Integrating Objectivism and Marxism

[bluecherry]

" . . . kind of dictatorship by Rand, a self-dictatorship, to be more accurate."

Elaborate please then on what you believe qualifies it as some sort of dictatorship. (And perhaps explain what a "self-dictatorship" is supposed to mean.)

 

"How does it work out for them through the stories?"

You finished The Fountainhead, right? That one ends pretty favorably for the personal lives of the protagonists, though the rest of society is still in bad shape,

In We the Living, if there was any attempt to suppress emotions it was because there was so little ability they had to do things to improve their situation, so they're just stuck constantly suffering. Kira and Leo also didn't have a hand in causing these problems either. It was just unfortunate for them that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and up against something very difficult to fight. They had bad endings, but it wasn't related to how they treated emotions. As for Atlas Shrugged, keep reading and see for yourself how things turn out for them.

 

As for "merciless," the opposition to mercy is that it is essentially not treating something according to what it actually is. Not treating something according to what it is goes against the "law of identity," (law of identity essentially means just that a thing is what it is, with the corollary that you're going to get nowhere fast by trying to pretend otherwise as the world is not about to alter itself to fit your will) something which is part of the foundation of Objectivism. It's worth pointing out though again I think that we support giving positive credit and treatment where such credit and treatment is due just as much as we support giving negative credit and treatment where it is due and for the exact same reason. For some reason, people seem to constantly assume that all we're concerned with is the negatives people do and that we pay little or no heed to the positives they do. I'd point to the lexicon entry on identity for more about this, and maybe the one on justice too, but I see spoilers for Atlas Shrugged there.

 

" . . . one learns to devalue emotions and easily suppress them too, if they contradict calcified reasoning."

What do you mean exactly by "calcified" here? Elaborate, please. Also, again, suppression is not recomended for emotions in general no matter what the emotions are. Have an emotion that seems to conflict with your reasoning? Don't ignore that emotion, try to understand where it is coming from. Maybe you had some old, mistaken premises left uncorrected floating around in the back of your mind or maybe instead there's something you forgot to factor into your reasoning but the emotion is the result of that forgotten thing ringing a bell. The only time I think where trying to not pay attention to some emotion may not be a bad idea is if you've already aknowledged what the emotion is and that it does exist, but there is nothing you can do to improve what it is that has caused you to be upset aside from just giving your wounds some time to heal.

[softwareNerd]

I wouldn't post this stand-alone, but since we have a thread about Marxism, here's a quote to mull over:
 

John Galt manipulates the market by creating a cartel to restrict supply of ideas. By doing that he creates a supply-side shock so severe that it destroys the political system … This is no different from the Marxist notion that a workers’ revolution will bring down the capitalist system and set up a new one that gives them the power to control the returns they receive for their labour.

 

 

Here's the source, for more context.

[Ilya Startsev]

bluecherry:

What I meant by a self-dictatorship is a regression into an absolute extreme in Objectivism. This is when you exist as an ideal person. No one else is necessary for you. Everything is rationalized to an extreme. Every action, word, thought is in check. A person basically becomes a self-made machine having a carefree soul but not using it.

I am a visual, object-oriented thinker, so what I mean by "calcified" is that part of the "law of identity" that basically says that white stays white and black stays black, always. The world does not have to alter itself to fit my will right away, but it may do so due to a potentiality of unforseen circumstances. I am not talking about miracles; I am talking about shaping the world and changing the reality in which we live in ways that are possible and avialable to us and our minds. A kind of transcendent thinking is required here. Not mysticism, just something that we know is possible, but we don't have it yet.
 

Have an emotion that seems to conflict with your reasoning? Don't ignore that emotion, try to understand where it is coming from. Maybe you had some old, mistaken premises left uncorrected floating around in the back of your mind or maybe instead there's something you forgot to factor into your reasoning but the emotion is the result of that forgotten thing ringing a bell.

This sounds like you have some neo-Objectivism here. I like it Are you using ideas of Nathaniel Branden after, um, he was expelled?
 

The only time I think where trying to not pay attention to some emotion may not be a bad idea is if you've already aknowledged what the emotion is and that it does exist, but there is nothing you can do to improve what it is that has caused you to be upset aside from just giving your wounds some time to heal.

Interesting. Not that I agree with this particular bit, but I am questioning it. I guess I am just stuck in suffering and don't want to let it go :/

softwareNerd:
So you know, I believe in a kind of revolution that can happen only when everyone wants it. So, in other words, it's pretty much evolution all the way.

[bluecherry]

"What I meant by a self-dictatorship . . ."

That's playing rather loose with the meaning of words though, isn't it? A dictatorship means somebody else is doing the dictating to others. If you are doing something of your own free choice, that's pretty much the opposite of what a dictatorship involves. Also, that doesn't answer at all how my original characterization of "group of friends that have a lot of views in common" is inaccurate or how calling it a "cult" would be accurate. Heck, it also doesn't explain why you contend that this group ceasing to exist conclusively proves Objectivism is flawed.

 

"This is when you exist as an ideal person. No one else is necessary for you."

This isn't quite true of what we'd say an ideal person is like. Keep reading Atlas, there's some highly relevant stuff to this in there.

 

"Every action, word, thought is in check."

This sounds like one has to struggle with oneself, that there are things that conflict with what you're trying to do that you have to fight off. I certainly wouldn't say that's how I feel. If you seriously do believe something, there's no cause to be in a struggle about it internally. For instance, I really, truly do not believe shoplifting is generally in my best interests for various reasons, so I don't have to fight with myself over resisting shoplifting. I know the inevitable results of shoplifting are stuff I really would not like, that I would not like them far more than I may like anything I see in some store, so I just have no urge to subject myself to such things by shoplifting. If there was some sense in which one had to work to keep themselves from shoplifting (or anything else) then I'd say that person doesn't really completely believe that shoplifting (or whatever else) is the wrong way to go. In that case, that person should examine the source of that urge that goes against what they've said they believe and work on resolving the conflict that's there. Maybe the desire to shoplift came from something which if actually given some attention and examined is blatantly incorrect, or maybe it isn't incorrect and you'll see a flaw in your anti-shoplifting ideas and thus reject the anti-shoplifting stuff. Either way, whichever one is wrong, you're better off after examining the source of that conflicting desire, both because you'll be pursuing what's good for you and because you'll be at peace internally about the subject.

 

"A person basically becomes a self-made machine having a carefree soul but not using it."

I promise, we're not (and as far as I can say based on remaining records, since she died before I was born) unfeeling things enjoying nothing, just doing things out of some sense of obligation. We want to be happy like pretty much everybody else. We believe what we're doing, acting in ways which are in line with Objectivism, is helping us get to be as happy as possible.

 

Also, side note, I'd say the man/machine thing is actually more the other way around. Machines were made "in our image" so to speak. They are meant to work well with people, to be compatible with us, so the way they function (computers especially) is largely modeled after how we humans function.

 

" . . . what I mean by 'calcified' is that part of the 'law of identity' that basically says that white stays white and black stays black, always."

Obviously, things can and do change all the time. It's just that things don't change spontaneously. The way things change is also determined by their nature. When you do thing X to object 1, assuming under the same conditions, the result will always be object 1 becoming object 2. Like if you heat ice to over 32 degrees fahrenheit, the result is always that the ice will change from a solid to a liquid. Heat the liquid up enough more and it will turn into a gas/vapor. The resulting changes are consistent as long as the conditions and actions are consistent. But! There is one case where the possible results would remain consistent, but there are multiple possible results, so the actual results may not always be exactly the same. That's people, because we have free will.

 

"I am talking about shaping the world and changing the reality in which we live in ways that are possible and avialable to us and our minds."

Oh believe me, there's nothing in the "law of identity" against something like that. That's still working with the nature of things, not trying to do something against something's nature such as trying to get a river to bark. We're in favor of doing something like what you said there in that line ourselves.

 

lol. That's not "neo-Objectivism", it's just regular Objectivism.

 

"I guess I am just stuck in suffering and don't want to let it go :/"

Trying to ignore such feelings isn't the same as letting them go. They're still there, lurking in the background, ready to pounce whenever given a chance. Supposing the situation that has been the cause of suffering is one you can't do something about AND it's ongoing and thus time doesn't have a chance to heal this wound because it keep getting torn back open, then you're kind of screwed. That lurking in the background will remain and it's bound to come out and pounce sometimes. It won't just go away, it will cling fiercely. Hence why you don't have Kira just eventually becoming happy with her situation in We The Living.

[Eiuol]

"Let me put it this way: a human being's consciousness taken as a whole on the level Body--Environment is different than forms of consciousness from which it is composed, namely, mental states, beliefs, desires, etc. "

I actually would be better off saying intentionality shows richness of consciousness. No intentionality whatsoever means no consciousness. I distinguish awareness as a primitive sense of the word consciousness, consisting of at least an "attitude" towards the world, so that basically excludes plants/bricks/planets/universe. They just have an identity. Keep in mind that's not Rand's view explicitly, I'm just trying to show you where I'm seeing an error. Your view is less mystical than you portray. What I'm saying is putting consciousness in terms Objectivism uses as key ideas.

I want to write more, but I have to go to class soon, so I'll do that later. I read your response to me on emotions; Bluecherry's reply to that (and subsequent replies) are basically my position too.
 

Edited January 30, 2014 by Eiuol

[Ilya Startsev]

bluecherry:

Heck, it also doesn't explain why you contend that this group ceasing to exist conclusively proves Objectivism is flawed.

I used that argument to say that Rand disqualified Nathaniel Branden by saying that he abandoned Reason. But judging by what he had to say, I think she was incorrect. What needs to be realized is that Objectivists do not hold a monopoly on Reason. Otherwise, it's a dictatorship.
 

since she died before I was born

So, you are a young'un? So am I

 

We want to be happy like pretty much everybody else.

You are an Objectivist I like.

[Eiuol]

 

Have you heard of Noam Chomsky's ideas on nativism? His syntactic theory is quite inflexible, though, so I am not necessarily in favor of it. Although I am not sure if I am in favor of the other either. It is a complex topic without any solid evidence of which I know.

I know you didn't ask me, but I know about nativism. Just earlier today I happened to be reading a book chapter about concept learning regarding nativism and Empiricism. I use big 'E' to apply to people like Hume, Locke, or William James. Objectivism is empirical mostly about concept learning, probably with ideas similar to Locke, but is not Empiricism.

Innate cognitive structures is the same in my mind as how Rand says reason is a capacity all humans have, so that much is okay about nativism, but Objectivism denies that there's a such thing as innate *knowledge*. A nativist would say that some concepts are "built in" and contain no particular structure (i.e. the concept 'red' is innate and contains no constituent concepts). Chomsky goes as far as to say language acquisition requires some innate concepts or knowledge - specifically, he says there's a "poverty of stimulus" where there is too little information in every day speech for an infant to learn language from the world. So, to him, innate ideas are how that's possible. An Objectivist would say we couldn't call that a knowledge if Chomsky is right, since knowledge requires an active means of cognition - reason, in other words. As complex as language is, an infant really is actively learning concepts from the world, even if structures exist that are sensitive to language/linguistic input. Notice I'm not providing full justifications a nativist or Objectivist would use, these are just positions they hold.

By the way, you seemed earlier to be concerned that Objectivism suggests you must eliminate or excise all emotions except happiness. Rand's usage of happiness is specific about long-term happiness, and that happiness is your well-being as a whole. Not only that, but a moral person doesn't 'force' themselves to be moral, being moral becomes your character and what you do by habit. This is very Aristotelian, and Rand never failed to praise Aristotle as a key inspiration to her ideas. Rand would not have said you should never feel sad, angry, frustrated, depressed, or upset. They are important emotions for life!

Happiness is essentially a state of thriving, so you can be sad sometimes, and rightly so. If your state overall is not-thriving, that's not happiness, even if you are sometimes glad. Not-thriving isn't always a moral failing, as not all events are your fault (i.e. it's not Kira's fault the Russian government destroyed her values). Actually, Objectivism has so much about values, that it would be unwise to avoid experiencing your emotions deeply and passionately. Anecdotally, ever since I've read and adopted many Objectivist ideas, I've found myself to experience and cherish my emotions more deeply. Don't suppress them! (which is different than not letting yourself ruminate endlessly, which is unhealthy).

I think a large portion of posters here are < 30, myself included! I don't know the site stats though, and the only data is a very old poll from several years ago at least.

[2046]

You might be interested in the work of the philosopher Chris Sciabarra, who has done work on Rand and Marx, as well as Hayek and general Objectivist topics with dialectics as a focus. He places Rand in a dialectical light and compares her similarities with Marx. You may also be interested in the Austrian economist Hans Hoppe's paper comparing Marxist theory to libertarian theory, he concludes the core structure of Marxist theory is "essentially correct" and you'll find it quite similar to Rand's line of thought.

Edited January 31, 2014 by 2046

[Ilya Startsev]

bluecherry (I wish I knew your real name):

Hence why you don't have Kira just eventually becoming happy with her situation in We The Living.

Frankly, I think that "We the Living" is great in all respects. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was really able to connect with Andrei. His Trotskyite, pure view of Communism is exactly what I believe in. Minus the revolution, of course - now that we know that it does not work this way. In that context, I can see how suppression of emotions could become a usual behavior.

Eiuol:

I distinguish awareness as a primitive sense of the word consciousness, consisting of at least an "attitude" towards the world

I believe that indifferent awareness can be much above primitive. For me, the word primordial fits better.
 

he says there's a "poverty of stimulus" where there is too little information in every day speech for an infant to learn language from the world

Yes, I know of it, but I have a counter hypothesis that language acquisition is not only about information but about emotional interactions as well, which is why native language is spoken intuitively versus strictly following theory like in foreign language learning. Russian is a great example of a language that does not wholly fit into his binary principles and parameters reasoning for the same reason. Analog thinking is not a part of his minimalist program. It's about English-centric mechanization of the human mind. (In case you were wondering, I had completed a doctorate seminar in linguistics with a professor from Harvard University.)
 

an infant really is actively learning concepts from the world, even if structures exist that are sensitive to language/linguistic input.

That actually sounds interesting and rings true to me. So, you are basically saying that structures are posteriorly imposed on languages.
 

Anecdotally, ever since I've read and adopted many Objectivist ideas, I've found myself to experience and cherish my emotions more deeply.

This is a powerful evidence against my criticism. I am glad that you shared it.

 

You might be interested in the work of the philosopher Chris Sciabarra, who has done work on Rand and Marx, as well as Hayek and general Objectivist topics with dialectics as a focus. He places Rand in a dialectical light and compares her similarities with Marx. You may also be interested in the Austrian economist Hans Hoppe's paper comparing Marxist theory to libertarian theory, he concludes the core structure of Marxist theory is "essentially correct" and you'll find it quite similar to Rand's line of thought.

Wow. Thanks a lot! (Why 2046? Is it some special year? It reminded me of 2045.com)

Edited January 31, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[bluecherry]

"I used that argument to say that Rand disqualified Nathaniel Branden by saying that he abandoned Reason. But judging by what he had to say, I think she was incorrect. What needs to be realized is that Objectivists do not hold a monopoly on Reason. Otherwise, it's a dictatorship."

I may be incorrect, since I've never really cared to dig into this fued Rand and Brandon had, but from what I've heard I was under the impression that the primary reason Rand cut ties with him was because he had been decieving her (not particularly controversial here even outside of Objectivism that people don't like being any kind of associates with liars/frauds/people they generally can't trust). The deciet would go against Objectivism and it would go against it in a very fundament way, going all the way down to the law of identity. Essentially, he was trying to be/do something and not be/do something at the same time and in the same sense. That's a contradiction being attempted pretty much and contradictions are basically the definition or irrational. So, perhaps it was said that he abandoned reason, but if so it wasn't said over a mere dispute in theory and neither would a dispute over theory be behind cutting ties. Saying somebody is being irrational and/or cutting off personal ties with the person in such a case is hardly something unique to Objectivism. In fact, I'd say this is a pretty normal thing for people to do in their lives. So, unless WAY more people are going to be qualified for dictatorship . . . Additionally and more importantly though, running your own life, having your own ideas, saying what you think are not controling the lives of others like a dictator does. Brandon was free to do as he wished with his life after Rand cut ties with him, she just chose not to have any involvement in it herself going forward.

 

Regardless though (and largely why I've not cared to examine the Rand/Brandon dispute), even if Rand herself did something bad, that doesn't necessarily mean the ideas she was advocating were wrong. It could just as well mean that she screwed up and wasn't following her own guidelines. So, I judge for myself if what the philosophy is saying in any case makes sense or not and recomend others do the same.

 

Also a bit relevant, 1) I don't think that Rand would have cut ties with Brandon over a dispute over theory since she had positive relations she kept with other people who she had much bigger differences in philosophy with. 2) It's just not possible to literally kick somebody out of a philosophy. You can't do that anymore than you could kick somebody out of algebra, even if they definitely got some test questions wrong. You can kick them out of your personal life like you could kick them out of an algebra class, but that a very different thing from kicking them out of a set of ideas that person holds. The only way one could get disqualified from a philosophy is if one doesn't believe it, or more accurately for the word "disqualified", if one ceases to believe it.

 

What are you saying this stuff has to do with proving Objectivism is wrong again?

 

Yeah, like Eiuol said, I think most of us on the forum are under 30 actually. Speaking of Eiuol while I'm at it, he mentioned some stuff about Chomsky which you had asked me about earlier. I hadn't really said anything about that because I had so little to say. I've heard of Chomsky, but I only have a little very basic and undetailed knowledge of him and his stuff. What I do know I've had things where I thought he was wrong, so that among other reasons has been cause for me to not really pursue his stuff further. So, I'm not really familiar with the specific thing by Chomsky you asked about.

 

Thanks. :3 And I don't even really like my name anyway, so you're not missing out on much. I've long planned to get it legally changed, as soon as I can firmly decide on what I want to change it to.

Edited January 31, 2014 by bluecherry

[theestevearnold]

But wait! We haven't identified problems with Objectivism yet.

Yep. Just a bunch of misrepresentation of Objectivism.

Emotions aren't tools of cognition. If I feel something's true, I don't integrate it into my knowledge till I make sure it passes the test of logic (non-contradictory identification).

And if I have an emotion, I don't act upon it until I've verified it with reason, because feelings are non-rational and, thereby, prone to error (especially if my value-system is flawed). Thank your god (state) that potentially-raucous-causing men like me know that filtering my emotions through logic--what you misleadingly call supressing emotions--is appropriate to man qua Man.

Mind you, when my emotions are justified by logic, I, and most Objectivists, are the most emotionally passionate souls on Earth, with no regrets the next morning.

There are no collective emotions; each individual mind experiences its own emotions. But if a group in the same concert hall experiences the same feeling of exhaltation when hearin Beethoven's Ninth, it can be a wonderful feeling to know that other like-minded men exist.

If I and they form a Beethoven's Ninth Club afterward, I would hope they wouldn't expect me to dedicate my life to it; I've got personal matters that are more important.

And no State is more important than a Beethoven's Ninth Club.

[Eiuol]

As Bluecherry was implying this discussion is diverging from the topic. On the one hand, I want to explain a misunderstanding, while I also want to say that as systems of thought, neither Marxism nor Objectivism really can be integrated without contradictions. Even more, adding to a system, including systems of thought, will change what that system is. So, even if you could integrate specific ideas with no contradictions, you'll end up with a new system. New is fine, it just shouldn't be called the same thing, or even "neo" Objectivism.

Keep in mind you're asking about integrating two whole system, not just evaluating ideas for validity. If you want to know how Objectivism takes into account recently discovered facts about neuroscience, that's fine for integration into a system. That is, not all new ideas will contradict a system if you have a really good account of how the idea poses no problem. Marxism is more than that though, its theory of value for instance will have a lot more to take account of, maybe even differing on how to make sense of facts. Clearly, we have some common ground on emotions and their importance, but there's a lot more to say about where the view comes from.

By the way, when I was in high school, I had some sentiment for Communism, but more as an Andrei type. So, I can grasp where you may be coming from. (And I know Marxism is not itself a form of Communism, but more the other way around where Communism is a form of Marxism.) The reason I shifted towards Objectivism may actually be due to how both aren't afraid of revolution and both really would go the distance in terms of sticking to one's principles. But as my other views changed, it became evident that it was not a simple matter to integrate ideas from systems (I should say that a few things in Objectivism I think are wrong, but those topics are debated as part of Objectivism, or unsubstantiated claims by Rand).
 

 

 

Russian is a great example of a language that does not wholly fit into his binary principles and parameters reasoning for the same reason.

I've studied some Russian at a really basic level (I know some vocabulary and present tense verb forms) and I agree. Chomsky had good ways to pose some questions of linguistics and cognitive science, but his theories seem to depend on how English works, or doesn't take into account that some languages operate differently despite syntactic similarity. Emotion, or at least intuition, has a lot to do with language as well, Chomsky seems to just want acquisition to work robotically (I know I know, competence and performance are different). In case you were wondering, I've completed a few doctorate seminars in both cognitive psychology and philosophy. That's for a side thing I'm doing, not my main degree.

 

 

 

So, you are basically saying that structures are posteriorly imposed on languages.

I think so. I'm saying that (conceptual, not necessarily a specific brain region) structures exist by default, and those structures help to develop capacities like language, or number concepts.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Eiuol

[Ilya Startsev]

theestevearnold:

But if a group in the same concert hall experiences the same feeling of exhaltation when hearin Beethoven's Ninth, it can be a wonderful feeling to know that other like-minded men exist.

The question then is how you find out about it. Do you watch people's faces and decide what they feel or do you feel this, and so you know? If you feel it (maybe in addition to seeing faces), then my explanation holds.
 

And no State is more important than a Beethoven's Ninth Club.

Please consider scope before equating all groups/societies.

Eiuol:

Even more, adding to a system, including systems of thought, will change what that system is. So, even if you could integrate specific ideas with no contradictions, you'll end up with a new system. New is fine, it just shouldn't be called the same thing, or even "neo" Objectivism.

I agree, so let's agree that I am not trying to change your way of thinking. I am only trying to integrate these two systems or at least most of their ideas in my own ideological landscape.
 

The reason I shifted towards Objectivism may actually be due to how both aren't afraid of revolution and both really would go the distance in terms of sticking to one's principles.

I am a pessimistic Communist then. I don't care whether my principles would be materialized in my lifetime.

[theestevearnold]

theestevearnold:

The question then is how you find out about it. Do you watch people's faces and decide what they feel or do you feel this, and so you know? If you feel it (maybe in addition to seeing faces), then my explanation holds.

The look on their faces. And their standing ovation. And their whoops and hollers, and the ladies throwing their panties on stage. But no, no telepathy or whatever supernatural connection you are referring to.

What scientific discovery of collective emotions are you referring to? I don't think it exists.

Edited February 2, 2014 by theestevearnold

[Ilya Startsev]

theestevearnold:

And their whoops and hollers, and the ladies throwing their panties on stage.

What if they don't show or do it? Does it mean that they did not like it?
 

But no, no telepathy or whatever supernatural connection you are referring to.

I don't like you calling it supernatural, since it is a part of nature on the same level with it, not above it.
 

What scientific discovery of collective emotions are you referring to? I don't think it exists.

This is the third time in this thread that I am mentioning it: The Global Consciousness Project.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Repairman]

Is The Global Consciousness Project in any way related to "the shadow government"?

 

This is the third time in this thread that I am mentioning it: The Global Consciousness Project.

[Repairman]

t

Edited February 2, 2014 by Repairman

[Repairman]

theestevearnold:

What if they don't show or do it? Does it mean that they did not like it?

 

I don't like you calling it supernatural, since it is a part of nature on the same level with it, not above it.

 

This is the third time in this thread that I am mentioning it: The Global Consciousness Project.

Anyway, what is this Global Consciousness Project?

Edited February 2, 2014 by Repairman

[Repairman]

Well, I just did a quick check on The Global Consciousness Project, and from all indications, it has the credibility of Pons and Fleichmans "cold-fusion reactor." In other words: BOGUS.

[Repairman]

Ilya, rather than trying to muddle theories, why not just explain the points you find unacceptable in Objectivism? If you want a Marxist global society, tough luck. You'll have an extremely difficult time marketing such an idea after Lenin, Mao, and Castro demonstrated Marxism in real-life practice. If Objectivism isn't a philosophy that works for you, then OK. Drop it and move on. But honestly, why all the insistence that two contradictory ideas must be integrated? If you want to serve humanity, develop a matter-anti-matter reactor, or something useful.

What have you got against Objectivism?

Edited February 2, 2014 by Repairman

[Ilya Startsev]

Repairman:

Is The Global Consciousness Project in any way related to "the shadow government"?

As far as I know it is funded by the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which is non-profit.
 

In other words: BOGUS.

It seems that you only read criticisms of it.
 

Ilya, rather than trying to muddle theories, why not just explain the points you find unacceptable in Objectivism?

For starters, read my post #66. Later, I can come up with further arguments as need arises.
 

If you want a Marxist global society, tough luck. You'll have an extremely difficult time marketing such an idea after Lenin, Mao, and Castro demonstrated Marxism in real-life practice. If Objectivism isn't a philosophy that works for you, then OK. Drop it and move on.

I have my own philosophy, and I don't call it Marxism. I call it faith-logic. Unfortunately, and this is my own shortcoming, at present I am not able to provide a complete version of it for you, since it's written in Russian. However, I am able and eager to explain its details (and the model contains most of them, read post #40), if you wish to learn my point of view.
 

But honestly, why all the insistence that two contradictory ideas must be integrated?

Because they are already integrated in my mind. I am just trying to find ways to bring forward my understanding by looking at extreme views of Objectivism and Marxism. If you would rather have me shut up - just say so. I was just called a bubblehead and a bigmouth on the 2045 Initiative discussion, and I am not going to post there again. If they are not interested in my ideas - their loss.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Repairman]

It would be hardly any loss to have less nonsense. There is an abundance of nonsense in the media. What the world needs is reason: Solutions based on facts, not faith.

 

I looked at your posts #40, and #66. 40 was utterly meaningless. 66 lacked details, but I understand it, you find some difficulty with what appears to be a matter of psychology, that is self-esteem, proportionally affecting competency.

And could this perceived problem be corrected through any application of Marxist theory? I strongly doubt it. I would suggest that you complete your studies, submit your complete hypothesis, publish it, and spare us the pains of trying to guess what you're unable to articulate here.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Repairman

[Ilya Startsev]

It would be hardly any loss to have less nonsense. There is an abundance of nonsense in the media. What the world needs is reason: Solutions based on facts, not faith.

That is a position of personal faith, is it not? Forget about religion in this discussion. Just like Rand created non-religious ethics, I created a non-religious faith.

[Eiuol]

 

I agree, so let's agree that I am not trying to change your way of thinking. I am only trying to integrate these two systems or at least most of their ideas in my own ideological landscape.

I get that, I'm just aiming to see what it is you want to understand at this point in the discussion.

 

I am a pessimistic Communist then. I don't care whether my principles would be materialized in my lifetime.

I don't follow. I don't ultimately fret over not having the sort of society that I want eventually. Abrupt revolution is often a bad idea, which means notable positive change takes time. I like to joke I'm a budding leader of a revolution, but I'm speaking about emotion, not what I literally want to do on a global scale. I'm just saying that I appreciated the spirit I saw for caring about lofty goals, and Objectivism is similar in that regard. Upon thinking about it more, egoism just works better for happiness than collectivistic ethics ever could. 

[Repairman]

That is a position of personal faith, is it not? Forget about religion in this discussion. Just like Rand created non-religious ethics, I created a non-religious faith.

Any sort of faith puts one in a very insecure place. Faith is mysticism. Mystics are a threat to themselves, and the people who rely on them. If your belief is based on faith, you cannot be taken seriously.