I don't understand what you're saying here? If you're forcibly splitting up wealth while ignoring economic merit, you're not talking about capitalism.
When you said this:
'Do you really think that? Do you have air conditioning? How many calories did you eat today? What's your home made of? Do you have a car? How about a television, or a radio? How much money in your pocket?'
So, I was using the same logic you used on baraka to answer you when I said:
it would be better if everything were equal to begin with and even if I split up the small share I have, it isn't going to make the system we live in any less capitalistic.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The free market is not "supported by public goods and services". That's like suggesting that good is "supported by" evil, or that evil is "supported by" good. Just because they coexist, and come into contact, does not mean they support one another. They contradict one another. Public goods and services contradict free markets, and vice versa.
I'm not sure what you mean by "[you] think everything you make is by your effort alone". This is not an objectivist view. Things are made by the people who make them.
??? Yes it is! Another off the wall analogy to misdirect, eh? I'm on to you objectivists! Apparently is has and does work. Whether it needs improvement is the question.
The statement of mine that you quoted above is exactly what you've been saying to us over and over again, is it not? You know, the old 'use your mind' etc, etc. Don't back-peddle now.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Oh but it does work VERY well. It true that there is no church, etc. It is somewhat of a fringe following, like most cults.
Hehe...you're really just screwing with me, right? This is entertaining.
Unlike most cults, there is no church for this "fringe following". There is no figurehead. There is no belief in a coming "Armageddon". Objectivism prescribes only individual adherence to reason. That's it. Lots of objectivists find much joy in actually attacking parts of Rand's ideology and trying to advance it, not accepting it as dogma.
I need to find you the link that I read the other night. Back in the day, apparently many of her leading followers began to speak with a noticeable accent, a Russian accent like Rand's, although each and every one of them had been born in North America. I fund this ironic, since the 'individual' is the premise of much of their arguments.
That would be ironic. Look, I have no doubt that there have been objectivists who simply were attacted to Rand's personality. But this is not a common or defining part of objectivism. Personally, I'm a huge fan of Rand's works, but I don't feel a need to speak in Russian accents.
I don't want to turn this thread into a Ayn Rand thread, but she was NO philosopher.
That is incorrect. Rand was primarily a philosopher. Her novels are not literary works by any definition other than volume. They are philosophical treatises in the form of a novels. Absent the philosophy, the works would be worthy of little literary note.
I haven't read any of her novels to comment on them (although I do plan on reading Atlas Shrugged). In her nonfiction tirades, Rand quotes mainly from her own works. This was due not only to her inflated self-estimate, but also to a colossal ignorance. Seems like she read almost nothing but detective novels. Her 'philosophy' of rational self-interest was an eccentric modern variation on a much older philosophical tradition. The only precedent she acknowledged was Aristotle from what I can tell. I have to admit, I find her very interesting as I like reading about unusual personalities and beliefs.
I have no idea where you're getting this stuff from, but most of it is incorrect. Rand was a very well-read student of philosophy. Her favorite novels were not "detective novels", but the literary works of the Romantic period, particularly Rostand and Hugo (the poet and playwrite). Aristotle was definitely the major philosophical influence on Rand, however, so that part is correct.
??? Yes it is! Another off the wall analogy to misdirect, eh? I'm on to you objectivists! Apparently is has and does work. Whether it needs improvement is the question.
The statement of mine that you quoted above is exactly what you've been saying to us over and over again, is it not? You know, the old 'use your mind' etc, etc. Don't back-peddle now.
Baraka, you're confusing "free market" with "corporation" or "American economic system". Once you enter public goods into the market, you've waved goodbye to "free market". There's no free market found in corporations getting money expropriated from citizens, or citizens receiving goods and services expropriated from corporations. The free market ends at exactly the point willful exchange does.
'Do you really think that? Do you have air conditioning? How many calories did you eat today? What's your home made of? Do you have a car? How about a television, or a radio? How much money in your pocket?'
That's not the same logic. The above was in response to your statement about believing it to be wrong to have more than someone else. I certainly respect your rights to have air conditioning, eat food, have a home and have a car to whatever extent you want, regardless of what others have.
So, I was using the same logic you used on baraka to answer you when I said:
it would be better if everything were equal to begin with and even if I split up the small share I have, it isn't going to make the system we live in any less capitalistic.
Your purpose is compassion and sharing, based on your own language. So giving away your money and sharing whatever goods you have would certainly make the system we live in more like what you want.
