Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Collectivist

Regulars
  • Posts

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Collectivist

  1. Very good, I won't dipute any of this but I would recommend re-reading Aristotle's "DeAnima" also Robert Brennan O.P. has a number of books worth a look at my favorite is "Thomistic Psychology" Collectivist
  2. Before beginning, I'd like to state that I am not an anthropologist. I do no field work whatsoever in this field. My interest in private property as "first cause" of primitive man's climb from savagery to civilization is purely personal. It is my theory and I take responsibility for it for good or ill. I am an Objectivist and have been for many years and yes this may have clouded my assumptions, thesis and theories about primitive man and private property. So with that here are a few examples of why I believe private property is "first cause" "A great deal may be learned about society by studying man; but this process cannot be reversed: nothing can be learned about man by studying society" Ayn Rand, What Is Capitalism, New American Library Edition (Kindle Edition) "The idea of property was slowly formed in the human mind, remaining nascent and feeble through immense periods of time. Springing into life in savagery, it requred all the experience of this period and of the subsequent period of barbarism to develop the germ, and to prepare the human brain for the acceptance of it's controlling influence. Its dominance as a passion over all other passions marks the commencement civilization. It not only led mankind to overcome the obstacles with delayed civilization, but to establish political society on the basis of territory and of property. A critical knowledge of the evolution of the idea of property would embody, in some respects, the most remarkable portion of the mental history of mankind" Lewis H. Morgan, Ancient Society: Researches In The Lines Of Human Progress From Savagery, Through Barbarism To Civilization (1877) "These communities reflect the spiritual conduct of our ancestors thousands of times removed.We have passed through the same stages of development, physical and moral, and are we today because they lived, toiled, and endeavored. Our wonderous civilization is the result of the silent efforts of millions of unknown men." Dr J. Kaines Anthropologia, Vol 1 p.233 Inventions and discoveries stand in serial relations along the lines of human progress, and register its successive stages: while social and civil institutions , in virtue of their connection with perpetual human wants, have been developed from a few primary germs of thought." Lewis H. Morhan (as cited above) The idea of property has undergone a similar growth and development. Commencing at zero in savagery, the passion for the possession for {private) property, as the representative of accumulated subsistence, has now become dominant over the human mind in civilized races (Ibid) and lastly: It will be my object to present some evidence of human progress along these several lines, and through successive ethicl periods, as it is revealed by inventions and dicoveries, and by the growth of ideas of government, of the family and of property." (Ibid) If you can ad to this it would be helpful to me an other Objectivists interested in these ideas. RJ (Collectivist)
  3. Interesting questions. You have a very broad knowledge of the subject-why then so much anamosity? Not that I am asking for a little support (god knows Randits criitize everything) but as an Objectivist this theory should be obvious to anyone who takes the time to read a little anthropology. I fell like John Galt when the whole world is after his butt! But you have a right to ask these questions and receive an answer that satisfies your inquires.All I can do is to provide some examples of my investigations re-applying Objectivism standards to the works of known anthropologists-When it hi me that I was on the right track -it was literally (to me at least) give me a new way of thinking about primitive savage early man and his struggles to progress! I can only hope it will do the same for you. If not not harm on foul. However it is always good to converse with a person who shares your view (Objectism) on life Examples will follow sometime today (I gots to get some books out of my library) Never give up, never give in! R
  4. OK I will get ot some books and provide examples tomorrow but you will have to interperate examples in an Objectivist sense!
  5. I think you have a firm grip on this thesis/theory! and it's nice to hear....er....read from you again. It's been a long time. R
  6. To Neuro You must know the Engels was no anthropologist and quoted freely from others work (without giving references) and forulated their findings to fit his conception of was was primative communistic life. I have read the works that schalors say Engels quoted and find that the development of "pure individualism" as everyone wants to call it here, was in plain sight!
  7. Reading Margrett Meade and other such anthroplogists. I mean really reading their research not glancing over it! If you pay really good attention their themselves reaveal this stuff.
  8. Early man did reach the stage of "pure individualism" but was considered a fahra, outcast, someone who must be controled and if not controlable must be killed! Look at DiVinci, Michaelangelo, Galileo, Decartes , Einstein and of course John Galt. All of which were condemened in some manner!
