regglebum

I see where you are coming with your other points, I may need a while more to mull them over, but this one strikes me as being off. Isn't Objectivism based on empiric ideas; i.e. those which are factual purely based on observation of them (such as a brass doorknob being a brass doorknob whether you or I agree--independent of us it's still a brass doorknob).? *** Mod's note: Responses about "empiricism" have been split into a separate topic. -sN ***

Corrected.

No, I agree. I was thinking about siutations that could be more adjuncts to my problem than my problem. Like this (I'm reposting from previous post): Also, as an adjunct: You said her Ethics of Emergencies deals with you under emergency circumstances. What in it, empirically, (i.e. besides one's personal feelings) provides a difference between say, "My house is on fire and I need to save my family. I could care less about the car crash up the street," and "I'm running late for this movie I've been wanting to see and this is my only free time for two weeks to do so. I could care less about that stranger who just had a coronary next to me in the parking garage." ?

I took her point of saying normal to mean "what happens everyday." Her point would be that if you're on the Titanic, as an example, and the ship starts to sink, you put aside your personal goals because at that point the rational thing to do is ignore your goal of being an artist in favor of finding someway to prserve your life. Being on a ship sinking in freezing water is not a normal situation. On the other hand, the neighbor falling out of a tree happens when the sky is blue, your house is solid, and life is on an even keel. So it becomes a choice to not help or engage in immorality.

But she says "any misfortune" which would incldue either of your scenarios.

The reason I'm kind of asking, is I'm trying to make a hypothetical situation out of something that was similar in happening to me. I had this neghbor whose son died in a car crash and she and her husband seemed okay and I said Hi whenever I could, but one day I got home from work and there were police cars around and I asked my GF what was up and she said that the woman had apprently hung herself (the husband told us she used one of those elastic bands with the hooks that you use to put luggage on cars to do it) and it got me wondering if I wasn't solicitous enough or something. Then I got to further thinking on various permutations of a similar issue and if it was actually a flawed aspect of Rand's or something that worked across the board. That's why I'm asking about these scenarios. I don't know where I stand on religion right now and am looking into several philosophies (there're elements of Mills I think are really great). My mom turned me off Judaism ( and my own studying too, especially with the constant cross-murdering ways of my "people" and the Palestinians in Israel) and I got some tattoos in my early twenties just to piss her off more,m and I'm trying to come to terms with all this. i had read Atlas Shrugged a while ago and some of her nonfiction (I don't have my copy anymore but I had the one I think called Capitalism: An Ideal or something like that) and have seen as many interviews with her as possible (Mike Wallce and Marlo Thomas's husband), but didn't seriously think about joining a forum about Objectivsm until I played Bioshock which criticizes it. But I try and give everything what I see as a fair shake, so I'm asking questions I've had for some time now, and which were kinda hard as I haven't met many Objectivists in person (esp. in Oregon) and my professors in college either dismissed her outright or the people who did discuss were so dismissive of questioning her it seemed pointless to try to have a dialog.

Thanks.

How is it a lazy question yet is far up the chain of ethical abstractions? Your inability to even offer credence to the thought while summarily dismissing it without any positive effort at discussion (here I'll point out that in your two posts in thie thread, neither deals with the issue, while both betray your inate need to try to put down others for your benefit--i.e. cruelty) displays not rational thought but Randroidism at its worst.

I am confused. She's saying, as I understand it, that one can not achieve for oneself if one's goals are possibly derailed by unforseen circumstance(s). I'm not understanding what that has to do with your question.

I looked up her quote because the first response to my person was a rude excorriation. If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked it here. What if we change the scenario and the man becomes a retired gentlemen building a treehouse for his granchildren? At this point he is no longer a member who produces physically tangible goods or services. And what if, for whatever reason, you wanted a new neighbor? Would not helping then fall under Rand's ideas of cruelty/vamprism or would it? Also, I don't think that self-interest equals hermitism (if that's a word) as one would have to deal with others, and hopefully in a socially pleasant manner (i.e., not doing this: "Hi, sir, what can this butcher help you with?" "Eff your mother, give me three pounds of ground round.") but it does seem to provide for a cherry-picking way of dealing with others. Also, as an adjunct: You said her Ethics of Emergencies deals with you under emergency circumstances. What in it, empirically, (i.e. besides one's personal feelings) provides a difference between say, "My house is on fire and I need to save my family. I could care less about the car crash up the street," and "I'm running late for this movie I've been wanting to see and this is my only free time for two weeks to do so. I could care less about that stranger who just had a coronary next to me in the parking garage." ?

