Ayn Rand ?

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by newfangle


*As Archer contructs a strawman and blows the sh!t out of it with a flamethrower.*

How is it a strawman agruement, when self-pleasure is the key to her philospohy?

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by archer_007


How is it a strawman agruement, when self-pleasure is the key to her philospohy?

Ok, its not a strawman.

Now answer the question.

 

[Speedo]

Originally posted by Akka
(what's fun, is that they really BELIEVE in this rubbish... And they say religions are illusionary )

Indeed.

I've heard enough about Rand to realize that she didn't live in a place I like to call "reality."

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Ayn Rand totally ignores the whole purpose and function of social grouping in the first place!

Thus, her philosophy might work well for robots, but humans might have a tough time with it

 

[Norlamand]

Maybe she is a robot..........Stepford Wives..........

 

[The Yankee]

We have a lot of robots...Dick Clark....Ted Turner...Ayn Rand....ya know...

Still don't get what's so great about her.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by newfangle


If certainty is impossible, why do humans pursue any knowledge at all? As soon as you make that assumption, you are saying that nothing has objective value, therefore you are saying that nothing exists at all. Existence is self-evident, based upon that fundamental axiom.

Like I said we need to make the assumption to function, but you can't say it with certainty.

As such you have a choice (well, not really a choice, but that can be saved for a free will discussion). You either accept reality or reject it. A drunk rejects reality with a bottle, a socialist rejects reality with a dictatorship, a criminal rejects reality with a gun.

Nice sentence but what does it mean? How does a criminal reject reality with a gun? He isn't rejecting anything. He is taking what he needs by force rather than by earning it.

That does not change the fact the event occured. I want you to turn to a wall and stare at it, and think about it turning into a peach. Will that wall turn into a peach?

No, but by the time the event reaches you its been warped. Imagine there is a car bombing in Iraq. By the time you hear it, its been interpreted by:

1. The eyewitnesses
2. The local authorities who write a report on it
3. Local newspapers or AP-type things who write up a basic report
4. The newspaper you read, who certainly spins it in their own way
5. You read it and spin it again based on your own political bias

Or for an event that happens to you directly:

1. The situation in which the event happens (who else was there, how they reacted, etc)
2. Your mood
3. Your immediate reaction
4. The formation of a memory which interprets the immediate reaction
5. Looking back months later and recalling the event

Reality may be objective, but we certainly aren't. In fact if you look at reality through the eyes of thousands of different people (because thats the only way you can look at it - reality without observers is pointless) it is anything but objective or real. Life is a collection of poeple seeing something, making opinions, influencing others opinions, then writing about it 10 years later...

 

[Akka]

That's rich coming from a socialist parasite.

That's rich coming from an aynist robot

There was a thread, some times ago, about how it is incredibly hard for most people to change their belief, because their brain hang on to their beliefs as it's subjectively something that reassure them.

What's fun, is that until now, all the randist I've seen, though claiming that they are rationnal, though dismissing subjectivity and emotionnal beliefs and so on, are probably among the most deluded and subjective people I've ever seen, warping reality and logics so that they can agree with their belief.
Just like religious people arguing over creationism and evolution

 

[Mescalhead]

Originally posted by newfangle
That anything done for selfish reasons is good. i.e., walking into a bank a mowing people down because you want money.

I guess the old adage that Nietzche is a dangerous thing if read by the wrong people is certainly true.

 

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Akka

That's rich coming from an aynist robot

There was a thread, some times ago, about how it is incredibly hard for most people to change their belief, because their brain hang on to their beliefs as it's subjectively something that reassure them.

What's fun, is that until now, all the randist I've seen, though claiming that they are rationnal, though dismissing subjectivity and emotionnal beliefs and so on, are probably among the most deluded and subjective people I've ever seen, warping reality and logics so that they can agree with their belief.
Just like religious people arguing over creationism and evolution

I wouldnt say that Rand ignores emotions . In fact , the emotional basis of pain and pleasure is the fundamental cornerstone of her philosophy . I think that an objectivist will feel emotions , but regard them as open to analysis , just like anything else .

 

[Akka]

I don't talk about Rand. As I said, I don't know enough about her work to judge.
I'm talking about the randists I've seen on these board, and the "rational analysis" they've made.

And human psychology is a bit more complex than "pain-pleasure". At least, there is a whole construct, immensely complex, that has been built above it.

Binary basis is perhaps good for amoeba, but not really for humans.


I may also add that the whole concept of "ethics", like described by Newfangle, is exceedingly primitive and close-minded (as it reject any possibilities that a man could consider some cause to be of greater values than his life, or else it needs to use the stretched and twisted "altruism is selfishness" absurdity).
Again, it's good for robots, computers and amoeba. Not for humans.

 

[aneeshm]

I admit that human psycholgy is more complex , but the gain of pleasure and the aoidance of pain (of any sort) is the basis of almost all other emotions .

