User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 207

  1. #41
    Yup
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    Istj
    Posts
    1,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    This is the balance that many people overlook in Rand's ideas. She lauds selfishness in the individual, but in every individual, and decries the use of force to override individual will. My right to be selfish thus ends when it attempts to compel you to action, as does yours. If only everyone would act in their true self-interest, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, many (most?) people have difficulty determining exactly what that is.
    how do you feel restricted?
    "I'm not in this world to live up to your expectations and you're not in this world to live up to mine. "
    -Bruce Lee

  2. #42
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    I guess what I'm saying is I don't see what that mechanism is besides her saying "it stops here". There doesn't seem to be a logical reason for it, it's just a rule she's made up to avoid dealing with the implications of what she's promoting.
    It is not a mechanism, it is a value. The logical reason is that it is the only way that her philosophy can work for everyone, rather than just for one (herself). If she expects it to be universally applicable, it must be something that every individual can apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by yakimadude View Post
    how do you feel restricted?
    I don't understand your question.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  3. #43
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    It is not a mechanism, it is a value. The logical reason is that it is the only way that her philosophy can work for everyone, rather than just for one (herself). If she expects it to be universally applicable, it must be something that every individual can apply.
    You're just confirming the basis of his question. For Randian ethics, the fundamental human choice is that of man's life qua rational being vs that of an irrational subhuman existence. This means you can either choose to live (and die) like a man or perish like a subhuman animal. This fundamental choice is something any volitional being can apply. It doesn't have to apply to her philosophy but to any philosophy.

    What makes a moral theory universally applicable is the fact that it can be practiced in a social setting without contradiction such that my values do not fundamentally impinge on and interfere with your values. I'm not talking about the example of two job applicants valuing the same job which is available only to one person, thus putting their "values" at odds with one another. I'm talking about the fact that both applicants value productive work, and they value the economic system that makes it possible for two or more people to apply for the same productive work, and even advance their careers through peaceful competition, versus living in some stagnant caste society where everybody's role in society is decided from birth no matter what their desires are. They value a system where rational desires are motivators to achieving some possible or even seemingly impossible goal, over a society where such desires are impractical because they are made unachievable by the values of the society they live in.
    "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.”

  4. #44
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    How were you involved?
    In the way that one is usually involved in a debate. Particularly the kind of debate where no one does or is willing to have their opinions altered in the slightest, and it ends with a few very angry people mocking one another. In the past, I've tried to jump ship before that last, especially useless phase.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  5. #45
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    In the way that one is usually involved in a debate. Particularly the kind of debate where no one does or is willing to have their opinions altered in the slightest, and it ends with a few very angry people mocking one another. In the past, I've tried to jump ship before that last, especially useless phase.
    Who was on the other end of this? A Randroid? Do you remember the name?
    "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. #46
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Who was on the other end of this? A Randroid? Do you remember the name?
    I've had the conversation both in real life and online (here and elsewhere). There were several people involved. I think Elfboy and Lark were involved. Others as well.

    Not to cast aspersions on these people individually. The fact that I'm momentarily tired of the objectivism debate involves a lot of arguing in circles with a lot of different folks, most of whom weren't jerks (and I've also seen a lot of people agreeing with me who could wind up being pretty rude). I'm sure I'll have it again someday, though.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  7. #47
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    I've had the conversation both in real life and online (here and elsewhere). There were several people involved. I think Elfboy and Lark were involved. Others as well.

    Not to cast aspersions on these people individually. The fact that I'm momentarily tired of the objectivism debate involves a lot of arguing in circles with a lot of different folks, most of whom weren't jerks (and I've also seen a lot of people agreeing with me who could wind up being pretty rude). I'm sure I'll have it again someday, though.
    You call me a jerk asshole?

  8. #48
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Okay, I will admit that de Beauvoir's novels (at least the one's I've read...) were not that great. But I still think The Second Sex is an influential and important text, and The Ethics of Ambiguity was more informative than anything I ever read by Sartre.

