How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon

[Stosh]

I pause at a moment of unintended clarity and intelligence from Elganned "We don't accept"..PRECISELY...AKA denial btw.

And an atypical "dodge the true issue" statement from our resident nonsenseical random psychobabble generator. Thanks for nothing.

Answer MY questions regarding the subject, if you dare. Seems as if you are deliberately skirting the issue regarding Rand's peculiar brand of hero worship.

[elganned]

*shrug* To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, denial of ideas that make no sense is no vice.

[ccbatson]

Umm...you didn't ask any questions for me to dodge Elganned...nice try.

[Stosh]

Umm...you didn't ask any questions for me to dodge Elganned...nice try.

But I did, and you still won't answer. At least in a logical manner, anyway.

But then again, the fourth handed response wouldn't be worth much. Or just the second hand opinion of a child murder.

[elganned]

Umm...you didn't ask any questions for me to dodge Elganned...nice try.

My post 103 was in response to your accusation of my being "in denial" from your post 100. It had nothing to do with Stosh's questions, it just happened to follow his post. Somehow the juxtapostion caused you to conflate them.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is, I believe, the technical term for this particular logical fallacy, which you seem to indulge in on a regular basis.

[ccbatson]

And the question was????

It is difficult to answer questions that only appear in someone's mind.

[Stosh]

And the question was????

It is difficult to answer questions that only appear in someone's mind.

Kind of like the questions one would usually have when their philosophical idol bases their worldview upon the writings of a psychopathic child killer.

[ccbatson]

Do you mean child killer because she was pro abortion?

She was, and she was wrong...I don't think she actually had, or performed any abortions though.

[Stosh]

Do you mean child killer because she was pro abortion?

She was, and she was wrong...I don't think she actually had, or performed any abortions though.

Christ. Here's a reprise.

Hardly out of context, a direct quote.

Rand was enamored with the case of one William Edward Hickman. She based her characters upon his character. The quote was his. I suggest you do a little research into the character of this fellow. It's quite enlightening.

And if you don't I'll tell you anyway.

Either way, Ayn's ideas are neither her own, or original. They are William Edward Hickman's ideas as Rand's ideas mimic his.

You really need to read this whole sordid little tale from beginning to end.

For now, here's a quote:

Quote:

In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. [[Quoted in Ryan, citing Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 21-22.)
At the time, she was planning a novel that was to be titled The Little Street, the projected hero of which was named Danny Renahan. According to Rand scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra, she deliberately modeled Renahan - intended to be her first sketch of her ideal man - after this same William Edward Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." [[Journals, pp. 27, 21-22; emphasis hers.)
"A wonderful, free, light consciousness" born of the utter absence of any understanding of "the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people." Obviously, Ayn Rand was most favorably impressed with Mr. Hickman. He was, at least at that stage of Rand's life, her kind of man.
So the question is, who exactly was he?
William Edward Hickman was one of the most famous men in America in 1928. But he came by his fame in a way that perhaps should have given pause to Ayn Rand before she decided that he was a "real man" worthy of enshrinement in her pantheon of fictional heroes.
You see, Hickman was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer.
Other than that, he was probably a swell guy.

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

[ccbatson]

This is your error...Rand was admiring the philosophy, as she knew it, of this man, not the man himself. This is exactly how I view Rand herself...I admire the objectivist philosophy...not so much the person [[as I have mentioned before). Truth be told [[and I am repeating myself) I imagine that I would not like the person that was Ayn Rand at all.

You don't need to love Newton, or Einstein, etc, to admire the ideas they brought to light.

[Stosh]

This is your error...Rand was admiring the philosophy, as she knew it, of this man, not the man himself. This is exactly how I view Rand herself...I admire the objectivist philosophy...not so much the person [[as I have mentioned before). Truth be told [[and I am repeating myself) I imagine that I would not like the person that was Ayn Rand at all.

You don't need to love Newton, or Einstein, etc, to admire the ideas they brought to light.

No this is your error. Admiring the philosophy, and adopting it for her own, is the act of a pure second hander. Plain and simple, her whole flawed constructs stemmed from the psychotic ravings of this lunatic.

Now, the whole premise of her philosophy is called into question, by virtue of the flawed nature of the philosophy itself. Admiring the philosophy indicates the admiration of the thought process behind it. The thought process is sociopathic on the basest level, derived from the theories of a convicted murderer and Nietzsche.

