|
Post by sugarfreejazz on Sept 26, 2011 23:56:48 GMT -5
I don't find Rand to be a terrible writer per say, just trite— Like the folks that love to repeatedly use her words attempting to sound self-important. Additionally, Rand loves her some false dichotomy, when tends to be a major flaw in much of her philosophical spouting.
Edit: top of the page means this topic is now about black and white cookies, because half of that cookie is fucking evil!
|
|
|
Post by Iosa the Invincible on Sept 26, 2011 23:58:51 GMT -5
The only thing of Rand's that I've read is Anthem, which seems to be one of her shorter works (though I could be remembering wrong, since I haven't read it in several years).
Edit: While I agree with Anthem that a hive mind collective where you aren't allowed personal desire is horrible, it seems Rand is another example of someone embracing an extreme as a means to flee and oppose another extreme, which is never good.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Sept 27, 2011 0:10:34 GMT -5
Edit: top of the page means this topic is now about black and white cookies, because half of that cookie is fucking evil! It's that welfare queen black half, right?
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 27, 2011 0:44:21 GMT -5
Rand is not saying that it is evil to help others. She absolutely is. I don't see how you can read her any other way. To me, that is morality. Morality is where you either do not do something, or do act in some way that harms you but helps someone else more. She says that's evil, wrong, bad (unless the person in question is of the untermensch class, of course). Moral questions are those questions that ask- is it right to shoot that small child for fun? Is it right to hold up those banks? Not can I do is and get away with it- should I? Rand says that question is illegitimate. That's why Rand is so silly. You do not have to 100% throw your desires away in the name of morality- just those that would harm someone else too much. It's not wrong to act as you want sometimes, it's wrong to act that way all the time, without considering the consequences on someone else. She's just a shallow, fallacious, thinker. Now a perfect moral person would give up their lives for someone else. But it isn't wrong to act differently. Those are deliberately unrepresentative examples of moral choice. Clearly not scaring people, giving money to bums or murdering random people is the right thing to do. These are great examples of those common circumstances where ethics and personal preference are the same. A better example of a moral choice: I would like one million dollars. If I assume that I can scam a person into giving me money, should I do that? Rand say yes- virtually all other moral philosophy says no. Her philosophy was essentially a response to bad childhood experiences with communists kicking her out of her family's manor in Crimea. A real thinker (or just a mentally stable person: see Rand's views on child murderers) would be able to move beyond a simplistic reaction to what bad men did to her as a kid. In other words, it's only okay to help people if you get something out of it. The negation of morality, not a form of it.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Sept 27, 2011 0:52:37 GMT -5
Also, yay, new Randroid.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 27, 2011 1:27:15 GMT -5
What Rand is claiming is that altruism is the morality that presents you with “duties”: moral imperatives you are expected to fulfill without consideration for your own happiness or desires. Well, okay. Let's have a look at a usual list of duties from a standard ethical perspective. "Duty of beneficence: A duty to help other people (increase pleasure, improve character) Duty of non-maleficence: A duty to avoid harming other people. Duty of justice: A duty to ensure people get what they deserve. Duty of self-improvement: A duty to improve ourselves. Duty of reparation: A duty to recompense someone if you have acted wrongly towards them. Duty of gratitude: A duty to benefit people who have benefited us. Duty of promise-keeping: A duty to act according to explicit and implicit promises, including the implicit promise to tell the truth." Which of these do you have a problem with? Maybe the first, at most. But can you really argue the rest are so bad? That's highly contingent. Maybe you wouldn't want to steal from a friend, or maybe you wouldn't want to go to jail for murder- but what if you didn't know the person, or you were sure of getting away with it? What if you didn't care about them?
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Sept 27, 2011 4:07:06 GMT -5
I'm gonna be direct and to the point as to why I loathe the woman.
I'm not a self-centered asshole and she was a hypocritical cunt.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 27, 2011 4:28:31 GMT -5
Naps, you're being far too nice.
The woman was a hypocritical, racist, lying, cheating, fascist, might-makes-right assclown who liked to write second-rate author wankfests the size of small skyscrapers entirely for the purpose of pushing a sociopathic, narcissistic, egomaniacal, and altogether bullshit ideology that has the balls to call itself "objective" while being what is likely the single most startling object lesson in the abuse of subjectivity this world has ever had the misfortune of witnessing.
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Sept 27, 2011 7:54:25 GMT -5
No, she was not fascist. Authoritarian, yes; fascist, no.
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Sept 27, 2011 12:17:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Sept 27, 2011 17:41:02 GMT -5
A clockwork mechanism can't work with its gears welded together. However, it also doesn't work when those same gears are loose and out of place.
|
|
|
Post by Adeimantus on Sept 27, 2011 21:20:09 GMT -5
Wow. That was quite a one-eighty. The first page had what struck me as well-thought out, conscientious responses; I appreciated the civility and the willingness of those who posted to clearly and rationally explain what they felt. I’m sorry, but I’m not feeling the same here.
