Bold Standard
-
Posts
839 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bold Standard
-
-
I like how Donahue calls atheists arrogant.
Unlike religious people who know for sure that in the whole wide universe their particular god is the only one that can possibly exist and if you don't believe it you will go to hell.
Yes, it does seem ironic. But the rationale behind it is that atheists are willing to rely on their own observations and conclusions alone, instead of "humbly" accepting, on faith, the ideas of other peop-- I mean, the "Word of God." From a Christian's point of view, that makes the atheist seem audaciously, insultingly prideful, in the Luciferian sense of standing on one's own judgment rather than submitting to authority.
-
If you're looking for insightful self-help material that is to the point and from an Objectivist perspective, I would highly recommend Dr. Ellen Kenner.After becoming depressed after my first year of university I reviewed a number of self-help materials. All self-help authors seem to write in 300 pages what could be expressed in a few sentences and write multiple books that are basically rephrased duplicates. I almost got into spirituality after looking at loads of "what the bleep" style trash. Understandably, this was after I was mugged. Have you ever noticed people turn to religion/spirituality after a traumatic incident? Why? They are simply escaping reality! I was escaping reality; reality isn't so cruel if it doesn't exist. I also procrastinated, which is another way of escaping reality.It's funny, I had almost the opposite experience from you with being mugged. Once, when I was a teenager, I was mugged by someone after an attempt at being a Good Samaritan, which, being religious, I felt it my duty to do. After this experience, it was quite clear to me how disastrously impractical this type of approach to morality was. It was in part my search for a more practical code of ethics that lead me to Objectivism and precipitated my abandoning religion. In my case, it was (in a sense) attempting to escape reality and the practical necessities of life on earth that led to me getting mugged, and afterwards I was eager to be more realistic. Not that I think the bastard who mugged me did me a favor or anything--I wish I hadn't learned the hard way, but I did.
-
I saw this cool picture that was drawn back in 1900. It was an artist's envisionment of the year 1999. Huge towers with walkways through them, horseless carriages (yes, they were shaped like carriages) going between them, and Zeppelins populating the sky. It was kind of neat.
I would love to see this. Does anyone have any idea who it's by or where I could find it?
-
Lol, damnit.. Even at 5 am I can't type fast enough without getting beat to the punch. ; P That's good though, I like when the forum sees more activity.Because society is only a number of individuals. "Society," as such, does not exist. There is no entity "society," it is only a word used to refer to more than one individual. Self-sacrifice is bad for individuals individually, so how could it be good for them? -
There is no such entity as "society as a whole," and if there was, why should its interests matter to us? Society is merely a collection of individuals. That which is inimical to the survival of individuals is evil, period.So my question is, why is self-sacrifice evil or not good for society as a whole?
Greed, as it's used in Atlas Shrugged, means the pursuit of wealth (pg 684). Materials and wealth (private property) are necessary for survival, flourishing, and happiness. Suffering does not follow from a healthy obsession with obtaining happiness.Still, this doesn't address the problem of greed, attachment to materials or wealth and the suffering that follows the obsession with them.
I don't know as much about Buddhism as I do about Western religions. Could you explain what is meant by "emptiness" here? Intuitively, it would seem to be the opposite of "awareness."A religion such as Buddhism, does not require blind faith. It does not even require believing in everything preached by the religion other than the core values and practices. The only unprovable, mystical concept in Buddhism is rebirth (I do not consider karma unprovable or mystic). I do not even believe in rebirth, like many western Buddhists, and I while the concept of karma is interesting I still don't know if I believe in that. What I practice is the Eightfold path, and mediation to achieve emptiness and awareness, what in particular is non-objectivist about that?
Not all of them--for example, Jesus taught that one should worship him and believe that he was the son of God (though, not as voraciously as his followers did, especially Paul).Even Christianity has a rich history and valueable moral code, the teachings of Jesus Christ can be practiced without believing he was the son of God.
Don't read it for the plot?? Wha.. Why not? The plot's fantastic. And following it is essential for grasping the philosophical points being made.I would suggest AS is the ideal single read for you, especially Galt's speech, but don't read it for the plot and do especially read Galt's speech a couple of times and very carefully. -
[i see that, in the time it's taken me to write this several others have posted--only the one response by Inspector was here when I started. So I'll go on and post this and then read the others to see if I have anything else to add.