I agree that it would show contempt for life to not help, but I'm trying to understand it from an Objectivist viewpoint. Like the quote I supplied from Rand. The problem I see with what she said though, is that there seems to be no objective view of when one should help--if at all--and it seems to me this brings up a flawed point. It seemingly presupposes the future. On the one hand, the time you went to go spend on your roses could have been the interval between your computer tabulating your results on a cure for cancer, in which case the benefit of helping your neighbor might distract you enough to cause a flaw in your maths and would be of secondary value to the benfit you'd provide the world. If on the other hand you're simply correlating your collection of Benny Goodman albums, and you choose to ignore your neighbor based on your perceptions of what is going to cause the most benefit in your life at the time, you could possibly forgo a chance to be repaid later for the help you could provide now--i.e. if you had helped your neighbor, he's now able to call the police when your house is broken into on your vacation three months later--or nothing could come of the help you provided; either way, though, Rand's answer seems to presuppose that the possible future benefit/no benefit is not worth considering (by virtue of her basically saying one should not be subject to randomness of emergency) which seems to go against looking out for one's best interests.

Seems like a winning combination for opening Objectivist thought up to outsiders. No wonder the membership is so godawfully huge. But you gave me proper search terms if nothing else. Did it benefit you to do so? Either way, it seems Ayn Rand agrees that it is immoral: "In the normal conditions of existence, man has to choose his goals, project them in time, pursue them and achieve them by his own effort. He cannot do it if his goals are at the mercy of and must be sacrificed to any misfortune happening to others."

This is a hypothetical situation: You're in your house enjoying yourself when you remember it's time to change the hose position in your rose garden. As you go into your backyard, you happen to glance over and see your neighbor high in his tree building a treehouse for his children. As you watch, the branch he is standing on gives way and he goes crashing to the ground. You move the hose then go back into your house and proceed to pick up where you were before, ignoring whatever *may* have happened to your neighbor (although some assumptions about the outcome seem more than obvious). Is not heliping your neighbor immoral in this case? Or is it justified, especially seeing as how you might expend effort to provide aid only to have it not benefit you?

http://objectivistcenter.org/cs/forums/318/ShowPost.aspx Some opinions on the game from Objectivists (or those seeming to espouse the ideas): "I’m still not sure what Irrational is trying to say; whether they’re for or against the philosophy that permeates BioShock."--Gameslant Really? You still don't know whether or not the game is saying Andrew Ryan's ideals are the shizzle after Really? Various quotes from various forums: "I don't know if the game might be fun or not, but the premise seems to be a very superficial interpretation of Ayn Rand's ideas. Seems like they used her "influence" just to catch people's attention, without giving an explanation of how an Objectivist society would turn into a violent dystopia, taking into account that one of the tenets of the philosophy is the "axiom of non violence""--http://www.whoisthequestion.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=8464 [Really? It's not really a critique but it has to be that the developer simply doesn't "get" Objectivism?] "Finally, as for Bioshock, I have finished it, and it does not attack Objectivism (it portrays the downfall of Rapture as being due to hypocrisy, not to the content of Andrew Ryan (or Ayn Rand's) beliefs). Indeed, Objectivism provides the setting, not the plotline."--http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2007/08/22/like-bioshock-thank-ayn-rand/2 [Not from Andrew Ryan's bastardized beliefs? Did you play the game?] "It's going to be negative either way in my opinion because the general uninformed public who play video games will be less likely to become stimulated if ever exposed to the philosophy of Objectivism because they will use the vague associations they've made with the game as a substitute for real life evidence as to the end product of what the philosophy is. Some of you, even though most of you disagree with parts of the philosophy, or aren't completely knowledgeable about it, were stimulated by Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, or by some part of Objectivist literature you've been exposed to and used that spark as a vehicle for further philosophical inquiry right? Speaking in percentages, isn't Objectivism very likely to be the first encounter a person has with the study of philosophy because of the fiction's popularity? I think this game could easily function as a ready made bad association between someone ignorant of the philosophy, and the philosophy. I could just be hyper-paranoid about it too."--http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3708&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=fdacbc99ed73e31de17a1a34235e5299 [Ah, yes, it can't be an honest critique--it's just stylized propaganda designed to shoot down your beliefs and to mislead the stupid, stupid regular folk.] As for a relationship to the game--no. But I am slowly but surely inching the door into Hollywood open with my agent's help.

But give yourself credit for playing it and thinking about it. I've seen so many Objectivists (of which I'm not) either dismiss it altogether because of slavish devotion to Rand's ideas (when she herself said people should question everything) or people trying to pretend it's a kissing embrace of the idea when it's a bald criticism of it, under the guise of not being able to reconcile the dual thoughts of liking the game but not liking the message and thusly trying to distort it into something else. You at least gave it a chance. Also, you can go back through radio messages to hear the one from Atlas (I believe it's when you're in the Medical Pavillion) and the Did you read this "interview" with Levine? :Mr Levine,I would like to ask you about some of the deeper themes contained in the story for your studio's upcoming game Bioshock. Before I begin, allow me to state that I have been most impressed with your studio's previous work, indeed I am a very enthusiastic player of System Shock 2. However, I have been reading the information about Bioshock's storyline. The information I have was acquired from the IGN interview as well as the Bioshock Wikipedia page.First, the influence of Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand, to which I generally subscribe) is quite apparrent (and applauded). However, Bioshock is not the only game of Irrational's to explore the theme of individualism versus collectivism. System Shock 2 did that as well (The Many representing collectivism). However, I must ask, I sincerely hope you are not presenting a strawman 'individualism'? Will you be treating individualism and Objectivism with more than just a scoff and dismissal? In many analyses of System Shock 2, it is claimed that SHODAN represents 'individualism', however I consider equating SHODAN with individualism to be a grave mistake. If The Many represent the sacrifice of self to the group (altruism), then SHODAN represents the sacrifice of the group to the self (predatory, Neitzschean 'selfishness'). Individualism, especially of the Randian variety, explicity opposes both alternatives. Allow me to quote Ayn Rand's introduction to "The Virtue of Selfishness,""In popular usage, the word 'selfishness' is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment" "The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute... in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: a) that concern with one's own interests is evil, regardless of what these interests might be, and that the brutes activities are in fact to one's own interest."In other words, the choice is not between The Many and SHODAN (i.e. the moral masochism of altruism or the moral sadism of the popular meaning of 'selfishness'). There is a third alternative, which is the self-supporting, independent person that neither sacrifices himself to others nor others to himself. Randian individualism supports this no-sacrifice proposition, on the grounds that the rational interests of people are in harmony. For example, its in no ones rational interests to have a massive civil war that kills almost everybody. Another example: being a lousy businessperson will destroy your reputation so over the long run, no one will trade with you. Therefore, being honest is in ones overall self-interest. What I am hoping is that BioShock treats the theory of individualism with proper respect. It would be very disheartening if BioShock were to equate individualism with an endless desire to prove oneself superior to others (this being a form of conformist parasitism Rand referred to as Second-Handing), free-market capitalism with making profit as an end-in-itself, or advocate the fallacious notion that laissez-faire is a zero-sum game. As you are obviously aware, Objectivism is often assumed to be wrong, evil, or an engine of societal collapse and disintegration, regardless of the historical evidence in favor of many Objectivist-approved principles. A glance of the plot summary on Wikipedia seems to indicate two possible angles: 1) The genetic arms race is a product of genuine individualism being changed into second-handing 'beat the other guy' (this being the more pro-individualist angle) or 2) the genetic arms race is an EXTENSION of genuine individualism (this being a strawman individualism as outlined above. If ones prime motive is to beat others, you arent being very individualist are you?). My question to you is, which angle are you going to take? Your answer is much appreciated, Sincerely, Andrew Russell :Levine's response:Andy, I saw your mail a while back and have not ignored it, just been trying to find the time to answer it. I've avoided getting too deep into Rand in interviews, because PC Gamer isn't exactly the best forum for an Objectivist discussion...But here at TTLG, well that's a horse of a different color.Let me say this first:I'm no scholar of Rand. (or much for that matter).I've read a bunch of her writing, and I find her to be a powerful and fearless thinker.My own leanings trend libertarian, though for some reason (perhaps you can explain this to me), Rand had nothing but contempt for libertarians. Perhaps it's akin to the way I feel about people who like Genesis after Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett left the band.If I had to choose between SHODAN and the Many, I'd take SHODAN any day. I think the most appealing part of Rand to me is the celebration of the self and her daring challenge to altruism. Talk about swimming upstream in a Judeo-Christian society.But SHODAN (and perhaps Ryan, but I'm not gonna talk too much about BioShock story just yet) doesn't honor or respect greatness in others. And she needs others to recognize her glory. These seem to be two pretty large sins in Rand land. SHODAN also believes in violence in cases where she is not threatened with violence. Rand would hand this a thumbs down too.Lastly, SHODAN views herself as a God. Not a God of her own work, of her own realm, but a God because others should grant her fealty. Not something you'd expect to hear from Roark.You mention that: "she was, in the strictest sense of the word, an empiricist". It is where Rand is not an empiricist is where she starts to lose me. In the book of interviews with Rand (http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Answe...e=UTF8&s=books) , when any facts contradict her philosophy (the treatment by western expansionist of native americans, for example) she dismisses some pretty empirical facts as "leftist propaganda". It's when she abandons logic for slavish and unquestioning adherence to ideology is when I remember why Galt was a fictional character and Ayn Rand was flesh and blood.But as I witness the rise of the state and in the last five years in my country, and the burgeoning of fundamentalism both here and abroad, I become more and more of an objectivist: invidual liberties, govt. staying out of business and religion, and non-interventionist.Which, quite perversely, has become much more of the position of the left. These changes have given me the impression that it's not any philosophy that's the danger. It's the extremes. The Stalins, the Bin Ladens, the neocons, the theocons, the Leninites, the Maoists. What have they ever really offered anyone of value? Is there a Galt among there number? Is there even an Andrew Ryan?