About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, December 7, 2007 - 6:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you for an interesting article. I'm curious as to whom it is directed and for what purpose? In English, it would be rather hard reading, so I wonder why someone would choose to read you, when they can read Ayn Rand in the original? Also, although interesting in how you pose ideas, the article should be polished so as to make it a much easier read.

No doubt, present-day art is a disaster but what is being done to counter this trend? Most Objectivist art I have seen is so removed from the real world and everyday life as to be close to something out of a science fiction poster...heroic Howard Roark types typical of communist and fascist art, extolling the superman of the future. What most Objectivists can't admit is that Rand's fictional characters are fictional. John Galt has as much to do with life as a James Bond character.

If you look at the art of Remington, one sees the uplifted mixed in with the real world, which is something Objectivism lacks. Many Objectivists can't live in this world because that have to be perfect. Perfect characters don't exist. Art is uplifting but it also has to be real in order to have credibility, or else it is more of the same Objectivist mental masturbation.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Sunday, December 9, 2007 - 8:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Keats:

This writing is the final part (Chapters 7 and 8) of a whole book, which was published by courtesy of the "Rebirth of Reason" webpage. You can find the whole series, starting with "Ayn Rand and Rational Egoism", which was written in lieu of a prologue for the book, at http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Schieder/Ayn_Rand_and_Rational_Egoism_The_dynamo_of_human_progress.shtml.

Your comment that Ayn Rand should be read in the original is nothing new and merely reveals that you haven't read my work, for I specifically mention your suggestion already in the "General Comment" of Chapter 1 of the series (See: http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Schieder/Ayn_Rand,_I_and_The_Universe_Part_1.shtml). I took up the task of providing a unique proof of the non-existence of any "god" (unique in the sense that I couldn't find my argument nor any other writings closely related to it among the works of other atheists). To this I added to the philosophy of Ayn Rand specific ideas of my own. However, my book would have run the chance to look incomplete if I hadn't added what the logically related conclusion that my arguments on the non-existence of any "god", the falsehood of any religion and the description of the structure of the universe necessarily yields: the complete set of ideas that make up the philosophy of Objectivism. But I mentioned this too at the beginning of the series.

 

Further on, to protest that it is unnecessary to "repeat" Ayn Rand's ideas doesn't make any sense. Worldwide there are hundreds of thousands of "Cliff Notes", summaries, etc. of every philosophical, political, moral, esthetic work of literature existing. So why shouldn't we add ours? In what refers to Objectivism itself, there are too many to be even named. It suffices to call your attention to the excellent works presented by the management and people related with "Rebirth of Reason" itself, such as http://objectivism101.com/ and

http://members.tripod.com/AttitudeAdjustment/Books/OPAR.htm. Moreover, the world of academe has always rejected Objectivism under the excuse that it had never been presented in a "structured" way, whatever this may mean. Professor Leonard Peikoff took up this task ("Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand"), splendidly covering this demand and revealing with it that academe had only used it as an excuse to not be bothered with the fundamentally really uniquely new philosophy that Ayn Rand deduced from reality itself. For, in spite of Dr. Peikoff's works, academe continues to reject Objectivism (though now they have run out of the former "argument" of requiring it to be presented in a "structured" way).

 

My book was written in plain, easily understandable English. If it contains a few terms that aren't used in everyday's speech (such as, for example, "epistemology"), none of these are unknown either to Objectivists or to scholars of philosophy in general, for these terms - as the one just mentioned - are part not just of Objectivism but also of every philosophical work itself. Should some reader find them somewhat arcane, it will be necessary for him to start learning philosophy itself or take the nearest available dictionary to find the definition (Wikipedia is very useful for this). Besides, please look at chapter 8 of my book; it's a glossary of terms used.

 

I also can't agree with your request to know what is being done nowadays against the so-called "modern art" (this term REALLY needs explanation, since neither those who first set it up - the left-wing "artists" of "Avant Garde" at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century - nor those who followed them, ever explained what it means) as nowadays there are the artists of "Romantic Realism". They may be few, but fast growing in numbers - as I mention in my writing - and their works are totally related to reality and fully understandable (against the smears of Pollock, Nitsch, and the like). Accusing the characters of Roark, Galt and so forth to come out of communist and fascist art, decries the fact that you are totally missing the philosophical basis that places the Objectivist heroes completely at the opposite end of communist-fascist figures. It's no big news that Roark, Galt, etc. are fictional characters. So are Hugo's and Rostand's and, by the way, all other characters of left-wing (and not-left-wing) fantasy. I never thought that Zola's, Victor Marguerite's characters, or Sinclair Lewis Babbitt ever existed physically. They are fictional models, but so are Superman, Batman and The Fantastic Four. They stand for ideal types, but even kids reading comic strips are perfectly aware of this. To accuse Objectivism of not having "real" archetypes is, further on, very wrong. In fact, it is precisely Objectivism that presents more and more "real life" heroes: for example the editor of The Fountainhead, Ogden, or the valiant publishers of the Spanish edition of Ayn Rand's works in Argentina, who distribute these books through Latin America, or all those Webpage promoters presenting Objectivist's ideas against hell and damnation, so to speak. As a matter of fact, not long ago, an Egyptian newspaperman, evidently of the Al-Qaida type, commented that, compared with Peikoff (we may not always agree with Peikoff, but he stands as one of the main representatives of Objectivism), Bush comes close to be a figure like Mother Teresa for the Arab world (Personally I don't consider this sister to be a hero either). So you ask for heroes? We don't need any "mental masturbations" (your term) for them, for we have galore in the real world and already right now!



