!); it's stupid.

She wouldn't have formulated her ideas if not for his school of thought. She cites him as her main influence and she does acknowledge that her views are a pretty drastic offshoot, putting it mildly.
What's stupid would be to just dismiss that.

Communists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of a classless and stateless society, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

No it is not. It's a surrender of will and individuality. Human beings and property are indivisible(since for starters you are your own property). Anything else is brainwashing bullshit with a regressive, slave-minded agenda.

In all seriousness I was just shitting on her ability to actually write fiction. She is in fact a terrible writer, I mean fuck were those books dragging.

That's all well and good then. Atlas Shrugged, like life, is not for everyone. I don't know how old you were when you read it but I found the story incredibly intriguing and suspenseful. Sure, she might get too preachy(like Tarantino X5) and she may repeat herself but you have to remember where she came from and what she DID NOT want to relive.

Regardless the impact of her philosophy cannot possibly be denied.

I'm just curious though; you seem like a pretty smart guy. And even though you don't like Rand's writings you seem pretty aware of how politics work. I'm just curious where you stand. You don't seem like the usual statist; and if you aren't a libertarian of sorts, where do you stand???
 
I see you didn't grab the Big Lebowski reference.

I've read Rand on four exact occasions: the 5th 9th and 12th grades, and then on and off for about a year straight of college. Each time it was... just, unbearable. Granted it may be personal preference, but after sloughing through all of it, I was left a bitter taste. Frankly her journal entries were the only things that kept my attention, what with her incorrect knowledge of Nietzsche and all that. She is really... well... I don't know how to put it. "Sociopathic" isn't the right word, but god damn some of her statements are ethically questionable (in my opinion).

As it stands, no two libertarians I have ever met have even come to an agreeable definition on what libertarianism is. If we are to agree that the basic tenet of the libertarian concept, I suppose that would equate strictly to an interpretation of the free will vs determinism argument. To that I say "I do not believe in total free will" (at least how it is classically defined - we've always got to remember our definitions).

Cyth, you want to jump in? You've got more info on the tenets of this stuff than I.
 
Saying "total free will" in regards to using what "free-will" you have available given a determined situation (however you gauge it) seems a bit odd in the wording department.