Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ragnar69

  1. All good points, but I am not in support of this because I am in debt. In fact, I am not in debt and don't like credit cards. I have one card attached to my debit card simply to allow me to make online bill payments. I am in support of this because many people who are a part of the so-called 1% are actually immoral - even by Objectivist standards, and in some cases they are actually criminals. This movement is seeking to rectify that in some way. To be honest, if some innocent rich people get forced to pay more through no fault of their own, I'm not exactly going to feel sorry for them. Better for innocent rich people to pay for other rich people's mistakes than for innocent poor people to pay for the criminal behavior of rich people. This is Rand's version of Robin Hood - it's not stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, it's taking back money that the criminal rich stole to begin with.
  2. They are in Washington, and 140-something other cities. "Get in on the corruption to protect themselves?" This is blatantly anti-Objectivist and I don't even know how to respond to such nonsense. OWS is not seeking more government, it is seeking less. It is seeking a separation between private enterprise and government. Objectivists should be all for this. "Take away that power, and all business can do is try and convince you of the benefits of their products and services. Banks would be far more conservative and make fewer risky loans and investments. No business would be able to legislate against other market actors." This confuses me a little. Isn't this a good thing? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
  3. Communist or socialist? There is a difference. Neither is workable in reality, but I think Communism is far worse, as it is state sponsored socialism.
  4. It is not a protest against capitalism, it is a protest against legalized corporate corruption. The US isn't even capitalist anymore, it's a corporate welfare state. Bailouts and corporate tax cuts are not capitalism. Allowing corporations to buy politicians is not capitalism. Rand would not support the current economic system in the US. To answer the charge of the protestors being violent: In NY they are actually quite civilized and accomodating. A guy who works on Wall Street came down one night and got up to speak with no problem. When someone wants to address the crowd, the crowd repeats every sentence so everyone can hear since mics and megaphones are not allowed. Everyone shouted out this guy's concerns the same as everyone else's. They are willing to listen to anyone who has an opinion. Everyone is so nice when I walk through the park. When someone bumps into you they say sorry and excuse me; what you usually get in NY is people telling you to get the fuck out of their way. Objectivists, you should be in agreement with these protestors. Rand said, "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement." The middle class in the US is being forced by the government to bear the bulk of the tax burden. This is violence being perpetrated on its citizens. The protestors are peaceful and doing exactly what Rand urged: using reason to discuss issues and persuade people that the system is corrupt and something needs to be done.
  5. "Your mind and your experience call to me You have lived and your intelligence is sexy" Morphine, baby: 2-string bass, sax, drums plus the silkiest smooth voice on the planet.
  6. Intelligence is a matter of degree, so I don't think you can really say there is only one intelligent species on the planet. I think you are confusing intelligence with sentience. Humans are the only sentient species on the planet, but other animals do have varying degrees of intelligence. For example, we know that after humans, chimps are likely the most intelligent species. Dolphins are more intelligent than fish. Cats are likely more intelligent than dogs. And so on. I used intelligence just as an example, but the case of a fish losing its eyes through evolution is a good example of an animal getting less complex. Losing vestigial organs in general is getting less complex. I thought of this after my post, so yes, I see how it can go both ways. My problem was with people saying evolution ONLY involves species getting less complex, and that is clearly not the case.
  7. This post was referred to in a more recent, so I wanted to chime in. When I was a kid my mom spanked me and my sister all the time, my dad never did. We definitely respected my dad far more. My mom would spank us or discipline us for stupid stuff. As has been said in this thread it was done more out of anger and frustration than trying to teach a lesson. It also became very ineffective when at about the age of 12 I could outrun, outsmart, and simply physically block any attempt at force from my mother since she is not very strong. However, my dad is 5'11" about 200 lbs, used to play football, still worked out with weights when we were very young. The violence from my mom led my sister and to a lesser extent myself to be violent with each other. We would get into some serious fights when we were kids. When we fought my sister liked to scratch me. I would say, scratch me and I'm going to hit you. She would scratch, I would hit. She never really learned. One time I smacked her so hard I drew blood (her scratches always drew blood). My dad saw it, grabbed me by the arm, and asked me how I would like to get in a fight with him. Just the THREAT of violence from my dad was enough for me to see the point that I shouldn't use force against my younger, weaker sister. After that I tried to defuse potentially violent fights with my sister, or at the least I stopped trying to tear her head off.
  8. I've read about how evoultion is not increasing complexity, but I admit I still don't understand that. If a less intelligent animal evolves into a more intelligent animal, isn't that increasing complexity?
  9. Whoah, you've resurrected quite the old thread here. I'd like to just give my view on human evoultion. I don't think you need a scientist's understanding of the subject to come to a conclusion. All you really need is a couple of facts and simple reason. One fact is that the fossil record indicates humans as we know them today existed back to a certain point in time. Also according to the fossil record, apes existed before the time that humans seem to have appeared. Based on these two facts, there are only two possible conclusions. Either humans were created as they are now at the point in time when they first appeared, or they evolved from the apes that came before. The actual biological processes involved don't need to ever enter the picture. I don't need to understand gravity to know it exists, and I don't need to sail around the world to know the planet is a sphere (or close to it). You have to choose one or the other, or you admit to a kind of agnosticism, which no Objectivist would ever do. Being Objectivist does not mean being a Skeptic.
  10. It's not really about someone else asking me to give up certain values, it's more about what I am finding myself attracted to vs. what my ideal mate should be if I followed Objectivism exclusively. Personally, Objectivism just doesn't work for me when it comes to love. I don't really feel like talking about it further, and I don't think I'll respond to this thread again. I'm starting down the road to happiness and leaving Objectivism behind to do it. Disagree with that all you want, I've already figured it out for myself and I'm done here.
