Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Living for the state

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

people are dependent on money (not their minds) in order to survive.

 

So, an Objectivist can survive without money while simply being dependent on his or her brain? And no capitalism or markets are necessary? Would you go back to the "savage" time when there was no industry? I always thought that an Objectivist's existence was inseparable from a market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My goal, for the moment, is clarifying any misconceptions you, or anyone reading this, may have regarding my outlook on globalization. I have no other goal.   An individual is the ultimate minority

Don't worry - I only got it after a lot of reading and lectures too, and actually some very thoughtful posts here too.  Some of that is really deep and outside of my interest points (ethics and politi

Your tribalistic thinking is for savages.

So, an Objectivist can survive without money while simply being dependent on his or her brain? And no capitalism or markets are necessary? Would you go back to the "savage" time when there was no industry? I always thought that an Objectivist's existence was inseparable from a market.

Here one can get a sense of how questions can proliferate when a snippet is contemplated out of context.  

 

No, silly goose, capitalism, markets, money are things minds developed to facilitate survival. Considering the fact that the science fiction notion of a time machine violates the law of causality, going back to pre-industrial times is not a viable option. A question that might bear some consideration though: What system of ideas would it take to destroy industry for the future, paving the way for men to have to deal with one another as savages?"

 

You said you always thought that an Objectivist's existence was inseparable from a market. I can not help but notice that you utilized the past tense sense of "thought". Do you think something else now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Races are genetic cultures.

So, "race is a genetic connection to nature and to the world" -- is this an accurate translation of the sentence I quoted earlier?

Yes.

 

So far, at least fairly internally consistent. But then . . .

Here are also two definitions from dictionary.com that I accept: race is "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity." culture is "the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action" among others.

Both of those two definitions are familiar to me for those words, but those definitions are completely different from the ones you just gave me before. Which definitions were you using when you said "races are genetic cultures"? The dictionary definitions you gave me, if applied to your earlier quoted statement, would then I guess be saying that ideas, values, beliefs and such (culture) are transmitted from one person to their descendents via genes. Is this what you mean? If so then we're headed down the path to a discussion on instincts and tabla rasa. If that isn't what you meant, then I'm still lost.

 

 

1) Nature is the surface of the planet shared by people socially. World is a sphere that includes all events through time and that are inseparable from human societies (the artificial factors) as well as nature (natural factors, such as reproduction, and being in harmony with nature in general).

So "nature" is subsumed under "world"? If so, then mentioning nature separately was redundant. Or do you mean only the actions that happen are the part of nature subsumed under "world"?

 

 

2) I differentiate between world and nature, just as I differentiate between society and race. Social identity can be undifferentiated and faceless, whereas racial identity always has a face (i.e., specific and unique culture). What you see as separating people is actually differentiating people in order to later unite all in the world. Cultural assimilation should only occur when one identifies with some culture, not when one is forced into it. Type "races" or "races peace" into google and you will hopefully understand what I mean. The unity of races, not just nations.

Not sure how the differentiations between the two sets of concepts are alike, but anyway . . . The faceless V. face I think will have to wait to be further discussed until I've got the earlier terms sorted out. How is this differentiation unlike making separate categories, how would it contribute to the later uniting, and why do this later uniting?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love learning about Objectivism through the Platonic dialectic - a dialogue, involving two or more people sharing their ideas, opinions, meanings, etc, that is, sharing their minds.

No, you don't. You love to have your ideas taken seriously, regardless of whether they're accepted or rejected; you're in it for the attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said you always thought that an Objectivist's existence was inseparable from a market. I can not help but notice that you utilized the past tense sense of "thought". Do you think something else now?