]Hello. : )
Many of us (meaning, members of this forum and other, mostly younger Objectivists) started out as libertarians. Objectivists also believe in limited government, and unregulated laissez-faire capitalism. For a brief but very good statement of Ayn Rand's theory of rights, I recommend chapters 12 and 14 from The Virtue of Selfishness, titled "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government." These can be read on their own, as they were originally published as separate essays. Private property is certainly an indispensable right, but Ayn Rand's position (like Locke, but better explained) is that all rights are derived from man's ability to reason. It wouldn't make much sense to derive all rights from private property, since private property is itself a right. Is the right to private property also supposed to be derived from private property? If not, from whence does it derive?First things first; I am a minarchist and supporter of the Libertarian Party, I believe the best government is a small government, the free market > government regulation, and that all rights are derived from private property.
Yes, that's what I would mean if I were to say Libertarianism is unprincipled. It means there are no unified, grounded, thoroughly formulated principles which unite Libertarianism into a political philosophy. Anyone who wants to claim they advocate liberty is included, with liberty being left undefined. It's conceivable (if uncommon) that some particular libertarian might be principled, but that's different from saying libertarianism is principled.The LP is a big tent (for a third party anyway), and everyone has their own ideas and dissenting opinions. In the realm of libertarianism, or at least, the realm of anti-government sentiments there is a diversity of anarchists, capitalists, classic liberals, true conservatives, isolationists, etc.
Yes, it's a long book. But it's oh-so worth the read! By the end, you'll wish it wasn't over yet. Luckily, she has other great books, too. Well, only read it if you like interesting stories with mystery, suspense, romance, beautiful descriptions of larger than life people, places, and events, and challenging insights into philosophy and human nature and relationships. Otherwise, you might be bored. ; )But it seems you can't swim these waters too long without encountering the Ayn Rand crowd. I have been told that much of the support for and conversion to the LP comes from a single book; Atlas Shrugged.
Correct.My discovery was that this philosophy is very unique, it seems to be an all-encompassing ideology that covers politics, ethics, religion, etc.
There are often similarities, but Objectivism has a principled approach to politics that's integrated with the whole philosophy. Libertarianism starts with politics, which is not a philosophical primary, and so it often unsubstantiated in its claims and assumptions. Many Libertarians advocate things that are the antithesis of Objectivist political philosophy, such as collectivism (e.g. anarchism), suicidal pacifism, and, in various ways depriving the government of its ability to uphold its one legitimate function: protecting individual rights.With the issue of political thought it appears that there is virtually no difference between objectivist politics and libertarianism.
Well, if you want some specific criticisms from Ayn Rand, there is a selection of quotes from her at the Ayn Rand Institute's website here. Besides the myriad of philosophical disagreements Ayn Rand had with libertarians, it didn't help things that many of the early leaders of the Libertarian movement would come out with the most horrendous and ridiculously unfounded criticisms of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, while at the same time plagiarizing much of her work, without giving her any credit.But further probing reveals heavy criticism of libertarians from the Ayn Rand podium, why? The main criticism is that libertarians are devoid of principles... obviously I disagree, but I found this accusation strange.
True. Sometimes we'll call it "rational self interest" to distinguish it from the type of self destructive behavior that is often fallaciously referred to as selfish, by those who don't know better and those who should.a. Selfishness is a virtue.
True. Altruism is the sacrifice of self to others. Sacrifice is trading a higher value for a lower value or non-value. Objectivism rejects all ethical codes which require sacrificial victims. An Objectivist trades values for values, neither sacrificing others to himself or himself to others.b. Altruism is evil.
What does this mean? I've never heard those terms spoken by an Objectivist, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Ego means self. What does it mean to feed one's ego? Nourish and improve one's self? I could go with that. But maybe you mean something else.c. The ego should be fed.
