Ayn Rand

[Morrisonhotel]

He??? Who is he?

Ayn Rand
"Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers."
[The Virtue of Selfishness]

Paul de Man. Your profile says that you are a writer, really? As it seems that any writer alive today would know of de Man's work. Evidently, you've never heard of him: de Man along with Saussure and Derrida is probably the most important and influential literary and linguistic theorist/critic of the 20th-century. It came out that he was a Nazi sympathiser and that he wrote anti-semitic propaganda - subsequently, his influence and reputation as a theorist took a severe bashing.

I'm not disputing that Rand was not a Nazi so really that quote is irrelevant. Also, I believe that Rand was vehemently against American involvement in WW2.

Communism brings out the worst in man

So does unchecked capitalism.

[Rick Hendricks]

So does unchecked capitalism.

Capitalism has benefited far many more than Communism.

Paul de Man. Your profile says that you are a writer, really? As it seems that any writer alive today would know of de Man's work. Evidently, you've never heard of him: de Man along with Saussure and Derrida is probably the most important and influential literary and linguistic theorist/critic of the 20th-century. It came out that he was a Nazi sympathiser and that he wrote anti-semitic propaganda - subsequently, his influence and reputation as a theorist took a severe bashing.

I'm not disputing that Rand was not a Nazi so really that quote is irrelevant. Also, I believe that Rand was vehemently against American involvement in WW2.

If you didn't notice, the subject is Any Rand. So your introduction of de Mann is irrelevant.

You claim to be a student? Any student alive today would know that objectivity is essential, and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Are you glad America entered WWII?

[Morrisonhotel]

If you didn't notice, the subject is Any Rand. So your introduction of de Mann is irrelevant.

You claim to be a student? Any student alive today would know that objectivity is essential, and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Are you glad America entered WWII?

1) No, it is not. de Man was in relation to why, by your proclamations, we can't judge artists by their political beliefs - hence, perfectly valid.

2) I don't claim to be a student - I am a student (matriculated and everything). I'm stating the truth. Being a writer and not knowing who Paul de Man was is like being a critic and not knowing who Shakespeare/Dickens/Ibsen were. Where exactly have I started ad hominem attacks? If anything, you've been incredibly evasive of every point I've made.

3)That's a whole different kettle of fish.

[Rick Hendricks]

I never made any proclamations.

If you didn't recognize where you made as hominem attacks, you are most likely not a student.

Who is Bill Canon?

[Morrisonhotel]

I never made any proclamations.

If you didn't recognize where you made as hominem attacks, you are most likely not a student.

Who is Bill Canon?

1)

What you are really saying is you despise her political ideas, and thus will not give her credit for being a good writer.
I fail to see her considering homosexuality immoral having any relevance to the discussion of whether or not she is a good writer.

Whilst you never wrote explicitly those words, you constantly and consistently implied them. You've essentially stated that political beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to judgement of what makes a good writer or bad writer. Back to de Man - my point being that his work's critical reception took a huge bashing when all the stories came out (his works are generally received as not only the 'best' theory of the twentieth century but the most important): He's clearly a good writer yet the critical response to his work changed. Hence, again, my points have been perfectly valid: a writer's political beliefs can and do have an impact on one's judgement of their literature

2) Again, I've not made any direct attacks. I maintain that my points were perfectly valid in questioning whether you have any suitable input in to the subject of political beliefs and writing. In fact, I've attended two of the top universities in Britain, thank you very much. Who was it pushing ad hominem attacks?

3) I fail to see the relevance of this question.

[Rick Hendricks]

1)


Whilst you never wrote explicitly those words, you constantly and consistently implied them. You've essentially stated that political beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to judgement of what makes a good writer or bad writer. Back to de Man - my point being that his work's critical reception took a huge bashing when all the stories came out (his works are generally received as not only the 'best' theory of the twentieth century but the most important): He's clearly a good writer yet the critical response to his work changed. Hence, again, my points have been perfectly valid: a writer's political beliefs can and do have an impact on one's judgement of their literature

2) Again, I've not made any direct attacks. I maintain that my points were perfectly valid in questioning whether you have any suitable input in to the subject of political beliefs and writing. In fact, I've attended two of the top universities in Britain, thank you very much. Who was it pushing ad hominem attacks?