Ok, let's get all of this straight, so please bear with me. I don't want to be confused anymore. I really want to understand this. The mind is the cause of markets (capitalism and money included). Once the markets are created, the mind becomes inseparable from them because there is no rational sense in going back to the blank slate. I can similarly see how matter caused consciousness, and they became inseparable, even though matter and consciousness are not the same thing. Here, Rand uses a modern dialectic idea of inseparable distinctions (put forward by Dr. Michael Kosok in The Singularity of Awareness). What else is inseparable from the mind? Well, matter formed brain and body - mind is that which connects consciousness and brain, but mind is not the same thing as consciousness. Because consciousness and mind are connected, we are tricked to believe that consciousness is inside our mind and brain. We do not know exactly what consciousness is except for its self-motion, revolving at around 7 hertz and providing this operating frequency to our minds. It is not required for consciousness to be inside anywhere, since we see with our eyes (brains) and perceive with our minds (interpret the evidence). Existence is inseparable from perception and identification and, thus, consciousness. In other words, we identify with how we perceive. Mind is a bioelectromagnetic field generated by our brain, and it is inside and around our brain. Human consciousness is not a field. In fact, what makes consciousness human is body, for we cannot physically sense our brains or minds even when we rely on reports of others who showed the evidence of other brains. Looking at our bodies in the similar manner based on other evidence, brains are only organs, which cannot exist without other organs, especially hearts. According to research by Institute of Heart Math (www.heartmath.org), hearts start beating before brains fully develop. This also means that brain cannot properly function without blood and is incomplete without a circulatory system (or heart), and thus brain is inseparable from heart. From similar evidence, we know that an organic brain cannot exist without a body, since it is an inseparable part of it. Through first hand experience we identify with our bodies and our consciousness "exists" through an experience of our bodies. Yes, there is brain, mind, heart, soul, market, economy, and everything else, but all of them are important because the whole of our very complex existence is not possible without them all together, in harmony and without conflict.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to post
Share on other sites

[1] So far, at least fairly internally consistent. But then . . .

Both of those two definitions are familiar to me for those words, but those definitions are completely different from the ones you just gave me before. Which definitions were you using when you said "races are genetic cultures"? The dictionary definitions you gave me, if applied to your earlier quoted statement, would then I guess be saying that ideas, values, beliefs and such (culture) are transmitted from one person to their descendents via genes. Is this what you mean? If so then we're headed down the path to a discussion on instincts and tabla rasa. If that isn't what you meant, then I'm still lost.

 

 

[2] So "nature" is subsumed under "world"? If so, then mentioning nature separately was redundant. Or do you mean only the actions that happen are the part of nature subsumed under "world"?

 

 

[3] Not sure how the differentiations between the two sets of concepts are alike, but anyway . . . The faceless V. face I think will have to wait to be further discussed until I've got the earlier terms sorted out. How is this differentiation unlike making separate categories, how would it contribute to the later uniting, and why do this later uniting?

 

1) Ok, I see my mistake. I was not clear and should have used the definitions from the dictionary right away. What I meant to say by "races are genetic cultures" is that there is genetic evidence for a race, but race and genes are not the same thing, even though culture is inherited similarly (through being passed onto you from your ancestors). There is inheritance on the biological level, but one can still select a different race/culture through conscious volition (identification). Culture would be more like a face of a race, metaphorically speaking. Another way to look at it is a business logo of a race as a business. Businesses with their own culture succeed, right? It's the same with identifying yourself with a race and thus a culture. Race is not merely an ethnic group. It is a lot more than that.

 

2) Nature is basically the biosphere. Yes, exactly "the actions that happen are the part of nature subsumed under "world"." What can I say, I love categorizing and taxonomizing. In order to understand why I put race above society and thus world above nature (their contexts), here is my argumentation:

The smallest possible society is two (2) friends or spouses to create a business or a family. This is how industry is born. The smallest possible race is a family of three (3): parents and a child. This is how culture is born. The biggest possible society is a global society that covers the surface of a planet. The biggest possible race is a unified sentient race that explores space even beyond the planet. (If all the planets are coordinated, this coalition becomes neither society nor race, but a "sphere" that includes all.) A race includes more than one complete society (3 > 2), but a society cannot include more than one complete race (2 < 3). Therefore, race is greater than society.

 

3) This differentiation is the same as making different categories through analysis, and even though analysis etymologically is considered separation, my goal is to ultimately unite everything and nothing. Thus it is categorization for integration with which I am concerned -- not a mere separation for its own sake. The contribution to the unification is more dubious for you, I agree. All I can say now is that if I create a model of everything and nothing without a contradiction (sounds crazy, I know), then it is reasonable to follow it and thus unite through it. Here is a quote from (digital) Atlas Shrugged: "No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge."

 

No, you don't. You love to have your ideas taken seriously, regardless of whether they're accepted or rejected; you're in it for the attention.

Yes. And aren't we all? However, I am also serious about having my ideas accepted as well as my understanding of Objectivism, where the latter is more important in our case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why you would ask this question. Can you give any context?

