Don't bother arguing with this guy. Just take everything you say and put it through the "what would Ayn Rand say?" filter and you can pretty much generate most of his ideas by yourself.
On top of that, I don't think you have a deep understanding of her ideas (specifically her epistemology and metaphysics.)
--
Folks, would you judge Newton by his critics, or by reading the Principia and working through it yourself? Don't trust anyone to tell you what you shouldn't read!
Pop quiz: What would Ayn Rand call someone who just parroted someone else's intellectual work instead of coming up with their own?
P.S.: I'm very supportive of people reading Ayn Rand, if they're so inclined. In fact, if anyone wants to reimburse me for shipping, I'm willing to send them a free copy of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. That's an inclusive or; I'm trying to get rid of a lot of stuff before I move, so if you want both, let me know. I only have one copy of each, though. My email is in my profile.
> Pop quiz: What would Ayn Rand call someone who just parroted someone else's intellectual work instead of coming up with their own?
Why do you assert that I am a mere parrot? A student that draws free-body diagrams and calculates torques can't be said to be a parrot of Newton. Are we obligated to mention Newton's name every time we talk about a third-law pair, or in front of every use of "momentum"?
Clearly, there is nothing illegitimate about communicating an idea without attribution in this context. When I quote, I usually put in a link to the source, but that's not absolutely essential. In a web forum, just putting quote marks around a paragraph is enough, because people have search engines if they care enough to look.
--
Incidentally, have you ever tried to read Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?
Yes. I was pretty fanatically into Ayn Rand and probably a lot like you when I was 17 years old. I've grown out of it; while I appreciate Ayn Rand's influence on my intellectual development and genuinely encourage people to try and understand her ideas, I've found points of disagreement with much of her philosophy.
More to the point, I don't find it particularly useful or honest to contribute to discussions if one have nothing more to say than simply applying someone else's opinions to the topic at hand. It's not like physics at all; the solution to a physics problem can be non-obvious, whereas applying Objectivism to the idea of a guaranteed minimum income is a very straightforward exercise. (And, more to the point, not in the least bit convincing if you don't already believe in the Objectivism!)
I could not disagree more. You should read the debates Objectivists had over the NYC mosque issue, for example.
> I've grown out of it
I'm 30, and I've been studying it on and off for the last decade. I don't think I'm going to "grow out of it."
I'm interested in hearing what your most fundamental criticisms actually are.
Applying Objectivism to the NYC mosque issue is a little more sophisticated. That doesn't address my point, though, which is that it's trivial to apply Objectivism to the idea of a guaranteed minimum income.
I'm interested in hearing what your most fundamental criticisms actually are.
I get this a lot. I'd invite you to email me (and certainly won't complain if you do), but answering this question properly would frankly involve a lot of hard philosophical work that I don't have the time or focus for at the moment.
Why be so dismissive and insulting and then respond to the same poster you advised others to ignore?
I'd much rather read the predictable respectful discussion than a presumptive judgement designed to prevent discourse.
Edit: removed a redundant adjective.
My point (which you can view either as a tangent, or as a point of order) is that most of us are contributing original thoughts from our own perspectives, not simply adopting and commenting from the perspective of some novelist with some admittedly seductive ideas. If we were interested in Ayn Rand's ideas, we could read Ayn Rand herself. It's not useful to have her ideas proselytized to us.
But you can't properly speak for other users on this site ("us.") You can (and certainly have) spoken for yourself, but a claim to represent more seems pretentious at the least.
If you think the discussion is not useful, make an argument to support that claim. Link to criticism. Or demonstrate that the Randputer is not arguing in earnest.
If you don't consider the fact that you might be wrong, that there might be something useful about the discussion in question, then how are you any better than someone who won't consider that Rand might be wrong?