Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

So per Ramd, "benevolent" universe = "indifferent" universe. Indifferent is something else than "benevolent".

Her then calling "reality" "benevolent" doesn't make her odd word choice any better. More later.

Why? So AR could get literary sometimes. Imagine that. What a horrible, insufficient person she must have been. I do not know why Xray is treating Ayn Rand as a pinata, but she's not wearing a blindfold.

--Brant

I had to look up what you mean by pinata - jmpo, but imo the pinata here is some vague "enemy group" Rand attacked throughout in her work, calling them "they". That "they" group comprises "looters", "moochers", "altruists", etc.

I believe Rand never got over the traumatic experience of having been rejected by her mother, as well as later by her childhood peers, and also of her family being rejected and opressed by the Soviet regime.

One of these rejections alone would have been extreme stress factor in a person's life, and Ayn Rand had to suffer from three.

She took this feelng of beig surroundedby "enemies" with her as long as she lived, and imo also her "sacrficial animal" theme tems from the trauma she went through. It conveys the feeling of helplessness oppressed people can have, like animals led to be slaughtered. And they often were killed, but not as 'sacrifices'. When e. g. Stalin ruthlessly murdered his opponents, he did not do this to sacrifice anything, but removed them because they stood in his way as obstacles preventing him to reach his subjectively chosen goal: absolute power

"The “benevolent universe” does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you." (Rand)

Wouldn't if have been clearer if Rand had simply stated "There no such thing as a "malevolent universe since "universe" is no volitinal entity?

But there was more to it; imo for a person as concerned about terminology as Rand, her use of "benevolent" was more than taking poetic liberty:

"Although accidents and failures are possible, they are not, according to Objectivism, the essence of human life. On the contrary, the achievement of values is the norm—speaking now for the moral man, moral by the Objectivist definition. Success and happiness are the metaphysically to-be-expected. In other words, Objectivism rejects the view that human fulfillment is impossible, that man is doomed to misery, that the universe is malevolent. We advocate the “benevolent universe” premise." (Rand)

So "benevolent" was clearly created as an opposing term to "malevolent" universe (a belief allegedy held by "them").

Why do you think it was so hard for Rand to accept that one day, all life on our planet may be extinguished because of the sun beig extinguished? If she was an atheist, why bother? If it is all natural law, why did this upset her? (At least it upset the figures in her novel, so one can assume it preoccupied Rand too).

Edited September 12, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

So it gets down to your dime store psychological wet dream wherein you project a "traumatic experience" and input your selectively distorted perceptions of the world to come up with the following pap:

"I believe Rand never got over the traumatic experience of having been rejected by her mother, as well as later by her childhood peers, and also of her family being rejected and oppressed by the Soviet regime.

One of these rejections alone would have been extreme stress factor in a person's life, and Ayn Rand had to suffer from three.

She took this feeling of being surrounded by "enemies" with her as long as she lived, and imo also her "sacrificial animal" theme stems from the trauma she went through. It conveys the feeling of helplessness oppressed people can have, like animals led to be slaughtered. And they often were killed, but not as 'sacrifices'. When e. g. Stalin ruthlessly murdered his opponents, he did not do this to sacrifice anything, but removed them because they stood in his way as obstacles preventing him to reach his subjectively chosen goal: absolute power."

Here in red are your selected distortions wherein you provide not one single objective referent for support. The blue represents your incessant injection of psychological fantasies that are frankly as flat out inaccurate as they are self serving. The pink/purple could be anyone of your psychotic associational examples - I guess the first one is your Peta strain and the second your simple view of history, e.g, exterminating segments of the professional classes that he needed to be an industrial power was not a sacrifice in your limited historical analysis.

But at least you are attempting to cherry pick longer quotes from Ayn.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

A pinata is a paper-mache gaily painted over-head suspended figure filled with candy and toys blindfolded Mexican children whack at with sticks to break it open, especially on birthdays, Xmas, etc.

