User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 117

Thread: Objectivism

  1. #31
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    No. You don't like what she concludes, while ignoring the arguments she gave for her conclusions.
    You no that's not correct. We had a whole thread of discussing her rationale. I don't like how she thinks.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    You no that's not correct. We had a whole thread of discussing her rationale. I don't like how she thinks.
    Who gave you the idea on how she thinks?
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  3. #33
    Senior Member tkae.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    I'm not arguing that all objectivists are selfish, Im saying that in her system being selfish is okay. If I didn't care about anyone around you that would be perfectly acceptable in an objectivist system because any forced sense of obligation is wrong.


    If charity is such a natural way of solving problems how is it that these systems ever arose in our government? If persuasive family members are enough then why do these plights still exist. Just think of all the people who do nothing in response to dawn and sarah maclachlan commercials. Feel bad, do nothing. Objectivism says that that is perfectly fine because you should not be sacrificing yourself for others. You can but you don't need too.

    IN her interview with donahue , talking about "Subnormal" children and how schools and buses for them brings the rest of society down. She even said something akin to what you end up with is a half idiot that can maybe read and right. Her idea was that society should support the gifted and that "subnormals" should be dealt with by their parents and if necessary by charities but that the first duty is to the "most gifted". She says that it is "Alright" to help that child but not at expense of your own child (by which she means utilizing resources that could have gone to them for other children). It's not a charitable worldview it's a selfish one. Good will is acceptable, but it isn't encouraged.

    Rand saw the mentally handicapped as basically useless and perhaps mental health institutions would be better if we all supported them rather than just leaving it up to the affected people to deal with the problem. I guess my beef with Objectivism is the Self as the center of the universe and all other problems being filtered through how they affect you. That doesn't gel with me at all.
    How did these laws get passed?

    Persuasive family members.

    So if they were persuasive enough to get legislation passed providing aid to the mentally handicapped, why is it so unreasonable that the same efforts could go towards helping to established charities that do exactly the same thing? The primary difference between government assistance and charities is that charities look after their own particular interest while government assistance is subject to budget cuts during debt crises like the one we're in.

    Would a NPO have to worry about being on the chopping block to keep the military spending from dipping too low and weakening our own defense capabilities?

    And while she was a bit too blunt in the way she said it, she had a point. It's already a losing situation when a child is born with a mental handicap. It completely devastates the lives of the parents, and while I don't agree that they're less than human like she bordered on suggesting, it certainly doesn't make any sense to set the same goals for them that are set for everybody else, and it ISN'T right for one parent to neglect their own children for the sake of another child, no matter the situation.

    No communist country (and none of the socialist countries for that matter) have found a better solution to the issue of special needs. But even Ayn Rand's system is better than what happened in the countries of communist traditions. Even people who were physically "inferior" were dismissed as being embarrassments to the nation. Those types of systems inevitably leaned back on nationalist archetypes of capable workers that were mentally and physically superior than other nations. The disabled and mentally handicapped weren't just viewed as "subnormal", they were treated as subhuman and seen as burdens on the state.

    Centralized systems don't make the issue better miraculously, they whitewash it with backwards rhetoric.

    Nonprofits organizations are far superior to both that situation and the situation of budget cuts from financial crunches.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    If it feels so good why doesn't everyone give instead of buying large houses and PS3's?

    The idea that "me first" is an acceptable way to live when you are one of 7 billion doesn't make sense to me. Why should you trump others especially when in the western world we live such relatively luxurious lives.

    The charitable world of "me first.....
    Because we're self-oriented creatures by nature. We each have an individual reality, we aren't part of a hive mind. It's why Descartes' groundbreaking contribution was "I am", not "We are."

    We look after our own concerns and the concerns of our most loved ones first and foremost. Charity feels good, but so does a good meal, a new car, and a vacation. The freedom to choose makes everybody happier, rather than an enforced contribution to a government charity which isn't very effective for the reasons listed above and, by depriving us of our own security from the perspective of a taxpayer, makes us more conscious about how we spend our money. And when we get more conscious of how we spend our money, our natural instinct is to turn inward and spend in ways that secure our current lifestyles and set up security for the future.

    Which happens anyways, but is even more potent when we already know taxes are high in order to contribute towards the needs of others. From that perspective, if we're already paying into a system to take care of others, why donate more money to help anybody else? Why be nice to others when we've already paid for part of their assistance?

    Except in a socialist system where taxes are manageable and government assistance completely covers the needs of those who are struggling, which is a great thing. Except that it's paying for things on a credit card without any kind of realistic way to pay for it in the future. Our dessert today for our dieting tomorrow.

    That's why so many European nations are collapsing and the entire Eurozone about to collapse. Too many nations set up socialized systems without any way to pay for it, and now that their economies are buckling under the pressure of the debt they're beginning to blame each other instead of realizing that it's their own faults.

