SPLIT: Ayn Rand... Was Unreality Based Self Defense

[Phil Elmore]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Translation: I was right about the near fascism, and right about the misogyny.

I believe I stated early on that Rand was, by her own admission a "male chauvinist" whose writings could be seen as misogynist (at least in certain portions). You most certainly were not right, however, about any "near fascism," nor have you managed to support such an assertion.

Fascism is government control. Rand's heroes consistently fight against government control. Atlas Shrugged is one long morality play about the destructive effects of government "fascism," as the government takes increasingly more control of private industry in an attempt to achieve utopia (while achieving the opposite -- the destruction of all society).

If you desire greater insight into the implications of her writing on feminist topics, you might find Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand edifying. I have it and I have read it. Have you?

Thanks. I see, though, that I left out the way that "foreignness," in these novels tends to be linked to evil.

You assert this, yet provide no examples of it. I can provide an example, though it doesn't prove your assertion -- the portion in Atlas Shrugged in which part of the Taggart line is nationalized by socialist Mexico. An ignorant critic could, I suppose, point to this as linking "foreignness" with evil, but he or she would be missing completely the point that it is a criticism of socialist government policy (to which a nation like Mexico is closer than our own, at least at the time of Rand's writing).

 

[rmcrobertson]

I see. There's no link between foreigness and evil in this sort of ideology, it's just that evil is associated with dirty rotten socialism Rand perceived to exist in Mexico.

And the phallicization of women characters--rendering them as men, essentially, since actual femininity appears to be experienced as threatening--is actually feminism.

Oh well. At least we're discussing ideas rather than yelling quite so much. I'd advise, though, that you just present your ideas rather than trying to teach me how to do lit crit--in that particular field, you're trying to teach your grandma how to suck eggs.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Do you approach every debate in this petulant and intellectually bankrupt fashion?

I see. There's no link between foreigness and evil in this sort of ideology, it's just that evil is associated with dirty rotten socialism Rand perceived to exist in Mexico.

She certainly viewed socialism as evil. If you wish to support your assertion that there is some link between "evil" and "foreigness" [sic], you are welcome to offer illustrative examples, but you haven't and I suspect you won't. I don't fault you for that; it would be difficult for anyone attempting to argue from memory about books they read once years ago.

And the phallicization of women characters--rendering them as men, essentially, since actual femininity appears to be experienced as threatening--is actually feminism.

I did not say that. I said if you were interested in exploring feminist commentary on Rand's writing, there's an excellent text through which you could do just that. You've missed one of the most "phallic" of concepts within Rand's fiction, too -- the worship of the skyscraper and of "creation" in the Fountainhead.

It seems I'm doing a better job of arguing your poorly defined points than you are doing, though ultimately the assertions you're making don't really support your underlying thesis (the scholarly assertion that Rand was a "racist doodyhead").

Oh well. At least we're discussing ideas rather than yelling quite so much.

At least I am discussing ideas; I'm not sure what you're doing.

I'd advise, though, that you just present your ideas rather than trying to teach me how to do lit crit--in that particular field, you're trying to teach your grandma how to suck eggs.

"Teach your grandma how to suck eggs?" If you continue in this fashion you'll have devolved past Pee Wee Herman to the status of intellectual fetus before this is over.

You have demonstrated a marked inability to discuss ideas substantively, preferring instead to act like a child. I could take both sides of this argument and probably give myself a challenge from either perspective. I'm not sure what you're doing here, but it isn't quite "discussing ideas."

Isn't it roughly time for you to declare that you're through with this thread again?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Phil:

I see no point at all in continuing this conversation. As before, I apologize for my initial bad manners. However, they do not legitimate your insults.

You may find this sort of pseudo-intellectual badminton fun; I gave it up some time ago, and should have known better than to pick up that particular silly racket again.

Enjoy what you will doubtless conceive as the victory of "objective," and "realist," discussion. And in your response, which I will be avoiding, enjoy having the last word.

 

[Cryozombie]

Is this rilly the end or what?

 

[Phil Elmore]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I see no point at all in continuing this conversation. As before, I apologize for my initial bad manners. However, they do not legitimate your insults.

You are blind to your own insults, but complain about those used in equal measure in response.

You may find this sort of pseudo-intellectual badminton fun; I gave it up some time ago, and should have known better than to pick up that particular silly racket again.

Actually, I prefer fully intellectual bandminton, but when faced only with ignorant pseudo-intellectuality in the form of a critic who complains about literature and individuals of which and whom he has only limited knowledge, I must be content to work with the lesser challenges presented.

Enjoy what you will doubtless conceive as the victory of "objective," and "realist," discussion. And in your response, which I will be avoiding, enjoy having the last word.

Anyone want to take bets on whether this really is his last response to the thread?

 

[Cruentus]

Hey...I'll strike up a constructive conversation about Ayn Rand...why not.

Iwas wondering, Phil, just because you seem to have read a lot about Rand's philosophies, which I have not, do you actually like and agree with her philosophies, or do you disagree? Regardless of you answer, what specifically do you like/dislike, and why.

I directed this towards Phil, but anyone knowledgable on the subject can answer. I alway like to learn more.

 

[Phil Elmore]

I like it quite a lot and agree with most of it. Where she and I diverge is on the topic of spirituality. Rand was an atheist, but I am not.