|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 29, 2011 3:53:34 GMT -5
Bioshock. That is all.
|
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Sept 29, 2011 6:34:00 GMT -5
For the last time : there are many individualist thinkers who are perfectly fine with helping others for no benefit and at a personal cost. AYN RAND ISN'T ONE OF THEM. As with everything else, charity must be motivated by "rational self-interest", or it becomes a vice, because the lives of others are only as valuable as you want them to be. This part : and only by doing this for ourselves can we recognize and value the same in others is precisely something that is missing in Rand's ideology. She makes next to no differences between individualistic altruism, for example giving other people the same intrinsic moral value as you give to yourself because you know they are on the same boat as you, and the community-centered altruism she hates so much, implicitly lumping the former into the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 29, 2011 9:20:01 GMT -5
How does your interpretation of how she defines selfish mesh with "The moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness." This is a direct question and I expect an answer.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Sept 30, 2011 1:22:12 GMT -5
You know what? Fuck it. I'll do the damn legwork for you. You're either lazy or dense. Your pick. "There is one word that is forbidden in this valley: the word 'give.' ” —Atlas Shrugged Translation: Be a self-centered prick that serves nobody but you. If someone needs something make them pay for it. If they can't pay for it in some manner let the fucker starve. “To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence.” —Galt Speech, Atlas Shrugged How very deep and philosophical. If you need sarcasm tags for this I somehow doubt we can get through to you. She denied the link between smoking and cancer. I don't think I need to point out what this means about her cognitive abilities. Oh hell, I'll save my c key some wear and tear and just link this.
|
|
|
Post by Adeimantus on Oct 1, 2011 0:33:08 GMT -5
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. Fair enough. I can agree with that point. I agree that looking at a person's personal life is valuable for interpreting what they said and believed- I don't buy into the "death of the author." As for her supposed admiration for a rapist, what I keep in mind is the fact that we could look at pretty much anyone's history and find some dirt to smear them with. How many of the Founding Fathers that are so deified owned slaves even as they preached "all men are created equal?" I have found that many historical figures who are praised or lauded in some way turn out to have said or done something really horrible. Nothing excuses that. However, I try not to let their mistakes blind me to whatever good they may have said or done. Also, it turns out Rand was 23 when she wrote that stuff in her journals. It's not like any young people ever got carried away and wrote down something stupid that misrepresented how they really thought or would come to think. Or got carried away. Not at all. And it's certainly not like we should look at other things she said and reevaluate previous things in the light thereof. You know what? Fuck it. I'll do the damn legwork for you. You're either lazy or dense. Your pick. "There is one word that is forbidden in this valley: the word 'give.' ” —Atlas Shrugged Translation: Be a self-centered prick that serves nobody but you. If someone needs something make them pay for it. If they can't pay for it in some manner let the fucker starve. “To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence.” —Galt Speech, Atlas Shrugged How very deep and philosophical. If you need sarcasm tags for this I somehow doubt we can get through to you. She denied the link between smoking and cancer. I don't think I need to point out what this means about her cognitive abilities. [/url][/quote] Two quotes taken out of context don't exactly refute a whole philosophical system; also, insults FTW. As for the first, what exactly does Galt mean by "give?" Helping someone in need? Or bowing to the demands of foolish, immoral, or incompetent people to subsidize their faults? For the second- again, context. Here's some from AS: “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies..." In other words, you make the choice to exist- to be something, to make choices and judgments, to think, to love- or you choose not to and end up spending your life trying to use others to make up for your own failure, trying to compel them to subsidize you, so to speak. For the last time : there are many individualist thinkers who are perfectly fine with helping others for no benefit and at a personal cost. AYN RAND ISN'T ONE OF THEM.Precisely one of the nuances I've been talking about is that there is no instance where genuinely helping someone or doing right by them is not to your benefit, whatever the cost might be. Also who are some of these other individualist thinkers that have been hinted at? I would be interested to read them. Seriously; I like the opportunity to discover an enlightening and uplifting thinker. And the reason I've been mentioning Bioshock is, besides attempting to invoke the brotherhood of geek humor, Bioshock has been interpreted by some as a deconstruction of Atlas Shrugged, and I was hoping someone might use it to make a point, as it would be something we would have some common experience with. If so, I could show, step by step, the several ways Bioshock references Rand's ideas and maybe use it to illustrate some points.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Oct 1, 2011 0:45:10 GMT -5
We aren't your monkey. We aren't going to dance how you want us to.
As to this topic, I'm done. You've already decided that Ayn Rand is unjustly persecuted in spite of her being a hypocritical, self-centered-to-the-point-of-thinking-people-are-worthless cunt. Most philosophers that are able to rub to synapses together regard her work as immature at best.
You are aware that she created her, erm, "philosophy" as nothing more than anti-communism? Any stance communism took she took the exact opposite stance.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Oct 1, 2011 0:47:20 GMT -5
I didn't really play Bioshock. I never could get in to it, despite how beloved it was by many people. I don't know why that is. But why don't you take the initiative in making the comparison? You'd have to give a little synopsis of the plot first, since I only know it very vaguely, but it would probably be interesting to hear.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 1, 2011 1:07:42 GMT -5
How does your interpretation of how she defines selfish mesh with "The moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness." This is a direct question and I expect an answer. Hey! You ignored my question.
|
|
|
Post by Adeimantus on Oct 1, 2011 1:08:08 GMT -5
Oh, it was a great game... I'm sorry you couldn't get into it. I'll do just what you said- but it'll take some time to write, and it's late, so it'll be tomorrow at least before I post it. And MaybeNever? Believe me when I say I appreciate the way you responded. Thanks. VeneGood question; sorry, I'll get back to it.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 1, 2011 1:39:15 GMT -5
I know nothing about Ayn Rand, but this thread has piqued my interest, & not necessarily in a good way.
