Maybe he's an Ethical Egoist?

>>9638

Nothing negative? Not even sarcastic? SUBTLEY sarcastic? He didn't give "THE STARE" towards anything regarding this book?

Man, just when you think you know a guy.

Oddly enough, I think a lot of people on the left do end up embracing certain aspects of objectivism. It's... very strange. I've been reading this series of near-future sci-fi novels with a very clear leftist bent, but they've clearly got some objectivist stuff in them. I mean, fuck, one of the main characters is named "Roarke".

He did his "It seems odd" thing. He constantly disagreed and "failed to understand" her work. (meaning he understood the message, but failed to get why this was positive) But he specifically recommends her biography, not her books.

He was doing his polite, "I disagree with you but you seem like a nice person so I don't want to offend you" interviews that you see every so often.

He seems to respect Rand as a person, but Stewart knows that the Objectivist ideals are out of reach for most people outside of the elite. I see him in the interview as respecting the source but criticizing Objectivism's resurgence among the conservatives. Stewart is quick to point out that proponents of the right only use Objectivist ideals when they see an opportunity to do so (or, as he says, when a democrat is in power) and then discard it the rest of the time.

I would recommend this interview to anyone reading this site because it sounds very much like Stewart would absolutely hate Naylor's subversion of Objectivist thought.

>>9658
>but Stewart knows that the Objectivist ideals are out of reach for most people outside of the elite

And yet, I can't see why you would encourage the elite to have the attitude. Because the attitude seems to be exceedingly narcissistic and "Money at any cost = success". Which is the antithesis of things like, y'know, safety, quality, etc. Selfishness is sort've the antithesis of liberal "spread the wealth" stuff.

I got the impression he was more bothered by the way the Right has such a love-hate, inconsistent relationship with Rand, than disliking objectivisim on the merits of it as a philosophy.

I couldn't really tell if the author Liked Rand, or was writing the book as more of a spotlight in the back-and-forth of her influence on the Right (since that is the focus of the book). Although I did raise a brow at her comment about them being good books. I mean, I got the impression that the novels aren't written WELL (lots and lots and lots of monologues, for instance).

I've seen leftists embrace Objectivism because they agree with its take on personal freedoms, confusing it with libertarianism. What they fail to understand however is that Objectivism endorses taking those freedoms for yourself at the expense of others.

>>9661
>What they fail to understand however is that Objectivism endorses taking those freedoms for yourself at the expense of others.

It does? Really? Could I see a citation on that little fabrication? Perhaps it's because I haven't had the mental fortitude necessary to read through my copy of Atlas Shrugged, but nowhere in her supplementary essays does Rand put forth the idea of 'taking' freedoms at the expense of others.

>>9659

I think the author was more interested in Rand's influence and history. And so the 'good book' statement could easily be about how influential the books were rather than their overall quality. Often, though, many books are hailed for their quality but have flaws that people overlook because of it's place in history ("The Iliad" poem has an entire section devoted to giving the names and ancestry of the army, or "The Lord of The Rings" trilogy is often bogged down by minute descriptions of the scenery or history of a location. Some people love it and others live with it since there is more to the book or story). But at the same time, both Stewart and Burns praise Rand for how smart she was. And, the fact that it was accepted by those in the masses but catered to the elites is, admittedly, pretty remarkable.

Would I ever adhere to it's values? Oh God, no. But I understand its appeal, especially in the United States.

Now let's play some Bioshock and follow it up with a viewing 'American Psycho' shall we?

>>9662
Even though Rand founded it, her works do not make up the whole of Objectivism in the same way that Marx and Tolstoy do not make up the whole of communism. Yeah you can argue "Well that's not really objectivism!" but movements have a tendency to drift away from their core tenants. Popular objectivism today is along the lines of "I want this so I'll take it". What Rand advocated was pretty much libertarianism with a healthy supply of psychedelics.

I'm still fundamentally confused on how Objectivism is different from the existing works of Kant or Nietzsche.

>>9676

objectivism is about being a selfish bastard at the expense of everyone else

neitche was into into the whole master/slave mentality. think of it as a reaction to christian teachings, which go that you must be meek (like a slave), or you get strong, take charge of life and do life-affirming things, instead of life-denying things. this is how he defines good or bad, by what is good for your life, and what is bad for your life.

immanuel kant: Kant asserted that, because of the limitations of argumentation in the absence of irrefutable evidence, no one could really know whether there is a God and an afterlife or not. For the sake of society and morality, Kant asserted, people are reasonably justified in believing in them, even though they could never know for sure whether they are real or not. (basically, Kant said 'use common sense')

hope that helps

>>9724

to (hopefully) clarify - from what i can understand

neitche sounds similar to objectivism, but from what i can see then its on a purely mental level he's talking, at least the bits i could find. he doesn't rule out cooperation and doesn't necesarily demonize helping others and being nice to others out of charity

kant appears to me to be more "we cant ever say whats right or wrong" - so use common sense

>>9673
Rand HATED libertarians. I'm not so sure her original views were so much different than the modern interpretation.

Perhaps this will give some insight on how Objectivists think: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html