Me not using "public goods" that I'm already paying for doesn't change anything vis a vis the system. What would accomplish this is what many hardcore objectivists do -- shrugging. This means withholding your labor from the system. I disagree with this approach, however, since it involves self-sacrifice.
I remember way back in the day, upon meeting farfromglorified, and finding out about his Ayn Rand "thing" that I decided to read some books on the subject. Especially since I have two siblings who worship the woman to a degree that they've used her as justification to make skewed choices(edit: that painfully dramatically affected my mental health issues, negatively.). I was ready to find out the truth and let go of my own personal issues on the subject.
I do agree, ffg, that Ayn Rand is a philosopher. What I most appreciate about her was her interest in how people think/epistemology. The books I read, which were primarily written by the Branden's--both Nathaniel and his wife Barbara--were quite illuminating.
Both were very high ranking of the "Randroids" (as some referred to them as). Ayn Rand herself "jokingly" called the inner circle the "Collective", which is telling in itself.
Nathaniel Branden, from meeting Ayn when he was 19, was considered by her to be her intellectual heir. He eventually went on to have a long standing affair with her, while they were both married to their spouses.
Ultimately, Nathaniel Branden went on to become a psychologist. Even after falling out with Rand, he always stood by the objectivist philosophy, however, he expanded upon it, and integrated it with the balance of the emotional perspective, as well. He believes her view was perfect for what it was. But that it was not complete unless it was integrated with the other aspects of life that cannot be ignored.
Ayn Rand is a logical, objective thinker. However, she did not balance her objectivity with her emotional self. This is represented by nicotine addiction (all addictions represent stunted emotional issues), and "falling" into an affair "accidentally" by denying the emotional signs that were there for everyone to notice long before the affair took place. She eventually succumbed to lung cancer, caused by her addiction which along with the underlying emotional issues was obviously was never resolved and integrated with the whole of her personality.
As much as I have spent over 20 years of my life wanting to prove or at least make Ayn Rand wrong, I was actually unable to do so, because by the time I read up on this stuff, I was looking to lay aside my own biased view (based on my own natural wiring which is different than hers) and get the truth. I completely get what Nathaniel Branden says--and from what you've specifically told me farfromglorified--that the bottom line may be perfect and valid. And yet, what baraka is seeing, and that is not your focus on such matters, in order to address the whole picture, we must also deal with the emotional aspects of issues. Well, we can choose to ignore them, and they don't go away. So ultimately, while the logic is perfectly sound, and I can't seem to disagree, technically (and again, I've tried!), Ayn Rand, herself was biased to her own thinking strengths, and only represented a part of the puzzle, not a philosophy that was ultimately complete, imo.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I remember way back in the day, upon meeting farfromglorified, and finding out about his Ayn Rand "thing" that I decided to read some books on the subject. Especially since I have two siblings who worship the woman to a degree that they've used her as justification to make skewed choices(edit: that painfully dramatically affected my mental health issues, negatively.). I was ready to find out the truth and let go of my own personal issues on the subject.
I do agree, ffg, that Ayn Rand is a philosopher. What I most appreciate about her was her interest in how people think/epistemology. The books I read, which were primarily written by the Branden's--both Nathaniel and his wife Barbara--were quite illuminating.
Both were very high ranking of the "Randroids" (as some referred to them as). Ayn Rand herself "jokingly" called the inner circle the "Collective", which is telling in itself.
Nathaniel Branden, from meeting Ayn when he was 19, was considered by her to be her intellectual heir. He eventually went on to have a long standing affair with her, while they were both married to their spouses.
Ultimately, Nathaniel Branden went on to become a psychologist. Even after falling out with Rand, he always stood by the objectivist philosophy, however, he expanded upon it, and integrated it with the balance of the emotional perspective, as well. He believes her view was perfect for what it was. But that it was not complete unless it was integrated with the other aspects of life that cannot be ignored.
Ayn Rand is a logical, objective thinker. However, she did not balance her objectivity with her emotional self. This is represented by nicotine addiction (all addictions represent stunted emotional issues), and "falling" into an affair "accidentally" by denying the emotional signs that were there for everyone to notice long before the affair took place. She eventually succumbed to lung cancer, caused by her addiction which along with the underlying emotional issues was obviously was never resolved and integrated with the whole of her personality.