Just FYI, Ayn Rand specifically came up with the term "Objectivist" because she hated the term "Randist," that some of her followers were beginning to adopt at the time. As she stated in The Objectivist Forum, Vol. 1 No. 1, "I am much too conceited to allow such a use of my name." So if you ever sense hostility from an Objectivist if you use the term "Randian," that's why: knowing her position on the issue, some of AR's less mature opponents intentionally use the term "Randian" derisively.In fact, I was labeled as an "enemy to capitalism" by an Ayn Randian on another forum because I made it known that I both advocate capitalism and practice altruism, preferring private charity over state welfare.
I'll fight to the death for your right to choose to be a self-sacrificing altruist, as long as you don't force the obligation on me, or violate anyone's rights in doing it. The right to act on your own judgment is as indispensable as property rights. And it is possible for it to be in a person's self interest to invest in some particular charity, if it is for a worthy cause that is a legitimate value for the person. If you only want to sacrifice yourself and no one else, I doubt a serious advocate of Objectivism would call you a "leech," because in that case it seems you are the one who is being leeched, not the one doing the leeching. But, he might legitimately accuse you of willingly feeding the leeches, and allowing them to survive and claim more victims.I like libertarianism because it places a heave emphasis on choice, I will fight the death my right and anyone else's right to choose, this includes the choice to be a selfish egotistical bastard. However, I will on my own time exercise the right to be selfless and charitable, in search of enlightenment, as a part of my pursuit of happiness. In objectivism though, my fight accounts for nothing because I am seen as an evil altruistic leech. (As John Galt described it).
How are you defining "compassion"? Compassion can be perfectly selfish as long as it's directed at those who deserve compassion, and not merely those who "need" it, but haven't done anything to earn it.But to discredit compassion entirely... well I don't think I will be converting to objectivism any time soon.
Well, there's not a movie for Atlas Shrugged yet, although one is supposedly in the works. There is one for The Fountainhead, that's okay as long as you haven't already read the book (to which it doesn't compare, though she did write the screenplay and have some limited control over the making of it). The Fountainhead movie was actually my first encounter with Ayn Rand, and it was enough to make me very interested in her.But I am not completely closed to it, I am not any more discouraged to read Atlas Shrugged (or watch the movie cause' I'm lazy) or any of Rand's other works, but I will do so with healthy skepticism.
I think Ayn Rand put it best in the September 1971 issue of The Objectivist: "...I shall say that I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." I promote selfishness and greed, because I promote life and happiness on earth, and those, properly defined and understood, are the means to obtaining them.3. Why do you promote selfishness and greed, and do you believe there can be cons to this mentality?
Religion is undesirable because faith is undesirable. "Spirituality" isn't necessarily undesirable, but an Objectivist would mean by that something like "that which pertains to consciousness." What makes you so sure that we share a common purpose? The answers to "life" are to be found in ethics, "the universe" to be found in metaphysics, and "everything" to be found in philosophy, which consists of five major branches: metaphysics--the study of the fundamental nature of existence, epistemology--the study of the nature and validity of knowledge, ethics--the study of the proper moral code by which to guide one's actions, politics--the study of proper government, and aesthetics--the study of art. Metaphysics and epistemology are the most fundamental branches, from which ethics is derived, and from those three are derived politics and aesthetics.4. If religion and spirituality is completely undesirable, what is the objectivist answer to questions such as "what is our purpose?", "what is the answer to 'life, the universe and everything?' (as Douglas Adams put it)", etc.>>5. What is your honest opinion of Buddhism and Eastern Philosophies?>>Like all religions, I view them as a primitive attempt at philosophy, or an early attempt for people to formulate a comprehensive view of the universe. For the most part, the conclusions of Eastern religion is blatantly and sometimes even proudly irrational and mystical. But they didn't get it all wrong, and there are some wise proverbs and principles that you can dig up, just like with most other religions. But, the religious elements are unnecessary and have no place in the modern world, in my opinion, other than as a way to understand history and the development of thought in various cultures.
>>Thank you for your time.>> It wasn't a sacrifice. I enjoyed it!
Happy New Years. -
The most disturbing letter for me to read was the one from Ben Seidnesticker. His attempt to distinguish dictatorship from extreme socialism is baffling. He also seemed to grasp the book's thesis better than many of his classmates, which makes his conclusion all the more perverse.