  9. To be brief, Rand's dialectic was "reality based" what the eye see's and what the hands touch. Marx dialecic is "what is possible to happen could happen!?", all by pure conscious thinking. To deny reality is to deny life-maybe that's was Marx was aiming for. (anti-lfe)
  10. .....if you doubt what I am saying and you are interested in this phnom, about the "cult of Ayn Rand/Objectivism" I may be so bold as to recommend Karen Horney book "Our Inner Conflects: A Constructive Theory of Neurosis" It will give you great insights into your fellow forum members!
  11. SpookyKitty Pick up any anthropology textbook or reseach (Margrett Meade) would be good and read" between the lines" of her presentations. That should clear the clouds on this matter! As for me I have already been attacked in this forum for being a "Newbie" who dares to post his views on Objectivism here. So I thank you for your kindness. Although I have found that cultists of Ay Rand , in general are not nice people (present company excepted of corse) so I am leaving thisforum for greener and happier fields-goodbye!
  12. Me thinks you are to proud of yourself. I am neither mocking nor a teenager, If you are typical of this forum, then this forum is not worth my time or spit!.
  13. When the first primitive savage awoke to it's own consciousness and pointed, grunted or perhaps grabbed an object outside of himself (whether animate or inanimate) the origin of private property was born. This reality goes against everything written in Frederick Engles book "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", where he contends that communal property was the primary reason for man's climb to a more and ever advancing state. This is easy to refute. There are plenty of examples in primitive culture where private property was first cause. For example, when the primitive savage fashioned tools for hunting, polished stones for throwing or invented a new means and methods for easing his hard life, he unwittingly made life easier and eased the burden of those around him who were less gifted. Most of the time these others banned around him for "thankful" safety. Others for an unearned demand of ownership of these new means and methods that was not theirs to claim. The owner of his property had to defend his right to possession, at every moment, against merciless groups of jealous fellow tribesmen who were in no way his"mental prodigious " equal. If he won, he became leader or chief and freely taught them how to fashion things for the betterment of all without regard or reward. If he lost most likely he was killed, therefore the tribe losing the benefit of his knowledge and invention. In such a case, the tribe perished of their own ignorance and accord (ancestor worship was the most likely result). If he was over powered he had to, much against his will, distribute his things throughout those with an unclaimed need to his possessions all in the name of the general welfare (sound familiar). If banished, along with his band of brave followers, if any, became more powerful than other tribes and adapted more easily to the harshness of the environment they lived in conquering as much of nature as they could. These people, the followers of "the men with brains" and the things which they were taught over time became ever bigger and advanced tribes, villages, cities and finally modern civilizations. Of course main line anthropologists find this truth to be hard to swallow and mostly formulate their theories on early primitive man to fit their own pre-conceived notions on the actions, beliefs and religious formations of early man. Engles himself was no anthropologist and formulated his theories quoting freely (often without giving references) from other researches. The notion of private property as first cause, destroys any belief in altruism, commualism, socialism and communism once and for all times as a false, egregious and empty thrashings of those who find life to hard to bare and must by means of force or legistration receive and be rewarded of the unearned property and possessions of those who would, by their own choice, if left alone, create a world and life worth living for themselves and those who would follow.
  14. Historical Materialism if a false dicotamy which views man as a unconscious non-enity without brains and ability!
  15. It was not his reasoning. Engles fully quoted the work of Lewis H. Morgan in his book "Ancient Society or Researches In The Lines Of Human Progress From Savagery, Through Barbarism To Civilization" (1877) Engles was not an anthropogist using, Morgan's book and findings to fit his own theories of communism.
  16. Modern day anthrologists site  "communal cooperation" as first cause of advancement of the ban, family or tribe forgetting that the "tools" of cooperation are possessed by one maybe two person (s) who allow (s) their use. I am not talking about simple tools anyone could fashion on any day only the methods of true advancement and techiques such as the secrets of proper hunting and weaponry and their making.. Look at Native Americans of centeries past. Studies again site their commual nature but this is false.Remeber every lodge was private belonging to one individual and no others were allowed to enter without the owners permission. The weapons, shields, clothing, hides within were again the specific property of the ownwer. True, if and when the owner died his lodge was raided and his possessions were looted and his wife (s) were traded away or banished or placed into slavery as there was no one now to defend the lodge. Here is the origin of the "makers vs. the takes!"