As much as I have spent over 20 years of my life wanting to prove or at least make Ayn Rand wrong, I was actually unable to do so, because by the time I read up on this stuff, I was looking to lay aside my own biased view (based on my own natural wiring which is different than hers) and get the truth. I completely get what Nathaniel Branden says--and from what you've specifically told me farfromglorified--that the bottom line may be perfect and valid. And yet, what baraka is seeing, and that is not your focus on such matters, in order to address the whole picture, we must also deal with the emotional aspects of issues. Well, we can choose to ignore them, and they don't go away. So ultimately, while the logic is perfectly sound, and I can't seem to disagree, technically (and again, I've tried!), Ayn Rand, herself was biased to her own thinking strengths, and only represented a part of the puzzle, not a philosophy that was ultimately complete, imo.
Hehe...you're really just screwing with me, right? This is entertaining.
Unlike most cults, there is no church for this "fringe following". There is no figurehead. There is no belief in a coming "Armageddon". Objectivism prescribes only individual adherence to reason. That's it. Lots of objectivists find much joy in actually attacking parts of Rand's ideology and trying to advance it, not accepting it as dogma.
Look, I'm just calling a spade a spade. I know the word 'cult' connotes some sort of religious group for you, but cults are not for the religious exclusively. This early objectivist movement led by the charismatic Rand was nothing short of a cult. Now I will agree that there are probably those out there that subscribe to her philosophies, but do not 'hang' on her every word. You are probably fall in that category.
That is incorrect. Rand was primarily a philosopher. Her novels are not literary works by any definition other than volume. They are philosophical treatises in the form of a novels. Absent the philosophy, the works would be worthy of little literary note.
Maybe in your and other 'Randians' opinion. It's interesting the devoted followers and detractors she attracts. She's not taken very seriously by the academic community as a philosopher, her assumptions about human nature do not match scientific knowledge of human nature. But the public loves her, almost the way real philosophers seem to be loved in Europe. She may be the only contemporary that used fiction as a tool, unless you consider guys with philosophy degrees that choose to write or make films, like Terrence Malick, to be philosophers.
I have no idea where you're getting this stuff from, but most of it is incorrect. Rand was a very well-read student of philosophy. Her favorite novels were not "detective novels", but the literary works of the Romantic period, particularly Rostand and Hugo (the poet and playwrite). Aristotle was definitely the major philosophical influence on Rand, however, so that part is correct.
I'll concede that I only know what I've recently read online, which has been both flattering and otherwise. In my opinion, she's not an amateur philosopher so much as an amateur economist. When I read one of her books, I'll give my opinion of her fiction.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Baraka, you're confusing "free market" with "corporation" or "American economic system". Once you enter public goods into the market, you've waved goodbye to "free market". There's no free market found in corporations getting money expropriated from citizens, or citizens receiving goods and services expropriated from corporations. The free market ends at exactly the point willful exchange does.
Maybe I was unclear. I agree with you that we do not live in a straight-up laissez fair society, but libertarian free-market arguments are old arguments resurrected from the 19th century, and were rejected in the early 20th for good reasons.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm all for that. "Fringe movement" would be very appropriate. "Cult", however, has too many connotations that directly contradict objectivism.
I know the word 'cult' connotes some sort of religious group for you, but cults are not for the religious exclusively.
It's not just the religious aspects. It's the organizational and dogmatic ones too. Objectivsm is primarily about free thinking, and free thinking directly violates the idea of cults.
I just wanted to quote this because I found it funny.
That it is
Maybe in your and other 'Randians' opinion. It's interesting the devoted followers and detractors she attracts. She's not taken very seriously by the academic community as a philosopher, her assumptions about human nature do not match scientific knowledge of human nature. But the public loves her, almost the way real philosophers seem to be loved in Europe. She may be the only contemporary that used fiction as a tool, unless you consider guys with philosophy degrees that choose to write or make films, like Terrence Malick, to be philosophers.
Rand was definitely not taken seriously by academics. But a lot of that also has to do with the fact that she is incredible hostile to both academics and also everything that makes their lives possible. Rand's views ran incredibly contrary to dominant academic ideologies at the time, and since. However, Rand gets more and more attention in academic circles each year. None of this proves or disproves her ideology, but it simply plays a part in the interesting relationship academia has had with Rand over the years.
I'll concede that I only know what I've recently read online, which has been both flattering and otherwise. In my opinion, she's not an amateur philosopher so much as an amateur economist. When I read one of her books, I'll give my opinion of her fiction.
