Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

C20710

Regulars
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About C20710

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  1. C20710

    Ew, pragmatism

    I think I speak for all Objectivist hardliners here when I denounce pragmatism as described by Rand, for the purposes that pragmatists generally try to action (everything belonging to the "distribution of..." category). Right now I'm in a rather large debate in another community. I created a thread that got over 900 replies two weeks ago, and ever since then the whole board has been buzzing with libertarian subjects. Most of them are very cut and dry, as Objectivism has clear and consistent answers to fundamental problems. However, lately some part of the debate has moved in a better direct
  2. I will open the floor with this: People already work less than they used to, but their work is worth a lot more. The 40 hour a week schedule is pretty standard in North America, and it's a pretty good deal when you contrast it to say...the medieval era when people worked from sun up to sun down every day for their barest subsistence - what we would call inhuman squalor today. Back then you could have made essentially the same argument if they had been able to conceive of the technology we have today. Did it turn out that way? Heck no! In the future, people might live 100 times better tha
  3. I found the quote - it was from Galt's Speech of all places. Really I should have known. As follows: Ok, so let me try to lay this bag of snakes out straight. In the same speech just one page earlier Rand talks about mystics quite a bit. The mystic is the second-hander, the one who chooses the authority of others, the one who chooses to believe rather than to think. So that's Rand's take on power-lust, and I do agree with it. I guess it's clear now why I didn't have a concrete example to give from real life - the quote was taken from a work of fiction, ironically the same work
  4. Like this: Then add a line here. And write something else. And so forth. "Do not use a nested quotes style, i.e., quote from above post and your comment; another quote from above post and your next comment, etc. I'm not posting again for a couple days at least. The thread's already been derailed enough.
  5. Maybe my problem is that I don't understand the question. Instead of trying to guess, could you ask it again? I can't promise I'll answer right away, but I'll try to in the next couple of days. edit: on another note, I'd like to quote the forum rules, under "forum etiquette": This doesn't relate to the essence of your questions and comments, but it's damn irritating.
  6. I want to add something for Hodge's as well that I didn't include in my last post: I'm glad to see you heeled the hostility. Anyways, I spent my free time today thinking about your question so I'll say what I came up with. We were talking specifically about the pursuit of power, yes? If so, my position is that the information is available in the concepts involved, without the need to cite a specific historical example. This all began because I mentioned a trait reflected in the character Toohey, namely the pursuit of power for power's sake. If a person's goal is power for power's sak
  7. Oh, ok, to contrast Wynand and Keating... Well the exact line Roark says in the book is "I haven't mentioned to him the worst second-hander of all - the man who goes after power". He also says to Wynand just a few lines earlier "that you weren't born to be a second-hander". Roark is saying that strictly as second-handers are concerned that Wynand is guiltier than Peter (and he doesn't know it). But I don't think that second-handing alone is the only criterion for evil. I assume that's why you mentioned Toohey in your thread title, because Toohey is not just a vicious second-hander but he
  8. My first post was to answer the original poster's question about The Fountainhead. I was using information available in that work, and answering it in the context of that work. Let's get that straight. I am repeating things that Rand said herself, and as soon as I find the statement I paraphrased if it is not in fact in The Fountainhead itself, I'll post the reference. This is me being generous because that is in fact not even necessary. Is is very much an Objectivist principle to denounce power for power's sake and that IS explicitly said in The Fountainhead and was mentioned in the OP's post
  9. I was paraphrasing something that Ayn Rand said herself, but now I can't remember where. I thought it might have been in The Fountainhead itself, or maybe in The Virtue of Selfishness but I'll be damned if I can find it. I've been trying for the last half hour. At any rate, I never did attempt to relate the idea of "power for power's sake" to any actual events because I understood the idea without a concrete illustration. I can imagine a slave driver ordering a slave to haul a pile of bricks from one place to another and then deciding he liked them better where they were originally. For tha
  10. Toohey was pure evil. Toohey knew exactly what he was doing throughout the course of events in The Fountainhead. He sought to destroy greatness by destroying valuation. He knew fully what greatness was, and used that knowledge for the express purpose of destroying it. Toohey was seeking power for the sake of power, not really for the sake of doing something with it, but he was in no way ignorant of his own actions. He choose to be evil. Wynand on the other hand was ignorant. He was a person who could have been Roark, but lacked full knowledge of his actions. Wynand possessed many of the
×
×
  • Create New...