    As for Arendt, why were you disappointed with Eichmann?

    I'm a fan of her ideas about how capitalist invasion and primacy of economics - classically a private sphere concern - into the public realm fucks with our ability to have a meaningful political sphere and even successful revolutions. Among others.
    The second sex? Really? When I heard it was on the codex of banned books by the RCC and just how much they hated it I had to read it and discovered it was dreadfully over rated and I think they probably hadnt read it and had projected a lot of mysogynistic fears upon it, I thought it wasnt that insightful or extraordinary but then again a lot of non-fiction which I find people have big reactions to, positively or negatively, isnt that personally satisfactory or interesting. I didnt like the novels, either the ones collected as the woman destroyed or the blood of others, although the blood of others had an interesting premise and so it was probably twice as disappointing.

    To say that something is more informative than Satre is not saying a lot, I know why Camus hated that guy so much, I'm surprised that no one reading Satre's books doesnt instantaneously hate him. To me he's the epitome of the pretensious intellectual, he even wrote long essays about what he dreamed intellectualism would amount too and it really does confirm all the prejudices about them being the worst sort of navel gazing and rabble rousing over privileged malcontents.

    I felt that there's better books on the Nuremburg trials or the banality of Nazism/evil, never thought the writing was good at all, when I was much younger I read her book on revolution and thought it was great too, she praises direct democracy and counciliar republics, lots of it seems fantastic and then ultimately it all disappoints because the suggests that while its all vital none of it should be expected to operate in the economy, that socialist ideas about radical democracy or about democratising business are all wrong. I'm more inclined to go with GDH Cole's idea that if people are deprived of democratic choices or responsibility for 99% of their lives, ie their working and daily lives, then elections are a sham and will even representation or limited democracy will wither on the vine leaving only grievances despots will exploit.

  9. #49
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    You're just confirming the basis of his question. For Randian ethics, the fundamental human choice is that of man's life qua rational being vs that of an irrational subhuman existence. This means you can either choose to live (and die) like a man or perish like a subhuman animal. This fundamental choice is something any volitional being can apply. It doesn't have to apply to her philosophy but to any philosophy.

    What makes a moral theory universally applicable is the fact that it can be practiced in a social setting without contradiction such that my values do not fundamentally impinge on and interfere with your values.
    My understanding of Rand is that the choice is between taking control of your life and following your own will/desires/destiny, or letting others control you and becoming just a pawn for someone else's dreams. Yes, inclusion of the requirement not to force the actions of others is what allows the fundamental selfishness to be practiced in a social setting. In a way, it is like the Wiccan Rede: "If it harm none, do as ye will."
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  10. #50
    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
    You're just confirming the basis of his question. For Randian ethics, the fundamental human choice is that of man's life qua rational being vs that of an irrational subhuman existence. This means you can either choose to live (and die) like a man or perish like a subhuman animal. This fundamental choice is something any volitional being can apply. It doesn't have to apply to her philosophy but to any philosophy.

    What makes a moral theory universally applicable is the fact that it can be practiced in a social setting without contradiction such that my values do not fundamentally impinge on and interfere with your values. I'm not talking about the example of two job applicants valuing the same job which is available only to one person, thus putting their "values" at odds with one another. I'm talking about the fact that both applicants value productive work, and they value the economic system that makes it possible for two or more people to apply for the same productive work, and even advance their careers through peaceful competition, versus living in some stagnant caste society where everybody's role in society is decided from birth no matter what their desires are. They value a system where rational desires are motivators to achieving some possible or even seemingly impossible goal, over a society where such desires are impractical because they are made unachievable by the values of the society they live in.
    I guess what I was getting at was: If it is immoral to disregard another persons rights then I don't understand how this fits with the idea that we should never feel compelled to do something that goes against our rational determined self interests. If I'm in a situation were there are limited resources it makes sense to eliminate my competition from a logical standpoint if the thing I value most is my own survival.

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