3) I fail to see the relevance of this question.

You read, "what you wanted to" into my words, based on your obvious biases. You need watch out for too giving much credence to textual semiotics. Next thing you'll be saying is that the Lizard King was a good poet.

2) You.

3) You don't know one of the world’s most famous, and successful: screenwriter, playwright, novelist.


What do you think John Locke would say about Rand’s ideas?


Each is given a bag of tools,
A shapeless mass and a book of rules;
And each must make, ere life is flown,
A stumbling block or a stepping stone.
—R.L. Sharpe

[kilted exile]

I am not arguing, just stating a flaw in her “human nature,” which had inconsistencies. I am suggesting that since she claimed to reject everything USSR, it's inconsistent to retain the state mandated atheism, which in a free society she has the right to reject. Yet, she had this stance and IMHO was inconsistent regarding theism.

I still do not see any inconsistency in rejecting the Soviet Union and being atheist. You are attempting to deal in absolutes and portraying that any atheist who disagrees with the practices that were carried out by the USSR is being inconsistent. This is patently not the case.

By the way Canon cant be that famous, Wiki has a page on all manner of even minor celebrities - however there is no mention of him.

[Morrisonhotel]

You read, "what you wanted to" into my words, based on your obvious biases. You need watch out for too giving much credence to textual semiotics. Next thing you'll be saying is that the Lizard King was a good poet.

2) You.

3) You don't know one of the world’s most famous, and successful: screenwriter, playwright, novelist.


What do you think John Locke would say about Rand’s ideas?

1) No, I didn't. That is the exact sentiments of what you have written. Stop trying to get out of an argument by stating otherwise. By all means, defend your position but don't make it seem that those weren't your intentions. Textual semiotics? Write more clearly then - it is not that difficult. I read the words and the phrases as they are written. If that is not how you meant then you should have clarified that straight from the beginning.

Hardly. There we go again with ad hominem attacks. Next you'll be attacking me for my taste in literature.

2) Again. Perfectly valid arguments. Stop avoiding them.

3) He's hardly that famous (note: when I think of famous and successful screenwriters and novelists I think of critically and commercially acclaimed sorts not somebody that IMDB ranks as having written only one film (admittedly the success of Wizard of Oz does make for an interesting discussion - even though he does not appear to have massively contributed to it) - assuming you mean Bill Cannon as I can't find any screenplay writers called Bill Canon on said site). When he has influenced almost every piece of modern literature, modern linguistic/ literary theory/criticism, and modern philosophy as de Man has then I might well give him the time of day.

I'm assuming that you mean the world-famous English philosopher? One, obviously, can't be entirely sure given your previous posts. Given that Mr Locke is dead (and has been for some time) it's a fairly pointless argument. I'm sure though that an intelligent man would have found a lot of Rand's political, social and philosophical ideas laughable (particularly her ideas on homosexuality, gender equality, and so forth). If you mean John Locke from Lost then I think the debate is at an end.

[Rick Hendricks]

1) No, I didn't. That is the exact sentiments of what you have written. Stop trying to get out of an argument by stating otherwise. By all means, defend your position but don't make it seem that those weren't your intentions. Textual semiotics? Write more clearly then - it is not that difficult. I read the words and the phrases as they are written. If that is not how you meant then you should have clarified that straight from the beginning.

Hardly. There we go again with ad hominem attacks. Next you'll be attacking me for my taste in literature.

2) Again. Perfectly valid arguments. Stop avoiding them.

3) He's hardly that famous (note: when I think of famous and successful screenwriters and novelists I think of critically and commercially acclaimed sorts not somebody that IMDB ranks as having written only one film (admittedly the success of Wizard of Oz does make for an interesting discussion - even though he does not appear to have massively contributed to it) - assuming you mean Bill Cannon as I can't find any screenplay writers called Bill Canon on said site). When he has influenced almost every piece of modern literature, modern linguistic/ literary theory/criticism, and modern philosophy as de Man has then I might well give him the time of day.