    And who's suffering from the austerity measures? The poor and the disabled who the systems were set up to benefit from the very beginning. It's short-sightedness.

    So I'm not saying Ayn Rand has all of the answers, but her answers are more realistic and more manageable than the answers of other systems. Systems of government inherently forget to account for the realistic actions of human beings and set things up based on ideals. It's what's also wrong with most economic theories, and why behavioral economics is making such an important impact on economic theory that covers the gaps of all the major schools (except for Austrian, which blatantly points out the illogic of human beings and was the first to say that you couldn't put human action into a theory with any accuracy).

    You can set up a system that works on paper and says how a person SHOULD live their life, but we're all individuals, and we won't necessarily act that way. So setting up a system based on an ideal has to account for the flexibility that will occur when each individual citizen lives their lives the way they wanted. The only answer is to back off the communist approach and return to something more sensible or to crack down on individuals like in a Stalinist regime. Either way, the loss in effectiveness of the political theory increases proportional to the stress placed on how each individual should live.

    That's why free markets and free societies are functionally the most adaptable of all theories. They have the most amount of space built into their to absorb the shock of economic downturns, social change, technological advances, etc...

    In that sense, I consider Ayn Rand's philosophy, while by no means perfect, to be the most applicable to us as self-oriented humans. By realizing that we all have the natural instinct to secure ourselves before we secure others, our society is strengthened at the atomic level, and slack can be picked up as needed, rather than a system where a single failure can influence cause all of the poor and disabled to be impacted at once.

    That's ultimately the core of it. We can't help others if we need help ourselves. Like in airplanes. Put on your own oxygen mask before you put on your neighbors =P

    And if he needs one, don't try to put it on him because he can do it better than you. Just like we can each put on our own pants better than other people can put on our pants for us. Who knows their situation and what it needs better than the person experiencing it?
    "Not knowing how near the truth is, we seek it far away." -Ekaku Hakuin
    http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psdunkqmep.png
    5w4 . IEI . Chaotic Good
    Right-Libertarian Minarchist

  4. #34
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Who gave you the idea on how she thinks?
    I don't care Mal. think what you want

  5. #35
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    I don't care Mal. think what you want
    Well, if you have any questions, ask me. I know.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  6. #36
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    Everything you have said underscores why The idea of leaving helping to poor the charity worries me.
    I'm Sp dom, enneagram 7 and have a double Id tritype, most people are not like me. capitalism works partially because some people are FJ 2w1s who get a kick out of helping people. the point is, if you want to help people (and trust me, plenty of people do) you can do so, if you don't want to, you don't have to (though in a capitalist society one attains wealth through high productivity and wise allocation of resources, both of which help the economy and thus everyone involved in it without any extra giving)

    I don't think you need to be an so to have concern for other human beings.
    the Social instinct concerns itself with the larger sphere of the group or community. they commonly say and think things like "no man is an island" "what can I do to contribute to my community?" "what are the social/humanitarian implications of this decision?" putting the needs of the group before one's individual desires is a strong indicator of Social somewhere in the first two stackings.
    I also have difficulty seeing you as an Sp dom because Sp doms just get the idea of "me first". not that Sp doms are heartless or uncaring (though, frankly, Sp 5s usually are), but we are driven to get our own needs met (at least basic ones like safety, comfort, financial security and health). the concept of taking care of one's self first is instinctually ingrained in the Sp dom (especially Sp 5w6. they are they Scrooge's of the enneagram)

    anyway, if you have more questions about that you can message me, I have no intention of performing an unsolicited type inquisition.
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  7. #37
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    I'm Sp dom, enneagram 7 and have a double Id tritype, most people are not like me. capitalism works partially because some people are FJ 2w1s who get a kick out of helping people. the point is, if you want to help people (and trust me, plenty of people do) you can do so, if you don't want to, you don't have to (though in a capitalist society one attains wealth through high productivity and wise allocation of resources,
    That last is one good reason why having a thread on Objectivism on this forum won't teach anybody about Rand's philosophy.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  8. #38
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    That last is one good reason why having a thread on Objectivism on this forum won't teach anybody about Rand's philosophy.
    exactly. if people were not naturally inclined to want to help people Ayn Rand's theory would not be nearly as unpopular as it is. giving back is a natural extension of self interest for the majority of people who have made the decision to prioritize their own personal satisfaction as their most important objective.
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  9. #39
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    exactly. if people were not naturally inclined to want to help people Ayn Rand's theory would not be nearly as unpopular as it is. giving back is a natural extension of self interest for the majority of people who have made the decision to prioritize their own personal satisfaction as their most important objective.
    In simpler terms, there is no natural contradiction between self-interest and giving to charity.

    But I'm pointing out that Objectivism is not about the acquisition of wealth, as you stated, but the creation of wealth. That's why I stated that people like @Pseudo can't learn about Objectivism from any thread on this forum and used your comment as an example.

