Brian
-
Posts
90 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Brian
-
-
Many people are missing one very important point. The truck driver was admitted into the Gulch because he is able to be a prime mover; he has the confidence, the determination, but at current time, he was only a truckdriver to serve as a means to an end. Eddie was not able to become a prime mover.
Also, Dagny wouldn't fire Eddie because good work is hard to find.
I have one question. Why did Dangy find Eddie hopeless? Isn't it possible for Eddie to eventually improve upon himself? I think it would be entirely possible for Eddie to change, things don't have to stay the way they are.
-
BlackSabbath said:"In real life, your chances of finding a real Ayn Rand villain are very high as the ideas behind the villains of Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead are still prevalent worldwide.
For example, Wesley Mouch was President of America until he was defeated by Ronald Reagan.
The ideas behind Ayn Rand's heros are still not very widespread so your chances of finding one are quite slim"
I think the chances of finding one of Rand's villians in real life is very slim. Of course the ideas are prevalent world wide, but most people that I know of today are plain simple-folk that don't give a damn either way. At least in America, the culture is based on ignorance, not blatantly stating selflessness as the moral good. However, these 'simple-folk' do hold faulty premises which is the reason why we have so many problems today. I believe it will be hard to find a real life Jim Taggart or Wesley Mouch. But very easy to find people similar to them.
-
Travis, when I belonged to a certain chess club they handed out a several page pamphlet to its members and they provided the "proof" that it improves one's thinking abilities. I do not recall if they mentioned a certain extent (since every person is different). I would provide you with what they said but I do not have the pamphlet anymore. I do recall that they used the words: 'scientific studies'
-
Why do people seem to be looking for Rand's characters in real life? Some people say they cannot find John Galt, and that they are searching for one. Does anyone here think it is a little dogmatic to view these people as real life gods as such? Ayn Rand presented ideal characters to show how man should properly act. These characters are not necessarily real. Thoughts, anyone?
-
Let me state my opinion, for I am a serious chess player. First of all, look at the context of Rand's open letter to Spasky. I believed she used chess as an analogy to show how the ideals that Spasky endorses are wrong. I am not quoting directly but Rand said something to the effect of: You cannot change a peice's proper moves to that of something else, or else the strategy of the game is gone. Yet, this is what the men in your country, Russia, are expected to do. You cannot have someone hold a gun to your head and have them say 'lose or die' and play the game properly. Yet, this is what men in your country are expected to do.
As for Rand's quote, it is possible that some people play chess in order to escape from reality and use their mind at the same time. But, however, isn't it possible for this not to be a condition of some/other chess players? I take enjoyment in learning complex strategy to beat my opponent. The thing about chess is: is that you must have confidence in your decisions. You can't say "Oh, should I do this, or that"...or "I don't know..." One must be sure of one's self. If you are not sure of yourself, you will lose to error very quickly. I have learned to have selfconfidence by playing chess - and also from war strategy games. If you do not think yourself out of a situation properly you will falter. In certain games, you must think of every possible situation (in chess there can double digit decisions with subsequent results that eventually lead into at least 100 different possiblities depending on the situation of the game). Because I have used my thinking processes in order to beat my opponent, I have learned to apply this in real life. It is much easier to think of alternatives to decisions I have to make, etc. Also, what must one do in a game? Concentrate. You do not learn concentration unless you practice it. I found it much easier, once getting used to chess, to concentrate on anything I needed to - and I have a mild form of ADD - so you judge what value you can get out of a complex strategy game.
One more thing, they have proven that chess improves people's thinking abilities (or intelligence). Again - confidence, intellectual thinking, concentration, etc. They say that the mind is a muscle - the more you use it the better it gets, yes?
Do not say people play chess in order to escape reality unless you know for sure what you are talking about. You must know the game and the person in order to judge for yourself.
--Brian
Edit: Serious question here: Is chess any different than Francisco d'Anconia in Atlas Shrugged playing marbles on his hotel room floor? Is he escaping reality, too? He has to make complex decisions as to how a marble will hit another and then another and all of their direct reactions. That is a game, and it involves thinking. In the book it said his reason of playing was because he couldn't relax for long, that he was restless, and had to have something to do. A purpose.
-
Sorry if I'm digressing, but tell me if my idea for the basis of individual rights is sound. I will try to make this as short as possilbe, using steps.
Man must think in order to survive.
To not think is evil.
Because:
You cannot act and claim to disregard life.