Maybe what this world needs is a governing system that can limit our technology, such as was done in “Anthem.” Maybe, it would be worth taking a chance with a truly equal society.But even if some of the kids misinterpreted parts of the book, at least most of them seemed to relate to the idea of individualism and freedom being an important value.
(Small consolation.)
And it is good that ARI is successful in its attempt to get schools reading Ayn Rand.
-
Yeah, I do. Smack me baby!
I'm not sure if that is what it comes down to.. I think it's certainly possible for a person to truly believe a false idea to be true--but I don't think that's necessarily the case for someone suffering from a particular common type of delusion. Also, I'm sure there is a variety of psychological conditions that could lead a person to become a gangster--and they might vary somewhat from culture to culture. It's probably much more likely for a gangster living in a highly corrupt state to have genuine self esteem related to his occupation than in a capitalist country, because that may be his only option.It comes down to whether you think that someone can truly believe a false idea to be true. I think so, and I have seen evidence for it. So I think that if someone truly believes that stealing and using force are virtues, that by doing this he will increase his self-esteem.
I don't think genuine self-esteem is as subjective as that. This is one subject about which the early writings of Nathaniel Branden are quite insightful. I don't doubt that someone who lives up to his own standards will have higher self esteem than one who doesn't, even if the former man's standards contradict reality. But the self esteem of a man who's standards contradict reality is necessarily thereby limited. Every instance in which he is thwarted by reality is a severe blow to his self esteem. His only way to protect his self esteem in such a case (as far as he knows) is to blame reality, rather than himself and his standards--hence the formation of a malevolent universe premise.By self-esteem I mean just that: one's evaluation of oneself according to their own standard. Not according to the correct, objective standard.As for the articles: boy you sure read a lot. But not interested in learning about gangsters, got enough stuff to read (the pile of books I have to read is frightening). I read about topics that interest me--and those are the only ones I write about. I'm a little glad you didn't push for my references, because all I remember about the authors of the articles is that they were by psychologists who were students of or defending the position of Dr. Branden. But I don't remember where I came across them, and it was years ago, so that's not much to go on! Still, curiosity might compel me to look them up later anyway.
-
Is it your position that, since the gangster allegedly sees using force as a virtue of masculinity, that it is actually is a virtue of masculinity? I ask this, because I can't see why you would say that such a person doesn't lack self-esteem, besides the arrogant claims he makes about himself--which might not be true, and which he might not even believe. I think there is strong evidence that this type of person suffers from some of the lowest self esteem around--and that, in fact, it's the desperation of the low self-esteem (which becomes a malevolent universe premise through psychological projection) that drives him to initiate force. I've read articles on this, long ago, which I can try and look up if you're interested.Not necessarily of their self-esteem, but always of their hierarchy of values. Think about... a gangster, who sees using force and stealing things as a virtue of masculinity. He doesn't lack self-esteem, but the woman he would choose will reflect his values... -
Cold but true. After all, if someone wanted to buy a nude calendar why would he choose this one with older women who could not have been models even when they were younger? It just doesn't make sense as far as nude calendars go.
Well, besides mature fetishes, which are an established market for that sort of thing, not everyone likes the type of women who are selected for modeling anyway. Personally, young models (with interest in philosophy and literature and who have moral integrity) are just fine for me, though.. If you meet any you can send them my way. But if you want to buy me a calender, I'd rather one with skyscrapers, cats, Vermeers, or renaissance sculptures.
-
In The Fountainhead, Dominique Francon was fairly well known in her city, even at that early stage of the novel, being the daughter of the famous architect Guy Francon, and the author of a popular newspaper article in The Banner. Since we can be confident that the sculptor was a realist, and since, as I recall, it was a full body sculpture, I think it's safe to conclude that anyone who saw it, and knew who Dominique was, would be able to identify that it was a statue of her.P.S. I just thought of TF and how Dominique posed for the statue in the temple. I don't remember fully, but it was never known to more than just a few people that it was indeed Dominique Francon who that statue was modeled after....right?? Could you tell just by looking at the statue the identity of the person it intended to depict?Here is an excerpt from an interesting conversation between Dominique and her father over the statue:
Skimming through, I couldn't find a reference that explicitly states that it was a full bodied statue, but this description of the making of the statue gives me the impression that it was:Guy Francon tried to object when he heard of it."Listen, Dominique," he said angrily, "there is a limit. There really is a limit—even for you. Why are you doing it? Why—for a building of Roark's of all things? After everything you've said and done against him—do you wonder people are talking? Nobody'd care or notice if it were anyone else. But you—and Roark! I can't go anywhere without having somebody ask me about it. What am I to do?"
