Objectivism

[wildcat]

Ayn Rand.

Russian expatriate.
What do we know of these romantics?
A philosopher?

Is the moon there when you do not look?
- Albert Einstein.

Rationality is an abused word.
Apology for thieves is not philosophy.

 

[Pseudo]

There's a big existing thread on this

 

[tinker683]

^---what Psuedo said. Although, kudos for trying to put it in haiku-like form

 

[Riva]

When I read Wildcat's posts I know I'm not an intuitive (N) type.

Actually when I read Wildcat's posts and [MENTION=15371]RaptorWizard[/MENTION]'s blog I know my MBTI type isn't within the Intuitive (N) category.

 

[sculpting]

Ayn Rand.

Russian expatriate.
What do we know of these romantics?
A philosopher?

Is the moon there when you do not look?
- Albert Einstein.

Rationality is an abused word.
Apology for thieves is not philosophy.

who are the thieves? I could see that in two ways.
But yes to the notion of the moon.

 

[RaptorWizard]

When I read Wildcat's posts I know I'm not an intuitive (N) type.

Actually when I read Wildcat's posts and [MENTION=15371]RaptorWizard[/MENTION]'s blog I know my MBTI type isn't within the Intuitive (N) category.

There's some really stupid people who are N and some really smart people who are S.

It follows that just because I may have some brilliant ideas and yours may not always be as much so by no means dictates that you cannot be N.

Now here's an example of a stupid N who has no revolutionary insights into the creation whatsoever:

 

[Riva]

There's some really stupid people who are N and some really smart people who are S.It follows that just because I may have some brilliant ideas and yours may not always be as much so by no means dictates that you cannot be N.Now here's an example of a stupid N who has no revolutionary insights into the creation whatsoever:

Brilliant ideas?

 

[wildcat]

There's a big existing thread on this

where?

 

[wildcat]

^---what Psuedo said. Although, kudos for trying to put it in haiku-like form

where?

 

[wildcat]

When I read Wildcat's posts I know I'm not an intuitive (N) type.

Actually when I read Wildcat's posts and [MENTION=15371]RaptorWizard[/MENTION]'s blog I know my MBTI type isn't within the Intuitive (N) category.

Those posts may cause you to think so only because Rap and I find ourselves in the TiNi loop.
That is E 4,5 found bw 4w5 and 5w4. Undivided N.

Shadow 9 is a negotiator. High intuitive skills required there, but of a different kind.

 

[wildcat]

who are the thieves? I could see that in two ways.
But yes to the notion of the moon.

The thieves steal the food of children in schools. Also, the send American children to Mexico in Arizona.

You cannot divide the moon. If you are for the moon, you ain't for Ayn.

 

[Pseudo]

where?

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...urrent-events/57119-ayn-rand-objectivism.html

 

[Pseudo]

There's some really stupid people who are N and some really smart people who are S.

It follows that just because I may have some brilliant ideas and yours may not always be as much so by no means dictates that you cannot be N.

Now here's an example of a stupid N who has no revolutionary insights into the creation whatsoever:

I'm so honored to be your opposite gender. doppleganger

 

[tkae.]

That thread seems kinda dead. Are we necromancing it?

Also, is this just gonna be one group of intellectuals calling another group of intellectuals morons because they don't agree with them?

Cause I've played that game too long and I'm sick of it. At the core of the issue is a fundamental difference in belief of what the relationship between government and citizen should be. We've slipped into a paradigm where the government is omnipresent in our lives, passing regulations and granting funding to anything we do. It's why little girls can't open lemonade stands anymore without being fined $1000 by the FDA.

We've reached a point where we believe that if something needs to be done, it has to be the government doing it. Because apparently there are no self-sustaining non-profit organizations in the modern world. With the accessibility of the internet, the ease of communication between consumers and producers should reduce the need for a government acting as a middleman. If we need to find a charity for single mothers, we can Google it. Or for poor people with cancer, or for African-Americans looking for scholarships to school. Why does the government need to be involved in those things when there's non-profit organizations doing it? And if the government is so inclined to provide funding to non-profit organizations, that's one thing. But it shouldn't be written into the budget, it should be something extra. The government should direct the people who need towards the organizations of people who want to give.

I'm not Objectivist, there's lots of religious concepts I disagree with her on, but I agree with the core of her argument that volunteering and donations should be because donors and volunteers WANT to do it, not because they're pressured by society to do it. Like today, a taxi driver gave me a discount on a cab fare because she respected the fact I was a student and wanted to help me. I was extremely thankful and wanted to give her a good tip. Neither of us felt pressured to do these things, and it's why it made both of us feel so good. We knew the other was sincere in their desire to help the other.

