Laure
-
Posts
70 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Laure
-
-
I agree with turboimpala, and I see what slacker00 is saying. Rand was trying to reclaim the word "selfishness", but maybe we should concentrate on the larger battle. After all, nobody's trying to reclaim the word "gay" to mean "happy" - it's gone!
Maybe the approach we could take is to mainly use the term "rational self-interest" and then explain as an aside that the root of the word "selfish" is "self", and that that word has had a negative connotation tacked on to its meaning which we reject.
-
Wow, it's going to take someone really smart to run the economy! Smarter even than Obama. I've heard there's this guy in North Korea who's supposed to be the smartest guy on earth, maybe we could get him.
-
Slacker00, let me expound on my views here, because I disagree with you about compulsion being "the root of what Rand is really talking about." In my view, opposition to compulsion is where it all started for Rand, but it's not "the root." She saw the horrors of communism as a young person in Russia, and her soul cried out, "NO!" She then came to the realization that the moral code of altruism is what MADE this compulsory system of government possible. She then came to the realization that the root cause of that moral code is irrationality.
It's like when you discover a theorem in math. You look around, you work some examples, you convince yourself that the supposed theorem is probably true. Then, to prove it, you can either work forward from axioms and known theorems, or you can work backward to connect the theorem to the axioms. We often use our intuition in the discovery of theorems, but then connect them to the fundamentals to prove them right.
So, I would say that being against compulsion may have been where Rand started intuitively, but she identified that the real fundamental issue is irrationality.
Also, when you say that "Ayn Rand was simply an evangelical atheist hell bent on philosophically destroying theism" -- I'm not sure if you're representing your own views or someone else's -- I disagree entirely. She was far from an evangelical atheist. She saw religion as a symptom of irrationality, which is why she opposed it, but she was never a strident atheist like Madelyn Murray O'Hair, railing against "In God We Trust" on coinage, or the like. She had "bigger fish to fry."
You say, "I think Ayn Rand's biggest misunderstanding was that altruism was a defining life philosophy for many people." You need to look at the premises that people hold, not just at their behavior. The fact that altruism as a moral code is at odds with normal human behavior is part of what makes it dangerous in the hands of leaders. They hold up altruism as an ideal, and then when people "fall short" because they are naturally interested in self-preservation, GUILT is held over them to control them. So yeah, I agree that most people don't behave as altruists. But lots and lots of people believe as altruists. If people accepted a moral code of rational self-interest, we would not see stories in the news every week of the President scolding people for their selfishness. Heck, if the President accepted a moral code of rational self-interest, you wouldn't see him scolding people for being irrational or acting against their interests probably, either, because if that happens, it's the irrational person that suffers - unless he's actually violating someone's rights, which is the only time the government should have anything to say about it.
-
In my view, Rand opposed altruism as a principle because she saw where it leads. As soon as the idea that morality consists of sacrificing yourself to others is accepted, people in government will jump on that, and then you become compelled to do things that are not in your own best interest, for the alleged "good of society." And because you've accepted altruism as a moral ideal, you are disarmed! You can't say, "Hey, wait a minute! That's not fair!" because then "you're just being selfish."
Just look at current events. The Chrysler bondholders tried to protest that their interests legally come before the interests of the union, but I think to some extent the administration's attempts to disarm them on the basis of altruism is working, unfortunately (although bullying & threats are also part of the strategy...). They're being told, "don't be selfish, everyone else is sacrificing, who are you to place your interests above the 'greater good'?"
I think that is the crux of Rand's opposition to altruism. Although she would also counsel people to take care of their own interests, I think the political context is much more important than the personal, psychological, "self-help"context.
If you want to learn more about Ayn Rand as a person, I recommend the book "Letters of Ayn Rand." In it, you can see many examples of Rand helping people in a non-altruistic way.
-
Tsprat, Satriani's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yc8xyL0Xxo, seconded! My link is to a live version that I like even better than the video; he plays it slower and, I think, more perfectly. Such a gorgeous song, and so obviously a love song even without any words. On this video, take a look at Joe's face at around 2:50. He's a man in love -- not sure if it's with a girl, his guitar, his music, or his life; maybe all of the above.
-
The poll is actually missing an answer: the government should not put any more money into any more private companies and then try telling them what to do. That's the moral and fundamental answer, and a "yes" or "no" that is not accompanied by that is a meaningless sideshow.