"Order yourself a reproduction of the statue, Father. It's going to be beautiful."
Also, there is this statement from the description of Scarret's crusade against the temple:Then he saw what he had been straggling to see all day. He saw her body standing before him, straight and tense, her head thrown back, her arms at her sides, palms out, as she stood for many days; but now her body was alive, so still that it seemed to tremble, saying what he had wanted to hear: a proud, reverent, enraptured surrender to a vision of her own, the right moment, the moment before the figure would sway and break, the moment touched by the reflection of what she saw.
The statement that the model's name was "omitted" suggests that it was no secret who the model was.He ran photographs of religious sculpture through the ages—the Sphinx, gargoyles, totem poles—and gave great prominence to pictures of Dominique's statue, with proper captions of indignation, but omitting the model's name.That being said, I doubt this calender is anything resembling a work of art.
Daaaaamn.But, at least judging from the picture accompanying the article, anyone who buys these calendars is likely to buy it out of pity rather than lust.
That's cold.
-
Hi, Mercury. Other people's responses are more specific to your situation, but if you want inspiration on the topic of love letters, you might enjoy Edmund Rostand's play, Cyrano de Bergerac. Love letters are a big part of it, and it's a great work of art. Also, there is a movie for which Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay called "Love Letters," but I haven't seen it yet so I don't know if that would be useful or not.
Fight the feeling that you need to remind her to love you. That will be a rational conclusion she can reach on her own during this trip.I think that's one thing that really makes a great writer. Provide all the information necessary for the audience to draw the conclusion you want--but don't do it for them, let them come to it on their own (or not).
Charlotte, what premise do people hold that tempts them to beg the audience to draw the desired conclusion? At first, it seems like laziness, but then it seems more than that--it's like skipping the joke and going straight for the punchline; or even skipping that and simply saying, "please laugh at me." I know the feeling you're talking about.. The anxiety of wanting a certain reaction--but what motivates a person to want to say, in effect, "react this way" instead of trying to say something that will inspire that reaction? (I hope you can make sense out of that question--I'm relying on the premise that you've probably thought more about this than I have, since you're a great writer and seem to capably avoid that mistake [edit: whereas, I'm not sure I've thought about it even enough to formulate the question I'm trying to ask intelligibly].)
-
Reading over this, I realized this sounds a little rude. Just to emphasize what I meant, I was only attempting to criticizing the argument, not the arguer. So nothing personal, y_feldblum. ; )But it's a worthless argument against one man cheating, stealing, and bribing his way to obtaining possessions. -
Thanks. : ) As to trolls, eh, I don't write primarily for my audience anyway. ; PThat's a fairly good summary, but I severely doubt that our "guest" is the least bit interested in doing anything but trolling.
Ack, I wish you hadn't chosen those words, after I worked so hard defining legal "rights." Just so that no one's confused--everyone has a legal right to say whatever they want [edit: with the exception of words that are actually an initiation of force, such as a threat or an order to have someone attacked, or famous yelling "fire" in a theater scenario, etc], since the right to free speech is a derivative of the right to liberty. As to this sentence, which uses the word "right" in a quite different context and meaning, I agree that only Objectivism can properly call it's theory of values "objective"--by the Objectivist definition of "objective." But, supposing that Utilitarianism could call its theory of values objective according to its definition (which really, it ultimately failed to do, which is one reason it ended up collapsing into something that could advocate socialism) it could be possible for both to do so at the same time, since they do not accept the other's definition for "objective." And the reasons for that are not derived directly from their theory of values (i.e., their ethics), but primarily from their theories of knowledge (epistemology; and also their metaphysics, theory of the nature of reality). According to Objectivism, "objective" doesn't mean "disinterested." According to Utilitarianism, "objective" doesn't mean "corresponds to objective reality." But it's not an arbitrary semantic decision; in order to determine which definition is correct, the premises that give rise to the definitions must be checked (which is more complicated a task than I have time to elaborate on this morning).I was under the impression that only Objectivism has the epistemological right to call their theory of values an objective one.