Well, her philosophical views are inextricably linked with economics as well as physics. Rand attempts to bridge the gaps between philpsophy and concretes, so it is different than many which rely only on abstracts and liguistics.
Maybe I was unclear. I agree with you that we do not live in a straight-up laissez fair society, but libertarian free-market arguments are old arguments resurrected from the 19th century, and were rejected in the early 20th for good reasons.
Libertarian free-market arguments are much older than the 19th century. The 19th century, at least in America, was marked by the biggest violation possible in free-market thinking -- slavery. Regardless, they have existed in many forms since the dawn of civilization. And they were rejected in the 20th century largely for the reason of warfare, which I don't really accept as a "good reason".
I mean a soldier's political beliefs, religious beliefs, or any other beliefs for that matter need to be put on the back-burner and orders need to be followed (i.e. being a 'good nazi').
...
Just because you enlist doesn't mean you disengage your moral compass and become a robot of the government. They are STILL human beings... with morals and beliefs. 'Being a Good Nazi' and being a good soldier are two different things. A Good Nazi will shoot to kill on political orders... a good soldier will question the motives to kill and disobey an unlawful order... such as if a commander in Katrina ravaged New Orleans gave shoot to kill orders to his soldiers when Americans dying of thirst rushed the supply convoy. A Good Nazi would have given the order and Good Nazis would have opened fire on unarmed American Citizens.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
When you said this:
'Do you really think that? Do you have air conditioning? How many calories did you eat today? What's your home made of? Do you have a car? How about a television, or a radio? How much money in your pocket?'
So, I was using the same logic you used on baraka to answer you when I said:
it would be better if everything were equal to begin with and even if I split up the small share I have, it isn't going to make the system we live in any less capitalistic.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
??? Yes it is! Another off the wall analogy to misdirect, eh? I'm on to you objectivists!
The statement of mine that you quoted above is exactly what you've been saying to us over and over again, is it not? You know, the old 'use your mind' etc, etc. Don't back-peddle now.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hehe...you're really just screwing with me, right? This is entertaining.
Unlike most cults, there is no church for this "fringe following". There is no figurehead. There is no belief in a coming "Armageddon". Objectivism prescribes only individual adherence to reason. That's it. Lots of objectivists find much joy in actually attacking parts of Rand's ideology and trying to advance it, not accepting it as dogma.
That would be ironic. Look, I have no doubt that there have been objectivists who simply were attacted to Rand's personality. But this is not a common or defining part of objectivism. Personally, I'm a huge fan of Rand's works, but I don't feel a need to speak in Russian accents.
That is incorrect. Rand was primarily a philosopher. Her novels are not literary works by any definition other than volume. They are philosophical treatises in the form of a novels. Absent the philosophy, the works would be worthy of little literary note.
I have no idea where you're getting this stuff from, but most of it is incorrect. Rand was a very well-read student of philosophy. Her favorite novels were not "detective novels", but the literary works of the Romantic period, particularly Rostand and Hugo (the poet and playwrite). Aristotle was definitely the major philosophical influence on Rand, however, so that part is correct.
Baraka, you're confusing "free market" with "corporation" or "American economic system". Once you enter public goods into the market, you've waved goodbye to "free market". There's no free market found in corporations getting money expropriated from citizens, or citizens receiving goods and services expropriated from corporations. The free market ends at exactly the point willful exchange does.
That's not the same logic. The above was in response to your statement about believing it to be wrong to have more than someone else. I certainly respect your rights to have air conditioning, eat food, have a home and have a car to whatever extent you want, regardless of what others have.
Your purpose is compassion and sharing, based on your own language. So giving away your money and sharing whatever goods you have would certainly make the system we live in more like what you want.
Me not using "public goods" that I'm already paying for doesn't change anything vis a vis the system. What would accomplish this is what many hardcore objectivists do -- shrugging. This means withholding your labor from the system. I disagree with this approach, however, since it involves self-sacrifice.
I do agree, ffg, that Ayn Rand is a philosopher. What I most appreciate about her was her interest in how people think/epistemology. The books I read, which were primarily written by the Branden's--both Nathaniel and his wife Barbara--were quite illuminating.
Both were very high ranking of the "Randroids" (as some referred to them as). Ayn Rand herself "jokingly" called the inner circle the "Collective", which is telling in itself.
Nathaniel Branden, from meeting Ayn when he was 19, was considered by her to be her intellectual heir. He eventually went on to have a long standing affair with her, while they were both married to their spouses.