Listen folks, when I discovered this site, my expectation was that I would find intelligent people who objected to all the nonsense and venom spouted by the “fundies.” I was disappointed to find that most of the comments on the mainpage were rife with same nonsense and vitriol they condemned. I expected the forum to be better. These responses don’t raise my hopes. You seem more interested in being vindictive and talking about how much you hate Rand than you are in engaging in a civil argument, a dialectic to mutual benefit. That’s what I want. I was interested in discovering the opinions of intelligent people who disagree with Rand, whom I tend to agree with on several points. I would be grateful to be edified in any point, and willing to do the same. I’m not seeing the same.
Pick a point and attempt to refute it. Say, “I disagree; I think Rand defines ‘altruism’ as…”or some other argument- about anything. I’ve read Rand. Several of her books, thank you, and I feel I have a decent understanding of what she has to say- or, who knows, perhaps I am unknowingly espousing my own philosophy, my own interpretation of what she says. If so, point it out. Say, “Hey, I like what you’re saying there, but that’s not what she was saying.”
So let me begin by saying that you have all fundamentally misunderstood the argument I was attempting to make about Rand’s morality. I would appreciate it if someone would clearly and cogently express what you think is meant by “rational selfishness” so I can perhaps respond.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Sept 27, 2011 21:32:46 GMT -5
Aww how cute...the newbie thinks we debate things. NOt really there bub. Oh it stays that way for a few posts but then usually devolves into something else.
Ironbite-what can I say...we get bored easily.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 27, 2011 21:56:41 GMT -5
Wow. That was quite a one-eighty. The first page had what struck me as well-thought out, conscientious responses; I appreciated the civility and the willingness of those who posted to clearly and rationally explain what they felt. I’m sorry, but I’m not feeling the same here. This would be better if you gave an example of irrationality. lol, an Objectivism being concerned about mutual benefit. Do you really have such low self esteem? It helps if you give something meaningful instead of inanity. It's pretty simple egoism, actually, the only thing that matters is yourself and it is immoral to sacrifice yourself for the sake of another. It very much says that other people don't matter. (note: all my quotes will be from "The Ethics of Emergencies" because it's a fun one) "Sacrifice" is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man's virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less "selfish," than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. ... [H]elp to others is not his moral duty, I refer you to Atlas Shrugged. ... To illustrate this on the altruists' favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one's own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one's life no higher than that of any random stranger. ... It is on the ground of that generalized good will and respect for the value of human life that one helps strangers in an emergency—and only in an emergency. ... For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). But this does not mean that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have. Nor does it mean that he should spend his life sailing the seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save. ... The moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness.
[Bold mine, italics original]
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Sept 27, 2011 22:06:03 GMT -5
Wow. That was quite a one-eighty. The first page had what struck me as well-thought out, conscientious responses; I appreciated the civility and the willingness of those who posted to clearly and rationally explain what they felt. I’m sorry, but I’m not feeling the same here. Listen folks, when I discovered this site, my expectation was that I would find intelligent people who objected to all the nonsense and venom spouted by the “fundies.” I was disappointed to find that most of the comments on the mainpage were rife with same nonsense and vitriol they condemned. I expected the forum to be better. These responses don’t raise my hopes. You seem more interested in being vindictive and talking about how much you hate Rand than you are in engaging in a civil argument, a dialectic to mutual benefit. That’s what I want. I was interested in discovering the opinions of intelligent people who disagree with Rand, whom I tend to agree with on several points. I would be grateful to be edified in any point, and willing to do the same. I’m not seeing the same. Pick a point and attempt to refute it. Say, “I disagree; I think Rand defines ‘altruism’ as…”or some other argument- about anything. I’ve read Rand. Several of her books, thank you, and I feel I have a decent understanding of what she has to say- or, who knows, perhaps I am unknowingly espousing my own philosophy, my own interpretation of what she says. If so, point it out. Say, “Hey, I like what you’re saying there, but that’s not what she was saying.” So let me begin by saying that you have all fundamentally misunderstood the argument I was attempting to make about Rand’s morality. I would appreciate it if someone would clearly and cogently express what you think is meant by “rational selfishness” so I can perhaps respond. IMO this forum disagrees on how it is sold as "ideally what everyone should do". It might work in utopian experimental communities. But in those cases, the communities isolate themselves from the influence of the general populace and tend to be small so to keep it simple. Try to apply that to a single metropolitan city and you will see that the size makes things complicated and not everyone will fully accept the new school of thought. Of course these are all thought experiments, yes Rand's book was merely another thought experiment. While we have seen Communism in action, with terrible consequences, I have yet to a see any group of people successfully attempt to achieve the society as so desired by Rand on the scale of a small country. Until then, we all can keep using our biased, to one extent or another, imaginations.
|
|