This is the "right answer," of course. But I voted "no" on the reasoning that if AIG had properly been allowed to go bankrupt, those bonuses probably would not have been given.
-
I think that was the era in which talk shows started undergoing a shift from being a respectful forum for the guest to express his opinions to the Dr. Phil (the other Phil!) mode of talk show, the purpose of which is to put an object on the stage and give the audience a forum to tell that object what his or her "problem" is.
As Ifat and knast have pointed out, there was no question asked! It was just a woman standing up and spouting off her opinion of Ayn Rand. Rand's response was basically, "I didn't come here to be insulted", which I think was a correct response.
-
Joe, I'm not quite ready to give up "hope" (!) on Obama yet, although so far it's not looking so promising.
But, everybody, have a listen to the song!! It is REALLY good.
-
Let me throw another idea into the pot.
Couldn't we say that the "goals" that living things have are basically fighting against entropy?
What would you say a star's "goal" would be? To keep shining, or to go out? If it's to go out, that's going towards entropy. If it's to keep shining, that's sort of a static thing - you're saying the goal is to, basically, make time stand still, which it can't do anyway.
In contrast, a plant's "goal" is to grow and reproduce, not to decay. It goes against entropy.
-
I just said the same, basic thing. It's not rocket science.
Agreed!
Our only difference is a niggling one, over whether plants have "goals" or not. Rand (as I understand her) distinguishes "goal" from "purpose" and says all living things have "goals" but only conscious organisms have "purposes".
-
I don't think this is a reasonable discussion, Jake.
1) It is not reasonable for a person to demand to know the author of a dictionary definition. They don't do it that way. The definitions are written by professional lexicographers, whose job it is to create definitions for dictionaries.
2) It is not reasonable to say that any dictionary definition must be assumed to be "subjective" (or indeed any statement is assumed to be "subjective") and that it is up to me to show that it is objective. It's in the dictionary, for goodness sake! How much more objective do you want it? (I'm not saying that it's impossible for dictionaries to contain poorly written entries, but I think most of them are fine, and I don't see anything wrong with the "goal" definition above.)
3) It is not reasonable to bring Ayn Rand into the discussion in the manner in which you are doing it. You are saying, "Who are you to value some anonymous lexicographer's opinion over that of Ayn Rand's?" when the fact is that I'm not doing that and I don't see any contradiction at all between Ayn Rand's ideas on goals and purpose and what's in the dictionary.
I'm not sure why I'm even on this thread, other than the "Someone is wrong on the Internet" motivation. ;-)
Just to summarize my position:
Ayn Rand was right;
Stars are not alive;
Non-living things cannot have goals;
Plants are living things;
Plants have goals, but plants do not have volition.
-
Agrippa1: Fine, you use the word "goal" your way, I'll use it my way. There isn't an objective way to determine what the colloquial meaning is.
Why do you think Ayn Rand's usage was wrong? What do you think her error was? She didn't have the Internet to look up a subjective, ambiguos definition from an unnamed source, and use it as dfinitive proof that she is right?
I don't see how you can call a dictionary definition subjective and ambiguous. And if you want a reference, here you go:
Dictionary.com, "goal," in Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Source location: Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goal. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: January 15, 2009.
-
Just a brief note: I do not think that Rand intended "life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action" to be a definition of the concept "life." It is just a description, just like "I am a left-handed person" describes me but does not define me.
I think it is for biologists to define life. But I know that living things grow, eat, reproduce, and eliminate waste, and they die when they fail to sustain themselves. As stated by others, viruses are a borderline case. They are very primitive life, relying on a host, but it is possible to kill them, so they are considered living things.
Only living things have goals, by the definition of "goals."
-
Good post. When I heard Bush's statement, a similar analogy came to my mind: you find yourself thrown overboard at sea, and decide it's a good time to chuck all the principles of water survival you had learned, and just flail around wildly instead.
-
Nice!
Do one more where the Pharaoh says "go build the pyramid and I'll give you some bread' and the other guy says "If I don't build the pyramid I'm going to die".
If the guy starves if he doesn't build the pyramid, is it somehow the Pharaoh's fault?? Does he owe the guy a living?
-
Is a minimum wage worker unable to make their bills who can not find another more preferable job in a capitalist system a slave?
Nope, I'd say he's a lucky man! Would he be better off if his one-and-only employer shut down?
-
The things that have meaning to me are not possible anymore, so how is happiness possible?