  17. When the first primitive man awoke to it's own consciousness and pointed, grunted or grabbed an object outside of himself (whether animate or inanimate) private property was born. This reality goes against everything written in Frederick Engles book "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", where he believes that communal property was a primary reason for man's climb to a more and ever advancing state. This I refute. There are plenty of examples in primitive culture where private property was first cause. For example, when primitive man fashioned tools for hunting, polished stones for throwing or invented a new means for easing his hard life, he made life easier for himself and others who were less gifted but banned around him for an unearned but demanded an award of ownership that was not theirs to claim. He had to defend his right to possession, at every moment, against merciless groups of jealous fellow tribesmen who were in no way his"mental" equal. If he won, he became leader or chief and freely taught them how to fashion things for the betterment of all. If he lost he was killed, therefore the tribe losing the benefit of his knowledge eventually the tribe perished of their own ignorance and accord, If he was over powered he had to, much against his will, distribute his things throughout those with need to his possessions. Generally, this man learned not to share his knowledge and became a loner or worse. If banished his tribe became more powerful than others and adapted more easily to the harshness of the environment they lived in conquering as much of nature as they could. These people, the followers of "the men with brains" and the things which they were taught over time became bigger bans, tribes, villages, cities and finally advanced civilizations. Of course main line anthropologists find this truth to be hard to swallow and mostly and formulate their theories on early primitive man to fit their own pre-conceived notions on the actions, beliefs and religious formations of early man. I don't believe any of their "hogwash!" To me, however, I have refuted altruism, commualism, socialism and communism once and for all times as a false, egregious and empty thrashings of those who find life to hard to bare and must by means of force or legistration receive and be rewarded of the unearned property and possessions of those who would, by their own choice, if left alone, create a world and life worth living.
  18. Setback!? Setback. Setback is an ugly word. It is a notion used by countries other than the United States-until now. Anyone listening to the Presidents concluding speech in Antalya, Greece can no longer deny his personal assessment. If you doubt, here's a reminder: Americans repeatedly beheaded, a Jordanian piolet burned alive, fifty plus shoppers killed in Lebanon, hundreds dead in a turkey by bomb, a Russian airliner with two hundred twenty four souls lost over Sinai, a massacre of hundreds of innocents in France and finally a frightening message coming our way, death will soon come to America. And what is the administration doing about it?, next to nothing. What would it take for this president to open his eyes to the obvious. Isis has declared war on us and all we do is to reacess and regurgitate the same old platitudes. It's not a war! They didn't mean it! It's only a few out of millions! Well, while we reacess Isis gets bigger, bolder and stronger. And please never use the words "radical Islam" to describe these heartless murders-it hurts their feelings! It is as if we are living in some kind of fantastic bizzarro world where white is black and black is white. It's either that, or for some unknown reason Washington is purposely turning the blind eye of denial to those ungodly acts or that Isis, Isil or Dashi (whatever you want to call them ) doesn't even exist in the first place! I hope that accessment is not the case. But "setback(s)", is a word this country may have to learn to accept. But maybe that was the plan all along.
  19. Nathaneil Branden often spoke and wrote about intergrating some "positive psychological ideals (read emotions )" into Objevtivist actions,theory and thought. Was he right or wrong-What do you think?.
  20. But leaving a grave-site memorial would lead some into irrational personality cult worship similar to what has happened to the grave-site of Karl Marx in England. I'm sure Miss Rand would ahor anything similar ( or perhaps that's precisely why she insisted on a burial!) Having seen the site, I would agree it is simple and dignified but I am still stuck that after all Ayn wrote that she would insist on following a tradition so empty and meaningless. I certainly would have contributed for somethng greater in (maybe) a plaza in her beloved New York! What do you rhink?
  21. DW Don't you think this was an evasion by Piekoff? Miss Rand railed aganist monument building in one of her essay's. I can't figure this one out other than the fact she may have been a "closet believer" This would be very disappointing to me as a student of Objectivism-No?
  22. This has been bothering me for awhile. Why was Ayn buried rather than cremated? Doesn't burial presuppose a belief in the next life (resurrection)? I know Miss Rand was not a believer and neither was Mr. O'Conner buried next to her. I find brial inconsistant with Objectivism. Was she following convention? She hardly did that all her life! Did she want to create a monument to herself for people to visit? I hardly think that is the answer or what she would desire. What do you think?- The Collectivist
  23. Yes aleph Jefferson would be "screaming for revolution" now due to the incompetene of our leaders for the last 75 years! You are also right about the 20's & 30's ( stupidity seems to be universal) But I feel this is different. I can't pin it down but it seems like we as Americans are becoming more suicidial as time moves on,we are (the governement) determined to destory ourselves one way or another. Tragic indeed.
×
×
  • Create New...