 

There is nothing in Objectivism that would lead you to think Objectivists would "live for the state". The reason Objectivists don't is because they are Objectivists. Living for the state is antithetical to living for one's own happiness. Objectivism holds that man is an end in himself. Therefore, he cannot live for anything other than himself.

 

Anyway, if you live for the state, then what does the state live for? The state is then an end in itself? Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's get all of this straight, so please bear with me. I don't want to be confused anymore. I really want to understand this. The mind is the cause of markets (capitalism and money included). Once the markets are created, the mind becomes inseparable from them because there is no rational sense in going back to the blank slate. I can similarly see how matter caused consciousness, and they became inseparable, even though matter and consciousness are not the same thing. Here, Rand uses a modern dialectic idea of inseparable distinctions (put forward by Dr. Michael Kosok in The Singularity of Awareness). What else is inseparable from the mind? Well, matter formed brain and body - mind is that which connects consciousness and brain, but mind is not the same thing as consciousness. Because consciousness and mind are connected, we are tricked to believe that consciousness is inside our mind and brain. We do not know exactly what consciousness is except for its self-motion, revolving at around 7 hertz and providing this operating frequency to our minds. It is not required for consciousness to be inside anywhere, since we see with our eyes (brains) and perceive with our minds (interpret the evidence). Existence is inseparable from perception and identification and, thus, consciousness. In other words, we identify with how we perceive. Mind is a bioelectromagnetic field generated by our brain, and it is inside and around our brain. Human consciousness is not a field. In fact, what makes consciousness human is body, for we cannot physically sense our brains or minds even when we rely on reports of others who showed the evidence of other brains. Looking at our bodies in the similar manner based on other evidence, brains are only organs, which cannot exist without other organs, especially hearts. According to research by Institute of Heart Math (www.heartmath.org), hearts start beating before brains fully develop. This also means that brain cannot properly function without blood and is incomplete without a circulatory system (or heart), and thus brain is inseparable from heart. From similar evidence, we know that an organic brain cannot exist without a body, since it is an inseparable part of it. Through first hand experience we identify with our bodies and our consciousness "exists" through an experience of our bodies. Yes, there is brain, mind, heart, soul, market, economy, and everything else, but all of them are important because the whole of our very complex existence is not possible without them all together, in harmony and without conflict.

Fortunately you've been able to identify that you've been tricked. Have you figured out the extent, or scope, of the trickery? Was it Descartes evil demon that tricked you? Is the trickery responsible for the confusion? Can it aide in understanding?

 

I don't understand how Rand uses a modern dialectic idea of inseparable distinctions (put forward by Dr. Michael Kosok in The Singularity of Awareness). Is this some kind of mystic mumbo-jumbo?

 

Just out of curiosity, was your response supposed to represent one contiguous thought?

 

Are you expecting others to untangle this wall of text for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather identify myself with a race and culture than not have any. No domestic borders are necessary in a global society, only races and cultures can have locational borders where they can coexist with others. This is called differentiation, like the law of identity, versus undifferentiation, which is meaninglessness without "absolutes."

 

It isn't called differentiation - It's called collectivism. 

 

And as collectivism, when you judge people not by their choices but as a group based on non-essentials like skin color, zip code of birth, or some supposed personality imposed by the group, you end up with idealism at best and mysticism at worst.  Although I suspect of you scratch an idealist you'll find a mystic since you're already off of existence when telling an individual he is a sum of things he has no choice over. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately you've been able to identify that you've been tricked. Have you figured out the extent, or scope, of the trickery? Was it Descartes evil demon that tricked you? Is the trickery responsible for the confusion? Can it aide in understanding?

It's really just an argument against Cartesian Dualism by saying the mind is integrated with one's body. By "trickery", he only seemed to mean that many people think mind and body are totally distinct things. Except, consciousness is not a "thing", which is why trickery works as a metaphor - Descartes may have overcame the trickery of his evil demon, but he was tricking himself all along with his rationalism. Rand of course argued for unification of body and mind since they are inseparable despite being distinct concepts.

 

I don't think Ilya disagrees on that, looks to me that he's just checking his understanding. What he wrote in the text wall looks agreeable to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Here are also two definitions from dictionary.com that I accept: race is "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity." culture is "the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action" among others.

Some examples are: the American-Indian culture, the Slavic culture (or Slavic-Aryan), the Chinese culture, etc. Pretty much every country has a culture. However, countries such as the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. created their cultures relatively recently and thus could still be considered artificial and unnaturalized. Yes, if you wish to argue for the American culture (of the founding fathers, westerns, country music, thanksgiving and independence day holidays, the american flag, etc.) I will not disagree, but will even promote such identity as being considered race/culture.