    There is a good reason for pointing out this distinction between acquisition and creation of wealth. At least some anti-American sentiment around the world is based on the falsehood that America acquired its wealth primarily through raiding the natural resources of other countries. That is acquiring wealth. But soon we would simply consume what we have acquired. People who criticize the US on this basis (which you are furthering) don't understand that innovation is the key, not acquisition.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  10. #40
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    How did these laws get passed?

    Persuasive family members.

    So if they were persuasive enough to get legislation passed providing aid to the mentally handicapped, why is it so unreasonable that the same efforts could go towards helping to established charities that do exactly the same thing? The primary difference between government assistance and charities is that charities look after their own particular interest while government assistance is subject to budget cuts during debt crises like the one we're in.
    Individuals and therefore charities are also subject to changes in the economy. Also, charities would vulnerable to things like the death of a particularly large donor or influential "persuasive advocate", People deciding to follow their own self interest more in one given year or waning trendiness of their cause.


    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post

    And while she was a bit too blunt in the way she said it, she had a point. It's already a losing situation when a child is born with a mental handicap. It completely devastates the lives of the parents, and while I don't agree that they're less than human like she bordered on suggesting, it certainly doesn't make any sense to set the same goals for them that are set for everybody else, and it ISN'T right for one parent to neglect their own children for the sake of another child, no matter the situation.
    I'm not suggesting we set the same goals for mental handicapped people that we set for the average student but I think that there is a middle ground between that and categorizing them as not able to contribute to society. I think in all of our interaction thus far you assume that I have and extreme opposite opinion to everything she's saying. I don't. I don't think everyone is going to be exactly equal in ability. What I do disagree with is judge a persons value by what they can give you/others. Which spills over into the idea of judging a cause by how it affects you or how you are affected by the people it affects.




    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    Because we're self-oriented creatures by nature. We each have an individual reality, we aren't part of a hive mind. It's why Descartes' groundbreaking contribution was "I am", not "We are."
    The interconnectedness of humans beings is the basis for civilization. We have individual experiences of a shared reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    We look after our own concerns and the concerns of our most loved ones first and foremost. Charity feels good, but so does a good meal, a new car, and a vacation. The freedom to choose makes everybody happier, rather than an enforced contribution to a government charity which isn't very effective for the reasons listed above and, by depriving us of our own security from the perspective of a taxpayer, makes us more conscious about how we spend our money. And when we get more conscious of how we spend our money, our natural instinct is to turn inward and spend in ways that secure our current lifestyles and set up security for the future.
    This is what I fail to understand. How you can reconcile a recognition that people will always look after themselves first with the theory that given more freedom people with do more the help others., rather than simply feeling freer to do more for themselves. It's the feeling of "duty", that Rand so hated, to help the people around you. Something that ideally would exist regardless of conditions. In this Objectivist system their is no duty, It's all based in the will of the individual. Which brings me to what I'm stated before. My main problem with objectivism being that doing/being good to others is acceptable but not necessary.


    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    In that sense, I consider Ayn Rand's philosophy, while by no means perfect, to be the most applicable to us as self-oriented humans. By realizing that we all have the natural instinct to secure ourselves before we secure others, our society is strengthened at the atomic level, and slack can be picked up as needed, rather than a system where a single failure can influence cause all of the poor and disabled to be impacted at once.

    That's ultimately the core of it. We can't help others if we need help ourselves. Like in airplanes. Put on your own oxygen mask before you put on your neighbors =P

    And if he needs one, don't try to put it on him because he can do it better than you. Just like we can each put on our own pants better than other people can put on our pants for us. Who knows their situation and what it needs better than the person experiencing it?

    Do we have that natural instinct? I would argue "not always". Human beings show a willingness to put others before themselves, their children, their spouse, their extended families, their country, even strangers sometimes. Think of rescue workers would endanger themselves to help people they've yet to meet. I don't accept that humans are ruled or should be ruled by self interest alone.

    Beyond that it's more a question of having already put on your air mask and then deciding if you care enough to help the person next to you, if it benefits you, if you can afford to or if you need to conserve every bit of your energy for what may lie ahead.

    What if you knew what your need were and they were for some one to assist you. what if you asked someone what their need were?

Similar Threads

  1. Elfboy's theory on the Light Worker, the Dark Worker and Objectivism
    By Elfboy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 03-28-2013, 02:29 PM
  2. altruism vs objectivism and type
    By INTP in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-25-2012, 02:46 AM
  3. Ayn Rand Objectivism.
    By Pseudo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: 11-17-2012, 12:54 PM
  4. Theory: Objectivism vs. Relativism
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 06:34 AM
  5. [INTJ] The Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged/Ayn Rand's Objectivism and INTJ's
    By Harlow_Jem in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 07-03-2008, 01:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO