Re: Ayn Rand/Philosophy/Goodkind/Sword of Truth - and How ABSURD I Now Realize

[The Fisher King]

This thread is not about The Sword of Truth Books or Fantasy Books in general, or even about Terry Goodkind, or beating that horse that is long-dead on this Board, but, by necessity, because of HOW I got to the point I am at regarding the opinion I now hold about Rand's Belief (and the Belief of Rand's Disciple, Mr Goodkind) they do, by necessity, have a part in this thread, I am afraid.

 

I have been arguing with a friend about the Sword of Truth Books and he admitted that the main turnoff for him seemed to be Goodkind's complete lack of originality and how he has pawned the writing style of Feist and others, the devices and plotlines of others (notably Hebert's Dune and Jordan's WOT) and philosophy (From Ayn Rannd)- mainly the turnoff that is Goodkind's near obsession with preaching his version of Rand's Objectionlivism throughout the series through his literary mouthpiece of Richard Rahl.

 

Now, this brings us to the present. I have long studied Rand's beliefs, but I sat down recently and really took a HARD look at this ABSURD philosophy.

 

We are not talking Jung or Pia Get here folks. We are talking about utter, illogical nonsense that is self-contradictory in a massive amount of places.

 

Basically, Rand - and Mr Goodkind, in his books, interviews and SOT Book Signings mandate that:

 

Man should follow no institution (no God, Church, Government, etc) and follow a strict and narrow path of the individual's self-interest and that they should not lend a helping hand to their fellow man, because, if their fellow man is not smart enough to escape the lake they are drowning in, then they deserve to drown and you do as well for trying to help and being stupid enough to risk your own life trying to help. HOWEVER, If you go through your life and do not use your intelligence and abilities to help better your fellow man then you are a horrible horrible person.

 

LOL - No contradictions there!!!

 

Forget Rand for a moment...How can a supposed educated man such as Mr Goodkind, today in 2009, believe such utter nonsense???

 

 

 

Fish

 

 

 

P.S. - My friend also admits to being a bit freaked out and unnerved (and I'm with him on this one) at how ANGRY and WORKED-UP Goodkind has appeared to get at times with people who do not agree with him - all the while he preaches man's objective individualism and lashes out at any man who meekly accept the belief of another....all the while he seems to get enraged at those who DON'T agree with HIM!!!

 

HUH????!!! - Someone here at Good Ol Dragonmount PLEASE Explain this to me LOL!!!

[Rufae]

I doubt you will find many here to support Goodkind.

 

Personally, I think he either got a hold of some bad drugs, been dropped on his head as a child, or tried staring a goats for too long.

[Majsju]

I find it quite amusing that goofkinds idea of preaching individualism is having a hero who walks around telling people "think for yourself or I will kill you"... ;D

[Werthead]

Goodkind is an Objectivist. The problem is that Objectivism is not a valid philosophy (Rand came up with it to impress some philosophy teacher she fancied, quite basically), has never been recognised as such, is not taught as a major philosophical movement in any major university or college and has been repeatedly torn to pieces by almost every single academic of note in the field. It is also almost completely unknown outside the United States, where Rand's works are recognised as interesting but inherently flawed. It is essentially the Flat Earth Movement of philosophy, long ago discredited and no longer taken seriously, even though it wasn't really taken seriously to start with.

 

All of this makes Objectivists quite angry, leading to them writing some very strange things indeed. Hence, The Sword of Truth series.

[JenniferL]

"Piaget" is one word. It's a dude's name.

[The Fisher King]

Kath,

 

I know that. Thats sorta why I was referring to the philosopher.

 

You are right. No spaces. Im sorry for the typo.

 

He also makes great watches ;)

 

 

Fish

[chill]

Now, this brings us to the present. I have long studied Rand's beliefs, but I sat down recently and really took a HARD look at this ABSURD philosophy.

 

We are not talking Jung or Pia Get here folks. We are talking about utter, illogical nonsense that is self-contradictory in a massive amount of places.

 

Basically, Rand - and Mr Goodkind, in his books, interviews and SOT Book Signings mandate that:

 

Man should follow no institution (no God, Church, Government, etc) and follow a strict and narrow path of the individual's self-interest and that they should not lend a helping hand to their fellow man, because, if their fellow man is not smart enough to escape the lake they are drowning in, then they deserve to drown and you do as well for trying to help and being stupid enough to risk your own life trying to help. HOWEVER, If you go through your life and do not use your intelligence and abilities to help better your fellow man then you are a horrible horrible person.

 

LOL - No contradictions there!!!

 

Forget Rand for a moment...How can a supposed educated man such as Mr Goodkind, today in 2009, believe such utter nonsense???

 

you are making quite a few mistakes in your rant.  first of all, you should realize that ayn rand was more an author who introduced the idea of objectivism, but contemporary objectivism was developed by leonard peikoff, who reapplied her ideas as a more legitimate philosophy. 

 

objectivism does NOT reject government.  objectivism doesn't say that you shouldn't save that person in the lake.  it says that you shouldn't save that person if you are going to drown with him or if he's a serial killer.  objectivism's principle of self-interest isn't pure selfish greed, i cannot stress that enough.  objectivism's self-interest benefits society through mutual gain.  i.e. you would save that man because it is in your self-interest to not feel guilty about not saving him for the rest of your life or it is in your self-interest for him to continue to live and benefit society which loops back to benefit yourself, as long as he shares the same ideals of productivity as you do (not a serial killer).

 

i don't profess to be an expert in objectivism but i have taken a few philosophy classes, read ayn rand's books, and read terry goodkind's.  the amount of ignorance, judgment, and false information in your rant is appalling

[The Fisher King]

Easy Guy!!!

 

Listen; No Offense:

 

I would never Judge you just because of how wrong I know you are.

 

And I would never call someone Dumb just for believeing in something so Stupid.

 

See where you went astray?

 

No problemo though  - its all good! ;)

 

 

 

Fish

[JenniferL]

Fisher King, please at least read a Wikipedia article about Ayn Rand before telling someone else they are wrong about objectivism. Thanks.

[Jackehehe]

Easy Guy!!!

 

Listen; No Offense:

 

I would never Judge you just because of how wrong I know you are.

 

And I would never call someone Dumb just for believeing in something so Stupid.

 

See where you went astray?

 

No problemo though  - its all good! ;)

 

 

 

Fish

 

Woah man, what kind of pills are you taking? at least TRY to counter-argument him. I'm very interested in watching the debate after having read your rant, not some incoherent, dismissive bull****. You invited to a discussion about objectivism now please do enlighten us or do you willingly submit to the notion of objectivism not being so repugnant as you first thought?

[The Mirker]

I don't necessarily agree or disagree w/ Objectivism. But like practically any 'belief system', it is open to interpretation defined in the interests of those applying it. In other words, some may be very narrow in said application and can come off as incredibly hard-hearted, others less so,,,

[Murphy3]

I just didn't like how Goodkind's beliefs didn't fit in with the Sword of Truth until he decided to beat you over the head with it time and time again the last 3-4 books.  I just don't see how the dead can play such a major role in his books but he can then later say (I forget which book) that once you're dead, you're dead and there is no after life.  Ok, that doesn't seem to fit the rest of your series.  How exactly were the mud people communicating with their dead ancestors if once you're dead, you're dead and there's no after life.  It is as if he didn't believe in Objectivism until about book 8 or so.. and then he just decided to ramrod it into the Sword of Truth.