That's why I agree with what she has to say. Helping each other as fellow humans should be something that's sincere, not something that's prescribed per the philosophy of socialism and communism. That totally undermines the entire point.

But like I said, if this is just gonna be a thread about bashing Ayn Rand and anyone who agrees with her on anything as heartless morons, I'm not gonna get dragged into that.

 

[Pseudo]

That thread seems kinda dead. Are we necromancing it?

Also, is this just gonna be one group of intellectuals calling another group of intellectuals morons because they don't agree with them?

Cause I've played that game too long and I'm sick of it. At the core of the issue is a fundamental difference in belief of what the relationship between government and citizen should be. We've slipped into a paradigm where the government is omnipresent in our lives, passing regulations and granting funding to anything we do. It's why little girls can't open lemonade stands anymore without being fined $1000 by the FDA.

We've reached a point where we believe that if something needs to be done, it has to be the government doing it. Because apparently there are no self-sustaining non-profit organizations in the modern world. With the accessibility of the internet, the ease of communication between consumers and producers should reduce the need for a government acting as a middleman. If we need to find a charity for single mothers, we can Google it. Or for poor people with cancer, or for African-Americans looking for scholarships to school. Why does the government need to be involved in those things when there's non-profit organizations doing it? And if the government is so inclined to provide funding to non-profit organizations, that's one thing. But it shouldn't be written into the budget, it should be something extra. The government should direct the people who need towards the organizations of people who want to give.

I'm not Objectivist, there's lots of religious concepts I disagree with her on, but I agree with the core of her argument that volunteering and donations should be because donors and volunteers WANT to do it, not because they're pressured by society to do it. Like today, a taxi driver gave me a discount on a cab fare because she respected the fact I was a student and wanted to help me. I was extremely thankful and wanted to give her a good tip. Neither of us felt pressured to do these things, and it's why it made both of us feel so good. We knew the other was sincere in their desire to help the other.

That's why I agree with what she has to say. Helping each other as fellow humans should be something that's sincere, not something that's prescribed per the philosophy of socialism and communism. That totally undermines the entire point.

But like I said, if this is just gonna be a thread about bashing Ayn Rand and anyone who agrees with her on anything as heartless morons, I'm not gonna get dragged into that.

First off, it's not just about government. Objectivism is about the choices a person makes on an individual basis in the rational self interest. The flows over into government because, following objectivism, no person should be compelled to act against their sell interest by another person or group of people i.e the government.

I also found it interesting that societal ills are expected to be solved by charity in a system that promotes capitalist competition and self interest. Say I compete my way to the top and then have no interest in being charitable to the people I put out of business to get their. Say no one feels like caring for the mentally disabled? Or that the people who do are to busy caring for the those people to make the profit needed to support many of them?


I don't think people want to bash her I just think people have some questions about how her system is supposed to "work".

 

[tkae.]

First off, it's not just about government. Objectivism is about the choices a person makes on an individual basis in the rational self interest. The flows over into government because, following objectivism, no person should be compelled to act against their sell interest by another person or group of people i.e the government.

I also found it interesting that societal ills are expected to be solved by charity in a system that promotes capitalist competition and self interest. Say I compete my way to the top and then have no interest in being charitable to the people I put out of business to get their. Say no one feels like caring for the mentally disabled? Or that the people who do are to busy caring for the those people to make the profit needed to support many of them?


I don't think people want to bash her I just think people have some questions about how her system is supposed to "work".

Because charity is, and historically has been, the single most effective way a community provides for itself. It understands the needs of the people in the community and isn't hindered by a federal prescription. Capitalism is an economic concept, not necessarily a social one. Just because we're cutthroat in business doesn't mean we can't be charitable in the way we spend our fortunes.

People also forget the freedom and importance of persuasion in a capitalist society. It's not WRONG to be want to give your money to a Holocaust memorial after seeing Schindler's List, for example, or wanting to send money to the Peace Corps for people in Afghanistan. She doesn't say it's wrong to give to others, in fact she supported her husband with the income from her novels. Ayn Rand was very clear that if it makes you happy, it's perfectly natural to give to others. If a loved one needs a kidney transplant and you can be a donor, it's absolutely natural to want to do it. In her example, if your husband needs a kidney transplant and your neighbor's husband needs a kidney transplant, it's "altruistic" to give to your neighbor's husband because giving to your own husband would be selfish in the sense that it makes you happy while your neighbor suffers the loss of her husband. In that scenario, selfishness is providing for the person who makes you happy over someone you honestly don't care about it. It's not being TRULY selfish and keeping your kidneys to go out and spend the transplant money on a night of drinking and partying at a strip club. So it's not that you have to be completely, 100% selfish and not care about anyone at all ever. Just like she goes out to redefine selfishness as the natural self-interest we have in our own condition and survival, selfish love is love that makes us truly happy. So she just argues against altruism, against the social pressures that you HAVE to do those things. If you're persuaded by something to do it, then it's completely okay to do it.

