Ayn Rand-loving CEO destroys his empire

[bannination]

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_ran ... e_partner/

Woops.

[JTA]

Oh no not Ayn Rand...

The funniest thing in the world is the love and praise of Ayn Rand by some people who are very religious. They evidently have never read anything by her.... Atheistic to the core.

[bannination]

Oh no not Ayn Rand...

The funniest thing in the world is the love and praise of Ayn Rand by some people who are very religious. They evidently have never read anything by her.... Atheistic to the core.

... and non-believers in general do not like her philosophy... it is strange that's for sure. Well maybe not, one of the largest criticisms of her philosophy was that it lacked logical coherence.... sounds perfect for religious people

[bannination]

. . . and a happy recipient of Social Security and Medicare.

Which makes perfect sense from her point of view, that being to only care about "self" and not society as a whole.

[JTA]

Oh no not Ayn Rand...

The funniest thing in the world is the love and praise of Ayn Rand by some people who are very religious. They evidently have never read anything by her.... Atheistic to the core.

... and non-believers in general do not like her philosophy... it is strange that's for sure. Well maybe not, one of the largest criticisms of her philosophy was that it lacked logical coherence.... sounds perfect for religious people

Just to be clear when I say atheistic to the core I don't mean it's based on atheism. Atheism is just one of the logical conclusions if you follow her philosophical reasoning. Not even agnosticism is accepted by Rand, since according to her it's completely illogical for something to neither be true nor false.

Her "philosophy" is based off of existence. Things exist. Our consciousness observes things that exist from them and the law of identity (A=A) and non-contradiction, we produce concepts and ideas. Keep going and eventually you end up with abstract concepts like government and liberty and morality, but Rand explains that ultimately if something is true it can be traced back to things that exist and the law of identity. A rock is a rock. A bird is a bird. For Rand concepts are valid when they adhere to observable "reality" and existence. God is not an observable entity, and the only knowledge we have of god is via the bible (as far as I know), which is not irrefutable proof of God's existence. Because we can't prove or disprove (impossible I know but bear with me) the existence of God, predicating concepts on the belief in the existence of God is faulty. Anything abstracted from that would therefore be faulty since it's not based off of observable "Objective" reality. If the foundation is not solid, the whole structure is invalid.

Hence Rand's philosophical atheism, and the absurdity of anyone with religions convictions adhering to her philosophy.

[bannination]

Oh no not Ayn Rand...

The funniest thing in the world is the love and praise of Ayn Rand by some people who are very religious. They evidently have never read anything by her.... Atheistic to the core.

... and non-believers in general do not like her philosophy... it is strange that's for sure. Well maybe not, one of the largest criticisms of her philosophy was that it lacked logical coherence.... sounds perfect for religious people

Just to be clear when I say atheistic to the core I don't mean it's based on atheism. Atheism is just one of the logical conclusions if you follow her philosophical reasoning. Not even agnosticism is accepted by Rand, since according to her it's completely illogical for something to neither be true nor false.

Her "philosophy" is based off of existence. Things exist. Our consciousness observes things that exist from them and the law of identity (A=A) and non-contradiction, we produce concepts and ideas. Keep going and eventually you end up with abstract concepts like government and liberty and morality, but Rand explains that ultimately if something is true it can be traced back to things that exist and the law of identity. A rock is a rock. A bird is a bird. For Rand concepts are valid when they adhere to observable "reality" and existence. God is not an observable entity, and the only knowledge we have of god is via the bible (as far as I know), which is not irrefutable proof of God's existence. Because we can't prove or disprove (impossible I know but bear with me) the existence of God, predicating concepts on the belief in the existence of God is faulty. Anything abstracted from that would therefore be faulty since it's not based off of observable "Objective" reality. If the foundation is not solid, the whole structure is invalid.

Hence Rand's philosophical atheism, and the absurdity of anyone with religions convictions adhering to her philosophy.

Well, it is possible to pick out her good ideas and adhere to those without adopting the whole shenanigans.... I don't find that's the way religious people are generally, but it's possible. Usually once one says they are an atheist in a religious crowd, that usually means it's an evil person and all their ideas are from hell. It's very ironic, I agree with you.