  11. I'd still rather give up a little bit of the "I" if it means keeping the love, rather than lose the love entirely. This is provided you think the love is worth it, of course, and sometimes it is. Sometimes you lose it anyway despite being willing to give up something of lesser value.
  12. Shared interests outside of work, intelligence, exchange of ideas, physical connection, and sense of humor are all good places to start.
  13. I would definitely contact ARI to find out what the copyright issues are. I'm sure they could find out the best way for you to get them out to the public.
  14. Because being in love makes me happy, and isn't that really what it's all about? My point is that despite your best efforts, you can end up going through life without ever really finding that career you are passionate about. Why wait to fall in love just because you are not thrilled with your career? I would rather focus on finding a great love than a great career. I don't think you need one to have the other.
  15. Yes exactly, that's why Rand had an affair with Branden. I think it's a possibility that she was disillusioned with her own love life, and that's why she thought it was so unimportant. If you look at her life, she never really did find the type of partner she wrote about. That's why I think love should be more important than work. I couldn't be really happy in life without a long term romantic partner, a career would never be enough. I could be happy with a profound love, even if my career never went the way I wanted. Rand wrote about not sacrificing your career to loved ones, but I would argue that it is more important to not sacrifice a loved one (a chosen loved one, mind you) to your career.
  16. You could be working at a job you hate because you initially liked it, but have no immediate plans to leave because you're not sure where you want to go from here. You can derive self esteem from other aspects of your life in the meantime. At the same time, you are perfectly capable of feeling profound love for another person and falling in love with that person. I no longer believe that a person's primary enjoyment in life must derive from their career. I believe the enjoyment you give and receive from a romantic partner is much more important. I'm sure it is great when your career and your love are connected in some way like Dagny and Hank, but it is not necessary.
  17. I agree with both of these sentences. I've shown you how Rand does not agree with the second sentence. If you think she does, please show me a reference. I think one should be able to support oneself, and self esteem comes from that. How one supports oneself is fairly irrelevant, provided it is legal (assuming all things legal are moral, and I know this is not necessarily the case, but for the sake of argument). I think someone working for $10 an hour at a retail store who hates their job is just as capable of feeling profound love as a Wall Street banker. Maybe more so, in some cases. I already answered post #20.
  18. haha, guess that shows how much I know. I guess she was lying to you, though, if she said she was breaking up anyway. Sorry it didn't work out.
  19. She told the other guy she wants to break up, right? Seems you're on the right track here. As long as she doesn't go back to him it seems like everything's good now. It's funny how the hard-line Objectivist responses here basically advised you to head for the hills, while the more human approaches turned out to be a better course of action. Now that I've opened my mind to it, it's amazing to see how poor Objectivist thought is in the realm of love. I hope everything works out for you.
  20. This is just doublespeak, and possibly not even correct English. The quote is pretty clear, Rand put work above love. Perhaps you should examine your own motivations for trying to twist it around. Either agree with Rand, or admit that she is wrong about love. This is exactly what I disagree with. My point is that anyone can feel profound romantic love, not just those that have a driving passion for their work.
  21. This is from the Playboy interview. Rand pretty clearly puts work above love. I've always been extremely uncomfortable with the sentences I bolded, and lately have decided that this outlook on life is pretty much bullshit. That's why I can't consider myself an Objectivist anymore. PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties? RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships. PLAYBOY: Where, would you say, should romantic love fit into the life of a rational person whose single driving passion is work? RAND: It is his greatest reward. The only man capable of experiencing a profound romantic love is the man driven by passion for his work -- because love is an expression of self-esteem, of the deepest values in a man's or a woman's character. One falls in love with the person who shares these values. If a man has no clearly defined values, and no moral character, he is not able to appreciate another person. In this respect, I would like to quote from The Fountainhead, in which the hero utters a line that has often been quoted by readers: "To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
  22. Ragnar69, on 19 August 2010 - 11:20 AM, said: I don't necessarily agree with the opening post (not sure I even fully understand it), but lately I've been thinking that Objectivism does not adequately address romance and love. According to Objectivism, career is supposed to come first, love second, family or friends a distant third, if at all. "Where did you get that impression? As far as love and friendship is concerned, love (I assume you mean the romantic kind) is by definition above friendship and unchosen family. " ???
  23. I don't necessarily agree with the opening post (not sure I even fully understand it), but lately I've been thinking that Objectivism does not adequately address romance and love. According to Objectivism, career is supposed to come first, love second, family or friends a distant third, if at all. I've tried to live this way for much of my adult life, and I just don't think it works. When I start to fall in love with someone, career is usually the last topic of discussion. Unless they were a military dictator or something, I wouldn't really care what they did for a living. Career success ends up being so far down the list for me when I spend time with a lover. Getting along with each other, sharing interests outside of work, making each other laugh - it's simple things like this that are much more important in a relationship. I'm not really going to care if they hate their job and it's just a paycheck, or if they love it and are passionate about it. As long as we can focus on each other when we are together, career is irrelevant. Lately, this issue has caused me to reconsider thinking of myself as an Objectivist. I still think there is a lot of good in the philosophy, but I just can't apply it to all areas of my life anymore.
  24. Nevermind, found it myself: http://www.atlassociety.org/ Newcomers should be able to see all sides and decide for themselves, don't you think?
  25. Which of these was the one that the people who run this site are opposed to again? Lately I've been looking for a much different view than is normally provided on this board. Thanks.
  • Create New...