|
Post by sugarfreejazz on Sept 27, 2011 22:06:47 GMT -5
So our new user ignored counterpoints, blanketly stated "you're all wrong," then demanded others do the work to clarify his own words and followed with the announcement we're not playing the game the way he wanted. Am I missing anything?
Edit: stray spelling error
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 27, 2011 22:09:47 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't really know, Jazzy. Most of that kid's posts are so deep into the seas of TL;DR that it baffles me...
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Sept 27, 2011 22:13:06 GMT -5
The problem is that if there is any negative points to it, I can't infer it from Adei's posts.
It is a very good job of whitewashing and sugar coating. It sounds pretty damn optimistic.
Of course that is how all schools of thought attract members; by playing up the positive.
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Sept 27, 2011 23:29:16 GMT -5
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. No, we have not seen communism in action. Communism is a classless, stateless society, the USSR and the PRC never were and are not communist, and they never claimed they were/are. What they claimed to be is socialist. Even then, we have only seen this form of socialism, the reasons the USSR turned out the way it did are more varied than just "Stalin was an asshole".
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Sept 27, 2011 23:45:50 GMT -5
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. No, we have not seen communism in action. Communism is a classless, stateless society, the USSR and the PRC never were and are not communist, and they never claimed they were/are. What they claimed to be is socialist. Even then, we have only seen this form of socialism, the reasons the USSR turned out the way it did are more varied than just "Stalin was an asshole". Very well.
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Sept 27, 2011 23:53:29 GMT -5
Okay, I've got one. At the very end of Atlas Shrugged when the Large MacGuffin terminates the power source for the nearby city, and theoretically half the country the last we hear is that thousands could have been killed instantly - the next, mass-scale rioting and panic. This is seen as okay, notably the author and characters don't point out what a huge deal this is.
Basically, a massive swath of the population dies, but they're deemed a "necessary sacrifice" so the Greats can "shrug" and recreate the broken tatters of society in their own image.
What you're not seeing there, and what's so completely sociopathic is that for society to be rebuilt, it has to collapse first. Now think about that. That phase of their plan involves allowing hundreds of thousands, nay, millions of people, to die. To perish. Because God forbid they should have to do things regular people do like... pay income tax! Remember the cute little scene where Reardon gets the large gold bar and the mysterious man tells him "ohh, this is your income tax for the last x year(s), there's more where this came from, have it back you sexy beast, you shouldn't have had to pay it in the first place =D"
Explain that to me in terms of morality, the "greater good" as it were. How can you say, at all, that allowing millions of people to die because a small group of rich "Haves" threw a hissy fit is in any way a tenable philosophy?
Keep in mind, Income Tax, like many others, helps pay for roads, repairs, fire, police, libraries, schools, bridges, etc. The stuff everyone uses. So if you're gonna turn your "debate" into an anti-social programs rant, please keep that in mind, that if you're anti-social programs, you're anti all that stuff up there, and need not ever use it again.
Edit:
I noticed that too - typical troll logic, just wanting to say some stuff without addressing counterpoints. I've seen too many who operate like that - back when I was on CollegeConfidential once a month we'd get an anti-gay troll popping up (different people) who would start in with the whole "Now I'm not prejudiced but explain to me how....yadayada-gayshit-yadayada" and directly ignore every single counterpoint that didn't agree with their vision. And if you called them on what they were saying they'd just say "THATS NOT WHAT IM SAYING, YOU'RE TWISTING MY WORDS! What I actually said was -proceeds to say the exact same thing I just accused them of in just a slighhtttllly different way. The golden ones were the ones who would switch between Argument A and Argument B whenever cornered, so instead of repeating A after "that's not what I'm saying" they'd repeat B, get caught, and switch back to A again. Now watch, $50 says this newbie will ignore everything I said up there, and concentrate on the fact that I agreed with you and called him a troll (and am therefore, being hostile).
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Sept 28, 2011 0:14:37 GMT -5
Of course, it is also pointed out that the "heroes" of that book were also smart people not just in business but in various fields of engineering and sciences.
Without societal constraints they can achieve even greater heights. Hmm, such thoughts are similar to a mad scientist character.
Of course what about the many non-executive engineers, technicians, and scientists? Personally, I think they place mending the sabotage as the second most important priority; the first being surviving.
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Sept 28, 2011 0:41:53 GMT -5
The difference is important. Ayn Rand doesn't even pretend to appeal to the working and petty bourgeois classes, and I doubt she would favour war and imperialism in support of the nation.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 28, 2011 0:48:45 GMT -5
Pick a point and attempt to refute it. Many of us have done this (others have not- too bad). I ask you merely to do the same thing before you get all self-righteous.
|
|
|
Post by mechtaur on Sept 28, 2011 1:01:36 GMT -5
Pick a point and attempt to refute it. I did, you simply ignored it. Do not blame me if you can't handle this fact. Like I said, Rand's philosophy is in effect, its in a place commonly called things like the slums, ghettos, etc. Go there and tell me how well that place operates and how well it advances.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Sept 28, 2011 1:23:46 GMT -5
Read what Ayn Rand actually said as a person, read about Objectivism. After doing so you should be able to determine how an individual that is not a self-centered douchebag would take offense to her writings and "philosophy."