 

[thestonesfan]

People who don't know about Rand continually make these assumptions:

She thought it wrong to help anyone. This is completely not true.

She says a person could prosper and be happy without other people. Not true. As I said before, she held rational human interaction as a great, necessary thing.

She ignores emotions. An assumption based on ignorance. She simply says that emotions must be understood, and that there is a logical reason behind them. For example, you can't just love someone for no reason.

She says that it's all about the money. Not at all. She acknowledges that there are much more satisfactory pleasures than material gain.

She thinks all people should be one dimensional robots. I imagine this misconception is due to the characters in Atlas Shrugged. That was simply the way she chose to characterize them, in order to convey her philosophy most clearly. It's a book about ideas. In Fountainhead, the main character is quite flawed.

Out of curiousity, when was the last time any of you voluntarily acted in a completely selfless manner?

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by newfangle

Please explain to me, with examples, how it is in my best interests to "forsake" my fellow man.

I dont quite get your question.

Are you asking why you should help your fellow man?

 

[newfangle]

No, I'm asking you how it is in my best interests to screw my fellow man, which is your definition of selfishness.

Would one of you mind responding to one of stonesfan's posts?

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Akka

That's rich coming from an aynist robot

There was a thread, some times ago, about how it is incredibly hard for most people to change their belief, because their brain hang on to their beliefs as it's subjectively something that reassure them.

It must be very difficult, or else people would embrace rational thinking much more quickly.

What's fun, is that until now, all the randist I've seen, though claiming that they are rationnal, though dismissing subjectivity and emotionnal beliefs and so on, are probably among the most deluded and subjective people I've ever seen, warping reality and logics so that they can agree with their belief.
Just like religious people arguing over creationism and evolution

How are we deluded? What is an "emotional belief"? How are we warping reality? Why don't you explain your insults a bit?

And yes, it is like religious people arguing over creationism and evolution. Except in this case, you are abandoning logic and behaving as the creationists do.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
It must be very difficult, or else people would embrace rational thinking much more quickly.

It IS very difficult. The article concluded saying something like : "what's impressive is not that people hold on their belief even when faced with evidence, it is that they are able to change so much of their belief through rationnal thinking".
Meaning there is very powerful inner forces working to make us hang to our beliefs.

How are we deluded?

Thinking yourself to be the pinnacle of rationnality and objectivity.
Believing that a society like the one you promote would be able to work.
Trusting totally free market to be able to regulate itself.

Countless other delusions, which are supported by the extremely rationnal and objective "you're just a stupid commie" argument when anyone argue they could be false

What is an "emotional belief"?

Belief that is based not on rationnal thinking, but on emotion, desire, wishful thinking, hopes, fears, trauma, etc... Usually rooted in the unconscious/subconscious.
Sometimes, it can disguise itself as rationnal thinking, making the person persuaded that she's really logical and right.

Examples :
- A woman that has been dropped, which just doesn't want to accept that her man doesn't love her anymore. Shout things like :
"no he still loves me, he just doesn't realize it !"

- Einstein, when faced with the quantum theory, refusing to see it was actually working :
"God does not play dices."

- An average guy, faced with a culture and a race he doesn't know.
"They aren't like us, anyway... Their black color must reflect the blackness of their heart. They aren't really humans."

Etc., I think you got the point.

How are we warping reality?

Just see above, in the delusions.

Why don't you explain your insults a bit?

For the same reason you don't explain your "bah, if you're a socialist, then you're stupid". Of course, for you it's not an insult, it's just plainly obvious and logical.
The catch is, when I "insult" you, it's also obvious and logical for me

And yes, it is like religious people arguing over creationism and evolution. Except in this case, you are abandoning logic and behaving as the creationists do.

See just above

For me, you're the one behaving as a creationist.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Semantics, semantics

Rand's theory equates what is absolutely valid with what is valid for the individual. Of course, there is a big hole in there, and to cover it, the concept of absolutely valid morals is introduced. However, the hole is only scaresly patched.

Screwing your fellow man is not the issue here. The issue is that if such a thing is beneficial for one, it should be absolutely beneficial. So the question is: Is it it my best interest to be screwed over? (j/k)


As for love, I think here we also have a diference in semantics. Newfangle, perhaps you wish to define it.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Akka



Belief that is based not on rationnal thinking, but on emotion, desire, wishful thinking, hopes, fears, trauma, etc... Usually rooted in the unconscious/subconscious.

You're going to have to present a very convincing argument showing that emotion is man's primary took of survival.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin

As for love, I think here we also have a diference in semantics. Newfangle, perhaps you wish to define it.

Two people united in a relationship (whether intimate or not) where they share similar values.

Sex is the physical manefestation of love.

My definition of love usually does not apply to mother and child, for example. (unless you live in Alabama).