[Type 3] 3w4s vs 4w3s

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I think there is a difference between wanting to be that and being told that it's the right way to be.

 

[Elfboy]

I think there is a difference between wanting to be that and being told that it's the right way to be.

true

 

[brainheart]

I relate more to you in this instance. I'm not competitive for it's own sake. now, if there was a $50,000 prize for first place, then I'm winning that shit, but if not, I don't see the point in victory sans spoils

Failed to mention the spoil is getting your book published.

 

[Elfboy]

Failed to mention the spoil is getting your book published.

hmmm, not worth it, but maybe if I was an author

 

[Chiharu]

what's so bad about being self serving? you have to be self serving to eat, you have to be self serving to produce, you have to be self serving to grow. altruism has many people poor

Ayn Rand much?

 

[Elfboy]

Ayn Rand much?

hell yeah!

 

[Chiharu]

hell yeah!

 

[Elfboy]

what?

 

[Chiharu]

I have an unbridled hatred of Ayn Rand, or, more specifically, of her philosophy.

 

[Elfboy]

I have an unbridled hatred of Ayn Rand, or, more specifically, of her philosophy.

so what do you believe? that the purpose of life is to be subservient to the needs and agendas of others?

 

[Chiharu]

so what do you believe? that the purpose of life is to be subservient to the needs and agendas of others?

Oh, Elfboy, haven't you learned not to ask an xNFP what they believe? The answer is almost always ""

But, to answer your question, no. It's not that black and white.

I believe that the general purpose of anyone's life is to find their specific purpose in life, to endeavor to impart positive change on this world before they leave it, follow their own moral code, and to do their best not to harm anyone. To find the truth that's true for them and all that.

I don't hate objectivism because I believe the opposite of it. I hate objectivism because it's used an excuse to justify following our own purposes without thought or regard to anyone else. It demonizes sympathy, altruism, and selflessness, which I believe truly does exist in a positive form. I don't think you should be some sort of doormat subject to the whims and agendas of other, but the total opposite is just as bad, if not worse. Balance is everything.

 

[Elfboy]

Oh, Elfboy, haven't you learned not to ask an xNFP what they believe? The answer is almost always ""

But, to answer your question, no. It's not that black and white.

I believe that the general purpose of anyone's life is to find their specific purpose in life, to endeavor to impart positive change on this world before they leave it, follow their own moral code, and to do their best not to harm anyone. To find the truth that's true for them and all that.

I don't hate objectivism because I believe the opposite of it. I hate objectivism because it's used an excuse to justify following our own purposes without thought or regard to anyone else. It demonizes sympathy, altruism, and selflessness, which I believe truly does exist in a positive form. I don't think you should be some sort of doormat subject to the whims and agendas of other, but the total opposite is just as bad, if not worse. Balance is everything.

that's when it's used incorrectly. objectivism states that your only responsibility is to yourself as long as you don't infringe upon others' needs. truth be told, most people genuinely do want to help others, and many objectivists do help others tremendously. hell, they can help them more. a lifetime of volunteering is insignificant in consequence compared a what a rich person can do for the world by giving 1 time. why do you believe we have this social responsibility to make the world a better place? why does one need to dedicate his life to others to justify his existence? Human beings have a responsibility to let others live the way they want and a responsibility to honor agreements and promises that they make. other than that, there is no duty. duty is a social construct designed to control people and strip them of their freedom.

 

[Chiharu]

that's when it's used incorrectly. objectivism states that your only responsibility is to yourself as long as you don't infringe upon others' needs. truth be told, most people genuinely do want to help others, and many objectivists do help others tremendously. hell, they can help them more. a lifetime of volunteering is insignificant in consequence compared a what a rich person can do for the world by giving 1 time. why do you believe we have this social responsibility to make the world a better place? why does one need to dedicate his life to others to justify his existence? Human beings have a responsibility to let others live the way they want and a responsibility to honor agreements and promises that they make. other than that, there is no duty. duty is a social construct designed to control people and strip them of their freedom.