--Brant

Edited September 12, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

A pinata is a paper-mache gaily painted over-head suspended figure filled with candy and toys blindfolded Mexican children whack at with sticks to break it open, especially on birthdays, Xmas, etc.

--Brant

Thanks for explaining it here; I know now because I had looked it up when reading the term in your # 1150 post.

The "whacking of a figure" part made me associate how often other figures get a figurative whacking from Rand: the so-called "altruists", "looters", "moochers", or simply "they".

Edited September 12, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

A pinata is a paper-mache gaily painted over-head suspended figure filled with candy and toys blindfolded Mexican children whack at with sticks to break it open, especially on birthdays, Xmas, etc.

--Brant

Thanks for explaining it, but I know now because I had looked it up when reading the term in your post.

The "whacking of a figure" part made me associate how often other figures get a whacking from Rand: the so-called "altruists", "looters", "moochers", or simply "they".

Ain't she wonderful?

--Brant

[Selene]

xray:

"...so-called "altruists", "looters", "moochers", or simply "they"." as opposed to what ...an altruist is ______________________. fill it in 3 card monte girl.

Adam

[Xray]

xray:

"...so-called "altruists", "looters", "moochers", or simply "they"." as opposed to what ...an altruist is ______________________. fill it in 3 card monte girl.

Adam

Why do you want me to define "altruist"? The meaning of the term is quite clear, isn't it?

So it gets down to your dime store psychological wet dream wherein you project a "traumatic experience" and input your selectively distorted perceptions of the world to come up with the following pap:

"I believe Rand never got over the traumatic experience of having been rejected by her mother, as well as later by her childhood peers, and also of her family being rejected and oppressed by the Soviet regime.

One of these rejections alone would have been extreme stress factor in a person's life, and Ayn Rand had to suffer from three.

She took this feeling of being surrounded by "enemies" with her as long as she lived, and imo also her "sacrificial animal" theme stems from the trauma she went through. It conveys the feeling of helplessness oppressed people can have, like animals led to be slaughtered. And they often were killed, but not as 'sacrifices'. When e. g. Stalin ruthlessly murdered his opponents, he did not do this to sacrifice anything, but removed them because they stood in his way as obstacles preventing him to reach his subjectively chosen goal: absolute power."

Here in red are your selected distortions wherein you provide not one single objective referent for support. The blue represents your incessant injection of psychological fantasies that are frankly as flat out inaccurate as they are self serving. The pink/purple could be anyone of your psychotic associational examples - I guess the first one is your Peta strain and the second your simple view of history, e.g, exterminating segments of the professional classes that he needed to be an industrial power was not a sacrifice in your limited historical analysis.

But at least you are attempting to cherry pick longer quotes from Ayn.

A question: have you read Barbara Branden's book, Selene?

Edited September 12, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

And that is relevant how? Or fif I miss the quotes around Barbara's statements?

Edited September 12, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

And that is relevant how? Or fif I miss the quotes around Barbara's statements?

Barbara's book gives an excellent insight into Rand's early years; the rejection by her mother as well as by her peers is mentioned in the book, as are the difficulties of her family in being rejected and oppressed by the Soviet regime.

The book is must-read imo, as well as a great read - excellently written. Rarely have I found a biography as compelling as the "The Passion of Ayn Rand."

Edited September 13, 2009 by Xray

[shadesofgrey]

Rand: "A man is defined by his relationship to the universe, a woman by her relationship to a man."

Any female Ojectivists here who would like to comment on this? I'm very interested in their opinion.

And what do the others think of Rand's statement?

Xray,

Rand was wrong.

There. Feel better?

Michael

Yeah I think that's pretty much a load of crap, too. Rand was human and had preferences like anyone else (a fact that I think tends to be forgotten). If she wanted to see women as in a complimentary role to men or dependent upon them or their relationship for meaning, then so be it; she's free to have that opinion. But that's ALL it is, an opinion. Would I say it's applicable to every woman out there? Absolutely not. To assume so would be the height of arrogance.