I'm assuming that you mean the world-famous English philosopher? One, obviously, can't be entirely sure given your previous posts. Given that Mr Locke is dead (and has been for some time) it's a fairly pointless argument. I'm sure though that an intelligent man would have found a lot of Rand's political, social and philosophical ideas laughable (particularly her ideas on homosexuality, gender equality, and so forth). If you mean John Locke from Lost then I think the debate is at an end.

Please show me my sentiments. I truly doubt you can express them in the terms you have attempted to frame them.

You don’t know textual semiotics, and, you claim extensive knowledge of Saussure?

Your argument sounds like it is totally unrelated to the discussion. de man being a Nazi has nothing to do with Rand (who you despise) advocating free markets et al. de Mann is dead too (1983). That also makes your words “a fairly pointless argument,” according to your statement above.

Screenwriters don’t get much recognition. WDC, who is still alive, is also a producer, and screenwriter who worked extensively with Robert Altman, on “Mash,” ring any bells? See the ending credits at the end of Mash, if you can get a copy. He writes, produces, and teaches. Here are some of his published credits below. Now this applies to “real life” not theory.

SKIDOO, written by Doran William Cannon; produced and directed by Otto Preminger; released by Paramount Pictures.

Doran William Cannon is a voting member of the writer’s branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Hollywood screenwriter, Doran William Cannon, has written dozens of screenplays and teleplays in over 40 years experience in story development. He wrote Brewster McCloud (directed by Robert Altman), the TV adaptation of the Aldous Huxley novel, A Brave New World, wrote, directed, and produced Square Root of Zero, and was a staff writer on Knotts Landing, among other credits. He wrote Authorship: The Dynamic Principles of Writing Creatively and teaches his Paradigm of Story Structure at retreats at his Circle © Writing Ranch, north of Santa Barbara, California.

BTW, I mirrored your style. How do you like it? Not very much, huh?

[Morrisonhotel]

Please show me my sentiments. I truly doubt you can express them in the terms you have attempted to frame them.

You don’t know textual semiotics, and, you claim extensive knowledge of Saussure?

Your argument sounds like it is totally unrelated to the discussion. de man being a Nazi has nothing to do with Rand (who you despise) advocating free markets et al. de Mann is dead too (1983). That also makes your words “a fairly pointless argument,” according to your statement above.

Screenwriters don’t get much recognition. WDC, who is still alive, is also a producer, and screenwriter who worked extensively with Robert Altman, on “Mash,” ring any bells? See the ending credits at the end of Mash, if you can get a copy. He writes, produces, and teaches.

BTW, I mirrored your style. How do you like it? Not very much, huh?

I have just shown you your sentiments in relation to the argument. Note the section where you state that her beliefs that homosexuality is immoral is irrelevant to this discussion - and, furthermore, the implication that politics are as well. By maintaining that one cannot judge how 'good' a writer on these grounds, you, effectively, get rid of all this form of criticism - and implicitly mean that political beliefs are not a way one can judge the merit of a writer (after all, if Rand cannot be subjected to the political basis of critique as to whether she is a good writer or not then no writer can).You're clearly now trying to save face.

I know textual semiotics extremely well, thank you very much - comes with how deeply-ground the teaching of English Lit. in linguistic theory is at my university. I never once proclaimed I had such a knowledge of Saussure - I merely stated his position as such an important theorist. de Man and Derrida, on the other hand, I have exceptionally good knowledge of their works.

It is not irrelevant. I have stated time and time and time again that the political beliefs of a writer are a perfectly valid form of critiqueing whether their work is good or not. The example of the change in opinion towards de Man's work shows this perfectly well - after all, he went from being an important and good critic to being slated as a bad one for, essentially, being a Nazi sympathiser (i.e. the political beliefs he espoused changed people's opinions on his merit as a critic and a writer). How can I make that more explicit? Should I draw the deductions in big letters somewhere? Well done, you've managed to use Google to find out so much about him. The difference between Locke and de Man is that whilst de Man is dead as well, his work is profoundly more influential at this precise moment in time on all manner of things. Locke's work has been challenged time and time again - as a consequence, it is almost inconsequential what his views would be on Rand.