(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 12/09, 10:04pm)


Post 2

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 5:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have to say that you misread and misunderstood my entire post which is rather interesting. I see that you respond in the often-seen, amongst Objectivists, omnipotent voice, as if your abstractions and conclusions can be seen as aspects of reality.

You say, "My book was written in plain, easily understandable English." How do you derive this conclusion? I am a professor of English at a state university in Florida, and have taught English literature for many years. Hence, I would know nothing about readibility and comprehension. Even more, I asked some of my advanced students to read parts of your book. The answer was always the same, "very hard to read and understand.
 
Again, an interesting read but why not a little humility in the process? 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Friday, December 14, 2007 - 8:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mr. Keats:

 

The first sentence of your message (Post 2) managed to invert what you sustain in your first post, for it is now I who find it extremely difficult, nay, practically impossible to understand what you mean when holding that I "misread and misunderstood" your post. Could you please explain this to render it easier to understand? What did I "misread and misunderstood" and how did I do so?

 

The second sentence evidently connects to the last sentence of your post, as you state that Objectivists "often (use) an omnipotent voice" while you would rather prefer "a little humility". Humility may be a virtue to religions but it is a fault to Objectivists, not being the adequate environment for knowledge.

 

Understanding what I wrote must not have presented any difficulty to any of the readers of my book and further articles, since none, excepting you, complained about my style or wording. Thus, it seems to me that the difficulty to understand my writing lays not in the text itself but rather in the eyes of a particular beholder. Further on, having already asserted twice that what I wrote is an interesting read, reveals that you and your students understood at least the general gist of its content. To clarify where it was so complicate to understand, it would have been convenient to cite a few paragraphs and analyze them. This, however, was avoided.

 

Should it, though, be related to any technical detail that may be alien to the area of literature as such (as poetry and the like would be), then the purported obscurity is not connected with what I wrote but with the fact that I write on matters that have little if any attachment to the belles lettres, i.e. imaginative writings as distinguished from technical and scientific analysis, especially when characterized by a polished, highly literary style and, often, a somewhat dilettantish manner. My writing has no pretension whatsoever to belong to such artistic literary undertakings. For these I prefer to read Zweig, Schnitzler, etc.

 

In general - pardon me if I sense you wrongly - the context of your messages yields the impression that you feel no sympathy for Objectivism. Thus, it conveys another of those by now boring efforts to discredit the splendid philosophy of Objectivism.


Post 4

Saturday, November 22, 2008 - 3:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Manfred Schieder;

                               I'm on the 3rd. chapter of your book and couldn't wait till the end of it to salute you. I would like to say that your presentation of Objectvism is superb, I'm loving what I'm reading.

                               Everyone seriously interested in Ayn Rand's Objectivism will find in your work a magnificient dedication to make your point clear, with your words, your examples, and that's the most valuable thing,

                               for it shows the honest reader and learner what is to master this Philosophy.  My emotional response is the same I feel towards my objectivist friends in Argentina; admiration and gratitude. 

                              Cordiales saludos,

                              Gabriel.


Post 5

Sunday, November 23, 2008 - 7:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Piparo:
Thank you for your positive comments to my book. It's good to hear that you enjoy it! Should you want to read it in Spanish - I myself wrote it also in Spanish, as well as in German - please send your message to my e-mail address: Manfred.Schieder@gmx.at and I will send it over to you. It's free, of course. And, also of course, you can write me in Spanish.
I look with great hope at the Objectivist community of my country of birth, and see - as Grito Sagrado, the publishers of the Spanish version of Ayn Rand's books tell me - that it is continuously growing. This is a sign that Argentina will, in due course but hopefully very fast, come to the road of individual well-being and general growth its inhabitants deserve.
I remain in epectance to your mail and send you, in the meantime,
mis mejores saludos (y nuevamente muchas gracias por las felicitaciones!),
Manfred F. Schieder


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.