I've read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. And, recently as things would have it due to a project at work.

The most objectionable thing is what I have outlined above, that objectivism includes the dehumanizing of women to attain the object -- even to the point of rape. I cite chapter and verse.

Well, if you only went this far, you'd be in the church's ballpark. Until Sec 132 is removed from the canon, that is.

Ayn Rand's moral philosophy wasn't hedonistic. Not in the formal sense I doubt is being implied and not in the lay sense of "do what gives you immediate gratification." She was critical of the former and deeply critical of the later. She was an egoist, though. Just like the theist is implying when he asserts that the believer in God has some moral advantage over the non because God can create ultimate consequences for people.

There you go; fundamentally an apostate's position. Another person who has not read Rand, I suppose. The rape scene is a cartoonish scene out of some sort of romance novel. Not remotely related to plural marriage, but there you have it.

Not at all, rocket. I was not present when Sec 132 was canonized, nor am I required to observe every stupid thing in the canon. What is apostate about that?



Hell, no.



Rape is cartoonish? Wow.

I have interacted with the hardcore objectivist crowd in a way that gives you a devout religious feeling. That's largely superficial, I think. What gives that sense is the dogmatism and thought-terminating cliches, the reverence for the leader's sayings, and the blinding bias that makes them seem impervious to logical discourse. All centering around a philosophy of living that purports to answer some big questions. It isn't religion, but I see how people can feel like they've stumbled on a cult.

Well, Rand had some great ideas. She also had some unhealthy ones.

Healthy: Man/Woman exists for their own purpose, value for value, self worth is both earned and chosen, the pitfalls of collectivism, bravery in the face of overwhelming opposition, and atheism.

Unhealthy: Odd nationalism, odd sexual ideas, this strange sense of superiority around the little people, using violence to oppose intellectual property, no sense of personal honor

Personally, I could take Rand or leave her. She influenced me in my political journey. I picked, i chose, I am a cafeteria anarchist.

:D long book, though.

But, to conquer my ADD, to address Dr. Shades.

Yes, yes, yes. The Bible and Book of Mormon are complete and utter crap. You wanna talk about unhealthy sex or relationships with people?

Herregud!

As is often as usual, your posts are disingenuous.

I agree with EA and gramps.

One point I have to make though, Alan Greenspan's arguments for a gold standard have a very "tier two" apologetic feel.

Rand's economics was absolutely naïve when compared to the elucidation of Moses on the economics of the City of Enoch. Jesus Christ, Will. You Mormon folk just kill me sometimes.

Will someone PM Droopy? We need to bring him in as a consultant on this one.

Objectivism could dovetail nicely with message board Laissez-faireism. Rand certainly was not a fan of Religion.

Gordon Gecko was a big booster of Rand's philosophy.

That explains so much.

The truth is somewhere inbetween here. Rand believed you should do whatever meets your own interests. She thought you were morally obligated to act in your own interest at all times. If that included cheating, then cheat away. She also happened to argue that it made sense to refrain from things like cheating because that fosters an environment that might come back to hurt you. You might want to do it, but it isn't in your interest. So the self-interested thing to do is to refrain from cheating. Ultimately, she thought that people's rational self-interests ultimately would not conflict with anyone else's rational self-interests. This creates a bit of a conundrum for how the reader should read this. On the one hand, Rand believes in something like libertarian negative rights being in harmony with every individual acting selfishly. In other words, she thinks acting selfishly means respecting libertarian rights. As a result, she is opposed to all those bad things listed above. But on the other hand, we as readers can appreciate that her harmony thesis is actually wrong and that everyone acting in self-interest would not produce something like the arrangement she imagines. That does open the door to things like cheating, destroying lives, etc.

So when discussing what Rand thinks, we can talk about the consequences of her thought or what she thought the consequences of her thought was. She wasn't hedonistic at all, though. Shryver isn't the ideal person to be talking here.


I linked an essay that was very detailed in answering this.

Thanks.

Let's leave Rand herself aside for now and return to the opening post: Is Atlas Shrugged superior to the LDS Standard Works when it comes to a practical method of living, or isn't it?

I don't think the LDS standard works provides a coherent practical method for living. It's a diverse body of work. I already said this.

"Diverse," or "incoherent?"

Diverse, with occasional divergence into incoherency.

No. Trying to follow practically Rand's philosophy will likely lead to a life of misery. The standard works are superior.

Giddyanton:

Not only naïve, but vastly inferior as well. I’m gratified that we’ve found some common ground on this point.


Unfortunately, you ... just ... won’t ... stay ... dead.

Maybe we need a longer stake …
.
.
.
Delusion:

Really? Why thinkest thou so? Who would be the “ideal person,” in your judgment?
.
.
.
Shades:

I maintain that Atlas Shrugged describes a moral and economic philosophy that sounds somewhat plausible in theory but breaks down entirely in practice, leading to personal and societal degradation.

On the other hand, the “Law of the Celestial Kingdom” describes a moral and economic philosophy that sounds nearly impossible in theory, but which—when actually put in practice—results in unprecedented personal and societal advancement.

What, exactly, are you including in your "Law of the Celestial Kingdom"?

What, exactly, are you saying qualifies as "personal and societal advancement"?

And what, exactly, are you using as the example on which you base this broad assertion?