Ultima_Thule skrev:http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/10/20/kultur/ayn_rand/paul_ryan/usa/23963699/
"Den hensynsløse individualismen i bøkene til Ayn Rand vekker beundring og forakt. En av beundrerne kan bli USAs neste visepresident."
kjetilfp skrev:http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-ayn-rand-is-for-misunderstood-teenagers
Nok en gang dette at Ayn Rand er noe man plukker opp som 17-åring.
Vegard Martinsen skrev:kjetilfp skrev:http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-ayn-rand-is-for-misunderstood-teenagers
Nok en gang dette at Ayn Rand er noe man plukker opp som 17-åring.
...og som man dropper når man begynner å foretrekke å være behagelig konform med de man har omkring seg.
kjetilfp skrev:http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-ayn-rand-is-for-misunderstood-teenagers
Nok en gang dette at Ayn Rand er noe man plukker opp som 17-åring.
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. ... This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false ...
Martin Johansen skrev:kjetilfp skrev:http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-ayn-rand-is-for-misunderstood-teenagers
Nok en gang dette at Ayn Rand er noe man plukker opp som 17-åring.
Denne typen logisk feil er faktisk så vanlig at det har et eget navn, "Ad hominem circumstantial". Den har til og med egen entry i wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#CircumstantialAd hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. ... This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false ...
To be an individualist, Rand holds, is to believe that you have a right to exist for your own sake, neither sacrificing yourself to others nor others to yourself. It means that you aren't a servant of the tribe, or the king, or the church, or society, but that morally and politically you have a right to pursue your own happiness.
But how do you achieve happiness? Part of Rand's argument is that other people are a tremendous value to an individualist: as teachers, friends, trading partners, lovers. But the key to successful human relationships, she argues, is that there should be no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. Whereas Obama advocates that we subordinate our 'self-development' in order to 'make sure everybody else has opportunity,' Rand says that we should all aim at our own rational self-interest, and deal with others as traders, offering value-for-value. Unlike the President, Rand doesn’t confuse ‘caring for others’ with having the government forcibly redistribute your wealth to others. She recognizes that our main obligation to other people is to respect their freedom.
The President is pulling the same old trick that collectivists have been pulling for the last hundred fifty years. Rather than openly defend the proposition that you have a duty to serve society, he misrepresents and smears individualism.
Contra Obama, what Ayn Rand appeals to is youthful idealism. We grow up being told that our duty in life is to surrender our happiness for the sake of others. Rand’s message is not ‘Forget other people and do whatever your feel like.’ No. Her message is that morality matters, truth matters, your life matters—and nothing is more noble than making the most of that life. That is why so many young people respond to her works.
Erik skrev:Fra dagens Minerva.no
"For en del av Minervas lesere vil Ulven være stykkets store helt. Han er stykkets Ayn Rand, en amoralsk og brutal sosialdarwinist som ene og alene interesserer seg for sin egen velferd."
http://www.minervanett.no/hakkebakkeskogen-fra-hoyre/
Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 2 gjester