Again, MASH has hardly had a profound influence on so many areas of intellectualism as de Man's work. I repeat my last sentiments when I state that I'll give him the time of day when he has influenced as many people as de Man. You just finished saying how famous he is, yet you then back-track and say that screenwriters aren't well known. Which is it? A look on wiki and IMDB brings up almost nothing (certainly nothing of artistic value or of particular fame)- he can't be that famous or influential. Also, he's actually dead (see IMDB.com). Also, you had to hide the first name of him - why do that if he is famous as "Bill Canon" - note: not Doran William Cannon? de Man's work has had profound influence on modern literature - you'd be hard pushed to find any theorist or writer who has a more influential role. How exactly is DWC's work any more real life than de Man's theories? That doesn't even make sense - MASH is not real-life. Where as de Man's work looked at, among other things, the interaction between people - what is more real life than one person talking to another, after all.

How exactly is your last post the same as mine? I've eruditely argued. You've done nothing but respond with, well, nothing.

[cows]

Hey,

PM eachother if your going to b*tch. This is 2 posts away from heated discussion, which was fine, but now you're just taking shots. I understand that its easy for people to criticize and act like children when you dont answer to a face, but cap it. Thanks.

Also, thanks to the contributors of this thread.

I'm another couple hundred pages into the book and can see how Rand's repetitious presentations are tiring. After the fifth rant about the 'proper' capitalist moral set, it gets old. Still, I stand by my claim that she is a decent fiction author (if nothing else, I don't consider her philosophy more than any other writer as I read the book) and does well with character development.

[Morrisonhotel]

Apologies, Cows (and admin.), it's my disposition that does it. Can't leave an argument until I've been proven correct. If Rick graciously agrees then this can be moved to PM.

[PeterL]

I was speaking to her vehement opposition to the USSR. As someone opposed in totality to the USSR, it would seem she would also reject everything that state represented, since it was "all" so horrible. It's not like saying "every Protestant should agree on any other subject." It being a necessity is not mentioned either. She had inconsistencies in her personal life also. Ask Nathanial Brandon.

Organized religions share a major characteristic with totalitarian government, they all seek to regulate the way that people live. Rand advocated personal responsibility and direction in all facets of life, so it makes perfect sense for her to oppose both the USSR and religion.

[Logos]

Posts have been edited. Please don't refer to each other as 'stupid' when putting your opinion/point across

[Rick Hendricks]

I have just shown you your sentiments in relation to the argument. Note the section where you state that her beliefs that homosexuality is immoral is irrelevant to this discussion - and, furthermore, the implication that politics are as well. By maintaining that one cannot judge how 'good' a writer on these grounds, you, effectively, get rid of all this form of criticism - and implicitly mean that political beliefs are not a way one can judge the merit of a writer (after all, if Rand cannot be subjected to the political basis of critique as to whether she is a good writer or not then no writer can).You're clearly now trying to save face.

I know textual semiotics extremely well, thank you very much - comes with how deeply-ground the teaching of English Lit. in linguistic theory is at my university. I never once proclaimed I had such a knowledge of Saussure - I merely stated his position as such an important theorist. de Man and Derrida, on the other hand, I have exceptionally good knowledge of their works.

It is not irrelevant. I have stated time and time and time again that the political beliefs of a writer are a perfectly valid form of critiqueing whether their work is good or not. The example of the change in opinion towards de Man's work shows this perfectly well - after all, he went from being an important and good critic to being slated as a bad one for, essentially, being a Nazi sympathiser (i.e. the political beliefs he espoused changed people's opinions on his merit as a critic and a writer). How can I make that more explicit? Should I draw the deductions in big letters somewhere? Well done, you've managed to use Google to find out so much about him. The difference between Locke and de Man is that whilst de Man is dead as well, his work is profoundly more influential at this precise moment in time on all manner of things. Locke's work has been challenged time and time again - as a consequence, it is almost inconsequential what his views would be on Rand.