Her ideas are no more original than a photocopy's relation to a signed document.

And I agree, she is a piece of work, on a personal level. I think there's no separating the human being from the philosophy, really. Knowing full well where it comes from leaves a bad taste.

[ccbatson]

Sorry, that is not the definition of a second hander. It has nothing to do with philosophic belief and everything to do with a lack of respect for individual rights.

I also do not claim that she is the first to come up with the principles which she codified and labelled as Objectivism [[nor did she BTW). She collated the thoughts into a cohesive philosophy as well as any before her had [[maybe better).

[Stosh]

Sorry, that is not the definition of a second hander. It has nothing to do with philosophic belief and everything to do with a lack of respect for individual rights.

I also do not claim that she is the first to come up with the principles which she codified and labelled as Objectivism [[nor did she BTW). She collated the thoughts into a cohesive philosophy as well as any before her had [[maybe better).

I can't call her philosophy cohesive. I am positive she is a second hander. Derivitive, and a fourth rate writer. If her jargon and word style were any more stilted, I would have to walk around on 6 foot poles just to read it.

Everyone respects individual rights. It's the selfish [[read objectivists) that trample the rights of others, not the other way around. Sorry, you lose again.

[East Detroit]

If you guys aren't second handers, then why are you so concerned about what others think or believe that you have to argue on a public forum about it?

A person who is not a second hander wouldn't feel the need to justify oneself by looking for acceptance or convincing others his actions and beliefs are acceptable in such a public fashion.

Checkmate. Giggle. Yawn.

[elganned]

Oh, yeah?! Well if you weren't a second-hander, you wouldn't feel compelled to interject into their debate about second-handing...or...something.

So there!

[rb336]

Sorry, that is not the definition of a second hander. It has nothing to do with philosophic belief and everything to do with a lack of respect for individual rights.

and that doesn't fit ANY of the ways YOU have used the term. backpedaling, as usual.

of course, I must mention, once again, your incredibly narrow vision of "individual rights" which, statement after statement, you reduce to "rights of those with economic privilege"

[ccbatson]

It most certainly does fit my uses [[and you know it full well). Dagney's brother is the President of the initially private railroad, in collusion with collectivist government forces to take without earning via successful competition [[best product or service at lowest costs) from producers...that is a second hander and corporate socialism.

[elganned]

Perfect description of the current health care delivery system. Thanks for making my point, Cc.

[Stosh]

It most certainly does fit my uses [[and you know it full well). Dagney's brother is the President of the initially private railroad, in collusion with collectivist government forces to take without earning via successful competition [[best product or service at lowest costs) from producers...that is a second hander and corporate socialism.

Let's get one thing straight. It is FICTION. And in that light, so are your posts, and philosophy. Nothing more substantive than a vapor; or no more solid and less fragrant than swamp gas.

[East Detroit]

Oh, yeah?! Well if you weren't a second-hander, you wouldn't feel compelled to interject into their debate about second-handing...or...something.

So there!

Hahaha, love the response.

People look like such dopes when they "debate" with the ccbatson. That kid has nothing to offer except comic relief.

[ccbatson]

Yes Stosh, as is abundantly clear the works are both fiction, and philosophical with the fiction used as illustration of the concepts. That is and has been the premise all along...have you not been paying any attention?

[Stosh]

Yes Stosh, as is abundantly clear the works are both fiction, and philosophical with the fiction used as illustration of the concepts. That is and has been the premise all along...have you not been paying any attention?

And obviously you have not as well.

A philosophy based on fiction leads to this phenomena.



Don't be this guy. Reject Objectivism!

[ccbatson]

You do realize, by her own words, that the fiction followed the philosophy, not the other way around.

Only Scientology [[that I am aware) works things in that backward fashion, and we see what that produces.

[Stosh]

You do realize, by her own words, that the fiction followed the philosophy, not the other way around.

Only Scientology [[that I am aware) works things in that backward fashion, and we see what that produces.

Certainly. And you also know where she got that philisophy from. The murderer and sociopath she adored. Life imitating art, and art imitatiting life. How circular!

[ccbatson]

You expose ignorance...She came to that philosophy as a refuge from the communist revolution and from the promise that America held as the then [[and maybe still today) most capitalistic society to have ever existed. Not one man as you wrongly allege.