That's a rather immature take on it. On a basic xNxP level I want to agree with you, but that whole "duty is a conspiracy" take is a bit too "tin-foil hat" for me. Yes, a rich person donating once might have a bigger impact than someone dedicating their whole life, but that doesn't make them a good person. If everyone followed objectivism, the world would be a darker place. You take a lot from the world to achieve your own ends, so, yes, I think you have a responsibility to do good for the world as well. Not many people would agree with me, but I'd rather have your good intentions and a decent end result than questionable intentions and a great end result.

 

[Elfboy]

That's a rather immature take on it. On a basic xNxP level I want to agree with you, but that whole "duty is a conspiracy" take is a bit too "tin-foil hat" for me. Yes, a rich person donating once might have a bigger impact than someone dedicating their whole life, but that doesn't make them a good person. If everyone followed objectivism, the world would be a darker place. You take a lot from the world to achieve your own ends, so, yes, I think you have a responsibility to do good for the world as well. Not many people would agree with me, but I'd rather have your good intentions and a decent end result than questionable intentions and a great end result.

- please refrain from labeling my views as immature for the reason that they differ from yours.
- no, you give a lot back to achieve your means. it's called a business. business is built on win-win situations. you want the eggs more than your $5; the business wants your $5 more than the their eggs. even if you make your money from investing, investing is what allows more entrepreneurs to create more win-win situations. in an objectivistic society, the inevitable outcome is astronomical growth (please don't use america as an example unless referring to the time from after the Civil War to 1913)
- being a contributing member of society requires putting your own needs first. the businessman who opens a new shop in a much needed market in a city does a lot more good than the entire community service squad combined, but he's not there to socialize, he's not there to help people, he's there to make some goddamn money and because of that he wins.
- frankly, if you don't have at least a basic understanding of economics, arguing with you would be pointless
Edit: immature, not closed minded (fixed)
you can't say that my views are immature when they are held by the richest most powerful men in the world.

 

[Chiharu]

- please refrain from labeling my views as closed minded for the reason that they differ from yours.
- no, you give a lot back to achieve your means. it's called a business. business is built on win-win situations. you want the eggs more than your $5; the business wants your $5 more than the their eggs. even if you make your money from investing, investing is what allows more entrepreneurs to create more win-win situations. in an objectivistic society, the inevitable outcome is astronomical growth (please don't use america as an example unless referring to the time from after the Civil War to 1913)
- being a contributing member of society requires putting your own needs first. the businessman who opens a new shop in a much needed market in a city does a lot more good than the entire community service squad combined, but he's not there to socialize, he's not there to help people, he's there to make some goddamn money and because of that he wins.
- frankly, if you don't have at least a basic understanding of economics, arguing with you would be pointless

I think you just did what what you told me not to. Please refrain from insulting my intelligence for the reason that my views differ from yours.

Also, I didn't call your views close-minded, I called your comment that "duty is a social construct designed to control people and strip them of their freedom." immature, which in my view means too extreme/black and white. You're generalizing my comment that was meant to be specific. Please don't take offense.

I'm perfectly willing to listen to views that differ from mine, mostly because I know I'm not always right. I genuinely believe that I see where you're coming from on this subject, and I do think you're views have a solid foundation.

However, I still disagree with you. We were speaking of philosophy in personal terms, not economic ones. of course businesses have to act on self-interest. And of course growth is generally better, BUT that growth often has a price, and many win-win deals for big business are lose-lose situations for other involved parties. In business, sometimes these are acceptable losses. But we weren't speaking of economics, we were discussing this philosophy in personal terms.

I have no qualms with people following their own agendas if they don't hurt anyone in the process. Weighing your desires against their cost is vital. I believe that inevitably achieving what you want will t some point hurt someone, even if you never find out why. We're all interconnected. For example, let's say I get a job because my resume is more prestigious than the other applicants, and I made a better impression. But one of those other applicants needed that job far more than I did. I'll probably never know. But maybe I'll contribute to a charity or something that will help them somewhere down the road. In this way, I'm trying to insure that I've done something to balance any intentional or unintentional harm I may have done.

I don't think you should take any philosophy to the extreme, mine included.