1) Nature is the surface of the planet shared by people socially. World is a sphere that includes all events through time and that are inseparable from human societies (the artificial factors) as well as nature (natural factors, such as reproduction, and being in harmony with nature in general).

2) I differentiate between world and nature, just as I differentiate between society and race. Social identity can be undifferentiated and faceless, whereas racial identity always has a face (i.e., specific and unique culture). What you see as separating people is actually differentiating people in order to later unite all in the world. Cultural assimilation should only occur when one identifies with some culture, not when one is forced into it. Type "races" or "races peace" into google and you will hopefully understand what I mean. The unity of races, not just nations.

frank harley:

Thank you for joining the discussion! It's nice to meet new people!

The society debate may still be a part of what I am writing here, but I would prefer to concentrate more on race instead.

The model that I was referring to is my own. It is quite extensive and the piece that I posted here is only a small part of it. The thread that has the whole model is Integrating Objectivism and Marxism and specifically post #182.

Another important point is that some of the expressed ideas in the beginning of that thread (except for the model) are obsolete and in lieu of which there are new upcoming developments (i.e., the Neo-Objectivist philosophy that I am still working on).

The one idea that I do not promote anymore is democracy. Instead, it is going to be a republican government (specifically, aristocratic one). When I have finished reading some Objectivist books and have finalized the new theory, I will post it in the economic forum.

 

Most people are living in that belief. I agree with pretty much everything you mentioned, though. There needs to be an integrative way of living one's life. It is not about living for the government or specific individuals. It is about living for one's own sake that is not in conflict with others.

Ilya,

 

Dictionary  daffy-nitions often give ambivalent ,meanings becauswe they're task is to offer all current uses. To this end, it's indeed regrettable that certain of the less-educated refer to a national group as a 'race'.

 

By far the more currently acceptable use means 'physical phenotype'-- without reference to culture.

 

Althought i disagree with many parts of Objectivism, I enjoy following Rand's thought as it's played out because,at least, she asked the right question: what does it mean tio be an individual?

Edited by frank harley
Link to post
Share on other sites

What are those things? There are precious few things we cannot do on our own. If those things are maintaining courts to adjudicate disputes, a defensive military, and police who pick up the pieces after violent crime, then I agree with you. Otherwise, I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.

To live for the state is to sacrifice for others. This is the basis of all those failed value systems that litter history. They divide value from virtue and hence lead to bastard moralities that leave disappointment, frustration and horror in their wakes.

The industrial innovations in the last decade alone show that we don't need NASA, the post office, etc. I want to pay for all services that I receive so that no dishonest strings remain attached. To the extent that I am forced into government health care, you can be sure that government doctors will have to treat every boil on my *ss. I demand the best and most abundant treatment your dollars can buy.

Aleph,

 

For the sake of argument, technology alters the necessities that collective enterprises can do better. But my point to Illya is that this, precisely is how the question of the state should be framed: the efficacity of a collective do-ing versus what an individual can do on his/her own.

 

There is also the ethical issue as to what we want a state to do, the best example her being warfare. Do we find it morally justifiable, for example, to go to war with , say Mexico to steal their oil reserves?

 

I mentioned medicine because here the numbers cl;easrly justify tax pooling into a nation health system on the model of ...everyone else. That America refuses for moral reasons indicates the balanced cost-benefits between the practical and the ethical.

 

Part of this ethical refusal involves anecdotes of exception---my boils, my aunt's need of a transplant, etc...a bit more justifiable is indeed the question of moral hazzard as to how doctors might exploit government participation.

Edited by frank harley
Link to post
Share on other sites

#162 harley

"Part of this ethical refusal involves anecdotes of exception---my boils, my aunt's need of a transplant, etc...a bit more justifiable is indeed the question of moral hazzard as to how doctors might exploit government participation."

In reality the refusal is based on , to paraphrase Thatcher, free hospitals are great but hard to build when you run out of other peoples' bricks

"everyone else' in the world? is going on by pretending that socialism is practical(will work), so far America is still holding out on that , but I'm not holding my breath

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

#162 harley

"Part of this ethical refusal involves anecdotes of exception---my boils, my aunt's need of a transplant, etc...a bit more justifiable is indeed the question of moral hazzard as to how doctors might exploit government participation."