Because:
Morality pertains to life. And, without life, morality cannot apply.
And:
Without individual rights, one is not able to think freely.
Thus: Forcing someone to not think (forbidding of individual rights) is evil.
Conclusion:
Individual rights is the basis for thinking clearly, and as an obvious consequence, it is moral.
-
Yes it is true that Objectivism does not state that one must convince others to change their false ideas. What iouswuoibev was trying to say is that if this is one's goal to do to another, e.g., a friend, then the best way to do it is to ask questions and avoid saying outright "You are wrong beacuse...." It doesn't work, with most people, because they cling to their ideas very personally and are insulted when their ideas are criticized. Ask questions and make them think, not preach.
Branden's essay does correctly show how some people may have a dogmatic approach to Objectivism (even if other parts of the essay are wrong). And I speak from experience.
Check out this essay: http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Spir/selfinterestenough.asp
This essay, even if it has faults or errors, does show why the "myth" that many people are dogmatic in their approach to Objectivism is plausible. It does happen - I have experienced it myself - but I don't claim to know how abundant it is.
-
Well they are the sort of goals anyone would have, eg. to be top of my class, to be the best programmer around, etc. taken to an extreme. Nothing less than perfection will do but to even try to be perfect everytime is very taxing. My mind is relentless and unforgiving: mistakes are never flaws of knowledge, always breaches of rationality, and that places a LOT of guilt on my shoulders. I cannot bear the slightest criticism of my work, not that the desire to be perfect is bad, but that it being all-consuming is. It's like wanting to be John Galt and then cursing oneself for not living up to that ideal. It's a vicious circle: you want to be good but you're not and so you torture yourself psychologically and that makes it worse because forcing yourself to be good kills any desire to do so. So now you're even worse and it goes on like that.
It is wrong to base oneself on a comparative standard. One should not strive to be the top of one's class, or to be the best of anything around. The main goal you should have is: to be the best that you can be. A man in a wheelchair may learn how to eventually walk, and that would be a great accomplishment. Should he feel guilt because he has not beaten the best professional basketball player? It would be physically impossible. Achieve your personal values.
Do not strive to be John Galt, and don't curse yourself for failing to be. That only proves that you are dogmatic. It is wrong to strive to be anyone but yourself. Ms Rand's John Galt was to show that the best within ourselves is possible.
-
Erandror, I thank you for reaching a logical conclusion regarding these ‘insults’. You do this very often…. you solve disputes between people easily on this forum. Here is what I thought was an insult from Stephen: “Perhaps he ignores it so that someone like Brian can say "Life is far too complex to understand with pure reason" and still think of himself as an Objectivist.” I just don’t see this as a correct response to something that should be taken very seriously. I am certainly up for constructive criticisms from Stephen. Take this situation: what if someone you were arguing with merely said, “You’re wrong, and that’s that.” And never offered a reason? That’s how I felt. By the way, I never proclaimed myself to be an Objectivist, for all of who seem to think that I have did so.
“Slave, Branden meant that O'ists will use pure reason to reach conlusions and call those conclusions "reasonable" which may be over-simplified. And this will yield another set of reasoning of over-simplified conclusions, etc, etc. Life is far too complex to understand with pure reason. Along with reason there is intuition, emotion, and pure experience. “
This is what Branden would/does believe. I did, however, believe what he said at one point (which happened to be a matter of two days – and which was the period of which I have posted), but I have resolved my issue. Here is what I think: As for thought and emotion, I agree that the two are linked. Let's say you must make a decision. You decide that there is a right one, and a wrong one. You want to do/care about doing, what is right. You decide that value "X' is the right thing to do. If you do it, then you should feel happy about doing value "X" and not doing the contrary, value "Z". If you decide that value "Z" is the wrong thing to do, and then go along with it anyway, then you will not be happy about it. So emotion is a response to reason, yes? You relied on reason to decide what you wanted to do. Conclusively, you felt that you did want to do it, right? If so, then therefore, reason and emotion are connected. As for the wrong decision: You decided that it was wrong to do. Then, because it was wrong, you decided that you didn't want to do it. Becuase you didn't want to do it, you felt that it'd be the wrong choice. You feel it and know it? "I feel it's wrong because I have decided that it is." Does all of this sound logical? If it's confusing, try rereading it.
After I found out that I had a dogmatic approach to Objectivism, I wasn't sure if I truly believed in reason the whole time I was dogmatic. I suppose I just threw the concept of reason out the window and considered everything else. But now I truly know what the correct route is. I'm glad I went thru the ordeal, I know both sides of the issue and am more complete. One must discover these things on their own. One should not stick to some arbitrary tenet, as I did in the past.
--Brian
-
Thanks for the criticisms, everyone. Stephen, stop with the insults. Those types of arguments get no one anywhere on either side. Want to explain to me why I am wrong? Then do it. And by the way, Stephen, I never said it was what I believed, but that it was Branden's. But that doesn't matter anyway, because I have not fully decided on the issue.
I was an advocate of reason but in a matter of 2 days I thought about emotion, intuition, and experience. I figured that each could be used as a tool, altogther. But Rand, or O'ism, states that Reason is THE tool. If it is the only tool where do emotion, intuition, and experience take their part? Are they interconnected? Does emtion, intuition, and experience each stem from Reason?
Counting on your intellectual honesty,
--Brian
-
Slave, Branden meant that O'ists will use pure reason to reach conlusions and call those conclusions "reasonable" which may be over-simplified. And this will yield another set of reasoning of over-simplified conclusions, etc, etc. Life is far too complex to understand with pure reason. Along with reason there is intuition, emotion, and pure experience.
-
Gabriel, that is a very good question. Many Objectivists, at least the ones that I know personally, tend to be very serious towards life and their endeavors to be knowledgeable. There could be several different reasons why some O'ists appear this way. For one, maybe a certain person studying Objectivism may not have everything in perspective yet. And secondly, one may have their approach to Objectivism as dogmatic. Let me explain this thoroughly, for I have first hand experience. Since I started studying this philosophy, in 6th grade, I have always had a very serious approach to everything. In fact, you could hardly ever find me smiling. I was also asking questions like "Why I am not like John Galt?", "Would Ayn Rand approve to this?", "Am I living up to Objectivism?". This sort of mindset/attitude led me to question everything, and I was never sure of myself when it came down to basic things -- and, in effect, I developed a serious attitude. (Such basic things would be judging another person's personality, trying to judge if their use of language was moral or immoral -- and when I became seriously depressed after reading The Fountainhead, I wondered if the sidewalks, streets, houses, and buildings were all built properly, as in the novel.) Recently, I have noticed my faults regarding this manner and my dogmatic approach to Objectivism. If I become depressed after reading The Fountainhead, obviously something is wrong. One should not be just a student of the philosophy, but of a student of life and philosophy; use the principles of the philosophy in your everyday life. If you're having trouble looking for a real-life John Galt, or if you dream about becoming Ayn Rand or one of her heroic characters, you may have a dogmatic approach. Once I found out that I was a dogmatic Objectivist - I wondered if I had to re-evaluate all of my principles. But I did not have to, I could still believe them but only for myself. Do not believe in the philosophy for the sake of the philosophy or for the sake of Ayn Rand. Believe the philosophy and use the philosophy for yourself
Dr. Branden makes very valid criticisms regarding this issue in his essay: The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: http://nathanielbranden.net/ayn/ayn03.html#background
However, I know many people hate this essay. When I read this particular essay, I did not notice it as an attack on Objectivism or Ayn Rand. Only that people may tend to have a faulty approach to Objectivism. So if one wants to e-mail me at [email protected] for a valid analysis regarding the essay, one may do so. But please, no ad hominem arguments or slander against it. Be rational.
-
Mental is the physical, albeit volitional. When you form a thought, one doesn't imagine what changes happpen in those physical organic hemispheres. I'm not a cognitive scientist...yet...but the physical things that take part in the process of a thought would have to be chemicals, neurons, etc. Thinking is usually called nonphysical because it is abstract, but when you are thinking, certain things do happen to the organic tissue. It's physical. Isn't it truly a wonder that the chemical elements and matter of a rock are organized in such a way that it allows a living being to think?
-
If you haven't read Atlas Shrugged don't read on.....
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Near the end of Atlas Shrugged John Galt told Hank Rearden, Dagny, Fransisco, and Ragnar not to look down when they were flying over New York City when the lights went out. Yes, the lights of New York City going out is a horrible symbol, but John Galt previously said in the book when referring to Galt's Gulch that "no one gets in here by faking reality whatsoever." Shouldn't they then have looked down to face reality?
My One-thousandth Post!
in Website Policy and Announcements
Posted
And all under 3 months! Congrats