User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 214

Thread: Ayn Rand

  1. #141
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Kant asserted that killing is always wrong? That's a preposterous position. No wonder Rand wanted to dismember him.
    Kant was a moral absolutist. He sort of based his ideas on the notion that there is a super-ideal version, wholly logical and fairly objective moral standard. It's kind of hard to explain it succinctly. I'm not a Kantian myself (it's so rigidly moral Kant himself noted no one short of Jesus could have probably actually fully realized it), but I think arguing he's some kind of totally inhuman beast is pretty absurd.

    It's good to see Rand has boundaries that we can site. Some aspects of how that flows with her overall ideology and how this works toward a functional society, or how there's any expectation that what codes there are wouldn't rapidly decay if widely practiced, eludes me still. But I'm too tired to quibble and nitpick just now. Maybe later.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Here is a post I made elsewhere regarding Rand.

    Ayn Rand, well I think she would qualify as she certainly set the American mindset to laissez faire for at least 20 years and still has a profound impact worldwide.

    I quite like objectivism in it's own way, but it is a philosophy entirely dependant upon self sufficiency and the ability of individuals to pursue wants that are a universal trade-off and to actually see beyond the self for it to be palatable. I just don't think it can reach the true global optimum espoused by Rand due to the limitations of society and of individual competency. Perhaps we can all aspire to be more objective and I doubt it would hurt us at all.

    Anyway, considering the lack of the global viewpoint of the issue, I would have to say she falls into that awkward category of: is it an ISTJ or INTJ seeking a new optimum that is different or is it an INFP or even ENFP with a cause?'

    Quote Originally Posted by Ayn Rand
    "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'm also not sure if her studies of Nietzsche imply that Nietzche was the INTJ who set the ball rolling with Will to Power and she was an xNFP who found something that resounded with her own aspirations and struck her against her early history in the Soviet Union.

    Certainly there is little as xNTJ/xNFP with N, Fi and Te than the Will to Power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Friedrich Nietzsche
    "I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!"
    Power and will are seen as this strong internal benchmark that doesn't just override individual action but those we interact with as seen in the 'Who is John Galt?' that permeates Atlas Shrugged. John Galt's quiet ability to simply be powerful in will and direct the world rather than necessitate that others give from them to him through force is at the core of Will to Power.

    We also see the traditional failing of Fi and Te as a mindset when it has ran out of steam in Ayn Rand. After the publication of Atlas Shrugged, Rand fell into a "deep depression" and chided herself for not being more like her ideal man, remarking:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Anderson, New York Magazine
    "John Galt wouldn’t feel this, he would know how to handle this. I don’t know."
    I'm going to be the revolutionary and go 'ENFP' on this one.

    After a comment or two:

    Quote Originally Posted by aspasier View Post
    ooOOoo... Hm. That is interesting. Fi to account for her individualistic value system and Te for her goal-oriented approach to rationality. Nice. But this raises another question: how do we tell if her better function was really either a T on an F? Shouldn't she be an ENTJ? What you described seems to be characteristic of them. Shadow Fi would account why she reacted the way she did after the the completion of Atlas i.e. after a great amount of stress. Is the fact that the basis of her philosophy her value system sufficient for concluding that she was an F? Just wondering.
    This is a good question; Is she preferring F over T? I can't be sure; infact you've got me thinking that because her writing has such a logical basis behind her beliefs that she preferred T as the overarching structure of her value system. In addition because she disintegrated to isolation after the book was published that this would make her ENTJ. The Fi animus crept up and overwhelmed her sense of self; disappointed that she could never gain the moral conviction of John Galt, a character who she could dream off but who she could never be in her eyes.

    I'm withdrawing ENFP as a poorly thought out conclusion and raising ENTJ instead as something more global.

  3. #143
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    Kant was a moral absolutist.
    Of course Rand was too, when you get down to it. Just who's hand-waving justification you happen to prefer seems to be a matter of opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    Anyway, considering the lack of the global viewpoint of the issue, I would have to say she falls into that awkward category of: is it an ISTJ or INTJ seeking a new optimum that is different or is it an INFP or even ENFP with a cause?'
    So either ISTJ or ENFP? That is really narrowing it down....

    As limited as MBTI is, I think we should all agree that she does not act like an ENFP. In her interviews, she does not seem at all like an ENFP championing a cause.

