Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Devil's Advocate

Regulars
  • Posts

    2179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Everything posted by Devil's Advocate

  1. XX every XXXX thing XXXXX XX is XX XXX XX fine XXX XX , go XXXXX XX on X XXXX about XXX X XXX your XXX X XXXX XX business XX X XXX !
  2. Objectivists are like smokers who have kicked the habit, thereby becoming doubly resentful of those who continue to smoke in their presence. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are two very different goals; Franklin and Reagan were advocates of the former, and Ayn Rand was an advocate of the latter. It may be possible to practice the ideal separation of church and state, or unregulated commerce, but we're a long way from agreeing on how to accomplish that.
  3. Much depends on whether this term is preceded by the word "our" or "my"... All of the above; if I were a cat, I'd be dead by now... actually, death by curiosity wouldn't be that bad, compared to being bored to death. Acquiring knowledge is my pursuit of happiness.
  4. True enough, but finding ones purpose is a necessarily individual choice; and the key element remains choice. Until a person takes ownership of their lives, the direction of their life remains in the hands of others. The movie "Office Space" provides a wonderful illustration this in the character of Peter Gibbons. "Our high school guidance counselor used to ask us what you'd do if you had a million dollars and you didn't have to work. And invariably what you'd say was supposed to be your career. So, if you wanted to fix old cars then you're supposed to be an auto mechanic." ~ Peter Gibbons "So what did you say?" ~ Samir "I never had an answer. I guess that's why I'm working at Initech." ~ Peter Gibbons I love that move... What I mean by "choosing to continue living" is, from that point forward it's all on you; no excuses, and no blaming others for your "fate". We all begin as our parents' property and many simply pass ownership of their lives into the hands of others, e.g. guidance counselors, college professors, bosses. Life remains fairly meaningless (altruistic?) until you take ownership of it.
  5. Life's a bitch and then you die... That's the version of the "grand scheme o things" I've heard often enough. It's essentially a fatalistic statement not unlike, "Who is John Galt?" It represents a kind of rhetorical philosophy more interested in validating impotence than seeking solutions. "I don't see how this follows since 1000*0=1*0" ~ Exactly; why help anyone if life is meaningless? I tend to approach this kind of mentality from a perspective of rights. Most people will acknowledge they have a right to live, so I then suggest that it's their right to dispose of their life as they choose to; that even a slave has options. What matters in the "grand scheme o things" is having the freedom to choose to continue living. To those who argue about having a right to life (and the choice to live it), I say that so long as you remain around to argue the point, I'll take your continuing presence as validation of that which you pretend to dispute.
  6. GR8 article, softwareNerd... What I'd love to see, is someone like Yaron Brooks, Leonard Peikoff or Kelly David have the opportunity to debate Paul Ryan on his "Path to Prosperity", highlighting the differences between Ryan's and Objectivist view on Capitalism.
  7. "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff... ... the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism." Paul Ryan, speaking to the Atlas Society in 2005 "I reject her (Ayn Rand's) philosophy. It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview." Paul Ryan, speaking to the National Review in April (considered a possible vice presidential pick) Evidently the path to prosperity has come to a fork in the road, with one path leading to the White House... so what is capitalism to Paul Ryan? The political expression of moral individualism, or mere contracts between greedy individuals??
  8. ... and the beat goes on... " Is Paul Ryan for or against Ayn Rand? Paul Ryan can either be an objectivist or a Christian. He can't have it both ways. He faces a serious problem among Christians, moderate Republicans and others who dislike Rand's views if his expressions of support for Rand are believed, rather than his denials. " http://edition.cnn.c...rss_igoogle_cnn
  9. You must remember that Ayn Rand's, Atlas Shrugged was a national best seller, and the 2nd part to the movie adaptation comes out in October... I don't think it's ridiculous to presume the electorate is quite familiar with Ayn Rand's name and have some opinion regarding her philosophy, which more often as not, has been described to me as "bleak". The point I'm trying to make is, Ryan's response only plays into the hands of his opponents by unnecessarily highlighting his rejection of a philosophy he relied on to form his economic policy, and I seriously doubt the public won't be continuously reminded of this now discredited link whenever Ryan attempts to discuss his "Path to Prosperity" during the campaign. Anyway, we'll see what happens, but I hope Ryan hasn't derailed the whole train, in order to appease one carload of riders.
  10. My reference to Perot was intended to demonstrate the reaction of a public eager to support something other than the status quo... the following exchange from the movie, The American President, comes to mind: “People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand." ~ Lewis Rothschild "Lewis, we’ve had presidents who were beloved, who couldn’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty. They drink the sand because they don’t know the difference.” ~ President Andrew Shepherd
  11. "When speaking with EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo last year, Ryan explained his views on Rand: 'She, through her novels, did a very good job of defending the morality of the free enterprise system.' But 'Objectivism, by definition, requires atheism. So how on earth can a devout Catholic consider themselves an Objectivist? Although 'Atlas Shrugged' inspired him as a young adult, Ryan told National Review’s Robert Costa that it’s a stretch to assume that he considers himself a Rand devotee: 'I reject her philosophy. It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas.'” ~ http://www.catholicv...dex.php?p=34483 Given the history of presidential election campaigns, I suspect the news about the guy behind The Path to Prosperity will appear "under the fold", with the more prominent headline being, the guy who invoked Ayn Rand on economics, now rejects her philosophy. Fundamental to any serious political discussion about the economy is the issue of individual mandates, which Romney can't challenge with any credibility. And Ryan, apparently in order to distinguish himself as a Catholic, has undermined the credibility of a key economic ally by publicly rejecting AR's philosophy. Again, I think a better response would have been to distinguish responsible economic policy as being non-denominational (citing a necessary separation of church and state), but we'll see how his approach plays out with the public. Consider the following as a sample of headlines to come: Paul Ryan loved Ayn Rand, before he said he didn't http://www.latimes.c...0,1175099.story
  12. The fault, certainly... but also the untapped potential. Recall the enthusiasm and incredible voter support Ross Perot's 3rd party candidacy injected into the 1992 bid for presidency; too bad he self-destructed... The electorate has been sucking sand ever since... and waiting for some credible candidate to appear.
  13. Yes, that pretty much sums up my frustration. You make some good points, but it all amounts to the same thing... how sad that Obama will ultimately get his second term by default. Kinda funny how Condoleezza Rice's name floated out there prior to picking Ryan. Just imagine what that would have done to reignite anti-Bush sentiments. I guess Ryan is better choice than her, but it doesn't say much about the political acuity of Team Romney to get elected. So far all that can be said about Ryan is that he's chosen to be a team player for a team of losers.
  14. Actually, of the group looking to find a pony in all this manure, I found your position to be the most defensible. At least Aquinas represents a tenuous link to Objectivism via Ayn Rand's own respect for this significant historical figure. How cowardly though, if this move was calculated to appease both Catholics and Objectivists by playing one against the other. I sincerely doubt either camp will appreciate the "gesture".
  15. I agree. What Ryan should have stated, when questioned by his religious right base, is that sound fiscal policy (otherwise known as capitalism), is non-denominational; "in God we trust - all others pay cash". He might have made the case that Catholics, Protestants, Mormons AND atheists have more charitable income to address social inequities in an economy based on production of goods rather than redistribution of wealth. As it is, he's only showing that he can play the game as poorly as his predecessors; trust Republican'ts to make Obama invincible. I'm actually amused to hear some in this thread trying to paint Ryan's clear rejection of Rand's philosophy as something to be optimistic about... *sigh*
  16. Exactly. Ryan's denials will be viewed by a cynical electorate for exactly what it is; a reversal of position. So Ryan takes a non-issue (whatever opinion he holds about atheism) and broadcasts himself as a flip-flopper for votes he's afraid even his own party won't give him. The Obama campaign was pleased to have a supporter of individual mandates (Romney) appear as their "opponent" to make that issue go away, and they must be popping their corks at having Ryan's first actions as the choice for veep to affirm the GOP being "Grand Old Protestants". Is no one else seeing this as a rather bad sequel to the last presidential election?
  17. LMAO! If that's true, it places the GOP even further in the political desert than they were before; up a dune without an umbrella. Exactly what does firming up the evangelical base do for Romney's efforts to capture Obama votes?!
  18. A person will only change a habit when it ceases to meet their expectations; if it ain't broke don't fix it.
  19. Objectivism's political endorsement of capitalism appeals to fiscal conservatives, but as Ryan's swift public jettison Rand's philosophy demonstrates, today's candidates recognize that appearing to endorse "greed is good" isn't appealing to an electorate that's sympathetic to "occupy wall street". I doubt that Romney's pick is any kind of game changer; when I first heard of it, I mistakenly thought the news anchor had said "Rand Paul" instead of Paul Ryan... I was really disappointed that I had heard it wrong.
  20. Only when a life hangs in the balance, and only if the truth would pull the trigger. In Fred's case, he's already suspicious so you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. There are many ways to handle someone like Fred; lying isn't one of them. Jane's actions, e.g. cheating while in an intimate relationship, behaving with so little discretion that a busybody like Fred becomes aware of it, and placing an expectation on your friendship to lie for her while she works her boyfriend back into her schedule, calls to question her ability to fix the problem, let alone being able to keep from making the situation worse by dragging your reputation down with hers. In most cases, honest people don't lie well and dishonest people can read between the lies; they are, after all, better at deception than those who are honest. Lying to cover cheating won't dissuade a destructive gossip; you're just providing more ammunition and a greater field of targets.
  21. There's a personal catalyst for reverence, and I believe an equally personal reason to dismiss the reverence of others when it's at odds with our own. This more than anything else accounts for the animosity between carnivores and vegans *snicker* Quoting Bradbury made me think of another one of his that I believe was also expressed other writers of science fiction... "I don't try to describe the future. I try to prevent it." ~ Ray Bradbury. I wonder if Atlas Shrugged might be considered such a preventative work of (science) fiction? It certainly contains futuristic sonic death machines, force fields and unusual energy devices...
  22. Your theory reminds me of the "give a man a fish, or teach a man to fish" premise, and in that context I believe you're correct. Working for profit beats working without profit, AND allows for greater acts of charity if that is what one wishes to accomplish.
  23. OK, projecting a little... To be clear, Jane provides the first offense by acting deceptively with her boyfriend in a manner that makes Fred suspicious, and whatever consequences follow are on Jane to resolve; not you. Being a supportive friend allows for discretion, but certainly doesn't imply any need for dishonesty on your part. Let's face it, Fred isn't some Nazi working up charges against Jane, so lying on her behalf is inappropriate. You have the opportunity to set a better example for both your friends (who apparently need to have the bar raised a bit; not lowered) by behaving honestly and with integrity. Tell Fred you're not a gossip, and tell Jane to level with her boyfriend before Fred does... expertpanda has wandered off, so I'm really just playing myself with this reply...
  24. Remembering that even heroes like Achilles have vunerabilities, you may find that on closer inspection your heroes have shortcommings too. I found I could identify with, and appreciated Eddie Willers better than the heroes of Atlas Shrugged, because while Dagny and John relied on him to pursue their lofty goals, in the end neither cared enough for him as a person to be included in Galt's Gulch. My tip to you is, don't measure your life by the acceptance or rejection of others. "Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!" ~ Polonius, Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 78–82
×
×
  • Create New...