Ultimately, Nathaniel Branden went on to become a psychologist. Even after falling out with Rand, he always stood by the objectivist philosophy, however, he expanded upon it, and integrated it with the balance of the emotional perspective, as well. He believes her view was perfect for what it was. But that it was not complete unless it was integrated with the other aspects of life that cannot be ignored.
Ayn Rand is a logical, objective thinker. However, she did not balance her objectivity with her emotional self. This is represented by nicotine addiction (all addictions represent stunted emotional issues), and "falling" into an affair "accidentally" by denying the emotional signs that were there for everyone to notice long before the affair took place. She eventually succumbed to lung cancer, caused by her addiction which along with the underlying emotional issues was obviously was never resolved and integrated with the whole of her personality.
As much as I have spent over 20 years of my life wanting to prove or at least make Ayn Rand wrong, I was actually unable to do so, because by the time I read up on this stuff, I was looking to lay aside my own biased view (based on my own natural wiring which is different than hers) and get the truth. I completely get what Nathaniel Branden says--and from what you've specifically told me farfromglorified--that the bottom line may be perfect and valid. And yet, what baraka is seeing, and that is not your focus on such matters, in order to address the whole picture, we must also deal with the emotional aspects of issues. Well, we can choose to ignore them, and they don't go away. So ultimately, while the logic is perfectly sound, and I can't seem to disagree, technically (and again, I've tried!), Ayn Rand, herself was biased to her own thinking strengths, and only represented a part of the puzzle, not a philosophy that was ultimately complete, imo.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I disagree with none of this.
Look, I'm just calling a spade a spade. I know the word 'cult' connotes some sort of religious group for you, but cults are not for the religious exclusively. This early objectivist movement led by the charismatic Rand was nothing short of a cult. Now I will agree that there are probably those out there that subscribe to her philosophies, but do not 'hang' on her every word. You are probably fall in that category.
I just wanted to quote this because I found it funny.
Maybe in your and other 'Randians' opinion. It's interesting the devoted followers and detractors she attracts. She's not taken very seriously by the academic community as a philosopher, her assumptions about human nature do not match scientific knowledge of human nature. But the public loves her, almost the way real philosophers seem to be loved in Europe. She may be the only contemporary that used fiction as a tool, unless you consider guys with philosophy degrees that choose to write or make films, like Terrence Malick, to be philosophers.
I'll concede that I only know what I've recently read online, which has been both flattering and otherwise. In my opinion, she's not an amateur philosopher so much as an amateur economist. When I read one of her books, I'll give my opinion of her fiction.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Maybe I was unclear. I agree with you that we do not live in a straight-up laissez fair society, but libertarian free-market arguments are old arguments resurrected from the 19th century, and were rejected in the early 20th for good reasons.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm all for that. "Fringe movement" would be very appropriate. "Cult", however, has too many connotations that directly contradict objectivism.
It's not just the religious aspects. It's the organizational and dogmatic ones too. Objectivsm is primarily about free thinking, and free thinking directly violates the idea of cults.
That it is
Rand was definitely not taken seriously by academics. But a lot of that also has to do with the fact that she is incredible hostile to both academics and also everything that makes their lives possible. Rand's views ran incredibly contrary to dominant academic ideologies at the time, and since. However, Rand gets more and more attention in academic circles each year. None of this proves or disproves her ideology, but it simply plays a part in the interesting relationship academia has had with Rand over the years.
Well, her philosophical views are inextricably linked with economics as well as physics. Rand attempts to bridge the gaps between philpsophy and concretes, so it is different than many which rely only on abstracts and liguistics.
Libertarian free-market arguments are much older than the 19th century. The 19th century, at least in America, was marked by the biggest violation possible in free-market thinking -- slavery. Regardless, they have existed in many forms since the dawn of civilization. And they were rejected in the 20th century largely for the reason of warfare, which I don't really accept as a "good reason".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Just because you enlist doesn't mean you disengage your moral compass and become a robot of the government. They are STILL human beings... with morals and beliefs. 'Being a Good Nazi' and being a good soldier are two different things. A Good Nazi will shoot to kill on political orders... a good soldier will question the motives to kill and disobey an unlawful order... such as if a commander in Katrina ravaged New Orleans gave shoot to kill orders to his soldiers when Americans dying of thirst rushed the supply convoy. A Good Nazi would have given the order and Good Nazis would have opened fire on unarmed American Citizens.
Hail, Hail!!!