Ayn Rand Interviewed By Alvin Toffler For Playboy. 1964

PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties?

RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral.

literally a retard

^ Agree

IN BEFORE NOCA... never mind.

literally a retard

meep writes one train book and think's she all president of morals n meep.

I dunno guys, I read the whole interview and it sounded pretty solid. Lets hear some more arguments against the actual content rather than just name calling. Nocal's the only one who actually pointed out something that sounded questionable, and even that was pretty weak if you put it into context.

context.

yeah i really had to struggle to strip that quote of all pertinent context

you meepgot

hey ya'll when i say literally meepgots and retards meep literally is what I mean

Lets hear some more arguments against the actual content rather than just name calling.

Bro, you need to learn the culture before you visit the country.

I've got an argument against the content! Its in all those links I submitted.

PLAYBOY: You attack the idea that meep is 'impervious to reason.' But isn't meep a nonrational biological instinct?

RAND: No. To begin with, man does not possess any instincts.

Hrrrrm?

This neocon / quasi-religious philosophy that man is devoid of any animal/base instincts is completely wrong. She states that a man would starve if he didn't 'think' he realized he needed food, and he didn't 'think' on how to acquire said food. The first assumption is completely off, because one's hunger pangs don't require thinking, they are a naturally response / instinct to starving, so one instinctively will shove whateverthemeep into one's mouth, unless one's instincts tell him not to.

Being a reformed objectivismist, I find many of these theories and conclusions quite interesting and somewhat amusing when looking at them again... after 30 extra years of life since first reading and thinking about them. Not to say there aren't interesting ideas in the philosophy, but they practically cannot be absolutes (black and white), which is exactly what this and all philosophical tenants hang their hat on.

I know realize what a cold hearted meep I was when I applied these principles to my fellow man, especially those that could never live up to these ideals because of their own fault or a by cirmeepstance. Embracing and expressing more humanist philosophies made living Objectivism's philosophy in whole untenable. The result is that I feel more human and happy, because I'm applying a set of rules that I feel are actually applicable to the current game we are all playing, rather than some artificial ideals that would never work with humans...but would be great with androids or other purely computational based entities.

Feeling fisted by the Invisible Hand of the Market lo these past fifteen months? Lost a job lately? Or half the value of your 401(k)? Or a home? All three? Been wondering whence the too-long-ascendant political and economic ideas and forces behind Greenspanism, John Thainism, blind Wall Street plunder, bankruptcy, credit-default swaps, Bernie Madoff, and the ensuing Cannibalism in the Streets? Then you, sir, need to give thanks to Ayn Rand Assholes everywhere-as well as the steely loins from which they sprang.

*It most certainly is. I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world. Let us define this. What is meant by the expression 'black and white'? It means good and evil. Before you can identify anything as gray, as middle of the road, you have to know what is black and what is white, because gray is merely a mixture of the two. And when you have established that one alternative is good and the other is evil, there is no justification for the choice of a mixture. There is no justification ever for choosing any part of what you know to be evil. *

This is just meeping dumb.

If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life.

The only man capable of experiencing a profound romantic love is the man driven by passion for his work-because love is an expression of self-esteem

If your going to eat ugly, you might just as well eat it cold.

Huh... obviously there are some strong feelings here...

Thanks for the reply Bigdinwaunakee. I am confused by some of the things you said though.

'This neocon philosophy...- - From my readings and understanding, objectivism seems pretty contradictory to neoconservatism. (Altho the only neocons I know are Bush and his cronies.)

I admit the 'no instinct in humans- thing kind of confounded me too. But it kind of seems irrelevant in the overall philosophy. Also I can sort of pass it off as her meaning more complex instincts, like how a cat knows how to hunt, or bird mating dances, etc. Complex types of instincts humans don't appear to have.

'cold hearted meep- and 'more humanist philosophies- - LOL, ok that part really confused me, because when I read this interview it seemed to me to be the most humanist philosophy I have ever come across. What is more humane that feeling that every person should be free from force and free to live life how he or she wants, to not fear that your blood and sweat will be forcibly taken from you to support a cause you don't agree with? Frankly it seems her views (in a political sense) can encompass many beliefs, for example if you are a Liberal minded person, and you feel it is your duty to support the needy, you are free to do so (set-up charities etc.). And you are free to convince others to do so as well, but you are not free to force others to do so. A society that is based on mutual and free agreement sounds more humanist to me than a society that implements force - no matter how small that force may be.

LORDKAHUNA's comment suggested that Ayn Rand's ideas are responsible for the financial crisis. I didn't see the connection since her ideas are not in use. I don't think America has a true free-market system. But I did some searching and found this:

http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/04/the_economy_nee_1.html

Also I disagree with your opinion of the Black and White statement. I think it is pretty straight forward and quiet clever.

really couldn't care less about this same old argument. but, for clarity's sake, ayn rand actually had little to nothing to do with the rise of neo-conservatism in america. as far as US fiscal policy, it wasn't until the 1980s that her 'philosophy' was put to use as the popular justification for dramatic (catastrophic) economic changes.

and i still don't think she was a bad writer. just sayin.