Again, MASH has hardly had a profound influence on so many areas of intellectualism as de Man's work. I repeat my last sentiments when I state that I'll give him the time of day when he has influenced as many people as de Man. You just finished saying how famous he is, yet you then back-track and say that screenwriters aren't well known. Which is it? A look on wiki and IMDB brings up almost nothing (certainly nothing of artistic value or of particular fame)- he can't be that famous or influential. Also, he's actually dead (see IMDB.com). Also, you had to hide the first name of him - why do that if he is famous as "Bill Canon" - note: not Doran William Cannon? de Man's work has had profound influence on modern literature - you'd be hard pushed to find any theorist or writer who has a more influential role. How exactly is DWC's work any more real life than de Man's theories? That doesn't even make sense - MASH is not real-life. Where as de Man's work looked at, among other things, the interaction between people - what is more real life than one person talking to another, after all.

How exactly is your last post the same as mine? I've eruditely argued. You've done nothing but respond with, well, nothing.

Your "opinions" are many.



OK You win. Let’s put what you say into practice on you. This is how you sound.
I despise that you don’t like Ayn Rand. Therefore, you cannot write. In fact, you are a lousy writer. I don’t like the politics you imply, therefore you cannot write.
Hmmm, does your argument hold water now that it’s applied to you?

By your own words, “Given that Mr Locke is dead (and has been for some time) it's a fairly pointless argument.” Therefore, you cannot use de Man; he is dead. So are the others.

Papa Hemingway had an unfavorable view of male homosexuals. Does that mean he couldn’t write? Oh, sorry, he’s dead too.

Let’s speak of a living person. WDC, who is still alive, is also a producer, and screenwriter who worked extensively with Robert Altman, on “Mash,” ring any bells? See the ending credits at the end of Mash, if you can get a copy. He writes, produces, and teaches. Here are some of his published credits below. Now this applies to “real life” not theory; there is a difference. Mash was a worldwide phenomenon for 11 years after the original movie; millions and millions of people viewed it. You don’t think that had a significant impact?

Here are his published credits for your review:


SKIDOO, written by Doran William Cannon; produced and directed by Otto Preminger (Otto was no slouch) released by Paramount Pictures.

Doran William Cannon is a voting member of the writer’s branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Hollywood screenwriter, Doran William Cannon, has written dozens of screenplays and teleplays in over 40 years experience in story development. He wrote Brewster McCloud (directed by Robert Altman), the TV adaptation of the Aldus Huxley novel, A Brave New World, wrote, directed, and produced Square Root of Zero, and was a staff writer on Knotts Landing, among other credits. He wrote Authorship: The Dynamic Principles of Writing Creatively and teaches his Paradigm of Story Structure at retreats at his Circle © Writing Ranch, north of Santa Barbara, California.

You can double check these in a few minutes. No backtrack; just stating a reality of the movies industry… the actors get the credits.

To say people changed their opinion about a person being a good writer because they discovered this person’s political leanings means they thought this person (I cannot name if they are dead; your rule) was a good writer. Then a “subjective decision” out of a personal bias was made about this nameless person. Does this mean the person cannot write? Of course, it doesn’t and you know that. However, it may mean they don’t like the ideology, and will punish this unnamed person, by saying he/she is a bad writer. This is a totally, subjective view, and that is where you started, with the subjective, “I despise.”

A good critic is not subjective.

Anyhow, I must travel for a few days. Let me leave with this you with this thought.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle

Organized religions share a major characteristic with totalitarian government, they all seek to regulate the way that people live. Rand advocated personal responsibility and direction in all facets of life, so it makes perfect sense for her to oppose both the USSR and religion.

This has some truth to it in smaller Communistic states. The USSR, and China forbade religion, and Rand was Russian. Most organized religions abide by the laws of a "civil society," and these laws also regulate the way people live, usually for the better, however, not always. Nothing is perfect.

Most religions (not all), have modernized their organizations.