I haven't gotten a chance to buy and read it yet, so thanks for the quote! I'm looking forward to reading it eventually.Anyone else remember reading pages 320-22 in "The Capitalist Manifesto" where Bernstein brings up the topic of Sweden? -
Oh, okay. Here's my best attempt to sum it up in a few words--A right can be seen as essentially a moral claim to be left alone. The right to life means freedom from having one's life taken. The right to liberty means freedom from having one's actions forcibly limited (upon threat of violence). The right to property means freedom from having one's possessions stolen, or vandalized. The right to the pursuit of happiness means freedom from being compelled to act towards one's own destruction. How can one's life be taken? How can one's actions be controlled? How can one's property be taken? How can one be made to act towards one's own destruction? The answer is: Only through force and fraud. Freedom is freedom from force and fraud. Political freedom means the banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human relationships. Stated in the positive, political freedom means the upholding of individual rights. The upholding of individual rights means the banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human relationships. The political system which is based on the principle of upholding individual rights is called: laissez-faire capitalism.Of course, but the Marxist won't have a clue what you mean. You're going to need to explain the connection.For a more detailed and eloquent explanation, see Ayn Rand's essays "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government" in The Virtue of Selfishness (they can be read on their own apart from the rest of the book, although the whole book is helpful for understanding these issues).
-
When an Objectivist says that his politics is based on an "objective" ethical theory, by "objective" he means, "corresponding to objective reality." When a Utilitarian says his politics is based on an objective ethical theory, he means, "disinterested; applies to everyone." So there is a definitional issue of what it means to be "objective," that goes deeper than ethics--relying on the answers to epistemological (and metaphysical) questions. That's another reason that giving the kind of sound-byte type point-by-point answers this thread seems to be seeking is quite difficult.Very strongly, huh? Capitalism is based upon an objective theory of values. That is its moral defense, and Objectivism is its philosophic base. -
Stop, stop, stop, stop, STOP!
Everybody stop. This needs to be brought to essentials quickly, or else we're all going to run in circles with the marxist that started the thread.
Capitalism is defined here as the economic system that completely outlaws the initiation of force. All other economic systems must necessarily allow the initiation of force. The reason why "all other" economic systems are hated is because all other economic systems, to one degree or another, initiate force.
Period.
Would you agree that "outlaws the initiation of force" is simply another way of saying "upholds individual rights"?
-
Have you read We the Living? This part of the conversation reminds me of Kira's suspension bridge--with no banks to build it on. But I guess there are some careers one could pursue satisfactorily on a desert island. Fishing, or coconut farming..No, it wouldn't be. -
I would consider myself an objectivist in that I believe very strongly in objective values and morals. However, I do not like that it is "required of me" to be a Capitalist, it seems.
"Objectivism" is the name of the philosophy defined by Ayn Rand. An "Objectivist" is someone who agrees with Ayn Rand's philosophy in its essentials. Ayn Rand's philosophy was systematic, incorporating all major branches of philosophy--epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. Her political philosophy was laissez-faire capitalism; because it is, as she said, the only moral political system in history, the only system to subordinate "might" to "right," and the only system to consistently uphold individual rights. [Reference: The Virtue of Selfishness pg. 109]
Why do you put "Economics book" in scare quotes? The most essential argument for laissez-faire is that it upholds individual rights--the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, to which every individual has a moral claim, by virtue of being a rational animal. Every other system violates these rights, arguing that individuals should be sacrificed for the good of the whole--much like ancient savages sacrificed individuals into the volcano to please the gods.This seems rather ludicrous to me. How is the objective economic system one of Laissez Faires Capitalism? I shouldn't have to go off and read an "Economics book". You can at least outline the principles.
Although Utilitarianism claims to be an objective approach to morality, it is not Objectivism--it is not, nor is it consistent with, the philosophy of Ayn Rand.This is very close to Utilitarianism, which is Objectivism. Surely Capitalists are "evading" by refusing to circulate money in a manner that benefits people in a more efficent manner?Virtually all the defenders of capitalism, from the nineteenth century to the present, accept the ethics of utilitarianism (with its slogan "The greatest happiness of the greatest number") as their moral base and justification—evading the appalling contradiction between capitalism and the altruist-collectivist nature of the utilitarian ethics. Mr. Cohen points out that utilitarianism is incompatible with justice, because it endorses the sacrifice of minorities to the interests of the majority. (I said this in 1946—see my old pamphlet Textbook of Americanism.)What is the cause of today's egalitarian trend? For over two hundred years, Europe's predominantly altruist-collectivist intellectuals had claimed to be the voice of the people—the champions of the downtrodden, disinherited masses and of unlimited majority rule. "Majority" was the omnipotent word of the intellectuals' theology. "Majority will" and "majority welfare" were their moral base and political goal which—they claimed—permitted, vindicated and justified anything. With varying degrees of consistency, this belief was shared by most of Europe's social thinkers, from Marx to Bentham to John Stuart Mill (whose On Liberty is the most pernicious piece of collectivism ever adopted by suicidal defenders of liberty).You see, Objectivism is a systematic philosophy. Its politics are derived from its ethics, which are derived from its metaphysics and epistemology. It is a rather complex conceptual chain which is necessary to explain the full justification for capitalism, according to Objectivism. It can be done, but it would take the course of a whole book to do adequately and comprehensively.
Objectivists are not conservatives. We care about individual rights, not "normal situations." In fact, we value the exceptional people over the "normal" ones.I find that right wing economics and "right wing" social policies so often go hand in hand *because* they're based on not caring about people in situations different from whatever situation you decide is the "normal" one.
Restrictions on restrictions? I believe you mean restrictions on freedom and prosperity? But these are a violation of the rights of those individuals being restricted.I am certainly not a "Randist". I don't see how the great moral good is refusing to accept that certain restrictions have to be put on some people's restrictions to ensure others are on a more equal standing.[edit: fixed punctuation. edit 2: added reference for AR's moral justification for capitalism, from essay "Man's Rights" in VOS.]
-
Well, I didn't say that it's only to the party--just that, since "libertarian" with a lower-case "l" is so vague, Objectivist criticisms of libertarianism can usually be assumed to be directed at the party (or, I should add, a type of ideology essentially similar to that of the LP).However, note that in her June 20, 1974 letter to Mrs. Maethner, she makes reference to Rothbard and the libertarian movement. To the best of my knowledge, Rothbard had no connection with the LP, so I disagree that the objection is only to the party.Murray Rothbard was involved in the Libertarian Party (from 1974 to 1989, according to them).
-
P.s I remember seeing somewhere that Rand had once answered a woman that asked her if she was a leader of a cult: "young lady, I have been advocating individualism all my life. Common sense tells you that you cannot be a cult leader and an individualist; do you have common sense?" (A quote from memory from a few years back, but one that I remember quite vividly) Where was this?
I think I saw that quote attributed to her character in the movie version of The Passion of Ayn Rand. So I'm highly skeptical as to whether she actually said it.
-
This one would have been funnier if the voice on the other side had said that it was Soviet Russia!5) When Lenin dies, an unexpectedly Liberal God is unsure what to do with him. So He decides to allow Lenin into Heaven for two weeks and see how that works. It doesn't work well at all. No matter how good things are in Heaven, Lenin keeps trying to organize a revolution. Deciding one Lucifer was quite enough, God sends Lenin to Hell.Time passes, and God fails to receive even one complaint from Hell. Puzzled, He calls Hell to find out how things are going with Lenin. A voice on the other side of the line answers the call "The Soviet Socialist Republic of Hell, how may I direct your call?"
I didn't get this one.8) During tense negotiations over grain shipments, George Shultz tells Andre Gromyko, "Look, we are willing to let grain shipments through, but we need a few concessions.""All right. What do you need?"
"To begin with, one hundred merchant ships. We'll distribute them to third World countries."
"Done," says Gromyko.
"Also, a few million tons of coal at cost."
"No problem."
"And fifty bicycles."
"I'm afraid that's out of the question."
"Why?"
"The Poles don't make bicycles."
There were some great jokes in that post, though, D'kian. : D
-
I thought about mentioning sense of life too. In case someone is not familiar with the term, it is explained in detail in The Romantic Manifesto, especially chapter two, "Philosophy and Sense of Life."When you’re trying to meet people I think a person’s sense of life is more important than their philosophy.A sense of life is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence. It sets the nature of a man's emotional responses and the essence of his character.
I have no motive to resist the temptation: it's probably more likely to meet an Objectivist at the Democratic National Convention than at a TOC event.I went to an Objectivism function held by TOC. I was so excited that I was finally going to meet some great people that thought the way I did! My expectations were very high; these were going to be my people! I was sorely disappointed. -
However, I have never met an Objectivist in real life, with the exception of my uncle who introduced me to "The Fountainhead" in the first place. When I say "Objectivist" here, I don't necessarily mean someone who has read Rand but someone who feels the same as I about the world. I have never met such a person, but I desperately want to meet one. This forum helps. Rand's novels help. They assure me that people like that really do exist.
Yeah, I think I know how you feel. I've had the pleasure of meeting a few other Objectivists, and it has been totally up to my expectations. But I haven't met many close enough to my age and near enough in distance to form any real, close friendships with, yet. I think it's totally natural and healthy to feel loneliness in that kind of situation, and I feel that way sometimes. If you search "loneliness" on the Ayn Rand Research CD-ROM, there are lots of interesting hits. One of my favorites is from Ayn Rand's essay, "The Comprachicos," (also, one of my favorite essays by her) which can be found in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, and in the October 1970 issue of The Objectivist:
The thinking child is not antisocial (he is, in fact, the only type of child fit for social relationships). When he develops his first values and conscious convictions, particularly as he approaches adolescence, he feels an intense desire to share them with a friend who would understand him; if frustrated, he feels an acute sense of loneliness, (Loneliness is specifically the experience of this type of child—or adult; it is the experience of those who have something to offer. The emotion that drives conformists to "belong," is not loneliness, but fear—the fear of intellectual independence and responsibility. The thinking child seeks equals; the conformist seeks protectors.)Loneliness isn't about being dependent on other people--it's a totally unrelated emotion. It's based on the frustration of grasping a potentiality; the potentiality of being challenged and stimulated by another creative mind who shares your values, and the frustration of not being able to find anyone to fulfill that potentiality (when you know that you could earn all of the benefits of such a relationship, and that you could reciprocate to tremendous mutual benefit, if such a person were actually in your life, instead of just potentially).
What do I do in the mean time? I do my best to be that type of friend to myself, as much as possible. And I try to really learn about people, and study them, and find out what values I can get from them (through trading, of course). I've been sometimes surprised by what virtues I can find in those who were at first, I thought, the most unlikely sources. And though I haven't met my ideal friend or lover yet, I think that's a good skill to develop, so that I can spot my ideal if we ever do meet, and so I'll be competent enough in the simple skills/mechanics of relationships to successfully have a relationship with the person at that point. But I try to be very careful not to let myself become vulnerable to people's vices. People who don't share my values *do* have the vices I would expect, and do use them against me (intentionally or not) if I allow them to, as I've learned the hard way many times. But again, I think learning to spot that is good practice, too, because my ideal might have some hidden vices, and then they might be harder to spot, being masked in virtue. Also, I might have some of those vices without realizing it, and seeing the consequences pan out in the actions of other people sometimes helps me to spot those principles subconsciously at work in myself, too.
Reading and self-help stuff is good, as well. Dr. Ellen Kenner's radio show often has helpful advice for social dynamics type stuff. Of course, Ayn Rand is the best writer on this sort of topic, but you might like certain passages in Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which, although philosophically ridiculous and psychologically disturbing in parts, also has some inspiring and intellectually interesting passages on the topic of loneliness, individualism, standing apart from the crowd ("herd" as he calls it), etc.
Good luck on meeting some people who deserve to meet you, and who you deserve to meet.
[Edit: page number in quote]
Quotes on Top of Forum
in Website Policy and Announcements
Posted
Lately, I haven't noticed the quotes, though. Right now, for instance it simply says "Random Quote" with no quote, immediately under that is an underline and then "Login Form Hi, boldstandard." I don't know if something's fluky with my browser or what.