So, find some new things to have meaning to you. As those "great philosophers"
Van Halen put it:"Dream another dream, this dream is over." (with the emphasis on DREAM ANOTHER DREAM)
-
I think the moral of the story is that people are becoming so dependent on the State, that they now feel that they need help with every aspect of their life: including their private life and raising their children.
I don't see this at all! The moral of the story is that this woman has gone part way to moral independence from her church. She just needs to go the rest of the way, and "do a Dagny" on the day they make her "transgression" public. She should stand up in that church with her boyfriend and tell them all that she is proud of her relationship and that the church fathers can go to hell.
-
When I saw the movie (I hadn't yet read Rand at the time) that's actually what I thought : wow, these characters suck. Who acts like that?
Same reaction here. It was bad softcore porn - the kind where you watch it and say, "Huh? Why are they attracted to each other? Who would be attracted to either of them?"
I thought Barbara Branden's book was not so bad, though. It's understandably biased, but there is a lot of interesting information in it. Just be aware of the slanted psychological speculation, and don't take it seriously when she says that Rand had a "deluded self-image" or words to that effect. To bring balance to Branden's account of the affair, read The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. To bring balance to Branden's account of Rand's personality, read Facets of Ayn Rand.
-
Kainscalia, thanks so much for the link to tvtropes.org! That is such a cool site. I had never heard the word "trope" before, and I often detect tropes that appeal to me in stories. (I'm going to search for what I'd call the "Free at last" trope. If there's not article for it, I should write one. It is shared by a lot of fiction that I love. It's where the hero finds out that he doesn't have to take it anymore. Examples range from Office Space to the mother of them all, Atlas Shrugged.)
Anyway, I see your point with the Straw Vulcan, but there is a reason why the Vulcan, or the House M.D., is appealing to some (including me). It's a different trope, again one that I'm not sure has been identified yet. Maybe it's not so much a trope as a fantasy in the mind of some of the viewers! Call it "I could straighten him out" maybe? Or "He'd be different ... with me!"
Women such as myself are strongly attracted to the intelligence and logic of a Spock or a House, despite their flaws. I have the feeling with Spock that, oh, if only I were in his life, I could teach him that reason and emotion need not be at odds! Or, if only I were in House's life, he'd find the happiness he deserves and he could become a better person.If you're only interested in fiction depicting the Ideal Man, then House is definitely not for you. He is not meant to be ideal, he's meant to be intriguing. I admit that the quality is uneven; some episodes and some of the lines are great, some are just stupid. But overall, the show hits its target with a lot of people.
-
It does not look to me like Greenspan "smeared Ayn Rand" in any fashion whatsoever. I think that his mistake was that he saw Midas Mulligan in the bankers he knew, and he was not recognizing Eugene Lawson, the Starnes Heirs, Orren Boyle and the gang, even though they've been there for some time.
-
Not so. Palin had enough of a personality and was literate enough to promote herself as a viable candidate for governor of the least populous state in the union.
Not to be a nitpicker, but ( -- well, OK, I'm nitpicking -- ) Wyoming is the least populous state.
-
Our friend Shylock is attempting a Semantic Sneak Attack. See my article on the topic *HERE*.
-
Just a slight change of pace: are we now going to have to get used to the phrase "The President's family sacrificed an animal today."? Have you heard that phrase on TV yesterday? To me it was quite an eloquent description of multiculturalism in America.
It's not about civil rights, or "judge a person by his character, not by the color of his skin", it's about "The President's family just sacrificed an animal" being a perfectly acceptable, positive news story about how much "progress" we've made.
Is that really the culmination of 250 years of being at the top of the food-chain, as a country, the culmination of all the scientific innovation and economic progress?
The industrial revolution, the technological revolution, and now we use the Internet and the satellites orbiting the Earth to watch the president's family sacrificing animals on the other side of the world.
Jake, you can't choose your family.
Prosletyzing versus good food
in Ethics
Posted
Well, if they've got good food, I'd continue going there.
It's nothing compared to the "Vegetarian House" in San Jose! Check this out: *LINK*
You get to watch videos of the Supreme Master Ching Hai while enjoying their food. It's pretty bizarre. But I've been back, and brought people there. The food is good, and it's actually kind of an entertaining experience!
Learn more about the Supreme Master at her website, GodsDirectContact.com (I kid you not!) Apparently she's a very successful entrepreneurial philanthropist, very good at hobnobbing with folks with money.
So, you see, a few bible verses on the menu is pretty tame stuff.