 

[Elfboy]

I think you just did what what you told me not to. Please refrain from insulting my intelligence for the reason that my views differ from yours.
Also, I didn't call your views close-minded, I called your comment that "duty is a social construct designed to control people and strip them of their freedom." immature, which in my view means too extreme/black and white. You're generalizing my comment that was meant to be specific. Please don't take offense.

I meant to say immature, edited, but no I didn't. economics and personal philosophy are intertwined.

I'm perfectly willing to listen to views that differ from mine, mostly because I know I'm not always right. I genuinely believe that I see where you're coming from on this subject, and I do think you're views have a solid foundation.

no offense, but I really don't believe you. you seem to be under the impression that objectivism is "take what you can, give nothing back"

However, I still disagree with you. We were speaking of philosophy in personal terms, not economic ones. of course businesses have to act on self-interest. And of course growth is generally better, BUT that growth often has a price, and many win-win deals for big business are lose-lose situations for other involved parties. In business, sometimes these are acceptable losses. But we weren't speaking of economics, we were discussing this philosophy in personal terms.

economic and personal philosophies are inevitably intertwined, to have different economic and personal beliefs on an issue would be incongruent because they both deal with the subject of best interests
what losses are you speaking of? if you are talking about monopolies and corporations, they don't occur in objectivist societies. every single monopoly in human history received some sort of government endorsement and corporations were initial almost illegal in the time of the Founding Fathers (I could elaborate, but it's inconsequential)

I have no qualms with people following their own agendas if they don't hurt anyone in the process. Weighing your desires against their cost is vital. I believe that inevitably achieving what you want will t some point hurt someone, even if you never find out why. We're all interconnected. For example, let's say I get a job because my resume is more prestigious than the other applicants, and I made a better impression. But one of those other applicants needed that job far more than I did. I'll probably never know. But maybe I'll contribute to a charity or something that will help them somewhere down the road. In this way, I'm trying to insure that I've done something to balance any intentional or unintentional harm I may have done.

bolded:then you don't have a problem with objectivism, that's really all it is.
as for the example, he is only helpless if he chooses to be. if you can't find a job, make one.
by the way, you giving to charity can still be objectivist, you thinking that you are duty bound to give to charity is where you stop being objectivist

I don't think you should take any philosophy to the extreme, mine included.

on the contrary, it's simply called being congruent.

 

[Chiharu]

economics and personal philosophy are intertwined.

Ideally, yes. In practice, often not.

no offense, but I really don't believe you. you seem to be under the impression that objectivism is "take what you can, give nothing back"

Again, no. I do believe I clearly stated that that's what I believe objectivism CAN BE when taken to the extreme. Sort of like religious terrorist versus actual religion.

economic and personal philosophies are inevitably intertwined, to have different economic and personal beliefs on an issue would be incongruent because they both deal with the subject of best interests.

It's not incongruent. It's simply accepting that no single belief will apply to every situation.

bolded:then you don't have a problem with objectivism, that's really all it is.
as for the example, he is only helpless if he chooses to be. if you can't find a job, make one.

Our situation is not always purely within our own control. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. You really can't be so black and white bout it. And in my opinion you make far too many blanket statements.

by the way, you giving to charity can still be objectivist, you thinking that you are duty bound to give to charity is where you stop being objectivist

And here we come to the crux of our disagreement, because I am still inclined to believe that one has a moral obligation to attempt to do good for someone else.

on the contrary, it's simply called being congruent.

So terrorist are simply being "congruent" with their beliefs? In my personal, biased opinion, having more than one belief does not mean you are inconsistent, but rather enlightened. I'm inclined to be suspicious of anyone who can entertain only one view on any subject. Of course you have to come to a decision, but I think you have to be able to see the flaws in your own views and the right portions of the opposite viewpoint. I don't think there's one perfect truth about anything. But I digress, and I recognize that these are only MY views on the subject, I won't try to tell you how to believe. I just wanted to share and maybe give you food for thought.

On the subject of what we both believe about objectivism, it appears we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't think we're getting anywhere. But I could argue about this all day.