Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Honest Analysis with Questions

Rate this topic


Melchior

Recommended Posts

Hello, newbie here. :pimp:

I am not an objectivist or a follower of Ayn Rand, but I believe in being open to all ideas that have a valid enough basis, so here I am.

First things first; I am a minarchist and supporter of the Libertarian Party, I believe the best government is a small government, the free market > government regulation, and that all rights are derived from private property. Michael Badnarik is my hero, Harry Browne was one of the most intelligent and sincere men alive.

The LP is a big tent (for a third party anyway), and everyone has their own ideas and dissenting opinions. In the realm of libertarianism, or at least, the realm of anti-government sentiments there is a diversity of anarchists, capitalists, classic liberals, true conservatives, isolationists, etc. But it seems you can't swim these waters too long without encountering the Ayn Rand crowd. I have been told that much of the support for and conversion to the LP comes from a single book; Atlas Shrugged. Indeed, there is a particular forum I frequent with private HQ's for political parties, and in the LPHQ we have a well known Ayn Rand quoting member by the name of John Galt who is the most callous, principled and ferocious of us.

I have not yet read Atlas Shrugged or any other Ayn Rand book, but I was curious about objectivism, so I looked into it.

My discovery was that this philosophy is very unique, it seems to be an all-encompassing ideology that covers politics, ethics, religion, etc. With the issue of political thought it appears that there is virtually no difference between objectivist politics and libertarianism. But further probing reveals heavy criticism of libertarians from the Ayn Rand podium, why? The main criticism is that libertarians are devoid of principles... obviously I disagree, but I found this accusation strange. Even stranger was when I understood what the core beliefs of objectivism were;

a. Selfishness is a virtue.

b. Altruism is evil.

c. The ego should be fed.

This one shocked me to the core, not only because I have never heard anyone express such views, but these values are in direct opposition to my personal beliefs and practices, which can largely be attributed to Buddhist ethics and teachings. In fact, I was labeled as an "enemy to capitalism" by an Ayn Randian on another forum because I made it known that I both advocate capitalism and practice altruism, preferring private charity over state welfare.

I like libertarianism because it places a heave emphasis on choice, I will fight the death my right and anyone else's right to choose, this includes the choice to be a selfish egotistical bastard. However, I will on my own time exercise the right to be selfless and charitable, in search of enlightenment, as a part of my pursuit of happiness. In objectivism though, my fight accounts for nothing because I am seen as an evil altruistic leech. (As John Galt described it).

Ayn Rand was obviously an intelligent woman with good ideas, and I like the principles objectivism preaches about individualism and not being obligated to support anyone else but yourself. Unfortunately I only agree with this philosophy where it agrees with my libertarian principles. I can understand where this attitude may come from, legislation of altruism inevitably leads to communism, and many self-proclaimed altruists are finger-wagging collectivists. But to discredit compassion entirely... well I don't think I will be converting to objectivism any time soon.

But I am not completely closed to it, I am not any more discouraged to read Atlas Shrugged (or watch the movie cause' I'm lazy) or any of Rand's other works, but I will do so with healthy skepticism.

Sorry if that was too wordy, I have been reflecting on this a bit lately. Now for my questions, if you aren't sick of me by now, I request answers to these including a critique of my explained encounter with objectivism. I want to know what it is that makes you guys tick:

1. What do you think of libertarianism, and do you or would you ever vote for a LP candidate?

2. How are libertarians devoid of principles to back up their beliefs?

3. Why do you promote selfishness and greed, and do you believe there can be cons to this mentality?

4. If religion and spirituality is completely undesirable, what is the objectivist answer to questions such as "what is our purpose?", "what is the answer to 'life, the universe and everything?' (as Douglas Adams put it)", etc.

5. What is your honest opinion of Buddhism and Eastern Philosophies?

6. How do you feel about the subject of war?

7. Are there any common disagreements between objectivists? If so, what are they?

Thank you for your time. I confess that I know nothing, and I hold no ill intentions. :lol:

Edited by Melchior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. What do you think of libertarianism, and do you or would you ever vote for a LP candidate?

I agree with this:

IS LIBERTARIANISM AN EVIL DOCTRINE? Yes, if evil is the irrational and the destructive. Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called "liberty." It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why "liberty" is desirable and what "liberty" means. Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his "liberty"�”and no Libertarian (even those who happen to disagree) can objectively refute his definition. Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain "wings" of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it. In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of "liberty" can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior�”political, moral, metaphysical. And since reality is the fundamental "restraint" upon men's actions, it is nihilism�”the desire to obliterate reality�”that is the very essence of Libertarianism. If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, widespread death would be the consequence. (For elaboration, see my essay "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty.")

(bold mine)

Would I ever vote for an LP candidate? If his opponent were sufficiently horrible, I might. That is, if I thought he stood a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning.

2. How are libertarians devoid of principles to back up their beliefs?
See bolded, above. If you don't explain what liberty is or why it is good, then it can be twisted into advocacy for anything, including rather horrible things which trample all over individual rights.

3. Why do you promote selfishness and greed, and do you believe there can be cons to this mentality?

Because selfishness is literally the requirement of life and happiness. Sacrifice-of-self is, to the degree that it is practiced, the pursuit of death. A better question is: why do altruists promote self-sacrifice? What reason is there for that?

Cons? Properly understood, there are no "cons." The caveat is that just because someone claims an action to be in their self interest does not make it so. What you probably (just a guess here) think of as "selfish" are a myriad of self-destructive hedonistic actions. Since such actions are in fact self-destructive, it is a contradiction to call them "selfish," even though most people (and many philosophers) do.

4. If religion and spirituality is completely undesirable, what is the objectivist answer to questions such as "what is our purpose?", "what is the answer to 'life, the universe and everything?' (as Douglas Adams put it)", etc.
Religion is undesirable because it is non-factual. Non-fact cannot lead to wisdom, enlightenment, or knowledge of the universe. Only reason can lead to those things. To answer those questions, we must look, using reason, at the facts of reality.

5. What is your honest opinion of Buddhism and Eastern Philosophies?

I think they require belief in things without proof. I think they advocate unreason. And therefore cannot lead to fulfillment, happiness, or knowledge of how to live and flourish. That's my honest opinion.

6. How do you feel about the subject of war?
I think that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. If a foreign nation threatens those rights, the government of a free nation must act quickly and decisively to end the threat, with maximum force. Any restraint exercised is a needless endangerment of the lives and rights of the free and threatened people. A dictatorship has no right to exist, and a free nation has no obligation to sacrifice its safety to protect a dictatorship, a dictator, or the citizens of a dictatorship.

7. Are there any common disagreements between objectivists? If so, what are they?

Plenty of them. Look for any thread here that goes beyond six pages. Sex is a big one. There are also large disagreements on which party to vote for. And lots of others. Again, look around.

Thank you for your time. I confess that I know nothing, and I hold no ill intentions. :lol:

Your first post was good. The forum rules make it important for you to ask questions rather than make arguments against Objectivism, and so far I think you are doing well in that regard. You should be welcome to stay, learn, and ask more questions.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they require belief in things without proof. I think they advocate unreason. And therefore cannot lead to fulfillment, happiness, or knowledge of how to live and flourish. That's my honest opinion.

Here's a spot where objectivists might disagree(a little). I have studied martial arts for some time and have found certain psychological aspects of eastern philosophy to be functionally, very useful. Especially those centered around focus and perception. I would not endorse them in total, of course. A big problem I have with eastern religion is it's vagueness...that many parts seem to be understandable in different ways. Leads to some undesirable and incorrect conclusions.

Objectivist's are not opposed to charity or compassion, per se. They are considered to be contextual issues which are not neccessarily moral or immoral. The circumstances and reasons which you are compassionate or charitable under determine it's morality. I think this view you hold comes from a misunderstanding regarding the way in which we use the word selfish. Selfish is a kinda shorthand for longterm-rational best interests, which very often can mean giving to charity. For example, I know a great number who give money to the Ayn Rand Institute for their highschool book projects and what-not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this:

(bold mine)

Would I ever vote for an LP candidate? If his opponent were sufficiently horrible, I might. That is, if I thought he stood a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning.

Christ on a cracker, that was harsh. So it seems there isn't even a factor of sympathy or familiarity.

I am resisting the urge not to go into a rant about why third parties are electable...

I would like to assert that we have a definition of liberty and a basis for what it is desirable. In short liberty is the right to your life and property, and to do what you will as long as it does not directly affect the non-consenting. For why it is desirable, I offer a quote from Michael Badnarik:

One of the things I do early on in a presentation is ask how many people in the audience currently live at home with their mom and dad. Depending on the age bracket, some significant percentage is still semi-dependant. The next question is how many people plan to be living at home with Mom and Dad five years from now. We never have any hands go up. Everybody obviously is planning to move away from Mom and Dad, and the question is, why? Why would you move from a three- or four-bedroom home into a small studio apartment living just above the poverty level? The answer is fairly intuitive: It’s for the sake of liberty. They love their parents but at that age group, it is time for them to grow up, move out, and make their own decisions in life.
As Michael Badnarik put it, we believe everyone has not only the natural born right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but the instinct to defend and cherish it.

See bolded, above. If you don't explain what liberty is or why it is good, then it can be twisted into advocacy for anything, including rather horrible things which trample all over individual rights.

It already is, but the main drive behind the libertarian movement, or at least Badnarik followers, is to define liberty. The problem with people today is that they do not know their rights.

Because selfishness is literally the requirement of life and happiness. Sacrifice-of-self is, to the degree that it is practiced, the pursuit of death. A better question is: why do altruists promote self-sacrifice? What reason is there for that?

I wouldn't see it that way, rarely do I see altruism to the extreme of self destruction, even Buddhism preaches the middle way.

But I can accept the concept that altruism is sacrifice. So my question is, why is self-sacrifice evil or not good for society as a whole?

Cons? Properly understood, there are no "cons." The caveat is that just because someone claims an action to be in their self interest does not make it so. What you probably (just a guess here) think of as "selfish" are a myriad of self-destructive hedonistic actions. Since such actions are in fact self-destructive, it is a contradiction to call them "selfish," even though most people (and many philosophers) do.

Wow, beautiful clarification.

Indeed, my main problem with the idea that selfishness is in the best interest of the individual was the possible destruction brought on by hedonism. But if objectivists recognize the consequences of hedonism I am willing to narrow my definition of selfishness and see more rationality in this ethical belief.

Still, this doesn't address the problem of greed, attachment to materials or wealth and the suffering that follows the obsession with them.

Religion is undesirable because it is non-factual. Non-fact cannot lead to wisdom, enlightenment, or knowledge of the universe. Only reason can lead to those things. To answer those questions, we must look, using reason, at the facts of reality.

I think they require belief in things without proof. I think they advocate unreason. And therefore cannot lead to fulfillment, happiness, or knowledge of how to live and flourish. That's my honest opinion.

This sounds like the usual atheist approach.

But doesn't objectivism address epistemology and looking at things from an objective and open-minded view? I fully agree with not believing in anything without solid proof, but I also advocate the pursuit of acquiring proof. When this is not worthwhile is when a religious belief demands "faith"

A religion such as Buddhism, does not require blind faith. It does not even require believing in everything preached by the religion other than the core values and practices. The only unprovable, mystical concept in Buddhism is rebirth (I do not consider karma unprovable or mystic). I do not even believe in rebirth, like many western Buddhists, and I while the concept of karma is interesting I still don't know if I believe in that. What I practice is the Eightfold path, and mediation to achieve emptiness and awareness, what in particular is non-objectivist about that?

Even Christianity has a rich history and valueable moral code, the teachings of Jesus Christ can be practiced without believing he was the son of God.

The atheist or objective approach to religion, to me is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I think that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. If a foreign nation threatens those rights, the government of a free nation must act quickly and decisively to end the threat, with maximum force. Any restraint exercised is a needless endangerment of the lives and rights of the free and threatened people. A dictatorship has no right to exist, and a free nation has no obligation to sacrifice its safety to protect a dictatorship, a dictator, or the citizens of a dictatorship.

After searching the forum about via "Libertarian" as a key word, I can see the most realistic disagreement between objectivists and the LP is foreign policy.

While I don't agree we have any right to intervene in the affairs of other countries, I can tell you we have quite a few hawkish members.

Plenty of them. Look for any thread here that goes beyond six pages. Sex is a big one. There are also large disagreements on which party to vote for. And lots of others. Again, look around.
Already doing that, so far I'm intrigued by what I see.

Your first post was good. The forum rules make it important for you to ask questions rather than make arguments against Objectivism, and so far I think you are doing well in that regard. You should be welcome to stay, learn, and ask more questions.

Thank you very much Inspector.

I hope I didn't overstep any boundaries by trying to refute some of your responses. :lol:

Edited by Melchior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one shocked me to the core, not only because I have never heard anyone express such views, but these values are in direct opposition to my personal beliefs and practices, which can largely be attributed to Buddhist ethics and teachings. In fact, I was labeled as an "enemy to capitalism" by an Ayn Randian on another forum because I made it known that I both advocate capitalism and practice altruism, preferring private charity over state welfare.

I like libertarianism because it places a heave emphasis on choice, I will fight the death my right and anyone else's right to choose, this includes the choice to be a selfish egotistical bastard.

Okay, why does the heavy emphasis on choice cause you to like libertarianism? Why doesn't that instead drive you from libertarianism, into the awaiting arms of socialism? This is exactly why Objectivism (a proper name, capitalized) is incompatible with libertarianism. You're right that your actions, let's say to reduce taxation, are for nothing because you are still working to strengthen the evil philosophical foundation that leads to the welfare state and Nazism. Horrible comparison, I know, but the truth hurts sometimes. The basic problem is that without a philosophical foundation, nothing keeps the LP anchored to any particular political ideas. We have witnessed the drifting of the Democrats and the Republicans, whose purpose is simply "staying in office". What the party could be doing is promulgating the philosophical foundation needed for a change in political climate, but in fact there has been no philosophical advancement in the party. The position on abortion is an interesting case study: the fundamental issue is whether a fetus has rights or does not, and the LP decides that saying "the government should stay out of it" really is intellectual cowardice in the first degree. Consider the question whether blacks have rights. Some people feel they don't, and they can therefore be gunned down. So if "the government should stay out of it", protection of actual rights apparently isn't the business of government. Accidentally, the party ended up supporting a woman's right to an abortion, but that was philosophically arbitrary, and it could have just as easily ended up that the party would support the fetus's "right to life".

You're in error about Objectivism and compassion, but this is a classical error so I don't think it is a sign that you're evil or stupid. The usual misrepresentation of Objectivism and benevolence arises either from evil people who are trying to discredit Objectivism and are liars, or from people who don't bother to really understand the philosophy.

Now some brief answers:

1. What do you think of libertarianism, and do you or would you ever vote for a LP candidate?
I was an LP candidate and voted for Hospers (and myself, of course) in 1972. I now repudiate libertarianism and the LP in part for being the philosophy / party of no principles, and in part for being populated by way too many wack-jobs. Dunno if this guy is a party member, but it doesn't matter because it's not just about the party.
2. How are libertarians devoid of principles to back up their beliefs?
Totally. There is no philosophy of libertarianism; at best, there is a political credo about initiation of force.
3. Why do you promote selfishness and greed, and do you believe there can be cons to this mentality?
This would be an example of where you ought to do your research on Objectivism. Greed is an anti-concept so obviously I don't promote greed; I practice selfishness rigorously because it is good for me; I promote selfishness out of benevolence, and promote the right to act selfishly out of selfish self-interest (to keep my taxes low and to prevent my employer from forcing me to contribute money to my own self-destruction).
4. If religion and spirituality is completely undesirable, what is the objectivist answer to questions such as "what is our purpose?", "what is the answer to 'life, the universe and everything?' (as Douglas Adams put it)", etc.
I have a purpose, but life and the universe do not have a purpose. Here again, we have libertarianism lining up with profound thinkers like Doug Adams. Cute books, but get serious, okay? What I think you're missing is that the question is invalid, and the presumption that it's a valid question is one of the fundamental cons of religion.
5. What is your honest opinion of Buddhism and Eastern Philosophies?
Generally I think they are silly or evil, although I am curious about the details of Carvaka philosophy, though since the texts that survive are second-hand, it's hard to say what the philosophy actually holds.
6. How do you feel about the subject of war?
War. Huh. Yeah, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Good God, y'all. War is not good for children and other living things. BTW since you didn't ask, slavery is also good for nothing. Rand wrote on the topic of war, in an essay "The Roots of War".
7. Are there any common disagreements between objectivists? If so, what are they?
Not exactly, depending on what you mean by "common". The main disagreement regards whether to vote for Democrats or Republicans. I won't try to condense the arguments here, but the main issue is whether the latent socialism of the Democrats is a greater threat to man's existence, or is it the religious fascism of the Republicans.

Anyway, I don't know what to suggest for you. When I first got started in my libertarian days, a friend recommended Atlas Shrugged, which I started to read but just couldn't get into, so I went for The Fountainhead, followed by various essays. I now understand that the biggest problem that I had was getting free of the irrational "primacy of liberty" axiom, and understanding how liberty is not itself the purpose. I would suggest AS is the ideal single read for you, especially Galt's speech, but don't read it for the plot and do especially read Galt's speech a couple of times and very carefully.

Anyhow, if you can't stand criticism, you know what to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short liberty is the right to your life and property, and to do what you will as long as it does not directly affect the non-consenting.
Maybe a bit of applied philosophy would be in order here. My house is white with green trim; if I paint it purple with day-glow yellow trim, that would directly affect the non-consenting, namely anybody who saw such a horrid color scheme. Do I have a right to affect non-consenting people this way -- why or why not? I love to listen to Death Metal music at 2:00 AM, with the windows open and the amplifier turned all the way up. Do I have the right: why or why not? If my neighbor's house is on fire and he's not home, do I have the right to call the fire department? Do I have the right to try to put it out? Or do I only have that right once my house catches on fire? Should I try to put the fire out (make whatever assumptions you want about the size and intensity of the fire and proximity to my house). If a gang of killers invades his house and starts trying to kill me from there, can I defend myself by lobbing grenades into his house?

Suppose I am hiking in the great north woods and I get hopelessly lost for days, so I'm freezing colds and starving, and on death's door. Then I stumble onto a cabin in the woods: can I take shelter in the cabin, if there is no "Trespassers Welcome" sign? What if there is a "No Trespassing" sign?

Suppose my family owned a large tract of woodland in the city, and they have always let people use that land freely for recreational purposes. I inherit the land, and decide to turn it into an industrial park, without the consent of the affected. So I have that right? Would it me morally wrong for me to do so?

Suppose I have a baby, and the baby gets sick. Can I take the baby to the doctor without his consent? If I do and the doctor tells me that an operation is necessary to save the baby's life, do I have the right to allow the doctor to operate? Suppose I'm a member of that wacko cult (Christian Scientist or Jehovah's Witlesses or something like that) which doesn't allow blood transfusions; can I shoot the doctor if he tries to give the baby a transfusion during the operation?

Suppose I write a truthful treatise that exposes the libertarian movement for the unprincipled sham that it is, and post it on the internet. It is such a compelling argument that people leave the movement in droves and funding dries up. I've affected the LP without its consent; do I have that right? Suppose now that I write a pack of lies: do I have the right to publish that? Why or why not? Suppose I advertise Krugerrands at $10 apiece, and when people send me their money I send them an ordinary SA Rand (current exchange rate, 14 cents). Do I have that right: why or why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i see that, in the time it's taken me to write this several others have posted--only the one response by Inspector was here when I started. So I'll go on and post this and then read the others to see if I have anything else to add. :lol: ]

Hello. : )

First things first; I am a minarchist and supporter of the Libertarian Party, I believe the best government is a small government, the free market > government regulation, and that all rights are derived from private property.
Many of us (meaning, members of this forum and other, mostly younger Objectivists) started out as libertarians. Objectivists also believe in limited government, and unregulated laissez-faire capitalism. For a brief but very good statement of Ayn Rand's theory of rights, I recommend chapters 12 and 14 from The Virtue of Selfishness, titled "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government." These can be read on their own, as they were originally published as separate essays. Private property is certainly an indispensable right, but Ayn Rand's position (like Locke, but better explained) is that all rights are derived from man's ability to reason. It wouldn't make much sense to derive all rights from private property, since private property is itself a right. Is the right to private property also supposed to be derived from private property? If not, from whence does it derive?

The LP is a big tent (for a third party anyway), and everyone has their own ideas and dissenting opinions. In the realm of libertarianism, or at least, the realm of anti-government sentiments there is a diversity of anarchists, capitalists, classic liberals, true conservatives, isolationists, etc.
Yes, that's what I would mean if I were to say Libertarianism is unprincipled. It means there are no unified, grounded, thoroughly formulated principles which unite Libertarianism into a political philosophy. Anyone who wants to claim they advocate liberty is included, with liberty being left undefined. It's conceivable (if uncommon) that some particular libertarian might be principled, but that's different from saying libertarianism is principled.

But it seems you can't swim these waters too long without encountering the Ayn Rand crowd. I have been told that much of the support for and conversion to the LP comes from a single book; Atlas Shrugged.
Yes, it's a long book. But it's oh-so worth the read! By the end, you'll wish it wasn't over yet. Luckily, she has other great books, too. Well, only read it if you like interesting stories with mystery, suspense, romance, beautiful descriptions of larger than life people, places, and events, and challenging insights into philosophy and human nature and relationships. Otherwise, you might be bored. ; )

My discovery was that this philosophy is very unique, it seems to be an all-encompassing ideology that covers politics, ethics, religion, etc.
Correct.
With the issue of political thought it appears that there is virtually no difference between objectivist politics and libertarianism.
There are often similarities, but Objectivism has a principled approach to politics that's integrated with the whole philosophy. Libertarianism starts with politics, which is not a philosophical primary, and so it often unsubstantiated in its claims and assumptions. Many Libertarians advocate things that are the antithesis of Objectivist political philosophy, such as collectivism (e.g. anarchism), suicidal pacifism, and, in various ways depriving the government of its ability to uphold its one legitimate function: protecting individual rights.

But further probing reveals heavy criticism of libertarians from the Ayn Rand podium, why? The main criticism is that libertarians are devoid of principles... obviously I disagree, but I found this accusation strange.
Well, if you want some specific criticisms from Ayn Rand, there is a selection of quotes from her at the Ayn Rand Institute's website here. Besides the myriad of philosophical disagreements Ayn Rand had with libertarians, it didn't help things that many of the early leaders of the Libertarian movement would come out with the most horrendous and ridiculously unfounded criticisms of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, while at the same time plagiarizing much of her work, without giving her any credit.

a. Selfishness is a virtue.
True. Sometimes we'll call it "rational self interest" to distinguish it from the type of self destructive behavior that is often fallaciously referred to as selfish, by those who don't know better and those who should.

b. Altruism is evil.
True. Altruism is the sacrifice of self to others. Sacrifice is trading a higher value for a lower value or non-value. Objectivism rejects all ethical codes which require sacrificial victims. An Objectivist trades values for values, neither sacrificing others to himself or himself to others.

c. The ego should be fed.
What does this mean? I've never heard those terms spoken by an Objectivist, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Ego means self. What does it mean to feed one's ego? Nourish and improve one's self? I could go with that. But maybe you mean something else.

In fact, I was labeled as an "enemy to capitalism" by an Ayn Randian on another forum because I made it known that I both advocate capitalism and practice altruism, preferring private charity over state welfare.
Just FYI, Ayn Rand specifically came up with the term "Objectivist" because she hated the term "Randist," that some of her followers were beginning to adopt at the time. As she stated in The Objectivist Forum, Vol. 1 No. 1, "I am much too conceited to allow such a use of my name." So if you ever sense hostility from an Objectivist if you use the term "Randian," that's why: knowing her position on the issue, some of AR's less mature opponents intentionally use the term "Randian" derisively.

I like libertarianism because it places a heave emphasis on choice, I will fight the death my right and anyone else's right to choose, this includes the choice to be a selfish egotistical bastard. However, I will on my own time exercise the right to be selfless and charitable, in search of enlightenment, as a part of my pursuit of happiness. In objectivism though, my fight accounts for nothing because I am seen as an evil altruistic leech. (As John Galt described it).
I'll fight to the death for your right to choose to be a self-sacrificing altruist, as long as you don't force the obligation on me, or violate anyone's rights in doing it. The right to act on your own judgment is as indispensable as property rights. And it is possible for it to be in a person's self interest to invest in some particular charity, if it is for a worthy cause that is a legitimate value for the person. If you only want to sacrifice yourself and no one else, I doubt a serious advocate of Objectivism would call you a "leech," because in that case it seems you are the one who is being leeched, not the one doing the leeching. But, he might legitimately accuse you of willingly feeding the leeches, and allowing them to survive and claim more victims.

But to discredit compassion entirely... well I don't think I will be converting to objectivism any time soon.
How are you defining "compassion"? Compassion can be perfectly selfish as long as it's directed at those who deserve compassion, and not merely those who "need" it, but haven't done anything to earn it.

But I am not completely closed to it, I am not any more discouraged to read Atlas Shrugged (or watch the movie cause' I'm lazy) or any of Rand's other works, but I will do so with healthy skepticism.
Well, there's not a movie for Atlas Shrugged yet, although one is supposedly in the works. There is one for The Fountainhead, that's okay as long as you haven't already read the book (to which it doesn't compare, though she did write the screenplay and have some limited control over the making of it). The Fountainhead movie was actually my first encounter with Ayn Rand, and it was enough to make me very interested in her.

3. Why do you promote selfishness and greed, and do you believe there can be cons to this mentality?
I think Ayn Rand put it best in the September 1971 issue of The Objectivist: "...I shall say that I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." I promote selfishness and greed, because I promote life and happiness on earth, and those, properly defined and understood, are the means to obtaining them.

4. If religion and spirituality is completely undesirable, what is the objectivist answer to questions such as "what is our purpose?", "what is the answer to 'life, the universe and everything?' (as Douglas Adams put it)", etc.
Religion is undesirable because faith is undesirable. "Spirituality" isn't necessarily undesirable, but an Objectivist would mean by that something like "that which pertains to consciousness." What makes you so sure that we share a common purpose? The answers to "life" are to be found in ethics, "the universe" to be found in metaphysics, and "everything" to be found in philosophy, which consists of five major branches: metaphysics--the study of the fundamental nature of existence, epistemology--the study of the nature and validity of knowledge, ethics--the study of the proper moral code by which to guide one's actions, politics--the study of proper government, and aesthetics--the study of art. Metaphysics and epistemology are the most fundamental branches, from which ethics is derived, and from those three are derived politics and aesthetics.

>>5. What is your honest opinion of Buddhism and Eastern Philosophies?>>Like all religions, I view them as a primitive attempt at philosophy, or an early attempt for people to formulate a comprehensive view of the universe. For the most part, the conclusions of Eastern religion is blatantly and sometimes even proudly irrational and mystical. But they didn't get it all wrong, and there are some wise proverbs and principles that you can dig up, just like with most other religions. But, the religious elements are unnecessary and have no place in the modern world, in my opinion, other than as a way to understand history and the development of thought in various cultures.

>>Thank you for your time.>> It wasn't a sacrifice. I enjoyed it! :pimp::lol: Happy New Years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I didn't overstep any boundaries by trying to refute some of your responses. :lol:

I think you kinda did. Maybe if you could rephrase those parts into questions about Objectivism, that would help. Out of benevolence, I'll try to answer your responses...

Christ on a cracker, that was harsh. So it seems there isn't even a factor of sympathy or familiarity.
No, not with the party or members or the act of supporting it and such. I think you'll find that you will be treated as an individual and given a certain benefit of the doubt, so long as you can stay honest and civil and mind the board rules.

I am resisting the urge not to go into a rant about why third parties are electable...

Probably best to keep resisting that one. It's fairly well agreed here that a philosophic and cultural revolution must come first, before there is any hope whatsoever for a good political party to stand a chance.

I would like to assert that we have a definition of liberty and a basis for what it is desirable.
Which is to say you have one, personally, not that Libertarianism does.

...the main drive behind the libertarian movement, or at least Badnarik followers, is to define liberty.

Hmmm. Well, they can get back to us when they have finished doing so, and begin excluding the communists from the party.

Okay, that was a bit in jest. The problem is that since Libertarianism is a "big tent," it accepts conflicting and contradictory definitions of "liberty," and offers no exclusion to philosophies that, in fact, hate individual rights and would seek to destroy them.

But I can accept the concept that altruism is sacrifice. So my question is, why is self-sacrifice evil or not good for society as a whole?
Because society is only a number of individuals. "Society," as such, does not exist. There is no entity "society," it is only a word used to refer to more than one individual. Self-sacrifice is bad for individuals individually, so how could it be good for them?

However, another big problem with altruism is that, since it advocates self-sacrifice, it also must necessarily advocate other-sacrifice. Because other people are only "selfs," themselves. This is the root behind the major philosophic movements responsible for the violation of rights: if sacrifice of the self is good, then they're just going to make sure that you're being a good little boy. <insert evil, grinning emoticon here>

The only possible philosophic basis for individual rights is the idea that it is right for individuals to live for their own sake; not sacrificing themselves (and, for that matter, not sacrificing others, either).

Egoism, as understood by Objectivism (the only proper way to understand it, btw) is the idea that man's life is his own. Therefore, his mind is his own, his efforts belong to him, and so do the products of his mind and his efforts. Altruism is the idea that man's life is not his own; he does not have a right to it: others have a claim on him, and thus on his mind and his property... that his only justification for existing is to serve others. Egoism says that a man exists for his own sake; that he need not justify his existence to others, that his only responsibility to others is that he similarly respect their right to exist.

Or, as Leonard Peikoff put it:

Man's mind requires selfishness, and so does his life in every aspect: a living organism has to be the beneficiary of its own actions. It has to pursue specific objects—for itself, for its own sake and survival. Life requires the gaining of values, not their loss; achievement, not renunciation; self-preservation, not self-sacrifice. Man can choose to value and pursue self-immolation, but he cannot survive or prosper by such a method.

But if [O]bjectivists recognize the consequences of hedonism...

Oh, for sure we do!

Still, this doesn't address the problem of greed, attachment to materials or wealth and the suffering that follows the obsession with them.
As David said, the word "greed" is a bit of an undefinable anti-concept, but I will take it from context what you mean. I think you'll find we're once the most and least "materialistic" of people you'll find. We reject traditional philosophic dichotomies between the spiritual (i.e. mental, values-based) and the material.

Here, check this out... it fully illustrates the principle I am alluding to:

Francisco's Money Speech

That ought to clear up your confusion about what we like, and what we condemn.

A religion such as Buddhism, does not require blind faith.

I will grant you that Buddhism is less demanding of faith than many religions, but see here:

The only unprovable, mystical concept in Buddhism is rebirth (I do not consider karma unprovable or mystic). I do not even believe in rebirth
See, it really does require faith. And I notice that you reject that, and so you're not really a Buddhist, are you?

What I practice is the Eightfold path, and mediation to achieve emptiness and awareness, what in particular is non-objectivist about that?

I'm not an expert in Buddhism. But here is a brief look at Objectivism.

and here

and here

That should give you some leads.

Even Christianity has a rich history and valueable moral code, the teachings of Jesus Christ can be practiced without believing he was the son of God.
Yes, but he taught abject altruism.

After searching the forum about via "Libertarian" as a key word, I can see the most realistic disagreement between objectivists and the LP is foreign policy.

Yes, that's a biggie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my question is, why is self-sacrifice evil or not good for society as a whole?
There is no such entity as "society as a whole," and if there was, why should its interests matter to us? Society is merely a collection of individuals. That which is inimical to the survival of individuals is evil, period.

Still, this doesn't address the problem of greed, attachment to materials or wealth and the suffering that follows the obsession with them.
Greed, as it's used in Atlas Shrugged, means the pursuit of wealth (pg 684). Materials and wealth (private property) are necessary for survival, flourishing, and happiness. Suffering does not follow from a healthy obsession with obtaining happiness.

A religion such as Buddhism, does not require blind faith. It does not even require believing in everything preached by the religion other than the core values and practices. The only unprovable, mystical concept in Buddhism is rebirth (I do not consider karma unprovable or mystic). I do not even believe in rebirth, like many western Buddhists, and I while the concept of karma is interesting I still don't know if I believe in that. What I practice is the Eightfold path, and mediation to achieve emptiness and awareness, what in particular is non-objectivist about that?
I don't know as much about Buddhism as I do about Western religions. Could you explain what is meant by "emptiness" here? Intuitively, it would seem to be the opposite of "awareness."

Even Christianity has a rich history and valueable moral code, the teachings of Jesus Christ can be practiced without believing he was the son of God.
Not all of them--for example, Jesus taught that one should worship him and believe that he was the son of God (though, not as voraciously as his followers did, especially Paul).

I would suggest AS is the ideal single read for you, especially Galt's speech, but don't read it for the plot and do especially read Galt's speech a couple of times and very carefully.
Don't read it for the plot?? Wha.. Why not? The plot's fantastic. And following it is essential for grasping the philosophical points being made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because society is only a number of individuals. "Society," as such, does not exist. There is no entity "society," it is only a word used to refer to more than one individual. Self-sacrifice is bad for individuals individually, so how could it be good for them?
Lol, damnit.. Even at 5 am I can't type fast enough without getting beat to the punch. ; P That's good though, I like when the forum sees more activity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private property is certainly an indispensable right, but Ayn Rand's position (like Locke, but better explained) is that all rights are derived from man's ability to reason. It wouldn't make much sense to derive all rights from private property, since private property is itself a right. Is the right to private property also supposed to be derived from private property? If not, from whence does it derive?
Here's a good example of why Objectivism is just so much better than libertarianism: why an actual philosophy is superior to simple slogans. Libertarianism cannot explain or justify its "primacy of liberty" position, it can just say "It just is". Man's right to his life derives from man's right to his life. Dogs' lack of right to their lives derives from dogs' lack of right to their lives. Just because. It's arbitrary, and you could also say that dogs have a right to life but man doesn't. Or every living thing does, or none do. It's all arbitrary. (This, I think, is a problem that will especially plague Buddhist libertarians, who will have their own problems with capitalism that I don't think can fairly be attributed to libertarians at large). What's missing from the libertarian equation is a reference to something immutable and objective -- existence. This is the importance of Galt's speech (I keep saying, read for the speech, don't worry about the trains and who gets the girl).

I can't say that I know of any reason why denial of reincarnation is compatible with Buddhism; if one repudiates reincarnation, then the concept of karma is a lot less enforceable, and at any rate is unproven. I think I could show that it's unprovable, but since Buddhism is really non-essential to the question of libertarianism, I think that's a separate topic and discussion should be reserved for a separate thread, since this thread is about libertarianism and not Buddhism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not any more discouraged to read Atlas Shrugged or any of Rand's other works, but I will do so with healthy skepticism.
I would suggest AS is the ideal single read for you, especially Galt's speech, but don't read it for the plot and do especially read Galt's speech a couple of times and very carefully.
Personally, I'd suggest the Fountainhead for someone starting out, especially the first two chapters (where Roark sets out and is presented as fundamentally different from Keatings of the world): less nebulous than Anthem and far less long-winded than Galt's speech.

What do you think of libertarianism, and do you or would you ever vote for a LP candidate?

I'd vote for a LP candidate, but to be truthful, the LP, well, sucks. My beef (with the party moreso than the ideology) is that the LP has weak local presences, that the LP seems to focus on the national level without the (necessary?) local foundations. Course, you asked about the ideology and a candidate, not the party itself...

How are libertarians devoid of principles to back up their beliefs?

The "devoid of principles" claim comes from the premise that subjectivism, amoralism, and (especially?) anarchism are "integral" to libertarianism... whereas it "is not" integral to Dem's/GOP's ideology. That lives or dies on whether it actually is integral to libertarianism, is not integral to the major parties' ideologies, and whether this is even an important (e.g. leading to widespread death) distinguishing factor.

"what is our purpose?", "what is the answer to 'life, the universe and everything?'

what you choose it to be and ...42? (you knew it was coming)

rarely do I see altruism to the extreme of self destruction
I suspect the Objectivist would say that 20% self-destruction is still self-destruction.

I was an LP candidate and voted for Hospers
*searches for scarlet letters* :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good gravy, you guys need a life (unless you're in Tromso or something). Great discussion. Melchior, I can tell you are honestly seeking understanding, and I think that everyone has done a good job of getting your started. I hope you stick with us, and by all means read AS (before you see the movie)! If you're like all the rest of us, you'll be waiting for the movie for a while.

In short, the Libertarian party starts with "Liberty" as a metaphysical primary, and derives everything from there. You can be an avowed socialist, but as long as you beleive in everyone's right to choose that belief, and practice it individually, you and I could be Libertarian buddies.

Well, an Objectivist certainly believes in your right to be in error and earn the consequences of that, but since we start much further up the philosophical chain, you and I would never be Objectivist buddies. "liberty" comes only at the end of a long chain of philosophical reasoning, and we would advocate actually working the whole chain, not just the end. You see, by associating with those who advocate philsophies that are directly contradictory to liberty, we feel we give them our sanction, and in the end undermine the very basis of liberty itself.

Don't get me wrong. It's great that there are more and more people out there that advocate limited government, and liberty, but ultimately that advocacy has to be based in proper principles for it to succeed. Politically, Objectivists are all over the map. In fact there is a lot of controversy about what tactics best acheive that vision of limited government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[1] What do you think of libertarianism?

[2] How are libertarians devoid of principles to back up their beliefs?

Libertarianism is a political philosophy - a philosophy of moral action, and the requirements of moral action, in a social context. It asserts that morality in a social context is the principle of liberty (however nebulously it defines the term), and that a minarchist government - or a total socialist government - or many mutually competing anarchist governments -, is a requirement of liberty.

But is there any basis for a political philosophy of liberty? Is there any basis for this particular philosophy of moral action and its requirements in a social context? Such a basis would have to include an ethical philosophy, a philosophy of moral action in general, in other words, a philosophy defining a fundamental standard of good and evil - a standard which, when placed in a social context, leads to the principle of liberty. Libertarianism does not assert any such moral philosophy: it does not tell us what is the good and what is the evil, only that liberty (however nebulously it is defined) is what the good is in a social context, and that its absence is what evil is in a social context. Libertarianism asserts that liberty is the good applied to society as a whole, and that its absence is the evil applied to society as a whole, without ever explaining what the good and the evil are in the first place.

One can inquire more deeply into the philosophical basis of libertarianism. What kind of theory of reality does it assert, and what kind of theory of knowledge, and what basic facts about the existential and cognitive nature of humans leads to its theory of morality? Answers are necessary to all of these questions. For example, one is bound to ask how one knows the principle of liberty to be true. But then one has to have a theory to explain how one learns principles, and how one checks their truth.

Libertarianism does not address any of these questions. It does not tell us whether reality exists at all, whether there is a transcendental superreality, or whether things just are what they are. It does not tell us whether knowledge is possible at all, whether knowledge is possible but that its source is a transcendental superreality, or whether knowledge comes from observation of of the things in this world. It does not tell us whether men have volition. It does not offer us a guide for action: whether to act range-of-the-moment, by pure whim, taking what one wants by force and destroying what one cannot take; whether to act for the benefit of others, offering them whatever one owns, whatever the cost to oneself; or whether to act toward one's own happiness over the course of one's whole life. It tells us that, even if reality doesn't exist, even knowledge is not possible at all, even if the good consists of taking whatever one wants by force - it is a fact of a reality which doesn't exist, and a principle we ought to know although knowledge is impossible, that while one ought to take what one wants by force, one ought to allow others to live in liberty.

Libertarianism neither accepts nor rejects any theory of reality at all, any theory of knowledge, or any theory of morality at all, even theories consistent with or contradictory to it. How, then are we to know that liberty is the good, when libertarianism will not accept any theory of knowledge which admits to the possibility of knowledge, and will not reject any theory of knowledge which denies its possibility? Or when libertarianism will not accept a theory of morality which implies liberty, and will not reject any theory which contradicts it?

Libertarnianism is cognitively an impossible position. Why? Because it refuses to answer the question: why?

[3] Why do you promote selfishness?

I want to live a long and happy life. I know that reality exists, and that things are what they are independent of what I wish them to have been; I know that knowledge is possible and that it is objective, and that I have the power of volition, to choose to think and act. I therefore know that my ability to live a long and happy life depends on me choosing to think and to act on my conclusions; that such a life depends on me thinking how best to attain it, and that it depends on that thinking being in accordance with reality. I know that actions have consequences, and that the consequence of action (which is the product of reality-based thought) towards the furtherance of my happy life is ... the furtherance of my happy life - and that the consequence of living range-of-the-moment, taking what one wills and destroying what one can't take, is: living splendidly now but having nothing left, and being banished from society tomorrow - and that the consequence of acting to make others happy is: not making my own life happy, but making theirs happy.

[4] What is the Objectivist answer to "life, the universe, and everything"?

This kind of question presupposes that reality is second to a transcendental superreality, an ulterior plane of pure consciousness which gives this plane of existence purpose, often known as god, but today commonly known by the name society. But that is simply not the case: reality is primary.

[5] What of Buddhism and Eastern philosophies?

The ones which deny the existence of reality, or assert the existence of a transcendental superreality which gives this one meaning? The ones which deny the possibility of knowledge, or assert the possibility of knowing the things contained only in the ulterior universe? The ones which tell us to take what we can and slash and burn the rest, or tell us to give up everything we hold dear so that someone else's life can be happy? They are cognitively wrong, and morally wrong.

[6] How do you feel about the subject of war?

I can tell you what I think of war. A moral country, one founded on and abiding by the principle of individual rights (which is not the same as liberty, or the individual rights of libertarianism), has every moral right to defend itself from foreign aggression and even the threat of foreign aggression. A moral country ought not to hold back if its existence is in jeopardy: it ought to take any and all action necessary to overwhelm its enemies and break them utterly of their will to fight.

[7] Are there any common disagreements among Objectivists?

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. She constructed a certain consistent set of basic philosophical principles in all the branches of philosophy, and named it Objectivism. Being an Objectivist means agreeing with Ayn Rand on all of these principles, and disagreeing with her on some or all of these principles means being something other than an Objectivist. Thus there are disagreements among Objectivists, though by definition not on the principles of Objectivism. For example, there is no disagreement among Objectivists on whether this world is real, or on whether knowledge is possible, or on whether one ought to act selfishly, towards one's own long and happy life, or on whether a government ought to enforce, and not trample, individual rights.

Edited by y_feldblum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunter, you should probably disclose, when answering threads in the "Questions about Objectivism" section, that you are not an Objectivist...

He's not? hmmm. You learn something new every day. I thought he was just a "rascal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like you guys are expecting more from the Libertarian Party than they need to provide. Libertarianism is political/legal and nothing more, in order to be complete one must take it for what it is and adopt other philosophies to cover everything else.

If the LP did what you wanted them to do we would be a much, much smaller movement.

Even then, Libertarians go above and beyond the call of duty to emphasize the ethical importance of non-violence, the efficiency of the free market, and the power of civil disobedience.

It's unfortunate, I like the LP and they let people fill in the blanks for themselves (they have no obligation to), you can back up their goals with your values, but because you guys want them to do it and condemn them until they do we lose some major potential support from Ayn Rand followers. The only realistic obstacle is their chances of winning, but how are you supposed to get votes if no one votes for you?

Because society is only a number of individuals. "Society," as such, does not exist. There is no entity "society," it is only a word used to refer to more than one individual.
There is no such entity as "society as a whole," and if there was, why should its interests matter to us? Society is merely a collection of individuals. That which is inimical to the survival of individuals is evil, period.

I see. For the record, I agree that a society or a community is an abstract concept, and the interest of the community does not come before the rights of the individual.

But from my understanding in order for something to be evil it has to affect more than just the person committing the act. It's a given that setting off a bomb in the middle of a city is evil, or lying to the population is evil, but it seems from the Objectivist's (uppercase right?) point of view, even taking drugs or committing suicide is evil. I did not expect a philosophy built on individualism to have such a point of view, so I assumed you thought it was society that had to pay the price... I guess not.

Still, I do not even believe in the concept of evil, because as I said in order for something to be evil it must acted out of negative intentions and cause suffering to more than just yourself, but negative emotions such as anger, hatred, or any that cause suffering is are an illusion of the ego-self.

The system of morals behind Objectivism are more clear now, it really is an all-encompassing philosophy, including personal practice. This is not something one can easily adopt in an official manner.

I don't know as much about Buddhism as I do about Western religions. Could you explain what is meant by "emptiness" here? Intuitively, it would seem to be the opposite of "awareness."

I know, it sounds weird. Think of yourself as a pot... full of dirt. The dirt represents all the distractions and negativity you harbor, all the anger, suffering and sadness, the clinging and ignorance. Once the pot is empty, all that's left is happiness and clarity. You can say from the Buddhist point of view right understanding and right thought come from the emptiness or absence of these negative things.

- - - - - -

Enough about that though... I don't really have any more questions about Objectivism, anything more would only be debate, and I can see this place discourages opposing arguments from non-Objectivists, so I'll lay low now out of respect.

That was a lot of responses, sorry for not touching on them. I appreciate the input and the links, which I'll read on my own time. I will also be sure to seek out and indulge in Rand's works in the future. :D

Edited by Melchior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, it sounds weird. Think of yourself as a pot... full of dirt. The dirt represents all the distractions and negativity you harbor, all the anger, suffering and sadness, the clinging and ignorance. Once the pot is empty, all that's left is happiness and clarity. You can say from the Buddhist point of view right understanding and right thought come from the emptiness or absence of these negative things.

But if you are the pot then wouldn't that also imply that all the good thoughts are inside along with all the dirt? I don't know if you can so easily seperate the good and bad things. Furthermore, I don't think you can learn anything at all, or improve yourself just by removing all the bad things from your life. Happiness and self-esteem are only achieved as a result of something positive that is present (in your actions, for example), not by the absence of a negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would I ever vote for an LP candidate? If his opponent were sufficiently horrible, I might. That is, if I thought he stood a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning.

So you would vote for someone just because you thought they had a chance of winning? That's not right. You should vote for the candidate you feel best represents your beliefs...that's the true meaning of democracy, is it not? If everyone voted Republican because they thought the Republican candidate would win, then of course that person would win. Only by taking a stand yourself can you make a difference...and that difference won't happen immediately, but with time there is a definite chance. But if you vote only for the people who you think will win, nothing will ever change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you are the pot then wouldn't that also imply that all the good thoughts are inside along with all the dirt? I don't know if you can so easily seperate the good and bad things. Furthermore, I don't think you can learn anything at all, or improve yourself just by removing all the bad things from your life. Happiness and self-esteem are only achieved as a result of something positive that is present (in your actions, for example), not by the absence of a negative.

If you think about it, doesn't happiness feel lighter than sorrow? Perhaps a better analogy is that when the pot is empty of dirt (suffering), it is full of air (joy).

There are different kinds of happiness, and you can be happy by achieving something... you can also become proud and full of yourself from achieving something, and suffer after losing that thing you achieved, many factors are involved.

True, pure wisdom and bliss is found in being observant, moderate and unattached, from the Buddhist point of view. But of course there are Buddhists who might debate with me on this, or offer a better answer, it's a philosophy that demands being put to the test, but that's just one reason for why I like it so much.

So you would vote for someone just because you thought they had a chance of winning? That's not right. You should vote for the candidate you feel best represents your beliefs...that's the true meaning of democracy, is it not? If everyone voted Republican because they thought the Republican candidate would win, then of course that person would win. Only by taking a stand yourself can you make a difference...and that difference won't happen immediately, but with time there is a definite chance. But if you vote only for the people who you think will win, nothing will ever change.

Very cool, thank you Mimpy. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough about that though... I don't really have any more questions about Objectivism, anything more would only be debate, and I can see this place discourages opposing arguments from non-Objectivists, so I'll lay low now out of respect.

Greetings Melchior, this is Pvynex. You'll find that if you want a debate, there's a "Criticism of Objectivism" subforum in the Miscellaneous subforum of this board. I will warn you though, they're a lot better at it than I am (Much more practice).

If this is the same Melchior as the one from that other forum, then I'm the one who made him aware of the egoistic principles of Objectivism during a couple of debates on that forum. The debate stopped when he said that he found the moral goodness of altruism to be "Self-evident". How does one challenge that? :D

I'm glad he came here. I'd suggest to you, Melchior, that you find out about Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology before trying to challenge Objectivist ethics. Ethics are, after all, based in those subjects, and without them ethics has no meaning. If you have a disagreement with Objectivist ethics, the disagreement is probably rooted in metaphysics or epistemology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings Melchior, this is Pvynex. You'll find that if you want a debate, there's a "Criticism of Objectivism" subforum in the Miscellaneous subforum of this board. I will warn you though, they're a lot better at it than I am (Much more practice).

If this is the same Melchior as the one from that other forum, then I'm the one who made him aware of the egoistic principles of Objectivism during a couple of debates on that forum. The debate stopped when he said that he found the moral goodness of altruism to be "Self-evident". How does one challenge that? :D

I'm glad he came here. I'd suggest to you, Melchior, that you find out about Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology before trying to challenge Objectivist ethics. Ethics are, after all, based in those subjects, and without them ethics has no meaning. If you have a disagreement with Objectivist ethics, the disagreement is probably rooted in metaphysics or epistemology.

Hey! Small world... er, Internet.

Yes, this is the same Melchior. The description of myself in the first post was probably a dead giveaway though.

Don't starting thinking I'm a convert, but my curiosity has been peaked by you and others like you in libertarian/political circles.

I'll take you up on your suggestion... later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like you guys are expecting more from the Libertarian Party than they need to provide. Libertarianism is political/legal and nothing more, in order to be complete one must take it for what it is and adopt other philosophies to cover everything else.

If the LP did what you wanted them to do we would be a much, much smaller movement.

Even then, Libertarians go above and beyond the call of duty to emphasize the ethical importance of non-violence, the efficiency of the free market, and the power of civil disobedience.

It's unfortunate, I like the LP and they let people fill in the blanks for themselves (they have no obligation to), you can back up their goals with your values, but because you guys want them to do it and condemn them until they do we lose some major potential support from Ayn Rand followers. The only realistic obstacle is their chances of winning, but how are you supposed to get votes if no one votes for you?

Well, I am not bothered by it. As I said, I think it's a great that many more people are pro-limited-government. In fact I wrote about it in a post discussing our recent disagreement on political strategy.

Objectivism is not a political movement. It is philosophy. Your vote is not the primary for Objectivists; your ideas are. If you believe in the power of ideas, then the political movement arises out of the right ideas, not the other way around. If more people come to hold politics that you could call libertarian, it will be because the right ideas were out there. In that way, you will gain major potential because Ayn Rand supporter are out spreading her ideas, rather than losing a few votes from us. In other words, philsophy is the dog that wags the political tail; not the other way around. I care less about your vote (well I care about that too) than what's in your head.

I see. For the record, I agree that a society or a community is an abstract concept, and the interest of the community does not come before the rights of the individual.

But from my understanding in order for something to be evil it has to affect more than just the person committing the act. It's a given that setting off a bomb in the middle of a city is evil, or lying to the population is evil, but it seems from the Objectivist's (uppercase right?) point of view, even taking drugs or committing suicide is evil. I did not expect a philosophy built on individualism to have such a point of view, so I assumed you thought it was society that had to pay the price... I guess not.

Still, I do not even believe in the concept of evil, because as I said in order for something to be evil it must acted out of negative intentions and cause suffering to more than just yourself, but negative emotions such as anger, hatred, or any that cause suffering is are an illusion of the ego-self.

The system of morals behind Objectivism are more clear now, it really is an all-encompassing philosophy, including personal practice. This is not something one can easily adopt in an official manner.

That is correct. I think Ayn Rand said it was one of the toughest philosophies to adopt because it is so integrated. Everything is related to everything else very tightly, and on first principles.

As per evil. The term is ethical in nature, and ethics involves both actions that affect oneself alone as well as others. i.e. What is the right thing to do? wether or not it affects someone else. In fact the most fundamental virtues are defined relative to oneself first, and others as secondary. Take honesty as an example. In Objectivist terms it is not faking reality in any way. Before you lie to other people, you lie to yourself, and in fact, that first lie to yourself is the one that makes all other lies possible. So honesty is first to yourself.

I know, it sounds weird. Think of yourself as a pot... full of dirt. The dirt represents all the distractions and negativity you harbor, all the anger, suffering and sadness, the clinging and ignorance. Once the pot is empty, all that's left is happiness and clarity. You can say from the Buddhist point of view right understanding and right thought come from the emptiness or absence of these negative things.

hmmm. yeah. From an Objectivist point of view, right understanding comes from the presence of reason (as opposed to the absence of something) integrated into all aspects of ones life. From living life according to rational principles.

Enough about that though... I don't really have any more questions about Objectivism, anything more would only be debate, and I can see this place discourages opposing arguments from non-Objectivists, so I'll lay low now out of respect.

Well, we have a forum for debate, and we're really not as discouraging as you might think. We don't get many civil debaters here with opposing views. Most are hostile, and some of us can get a bit testy in response. But if you are honest and respectful, we'll take on all sorts of topics. Warning though. We're serious about ideas. Most people just haven't thought as hard about stuff as some fo the best people on this board. If you're love of ideas only goes so far you may find us a bit tiring, cuz we're goin' all the way, baby! :D

Oh, yeah. That post I wrote (which mentions people who vote libertarian - "little l") is here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums, Melchior. I'm definitely enjoying this thread.

...but it seems from the Objectivist's (uppercase right?) point of view, even taking drugs or committing suicide is evil.

Partially correct. Any act of self-sacrifice is anti-life, and anything anti-life is immoral, and therefore evil. In the case of drugs, you are sacrificing the real for the unreal. You are sacrificing a clear mind for a clouded mind that warps your otherwise accurate perceptions of reality, and it's capability to comprehend those perceptions...they are by definition anti-reality, and therefore immoral.

Suicide, however, as the single most self-sacrificial (therefore immoral) thing anyone can do, CAN be justified given the context. If committing suicide will spare you the pain of being tortured to death, or if it can save the life of someone whom you love (and couldn't bare to live without), then suicide in that context could be justified, but it requires a context, and is almost always immoral.

Still, I do not even believe in the concept of evil, because as I said in order for something to be evil it must acted out of negative intentions and cause suffering to more than just yourself, but negative emotions such as anger, hatred, or any that cause suffering is are an illusion of the ego-self.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, exactly. So are you claiming that evil doesn't exist?

Edited by Chops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...