    Keirsey claims INTJ. Either that or ISTJ in my opinion.

  4. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Architectonic View Post
    So either ISTJ or ENFP? That is really narrowing it down....
    It pays to read a full post at once. The end says ENTJ.

    Keirsey behavioural temperaments are based on behavioural archetypes rather than cognitive archetypes and thus, yes she looks NTJ because she is 'commanding' and she looks I because she wrote a book. But it doesn't tell us what she values or how.

  5. #145
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    What is even meant by "always wrong"? From a practical perspective, it is blatantly obvious that killing will often produce an objectively better outcome than the alternative.
    There is no such thing as "objectively better".

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Architectonic View Post
    Of course Rand was too, when you get down to it. Just who's hand-waving justification you happen to prefer seems to be a matter of opinion.
    Well... the question would be?

    Kant -> There is a superbeing state which is perfectly moral, single optimum?
    Rand -> It is most moral to act in a productive way, individually, multiple optimums?

  7. #147
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    Well... the question would be?

    Kant -> There is a superbeing state which is perfectly moral, single optimum?
    Rand -> It is most moral to act in a productive way, individually, multiple optimums?
    There is a single, unitary, absolute moral standard that all persons should adhere to, and the problems in the world arise from their not being able to adhere to it.

  8. #148
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    There is a single, unitary, absolute moral standard that all persons should adhere to, and the problems in the world arise from their not being able to adhere to it.
    I disagree on both accounts (unless you reduce that absolute moral standard to something as general as the categorical imperative). One of the things that bother me about objectivism is the assumption that there is that one rational, universally correct answer out there and everything else is bullocks (I've once had a hardcore objectivist explain to me that democracy is wrong because if there is one objective truth there is one objective solution and voting on it becomes nonsense).

    But not only that. Once you accept that different things can seem morally correct in the eyes of different people (depending on their premises and whether they are more absolutist or more utalitarian in nature), a lot of things start to fall into place. Of course people sometimes act against their better conscience, but most of the time it comes down to different priorities and sets of values. I think it was Socrates (but don't pin me down on this!) who said you can not at the same time consiously commit an immoral act and feel good about yourself. So you either consciously commit an immoral act and feel bad about it or you act morally and feel good about it or you act immorally and feel good about it because you are not aware of it.

    This week was the 50th annniversary of the Eichmann trials. Try that for universal ethics. And if you look at the Sassen interviews and other documents, the man was convinced he had acted morally.
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  9. #149
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Herring View Post
    I disagree on both accounts (unless you reduce that absolute moral standard to something as general as the categorical imperative). One of the things that bother me about objectivism is the assumption that there is that one rational, universally correct answer out there and everything else is bullocks (I've once had a hardcore objectivist explain to me that democracy is wrong because if there is one objective truth there is one objective solution and voting on it becomes nonsense).

    But not only that. Once you accept that different things can seem morally correct in the eyes of different people (depending on their premises and whether they are more absolutist or more utalitarian in nature), a lot of things start to fall into place. Of course people sometimes act against their better conscience, but most of the time it comes down to different priorities and sets of values. I think it was Socrates (but don't pin me down on this!) who said you can not at the same time consiously commit an immoral act and feel good about yourself. So you either consciously commit an immoral act and feel bad about it or you act morally and feel good about it or you act immorally and feel good about it because you are not aware of it.

    This week was the 50th annniversary of the Eichmann trials. Try that for universal ethics. And if you look at the Sassen interviews and other documents, the man was convinced he had acted morally.
    I was refuting his argument that Rand's beliefs weren't as unified and absolutist as Kant's, and nothing more. I don't agree with either.

  10. #150
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I was refuting his argument that Rand's beliefs weren't as unified and absolutist as Kant's, and nothing more. I don't agree with either.
    Oh, okay then. If you were merely summarizing...
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

Similar Threads

  1. Ayn Rand is undoubtedly an ENTJ not an INTJ
    By Harlow_Jem in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-10-2017, 12:55 AM
  2. Ayn Rand: The Ultimate INTJ
    By Into It in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-20-2011, 09:44 PM
  3. AYN RAND'S VAGINA SMOKING A BONG
    By Ginkgo in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 02:01 AM
  4. Ayn Rand fandom and type
    By Economica in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 11-10-2008, 01:45 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