deviadah Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 (edited) Destroy slavery. Support freedom. Kill oppressors. Adore knowledge. Eradicate traditions. Shred money. Write books. Burn flags. Sing songs. Demand truth. Laugh at patriots. Befriend thinkers. Forget religion. Remember the future. Put an end to triviality. Love your dreams. Give them life. Embrace your mind and follow the living God... i.e. yourself! Ever since a child I have had an itch that something was wrong, now I know what it is; the individual is dead! That needs to change... maybe I'll find friends here? Edited November 6, 2006 by deviadah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Welcome to the forum. Are you familiar with Objectivism or with Ayn Rand's fiction? Your brief introduction appears to support anarchism. You'll find that Objectivists stand for unflinchingly strong government, as long it is of the right kind (i.e. moral government). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deviadah Posted November 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 (edited) Well I have read so far only read Atlas Shrugged and I agree with a lot. But I do feel that I am responsible for my own life, so therefore I can be my own ruler. I will rule no one and no one may rule me. A government can never be moral because it implies someones authority to be over another. Master and Slave. This contradicts with Rand's own ideas. Is her A an A? Edited November 7, 2006 by deviadah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Shred money. I see you've read Atlas. What did you think of Francisco's money speech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogito Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Just an interesting aside that has little relevance to this topic... Its interesting how some people see me reading Rand and call me a fascist, and some call me an anarchist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 Just an interesting aside that has little relevance to this topic... Its interesting how some people see me reading Rand and call me a fascist, and some call me an anarchist. Every philosophy out there has an axe to grind with Objectivism. And most ideologies at present can't see anything outside of the terms set by their traditional enemies. "D's" accuse Objectivism of being "M," while "M's" accuse it of being "D." It's like Dr. Peikoff said, "I" is a total unknown in today's world. People can't even recognize it when they see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 A government can never be moral because it implies someones authority to be over another. Master and Slave. This contradicts with Rand's own ideas. Is her A an A? You need to read more because the idea of a proper government explicitly does NOT contradict Ayn Rand's ideas and she spells out what functions a moral government should perform. A proper government would not "rule over" it's people. Rather, a proper government would only "rule over" people who violate other people's rights (by the initiation of force) to begin with, based on objective law. By saying "you rule no one and no one rules you", are you saying that you do not recognize the need for objective law in society? Are you an anarchist or do you support anarchy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deviadah Posted November 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 I love the 'Money Speech'. Very interesting. When I say Shred Money it is not just destroying money but destroying what they symbolize. Because the world is not Galt's Gulch but the 'other'one, the bad one, and here money is evil. By shredding it, finding a substitute, is a form of strike. I myslef deal with no bank. I will not partake of their system. I live like Galt in the way that I keep my ideas and prouction to myself, I won't let society gain from it unless worthy. I am not an anarchist or support anarchy. I have a much higher ideal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 I considered myself an anarchist in my early teens. Then I realized the importance of government. You may not be an anarchist, but your Emma Goldman quote leads me to believe that you are. And if you are, I'm not saying, "grow up and you'll think differently." I despise arguments like that. A government's proper goal is to protect the rights of its citizens and nothing more. That means no coercive taxation, a strong military defense and a criminal justice system that settles disputes between citizens. Check out some of the threads and feel free to ask questions. Oh yeah, Welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 When I say Shred Money it is not just destroying money but destroying what they symbolize. Because the world is not Galt's Gulch but the 'other'one, the bad one, and here money is evil. By shredding it, finding a substitute, is a form of strike. I myslef deal with no bank. I will not partake of their system. I live like Galt in the way that I keep my ideas and prouction to myself, I won't let society gain from it unless worthy. Don't let yourself get so cynical. Life still has a lot in it to enjoy. I wouldn't say that money here is evil. Yeah, it's paper and not gold; that stinks. But it still buys things, and life is for enjoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deviadah Posted November 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2006 (edited) You may not be an anarchist, but your Emma Goldman quote leads me to believe that you are. And if you are, I'm not saying, "grow up and you'll think differently." I despise arguments like that. A government's proper goal is to protect the rights of its citizens and nothing more. That means no coercive taxation, a strong military defense and a criminal justice system that settles disputes between citizens. There are even quotes by Hitler I like, that doesn't mean I approve of his ideas. I agree somewhat with Ayn Rand, and also with your, idea of government, but in the end power corrupts always. I wish it wasn't so. Ayn Rand, and her mind, is Great - that does not mean I agree with everything she says. I hope this does not make me look like I am here to spread criticism of her work, but I do think that all areas of Objectivism that I agree with are not interesting to discuss - more that which I don't agree with. Such discussion will lead to either acceptance or the opposite. All knowledge is important. The government issue is one! Edited November 11, 2006 by deviadah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 There are even quotes by Hitler I like, that doesn't mean I approve of his ideas. I agree somewhat with Ayn Rand, and also with your, idea of government, but in the end power corrupts always. I wish it wasn't so. so you agree with FF's idea of govt. (which by the way, is also Rand's idea of it) but "in the end power corrupts always..." soooooo, now what? Wishing is nice, but if you really believe that power corrupts always, then you implicitly don't believe in Rand's idea of govt, otherwise you would NOT say that a "govt can never be moral." It seems you have a contradiction. How do you propose to resolve it besides just wishing? Ayn Rand, and her mind, is Great - that does not mean I agree with everything she says. I hope this does not make me look like I am here to spread criticism of her work, but I do think that all areas of Objectivism that I agree with are not interesting to discuss - more that which I don't agree with. Such discussion will lead to either acceptance or the opposite. All knowledge is important. I don't necessarily think you're trying to spread criticism of her work, but I would suggest that several of your posts would indicate that you may not understand her work very well. Her ideas are very tightly integrated, and as a result you may find yourself at odds with people in different threads. I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with her non-fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deviadah Posted November 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 (edited) It seems you have a contradiction. How do you propose to resolve it besides just wishing? I don't necessarily think you're trying to spread criticism of her work, but I would suggest that several of your posts would indicate that you may not understand her work very well. Her ideas are very tightly integrated, and as a result you may find yourself at odds with people in different threads. I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with her non-fiction. I have only read Atlas Shrugged, and some material written about Ayn Rand. I have never admitted more. I got The Fountainhead in my 'to read' pile. From what I have read here on the forum and compared to Atlas Shrugged there is a difference. Or maybe it is because in the end Atlas Shrugged is FICTION and therefore open to interpretation - regardless of her other works it stands on its own. What I meant in regards to government I agree with Rand's idea of government, but I don't agree that it can ever work i.e. I acknowledge the existence and logic of the idea but I oppose the notion that it will ever become a reality! Edited November 12, 2006 by deviadah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogito Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 I acknowledge the existence and logic of the idea but I oppose the notion that it will ever become a reality! If it is logical, it must be logical in some context... I always saw that context as reality. If it is logical but not within reality, what could you possibly mean when you say "it is logical"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deviadah Posted November 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 If it is logical, it must be logical in some context... I always saw that context as reality. If it is logical but not within reality, what could you possibly mean when you say "it is logical"? What I mean is that the IDEA is logical when you hear/read/think about it but if ever put into practice it would not work because the Human Race are illogical (as a mass with individual exceptions)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogito Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 But what's the use of logic if it doesn't apply to reality? Unless humans are not a part of reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleph_0 Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 I like your spunk. Good to see you around. What does it mean for the human race to be illogical? Since you admit there are individual exceptions, this cannot be a categorical statement. So the majority of people in modern society often make illogical decisions? Put in these mild terms, it doesn't seem like such a challenge to the notion of freedom. People in modern society are often excused of the responsibility to think logically--put them in a situation where they succeed or fail based on their ability to recognize and deal with reality, and you may see some changes in typical human behavior. Moreover--who cares about the illogical people? Of what significance are they? When given a political system guarantees freedom, the illogical are invalid in every way. "I have the Overman at heart, that is my first and only concern--and not man: not the neighbor, not the poorest, not the most ailing, not the best." - Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part IV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 I agree somewhat with Ayn Rand, and also with your, idea of government, but in the end power corrupts always. I wish it wasn't so. But that's the whole point: the form of government we advocate (capitalism) abolishes all government "power," in the sense of power over men. Anarchy, on the other hand, puts man at the mercy of any random thug to come along. The entire purpose of capitalism is to establish individual rights; to set man free from his fellow man. What I mean is that the IDEA is logical when you hear/read/think about it but if ever put into practice it would not work because the Human Race are illogical (as a mass with individual exceptions)! That was Dr. Robert Stadler's position. Where did it get him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleph_0 Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 That was Dr. Robert Stadler's position. Where did it get him? That's a joke, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 What I mean is that the IDEA is logical when you hear/read/think about it but if ever put into practice it would not work because the Human Race are illogical (as a mass with individual exceptions)! Well, you have expressed a philosophical idea here. "Something is good / logical / benficial in theory, but impractical / unworkable / flawed / idealistic in practice." It is a common slogan an uttered by many in Atlas Shrugged, but by NONE of Rand's heroes. That is because it is specifically rejected by Objectivism. If something does not work in practice, then it cannot be logical / good in theory. So if you believe that this idea is unworkable then you MUST disagree with Rand's philosophy of govt. Suggest "Philosophy: who needs it" for an intro read. It may give you a sense of where we're coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 (edited) That's a joke, right? No, it isn't. That character was specifically designed to address the point in question. Edited November 13, 2006 by Inspector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 Welcome deviadah, I hope you have enough time for all the suggested reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleph_0 Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 No, it isn't. That character was specifically designed to address the point in question. ... You're citing a fictional character as precedent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 ... You're citing a fictional character as precedent? Precedent? Deviadah has only read Atlas Shrugged (no other Objectivism), and really liked it. I am showing a character from Atlas who specifically illustrates a point that was brought up. Since this is something that we both know and can discuss, it is a useful starting point. What were you thinking was meant by it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleph_0 Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 It sounds like you're saying, in essence, "This is what happens to people with such a philosophy." As if Atlas Shrugged proves a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.