I'm not going to do the legwork for you. She was a hypocritical (decried the evils of government helping people pay for anything, including healthcare and then went and used just that kind of program for cancer treatment), self-centered (Objectivism views altruism as being a BAD THING - if you're unable to determine why we view this in a negative light there's not getting through), long-winded (you've read Atlas Shrugged so I needn't get into it) cunt (see: Objectivism). You asked us why we hate her. Why not do a little research into what she had to say on things?
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 28, 2011 2:57:10 GMT -5
There's also the whole cheating on her husband bit...but, hey, its okay because she's an ubermen-OH WAIT. Thaaaaat's right, ubermenschen don't need frilly little things like decent healthcare to deal with cancer! Ubermenschen should be able to eat cancer and shit money, which they hoard for themselves and fuck everyone else.
Ayn Rand is to the "Objectivist" ideal what Hitler was to the Aryan ubermensch.
|
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Sept 28, 2011 18:05:50 GMT -5
or, who knows, perhaps I am unknowingly espousing my own philosophy You stop right there, and think back about how they were calling Ayn Rand all those nasty things. Not you, or your ideas, even after you mentioned them in your latter posts. That's because no matter how much you try to deny it, your actual beliefs are that disjointed from Rand's own. It's true that the notion of altruism may refer to the utter abolition of the self, and correspondingly, selfishness/egoism may be defined as defining your life goals in function of what you value, rather than what society wants you to do. But these aren't relevant because Rand hated altruism and promoted selfishness in their usual meanings and repeatedly stated so. Rand didn't take even the most basic rules of morality "quite seriously", though she does vaguely try to justify them in the context of her philosophy. For example, she thinks that lying is wrong, not because it is inconsiderate towards the people you're lying to, but because it is uncomfortable to maintain a lie and it can hit you back hit you back in the face. As a result, white lies and other untruths that does not directly benefit you in a practical way are actually considered the worst kind of dishonesty according to the Randian ethos. On the other hand, big, rewarding lies are wrong because "one day, you will get your comeuppance". Yeah. Sure. As for her core "ethics" of no-violence-no-stealing, it ends up sounding more like a set of rules for her big free-for-all game of life than anything. Don't kill or use violence because even I admit that a full-on battle royale would be wasteful for everyone. Don't steal because I think that wealth should be the one outlet people use to subjugate compete with each other. This does explain why she places crimes against property at the same fundamental level as crimes against people : they are the prerequisites for what is according to her the natural state of society, unadulterated by the tyrannical artifices of government. You sound like a moderate Christian who, despite all common sense, claims his full adhesion to Catholicism. Sugarcoating every piece of dogma you put your mind into, despite the fact your supposed figurehead have made it very clear that the official creed is supposed to be exactly as sociopathic and bigoted as it sounds. Which isn't exactly surprising since Objectivism is basically religious fundamentalism for atheists. There are other schools of individualism than the Randian one. I reckon you should and look them up. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Adeimantus on Sept 29, 2011 2:20:29 GMT -5
What? Still no Bioshock references? I’m disappointed.
Rand did not promote “selfishness” in the usual meaning of the word. That is a fact she stated explicitly. Selfishness, like greed and altruism, was just a poor choice of words for what she was trying to identify. Her explanation for why she uses that word is that the English language simply does not have a word for the thing she is talking about.
In any case, no, Rand is not telling you to be selfish in the way we usually use that word: to indicate an amoral individual who carelessly uses and exploits others for his own lusts. What Rand is saying is that all the things which make humans valuable and capable of being moral agents come from the thing we call our self (or mind, ego, heart, soul, etc.). To be “self-ish” is to recognize in ourselves that power, of reason, of thought, of choice, of values, and to hold it as our highest value- and only by doing this for ourselves can we recognize and value the same in others and thus live justly and peacefully. How can you value the well-being and happiness of another if you do not first value your own?
“Altruism” was another poor choice of words, but by it she does not in the least mean good-will or generosity to others- she considered those virtuous. The reason Rand tends to depict characters who are involved in charities and the like as evil is not because she is saying it is evil to help people. It is because she believes that movements and ideologies use things like “the plight of the poor” or “the exploitation of the working class” (or “religious solidarity” and “racial purity” for that matter) as tools to control people*. They work to construct vague collectives (“the Church,” “the People,” the Aryan Race,”) that are presented as the objects to which you are to sacrifice your own personal desires, and as alternatives to the things you call your self.
“Altruists” in Rand’s view, aren’t the people who help college students pay off their loans, operate free clinics, or feed starving children- such people are working to achieve their “selfish” desires to see others succeed. An altruist, to Rand, is the person who tries to make your believe that your life, your time, or your wealth are not yours to dispose of, but belong to whoever or whatever the collective has decided you have to give them to- and who take measures to see to it that you do.
*Besides that, I think Rand felt that the people who got the most out of charities and welfare programs weren’t decent people who had fallen on hard times, but bums who just wanted to milk the system.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Sept 29, 2011 2:38:46 GMT -5
And one again, Adeimantus, you completely fail to acknowledge that you have already been proven wrong by Rand herself, who praised a rapist for not letting the law or another person's well-being get in the way of his desire to rape her. To Rand, selfishness is fulfilling your own desires at any cost, including causing direct harm to other human beings.
Rand's philosophy is not entirely encapsulated in her books. You have to look at what she had said elsewhere and apply it to the themes that she thought actually had a chance at selling.
|
|