A Facebook friend had been posting particularly depressing statuses the other day, so I tried to offer some advice, and recommended Atlas Shrugged since she seemed intelligent and interested in philosophy.
The original status was “no one is worth the pain, because in the end all we are is blood, skin, noise, and shit”
I responded and quoted from Atlas Shrugged. The “argument” proceeded from there:
Her: I knew before I’d finished your second paragraph here that you’re under the influence Ben. The influence of Ayn that is.
It sounds a lot like how I used to sound back when I consumed everything she’d written, and indeed it did start a “fire” inside and quite quickly made me able to accomplish so much in short period of my life that it was ludicrous- but it wasn’t to be. I was swayed by other things and quickly led off track. The point here is that I swayed- not because I was too weak- but because this conviction was not my own, was not based off of my life experiences, and thus became a vanity, an elaborate yet dishonest construct of personality. I searched for answers in other places because, deep down, I knew the Randist perspective is not sufficient for me.
Ps, Ben, if volitional consciousness if to defined by the ability to think and to choose, then we can’t say that human beings are the only animals possessing it; rather I would say that human beings are the only verbally intelligent species, which allows for more complexity of thought, abstraction, etc- I still recommend the Objectivity Epistemology to many.
Me: It’s not something you can really turn away from. It’s not meant to be a solution but an acknowledgement. I felt the same way before reading Rand…her books really helped solidify it for me though, seeing it through her characters. And seeing how she laid out her value system helped remove any doubt from my mind about the way I am I guess.
Her: Ayn Rand is a marvelously persuasive writer, and I do believe some of those fundamental ideas underlying her philosophy, e.g., the intrinsic goodness of human beings, the special nature of human consciousness and the ability to choose and reason, the importance of life and progress over mysticism and hopes for afterlife, and so on.
However, I don’t believe in “selfishness” as she presents it, simply because it has been used as a means to philosophically justify the capitalist system, which by its nature cannot help but to end in the fusion of business and government as time goes on, not to mention the formation of monopolies, decisions made for profit over the welfare of human beings, or the environment, the reduction of social mobility, wars for profit, and etc.
Me: I only recommend the books to people who I think can grasp its concepts. I’m not sure how you conclude that capitalism leads to the “fusion of business and government.” But you probably need to understand a bit more about a free market society if you believe that there’s a difference between a decision made for profit, and a decision made for the “welfare of a human being.” Not to mention that in a free market, a monopoly independent of the laws of supply and demand, and free of competition, is impossible without government intervention. No monopoly has ever existed in an unregulated market.
Hope you find what you’re looking for. Sorry I misjudged you.
Her: Examples:
Watered down gasoline
Genetically engineered crops
Processed foods
Gasoline- These are just some examples of how big businesses modify their products in ways that endanger human beings and the environment- in favor of the immediate profit derived from them. The idealism behind this trust of the market uses the argument that human beings are inherently good and that pure selfishness in its true sense can lead to no harm. (This is never really stated, but it implied by Rand’s ideas that: pure individualist thought leads to the creation of values and the ability to distinguish between the basic life-affirming “good” and life-denying “wrong;” she tells us that is alright to let natural human selfishness decide the course of society. )
You say that no monopoly has ever existed in an unregulated market- I say that an unregulated market has never existed. I would indeed know more about free market societies if there were authentic models to study. While it might sound very beautiful, I have found that there is no such thing in this world and never has been. Really quite simply, wealth is power, and always will be as long as it equates directly to material and contributes to social status. So no wonder there is such lobbying within our own government, such corruption- in America, the truest example of capitalism there ever was.
Note: I realize that I mentioned gasoline twice just now- watered down gasoline was one point. I should have elaborated the second time- I meant the continued dependence upon gasoline despite its obvious negative effects on the environment (global warming, oil spill).. I’m sure you’ve heard about the BP crisis in the gulf right? And how they are in the process of separating the spilled oil from gulf water- because they want to salvage as much oil as they can in order to sell it? They were doing that while oil was pouring into the gulf.
Wondering if anyone knew a quick way to try to enlighten her on the fundamentals of Objectivism. As far as her BP claims go, I’m not sure if there’s any validity to them, but even if there were it would say nothing about Objectivism itself, just BP.
Just thought I’d share this while I mull this one over. Thanks for reading!
