Comments on: 5 Questions With…Eric Brunner http://campusj.com/2006/11/12/5-questions-witheric-brunner/ Jewish Collegiate News Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:03:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Eric http://campusj.com/2006/11/12/5-questions-witheric-brunner/#comment-1220 Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:12:51 +0000 http://campusj.com/2006/11/12/5-questions-witheric-brunner/#comment-1220 Pat, not many people speak Hegelian, FYI. Ayn Rand was a full blown capitalist, yes, which means she was totally against anarchy. FYI, it is hard to follow your words, you almost sound like Kant. No one said anything about identities, especially global or national identity. I cannot properly respond to your other statements because your thoughts are not clear. Pat, not many people speak Hegelian, FYI.

Ayn Rand was a full blown capitalist, yes, which means she was totally against anarchy.

FYI, it is hard to follow your words, you almost sound like Kant. No one said anything about identities, especially global or national identity. I cannot properly respond to your other statements because your thoughts are not clear.

]]> by: Patrick Binder http://campusj.com/2006/11/12/5-questions-witheric-brunner/#comment-1207 Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:02:08 +0000 http://campusj.com/2006/11/12/5-questions-witheric-brunner/#comment-1207 This is, from an objective atheist view point(in the sense that I hold no ethic view point and a limited sense of morals which i formed for myself.) an altogether un-Ayn Rand statement. My point being that Rand was an altogether full blown capitalist, rejecting communism on a moral stand point(her pointless and individually claimed morals, followers are but sheep, one needs to claim his own moral independents to other moral systems to achieve his own rank) but bordering more so the concepts of anarcapitalism, or capoanarchism. Which, although sometimes denied by her, can only be affirmed by her statements and those of her followers, can only be seen as the antithesis, or straight forward reversal of her doctrine. Whether limited or universal, these antithesis are counter-Ayn Rand. I would argue that, otherwise, Ayn Rand, or her followers, Would nor today nor yesterday nor tomorrow, be able to stand up to an argument of any current philosopher or politician on the subject, would agree, this topic is mute as retarded, that is backwards and counterproductive. Extending the ideology of national identity forward to Global identity, this concept would only prove to reinforce those archaic concepts of those culture which we(the west) have constantly held to be counter productive, whereas a more American standpoint is now being adopted here and throughout South America, The East and the underdeveloped world to support western views as opposed to counteracting them. This is accomplished in a form of changing the National Identity and Global Identity in a way that happens to neither support nor deny either Communism nor Capitalism nor Anarchism in a quantitative nor qualitative way. I argue that the Ayn Rand Club is nothing more than, and in essence doing, a harm to western thought for the past centuries, injuring the the cultivated ideas and culture of western though. Thus, its alliance with Western Thought are a harm to Ayn Rand Club(by being its antithesis) and to Western Thought(by being its antithesis). This is, from an objective atheist view point(in the sense that I hold no ethic view point and a limited sense of morals which i formed for myself.) an altogether un-Ayn Rand statement. My point being that Rand was an altogether full blown capitalist, rejecting communism on a moral stand point(her pointless and individually claimed morals, followers are but sheep, one needs to claim his own moral independents to other moral systems to achieve his own rank) but bordering more so the concepts of anarcapitalism, or capoanarchism. Which, although sometimes denied by her, can only be affirmed by her statements and those of her followers, can only be seen as the antithesis, or straight forward reversal of her doctrine. Whether limited or universal, these antithesis are counter-Ayn Rand. I would argue that, otherwise, Ayn Rand, or her followers, Would nor today nor yesterday nor tomorrow, be able to stand up to an argument of any current philosopher or politician on the subject, would agree, this topic is mute as retarded, that is backwards and counterproductive. Extending the ideology of national identity forward to Global identity, this concept would only prove to reinforce those archaic concepts of those culture which we(the west) have constantly held to be counter productive, whereas a more American standpoint is now being adopted here and throughout South America, The East and the underdeveloped world to support western views as opposed to counteracting them. This is accomplished in a form of changing the National Identity and Global Identity in a way that happens to neither support nor deny either Communism nor Capitalism nor Anarchism in a quantitative nor qualitative way. I argue that the Ayn Rand Club is nothing more than, and in essence doing, a harm to western thought for the past centuries, injuring the the cultivated ideas and culture of western though. Thus, its alliance with Western Thought are a harm to Ayn Rand Club(by being its antithesis) and to Western Thought(by being its antithesis).

]]>