Firstly, your post about the board. You talk about rationalism while taking your first negative encounter & starting to project it on more & more of the board? Plus, you're ignoring why the "one-eighty" occurred. That rapist point has been mentioned many times now, & you have not made any attempt to refute it once. You are going to continue to get more of the same if you demonstrate no more than Fanboy Knowledge about this Rand woman. I know when I see a TL;WDR post that's failing for very fundamental reasons, I don't sit there & refute each individual point AGAIN. That's a waste of my time.
On that note, the other thing that piqued my interest & not necessarily in a good way, I would like to see what it is she says about rape.
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Oct 1, 2011 2:04:07 GMT -5
Although do note Mr. Adeimantus if you wanna get into a discussion on homosexuality I'll be more than glad to refute you point by point, it's like crack cocaine to me.
I'll agree with everybody else on the rapist point, if you don't refute that, this conversation is pretty much over. Her exact words, for a guy she idolized (and I believe later made the hero of one of her books) "Other people don't exist for him, and he doesn't see why they should." A rejection of OTHER PEOPLE, ENTIRELY, DEFINITIVELY. That is selfishness incarnate. No "subjective interpretation" no "maybe she meant something else" "Our Selfishness Is Different" this is a direct, undeniable proof that she endorsed selfishness.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 1, 2011 2:13:21 GMT -5
I meant that generally people don't do that. Obviously, there are all sorts of circumstances where that rule doesn't hold true. Boredom, they're actually mocking you, a subject of interest, etc. But, generally, if you just waltz in & start "debating" by constantly restating your points with giant essays, people will just quote one or two things that show how fractally wrong you are & then tell you to fuck off.
|
|
|
Post by sugarfreejazz on Oct 1, 2011 2:20:37 GMT -5
Except that he (William Edward Hickman) was praised FOR being a bank robber and multiple murderer (his most famous crime being the kidnapping and brutal murder of child named Marian). Rand isn't choosing a separate a "positive" part of his life to point him out as the ideal man. She's specifically noting his brazen disregard for law and life in his pursuit of his own desires, "what is right for me is good."
Rand even went so far as to write in his defense accusing the public of having worse sins, (and I don't mean crimes). Their sins were being average, much like her insult to the jury whom she felt were rather "stupid looking," "shabbily dressed" and "very average."
Anyone who has read Rand should have a basic understanding of how she felt about average people. And if that wasn't enough, Rand further stated the public wasn't even mad that this criminal killed and robbed, no, they were attacking this "beautiful soul" because he was a "a daring challenge to society." I'll avoid the obvious Godwin waiting around the corner here.
"Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.' "
^ That is known as a red herring.
Since it has already been referenced and makes a point, Rand was well into adulthood when she wrote The Ethics of Emergencies. She was very consistent in her architecture, if nothing else.
That sounds more like reciprocal altruism not rational self interest. Objectivism rejects the altruist premise of self-sacrifice. So there is in fact a cost too high and there are instances where genuinely helping someone is not to your benefit according to Rand's philosophy.
Vene and Lt.fred actually addressed this. I'm going to hold off until their points have been properly recognized and only add: see rational egoism.
Edit @ravy oh we're really talking about Bioshock now? I enjoyed the first, but couldn't really get into the second. I've heard System Shock was quit badass for it's time.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 1, 2011 2:22:46 GMT -5
I didn't really play Bioshock. I never could get in to it, despite how beloved it was by many people. I don't know why that is. But why don't you take the initiative in making the comparison? You'd have to give a little synopsis of the plot first, since I only know it very vaguely, but it would probably be interesting to hear. Eeh, its spiritual predecessor, System Shock, is far better, from what I've heard. Having not played Bioshock (but having played, and loved, System Shock 2), I'll hold off on making a comparison. Big Daddy, meet SHODAN.
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Oct 1, 2011 2:24:00 GMT -5
Very true, on a subject like this I'm loft to do that namely because I haven't read everything there is about Rand and frankly I don't want to. I know enough to refute basic points and I've read Atlas Shrugged in 3 12 hour periods over 72 hours and had to write an essay on it to try and win $10k. I paid my dues.
To summate: start refuting points there kiddo. You said those quotes above were "out of context" but what "context" do you want them put in? Should he quote one of Rand's 20-page essay-diatrabes? In its entirity? Would that be contexty enough for you? Why do Rand supporters always say they're being quoted out of context when you just repeat exactly what they said? Is what they said not what they said? When they said Jump did they really say 'Sit On It'? It's not misquoting or mischaracterizing to give an accurate interpretation of this character's beliefs by pulling out quotes to reflect it. And they DO reflect it unless his next sentence was something akin to "HAHA, I KEED I KEED, I JOKE WIT YOOOUUU" or some Salinger "That chapter didn't actually happen" thing.
Edit: I didn't play Bioshock, but I played Bioshock 2, and the sheer awesomeness of both the single and multiplayer made me salivate when I read about Inifinate (and the trailer gave me vertigo)
|
|