In reality the refusal is based on , to paraphrase Thatcher, free hospitals are great but hard to build when you run out of other peoples' bricks

"everyone else' in the world? is going on by pretending that socialism is practical(will work), so far America is still holding out on that , but I'm not holding my breath

This may sound strange to those of you who are familiar with my arguments about Marxism, but here is what I have learned from Atlas Shrugged: socialism can never work in America. Having this premise as the base for later discussion, we can argue on how to make an individualistic system of economy that everyone (Democrats, Republicans, etc.) can agree to support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really just an argument against Cartesian Dualism by saying the mind is integrated with one's body. By "trickery", he only seemed to mean that many people think mind and body are totally distinct things. Except, consciousness is not a "thing", which is why trickery works as a metaphor - Descartes may have overcame the trickery of his evil demon, but he was tricking himself all along with his rationalism. Rand of course argued for unification of body and mind since they are inseparable despite being distinct concepts.

 

I don't think Ilya disagrees on that, looks to me that he's just checking his understanding. What he wrote in the text wall looks agreeable to me.

I was not reading that as a metaphor, and missed your take on a modern dialectic idea of inseparable distinctions. Thanks Eiuol, and I am sorry if I added any confusion there Ilya.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how Frank's politics start with the capacity for "do-ing" things, instead of which things to do. That's an attempt to circumvent the hard questions altogether and, if accepted as a proper basis, will never allow him to answer the easy ones.

---

I have nothing to say, Frank, about your post's legitimacy as such. This is simply an explanation as to why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how Frank's politics start with the capacity for "do-ing" things, instead of which things to do. That's an attempt to circumvent the hard questions altogether and, if accepted as a proper basis, will never allow him to answer the easy ones.

---

I have nothing to say, Frank, about your post's legitimacy as such. This is simply an explanation as to why.

I don't know what a 'legitimate' post would like: perhaps Harrison might elaborate?

 

Saying that governing bodies ('states') exist to serve needs that are best accomplished collectively says nothing as to what these needs might be.

 

Moreover, it's the democratic process itself which decides not only what is best collectvely accomplished, but also the moral virtue in their accomplishment. Think of it as a bicycle with a front and back wheel, or even the intellectual ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

Both means and ends related questions are indeed hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may sound strange to those of you who are familiar with my arguments about Marxism, but here is what I have learned from Atlas Shrugged: socialism can never work in America. Having this premise as the base for later discussion, we can argue on how to make an individualistic system of economy that everyone (Democrats, Republicans, etc.) can agree to support.

Socialism as purely defined can work no where. This is because in many cases, ownership of the means of production are always best left to individuals--agriculture being the best example.

 

Otherwise, SNCF (French government ownership) trains rarely crash in tunnels, as written in Atlas.

 

As for your past argument about Marx, of course i'm not 'familiar' . Kindly re-post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what a 'legitimate' post would like: perhaps Harrison might elaborate?

Logically and empirically consistent, by all currently available knowledge, regardless of its ultimate correspondence to reality itself; synonymous with "rational" and "valid".

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for your past argument about Marx, of course i'm not 'familiar' . Kindly re-post.

I considered myself a Marxist before I stumbled upon Ayn Rand's philosophy. That argument is obsolete. Marx was wrong when he said that Capitalism necessarily leads to Socialism. It is not true because of the influence of Rand's ideology, which mutated Marx's original idea even while Rand was under his influence. After all, Rand studied Marxism at a university in the U.S.S.R.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Logically and empirically consistent, by all currently available knowledge, regardless of its ultimate correspondence to reality itself; synonymous with "rational" and "valid".

I see an issue in a rationale that does not correspond to (a) reality. Such a rationale thus becomes exclusive and not inclusive, partial and not general or complete.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to post
Share on other sites

"A race includes more than one complete society (3 > 2), but a society cannot include more than one complete race (2 < 3). Therefore, race is greater than society."

Did you specify earlier what a society is precisely, or do you mean to say society is one aspect that makes up a race? That would make race a combination of society and genes, in which case a race can have multiple societies to it. As one element of a race, it is necessarily "smaller" and not all encompassing. This has problems on its own, especially since on my own experience, it's the opposite - society is made up of races. In terms of your own consistency, I'm not sure what this would be based on in reality.

