10

Ayn Rand: The Playboy Interview 1964

Posted by khalling 11 years, 6 months ago to Philosophy
116 comments | Share | Flag

You will find some basic answers to questions you may have and some answers might surprise you

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 6 months ago
    This was my favorite:
    PLAYBOY: Would you create any new government departments or agencies?

    RAND: No, and I truly cannot discuss things that way. I am not a government planner nor do I spend my time inventing Utopias. I'm talking about principles whose practical applications are clear. If I have said that I am opposed to the initiation of force, what else has to be discussed?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I thought about homeschooling too. (First angles, now pullouts. I can't take much more of this.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I want to respond to this, but give me a couple of days. My mom just passed away and I'm having trouble staying focused. I'm in the Gulch but not really feeling like arguing much. but I'll come back to this. ;)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    excellent pull out terrycan. That struck me as well when I read it. and it made me think about homeschooling..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, the one that's there doesn't stand up to the standards to which I grew accustomed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 6 months ago
    And here is where AR gets things fundamentally wrong:
    PLAYBOY: You mean original sin?

    RAND: Exactly. It is the concept of original sin that my heroine, or I, or any Objectivist, is incapable of accepting or of ever experiencing emotionally. It is the concept of original sin that negates morality. If man is guilty by nature, he has no choice about it.

    AR misconstrues original sin as being a stain on every human that cannot be removed. This is incorrect (although has been taught that way, and misconstrued in that way by many). It is merely a realization that there is no human that is perfect and can live their life without fault. Thus, original sin is merely a recognition that you will make mistakes. The important aspect of that is what you do about it. Do you accept responsibility for your failing, make amends to any who were wronged, and seek to improve yourself so that you don't continue to have that failing. I think that Ms. Rand would accept those aspects quite readily.

    If, as she declares, original sin meant what she says it means, then what would be the point in living one's life? If you were damned from the start, how does one redeem oneself? That is not the teaching of Christianity, with which Ms. Rand seems to hold the most strident opposition.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by terrycan 11 years, 6 months ago
    This one stuck out. Rand likes the idea of a stay at home Mom. If it is done correctly.

    PLAYBOY: In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?

    RAND: Not immoral -- I would say she is impractical, because a home cannot be a full-time occupation, except when her children are young. However, if she wants a family and wants to make that her career, at least for a while, it would be proper -- if she approaches it as a career, that is, if she studies the subject, if she defines the rules and principles by which she wants to bring up her children, if she approaches her task in an intellectual manner. It is a very responsible task and a very important one, but only when treated as a science, not as a mere emotional indulgence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrbeggs 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I thought so too. It is definitely about the approach and commitment to how one mothers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Excellent suggestion on starting with definitions.
    English is such an imprecise language. The idea of a word meaning two (or more) different things is anathema to rational thought, IMO.

    While there is the use in English vernacular to attribute a sense of accomplishment in achievement (either personal or vicarious) and label that "pride", I would propose for the context of this discussion the definition thus: pride is the idea or attitude that one's own view of something is correct and authoritative and therefore is not subject to adjustment or correction. Pride causes an unconscious bias (usually but not limited to confirmation bias) in any observations or conclusions.

    It is pride that leads to ad hominem attacks in political discourse. One can not bear the thought of having their predilection shown to be false or irrational and so in order to protect themselves, they justify their own worldview and false preconceptions by challenging the veracity of the "opponent" rather than the data or assumptions. Pride is what turns a joint search for truth into a competition. Pride is less concerned about _what_ is right and more concerned about _who_ is right.

    Honesty is useful in combating pride, but honesty is actually a comparison to a standard: it is a measure of compliance, not an attribute.

    Humility, however, is the active acknowledgement of the potential for bias in observation, judgement, or conclusion and is a commitment to minimize or (ideally) eliminate bias regardless of the effects to one's own ego, prestige, etc. It contributes to an objective search for truth on a fundamental level. Humility is getting back to _what_ is important rather than _who_ is important.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would. At the moment, furthering my goals and pursuing my own happiness could only be done by faking reality.

    Btw, plz send me a pm so I can reply to it. I have something to say to you and I cannot send a pm.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My definition of "Pride" is not the same as Egotism. Pride is that inside of you which makes moral judgment upon you. It is what makes you strive, because your pride demands you must be more than you are. It is what limits your actions, making you believe that you are "too good" to stoop to measures you consider immoral or unjust.

    In my philosophy, "Pride goeth before a fall" is quite true; you lose your pride, and therefore you fall. You become base, vulgar, animal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gtebbe 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "I told you, I only read it for the interviews!"

    Playboy was also known for interviewing some of the most influential people of our times; Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lennon, Eldridge Cleaver, Miles Davis, others.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    well, first i would say that "innateness" only extends to abilities. Let's first agree on a definition.
    Pride: a satisfied sense of attachment toward one's own or another's choices and actions
    I see that as a natural emotion experienced by gaining knowledge. There is such a thing as false pride-but that is not innate in humans
    I do not see the definition of pride interfering with rational thinking
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo