Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MarcT

Regulars
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MarcT

  1. The facts as I related, still stand. A man who inherits a billion dollars does not realistically have to work a day in his life. Period. Observe in real life the many young, rich, heirs to billionaires and centimillionaires and their lifestyles. Its mostly philanthropy or basically non-stop partying and traveling (i.e. paris hilton, prince charles etc) . They do it because they can. That's most people. An news story on this very subject was written recently: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/08/sleep-a-new-status-symbol-among-the-wealthy But no, a hypothetical Objectivist billionaire heir would rather live under the pretense of unnecessary "productive work" . Who has the more "realistic" point of view? Lets put this whole thing into perspective just to show you how catastrophically Objectivism has failed to win over any significant amount of people. According to bloomberg.com atlas shrugged has seen it's sales rise to 200,000 in the year 2008: Also, according to the same article, the book sold on average about 60,000-80,000 copies per year prior to 2008. - Atlas shrugged was first published in 1957 so lets to the math. From 1957-2008 : From 1957 to 2008 is 51 years. 60,000 X 51 = 3,060,000 people buying the book Lets assume from 2008 to 2011 its 200,000 per year 200,000 X 3 = 600,000 3,060,000 + 600,000 = 3,660,000 people can be estimated to have bought atlas shrugged. That is a staggering number. Yet despite the massive level of exposure Ayn Rands ideas have gotten, the overall adoption of the philosophy remains pitifully low. The number of people who can be said to consistently practice Objectivism even lower (or maybe non-existent). If Ayn Rand was a sales person her "conversion rate" would be in a fraction of a percent of the total people who have been exposed to her message over a period of 51 years! This is not even counting sales of her other books and the enormous media exposure she has gotten over her lifetime. Saying Objectivism "hasn't had enough time or exposure" is just patently untrue. Her books are enormously popular yet few people actually adopt her ideas. Thats the point. If you can be perfectly happy and successful *not* adopting Objectivism (and even contradicting it in some cases) why adopt it at all? It's self defeating for your philosophy. Hence the redundancy. 1) You just admitted that over-confidence (aka dishonesty) can be beneficial. If honesty in the Objectivist definition is always good, then any form of self-deception is never good or beneficial. According to Objectivism its actually evil. 2) You can use self-deception "rationally" and irrationally. Its using an irrational quirk of the human brain against itself. The example you gave of "psyching" yourself before work or a game is one. It works because its basic human psychology. Its how your brain is built. We can use self-deception in ways that increase our chances of survival with no negative long-term effects. It allows us to function throughout the day. Worrying about everything which could happen to us given the risks maybe rational, but its also counter-productive. Obviously "deceiving" yourself about an abusive husband does'nt help you in the long run. But mentally tricking yourself into being more confident at work does. And no one, including you, would be able to tell the difference.
  2. Objectivism claims that it's philosophy is superior to all others (being the most consistent with reality). If so, If this is proven to be true, I'll gladly convert to Objectivism and do my part in spreading it near and far. I want others to know there is a superior way out there to live their lives and be happy. Unfortunately, its becoming quite evident that this simply is not the case, but I'm giving you the chance to prove me wrong. No, just the most reliable and accurate. Pure logical inference is subject to (numerous) errors. Let me ask you this, here's a brain twister for you: If you were self-deluded, happy and over-confident, would you or anyone else know the "difference" between "real" (in the objectivist sense) happiness and confidence or not? The answer in fact, is no. And if you did, you would'nt: a. be self-deluded b. be happy If not your not "self-deluded" into being happy, your not self deluded in the first place. Your still thinking "realistically". Objectivism contradicts the facts of human psychology (and evolution). The causes of happiness are complex but one of them is some element of self-delusion. On the subject of work performance (whether "real" or not) confidence increases ones effectiveness. These are facts.
  3. @ mdegges You do realize a person could live comfortably and luxuriously for a lifetime (for several hundred lifetimes in fact) from inheriting a billion dollars without lifting a finger or even putting their money in a bank where it will gain millions per year in interest? And, realistically, what are the chances of "squandering" a billion dollars? As an example today, how many heirs have lost their fortunes due to over-spending? There is *no* practical reason whatsoever why a person with a billion dollars (inherited or not even) should be "productive" at all. Bad argument. Christianity was once "brand new", but spread quickly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity#Spread_of_Christianity What's stopping Objectivism? By last count its about 60 or so years old give or take. With today's modern technology that's more than enough time actually. Good ideas (and self-evidently good ones especially) spread fast. This answers your other point in regards to the "broad generalization" I made. Its broad but still accurate. The answer: everyone's. Happiness is a measurable phenomenon (brain imaging, behavior patterns etc) . It can be demonstrated that some people are just happier than others. And guess what? Most of them are not Objectivists (or even close to it).
  4. @ Egosum 1. Your answer seems to contradict the official Objectivist doctrine on the matter: - Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand , pg. 277 The message is clear. Objectivism does not regard leisure in any form as a productive value. So in essence, your answer was wrong (according to Objectivism) 2. First, people were more "skeptical"? Why would they be likely to be more skeptical of a completely rational, practical, doable and realistic philosophy? It makes no sense. On the population point, its arguable that a bigger population (coupled with todays technological advances over period like ancient greece) would actually make the spread of ideas *faster*. Poor argument imo. Also you've failed to take into account the millions of Ayn Rand's books that have been sold (and translated globally). Surely that would mean millions of new converts to Objectivism right? It doesn't take long to spread a a great idea at all. 3. Argument #3 is actually probably your best so far. Still, great products, by an large do succeed in the marketplace (for example apple iphones) and given the other options, people choose the best most of the time. I can't fathom why Objectivist ideas (if they are rational and practical by anyone) haven't had a better showing in the marketplace. On the race thing, its arguable. Beauty is somewhat subjective.
  5. Sure, several actually: http://web.psych.utoronto.ca/psy430/Taylor&Brown_Positive%20Illusions%20and%20Well-Being%20Revisited.pdf Self-delusion (the opposite of the Objectivist concept of "honesty") has been shown to be a healthy part of normal cognitive function and makes you happier. Second: ftp://ftp.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp4285.pdf Over-confidence (another form of "dishonesty") makes you perform better at work. Significantly better. Hugely useful information. Instantly applicable. Objectivism? Not so much.
  6. In general, I've found empirical psychological studies to be far more practical than most Objectivist ideas. They are simply impractical and cannot be workably used by anyone. Its part of the reason why Objectivism has failed to spread beyond a dedicated fanbase (arguably a cult). Indeed, some studies findings seem to contradict Objectivist ideas about ethics (honesty for example). A few points: 1) I particularly find the Objectivist argument for "productiveness" weak. For example, there is no real or practical reason why a man or woman who inherits a billion dollars should not spend a life of leisure, traveling and/or philanthropy. 2) The ancient Epicureans were far more successful at spreading their philosophy (and getting people to adopt it) than Objectivists. Why is that? Even Christianity has been hugely successful in comparison to Objectivism. 3) My belief is that in the so called "marketplace of ideas" similar to the marketplace for material goods, the "best products" largely win out, this is because they are superior to previous "products" or current offerings on the marketplace. ^ In that respect, Objectivism has had a poor showing in the market. Its not hard to see why. Show me a happy and successful Objectivist (if they exist) and I'll show you 10 happy and successful non-objectivists. EDIT: I'll add a fourth point. 4) The objectivist ethical concept of "honesty" is contradicted by the empirical evidence. http://web.psych.uto...20Revisited.pdf ftp://ftp.iza.org/Re...aper/dp4285.pdf Prove me wrong on all points.
×
×
  • Create New...