In fact, there's greater freedom for those sorts of things because there isn't red tape to fight through in order to make charitable donations. But there will always be people who are parents of or friends of or relatives of mentally handicapped people, so there will always be a capable fraction of the population to fight on behalf of their interests. And, by persuading others, they can receive donations to help care for more people. It's viral that way. It doesn't need to be written into a tax code, right?

It's partially because I AM such a firm believer in the power of persuasion that I have faith in the general public. Or even companies. There are a number of companies who gain business because they can advertise their own donations. Dawn for example, and their commercials about helping to save animals during oil spills. And don't even try to tell me Sarah McLachlan hasn't raked in donations from her commercials for the ASPCA lol

Just because capitalism creates a more active marketplace doesn't mean we can't be persuaded to share some of what we have with others. We're far more likely to spread our own wealth around when we don't feel pressured by the government to pay taxes that are already allocated for other people.

But even if it isn't completely effective, neither are other methods. Taking mentally handicapped people who don't have caregivers and throwing them into public mental health facilities is practically inhumane. The conditions there are as bad as prisons

 

[tkae.]

Also, for clarification, don't base your opinions of Ayn Rand's beliefs from Tea Baggers and Paul Ryan. She was just as much against half the things Paul Ryan put into his budget reform as she was against the welfare reforms pushed by Democrats. His plan is just corporate welfare, which is equally bad, if not worse, than social welfare. Where social welfare amounts of enforced altruism, corporate welfare is a cancer to the free market system, which was one of the core concepts she argued for.

So like the majority of Republicans, he's corrupted the definition of a valid concept, just like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum have corrupted "small government" to mean governments that are big enough to pass legislation against marriage equality and abortion.

That's the exact OPPOSITE of what a small government is. A small government doesn't get involved in the issue AT ALL. Just like a free market isn't touched AT ALL by the government, neither regulation nor corporate welfare.

 

[Elfboy]

First off, it's not just about government. Objectivism is about the choices a person makes on an individual basis in the rational self interest. The flows over into government because, following objectivism, no person should be compelled to act against their sell interest by another person or group of people i.e the government.

I also found it interesting that societal ills are expected to be solved by charity in a system that promotes capitalist competition and self interest. Say I compete my way to the top and then have no interest in being charitable to the people I put out of business to get their. Say no one feels like caring for the mentally disabled? Or that the people who do are to busy caring for the those people to make the profit needed to support many of them?
I don't think people want to bash her I just think people have some questions about how her system is supposed to "work".

simple, giving feels good. most people who are well off feel some compulsion to give something back and be generous (I know I love to be generous when I can afford to be, and you don't get more sinister or selfish than me without becoming a gargoyle). doing what's in your rational best interest doesn't always involve being stingy like most people seem to think it does. money is great, but it's utility has a point of diminishing returns, so as long as it doesn't effect your lifestyle, who cares if you give or not? lol I think most rich people think this way

PS: self interest doesn't mean "me and only me!" like people seem to think it does. it means "me first". you place yourself, ie, your own happiness, well being, long term best interests, comfort, health and success as the top priority in your life.

 

[Lark]

First off, it's not just about government. Objectivism is about the choices a person makes on an individual basis in the rational self interest. The flows over into government because, following objectivism, no person should be compelled to act against their sell interest by another person or group of people i.e the government.

I also found it interesting that societal ills are expected to be solved by charity in a system that promotes capitalist competition and self interest. Say I compete my way to the top and then have no interest in being charitable to the people I put out of business to get their. Say no one feels like caring for the mentally disabled? Or that the people who do are to busy caring for the those people to make the profit needed to support many of them?


I don't think people want to bash her I just think people have some questions about how her system is supposed to "work".

Awesome slip of the tongue there.

 

[Lark]

I don't think people want to bash her I just think people have some questions about how her system is supposed to "work".

Rand was a Russian refugee whose entire philosophy was built upon bitterness about losing everything in the Russian revolution. Simple as.

If there is anything good in it at all its by virtue of the fact it adds to the ongoing dialogue about social ethics and virtue.

Some thinking is simply good per se, some thinking is only good because it can be critiqued and give a focus for opposition in the thesis, antithesis, synthesis and then new thesis fasion.

Its a crank ideology which sells well because people want to be selfish, they search for rationalisations for it and Rand provides a lot of that, not because they've been conditioned to be selflessly neurotic by religion, political ideology, parents but because, unless you're one of natures true psychopaths, you will experience pangs of conscience if you are selfish.