Yet it looks like you're just saying a society is less than race in terms of degrees, so a race is just any set of people larger than a society. At some point, why couldn't it be 3 = 3? So I think you are missing the simple possibility and I think fact that race and society is the opposite of what you say. How are they not identical under your description? Race is narrowly biological, while a society may be non-biological. That a minimum of 3 people make up a race, and a minimum of 2 people make a society, doesn't mean that a society is always smaller than a race. There is no maximum value to the total members of a race or society.

Suppose 2 races of the minimum size, 3. Those two races interact to form a society of size 6. Already, we have a society that is bigger than either race; 6 > 3! Now, if we counted how many sets of races and societies we'd have 2 and 1 respectively. 1 < 2; there are fewer societies then races! But even then, it gets screwy... We can subdivide all 6 members into several  possible societies. So yet again, societies are still bigger than a race.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
society is made up of races

One complete society is made up of incomplete races. An exception can be the Amerindian race, though. In this case, if the Amerindian race is viewed as a part of the Polynesian race (the red race), the conflict is resolved. The issue here is that a race can always be greater than a society, unless one views race bounded by society. These social boundaries, I argue, are artificial domestic borders. Such borders ultimately do not and should not exist.

 

Race is narrowly biological, while a society may be non-biological.

In the case when robots would rule the world and there are no more races left - you will be correct. Yes, one can create humans by cloning or avatars, but can those be considered as true humans? What makes a human, in your opinion? In my opinion, natural reproduction is a primary factor. Emotions also help make us human.

 

There is no maximum value to the total members of a race or society.

I am arguing that there is. A global society is bounded by the surface of our planet. There is no such thing as a global race (in contrast to society). We can be considered a space race. The orbital station is not merely a part of some socities but it's own, independent society, not some colony. For the independence of space societies (ha-ha)!

 

Already, we have a society that is bigger than either race; 6 > 3!

Theoretically, it's possible, you are right. But I have yet to see this rare phenomenon happening historically. Usually, whenever a race is made, a society is already a part of it, and then it just grows. Branches of the race separate and form new societies. Yet, the race is the same. Europeans have many societies, even though now you could consider Europiean Union as one society. Americans broke off the European societies. Through historical roots, Americans belong to the European race (or a mix of races). Realistically, though, Americans can be considered their own race (or a mix of races). That's fine. But the issue is still that races lead to the creation of new societies, whereas new societies can only create races artificially (or as subsets of greater spanning races).

 

We can subdivide all 6 members into several  possible societies. So yet again, societies are still bigger than a race.

This is the "social" thinking at work. It's the same conflict as individualism and collectivism (what's first?), except now it's between different collectivisms. Collectivisms not in a pure sense, please note that -- there are always individual elements in everything. There are free particles in compound structures or free cells in tissues and organs, or genes inside and at the same time outside of a society.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

mind is not the same thing as consciousness.

consciousness is not a "thing"

I made a mistake. Consciousness is not a thing, it's a self. However, it's a self who identifies with a body, which is a thing, but the nature of consciousness requires identification (perception, integration, conception) with other selves/bodies. The latter part is completely ignored by Rand, and thus, she consequentially makes the same mistake of consciousness as a thing (a body) versus consciousness as a relationship of self to other selves (including the relationships of bodies).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I considered myself a Marxist before I stumbled upon Ayn Rand's philosophy. That argument is obsolete. Marx was wrong when he said that Capitalism necessarily leads to Socialism. It is not true because of the influence of Rand's ideology, which mutated Marx's original idea even while Rand was under his influence. After all, Rand studied Marxism at a university in the U.S.S.R.

My own prof (Deleuze) said that we're all Marxists to the extent that the question he posed, 'What is capitalism' dominates our discourse.

 

Marx never said that Capitalism would 'lead' to socialism. Rather, that capitalism would break down due to its own internal contradictions. Chiefly, it's focused upon the impovershment of the working class at the expense of an ever-shrinking class of the increasingly wealth, but we're talking about market inabilities, as well.

 

To a certain extent, the reality of mixed economies have , for the last 120 years, been based upon tendencies shown by Marx to be true, yet fixable. In other words, our rig-up is a classical case of having one's cake and eating it, too: personal innovation plus security.  

 

What i therefore find most peculiar about the rants of the intellectually 'pure' from both sides is their marked inability to work with quantities to support their arguments.

 

For example, take health care. The average American spends $5600 for the same services that are available in France at half price--the French having better health indices, as well. So is the philosophically pure posture of personal freedom worth the difference? That doesn't even pass the laugh test. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...