Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I eliminated your comment about not reading her because I have read her.
To start with ... Rand's complementary philosophies of "objectivism" and "virtues of selfishness" are in fact the very essence of the values of our country, as envisioned by the founders and defined in the US Constitution. Perfectly compatible. Your confusion here is understandable because so many haven't a clue about what those values really are ... hence the crap hole of degradation and lack of morality and ethics that we have now, that was once a great nation of integrity. Take a poll, and you will find that the majority of the deluded, uneducated public believe that they actually live in a democracy, if you care to challenge my contentions? Yet in spite of popular opinion, we are not a democracy, but are a Constitutional Republic. And this is where the rubber meets the road.
No, they are not at all the values of the United States Constitution or of this country though parts of Objectivism are. Yes, you are correct though that we are a Constitutional Republic, on that we agree.
Our constitution strenuously emphasizes "individual rights and liberty". In fact, one could safely say that it is preoccupied with it. It focuses on limiting the powers of government (government being a collective of the people), while protecting the individual from that "collective" trampling his individual rights, which are held sacred. Even our Declaration of Independence opens early with the concept that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Correct? Are you with me so far?
Yes, the government is limited and the rights of the individual are protected from the rights of the collective, but the problem you have is that you forget how much of our government regulations must protect the citizen from those who would trample on him with their greed and selfishness.
Now tell me ... are these not the the principles which are the embodiment of "selfishness" expressed clearly ... i.e., the concern for ones individual self interests .... or is it the altruistic values of self-less-ness for which you claim is the only legitimate path for for a decent society? The correct answer is "self interests" are preeminent, according to the philosophy of the founders of our nation.
I would not claim altruism as a basis, but neither would I claim selfishness. It is important to help those less fortunate than yourself when you can even if those less fortunate happen to be unknown to you. In the days when our communities where small, people often came together to help others in their times of need. They did NOT say I will only help my neighbor rebuild his house if he is worthy, but I will help my neighbor because he is a part of my community.
The confusion you suffer stems from an emotional, reactionary mindset that has been programmed into your psyche long ago, establishing this unbreakable link between "selfish" and "evil", so anyone that tries to suggest the opposite ... or contend that there is a link between selfishness and virtue is immediately dismissed. But logically, this makes no sense at all. It's a complete illusion (or delusion) to think this way. As an example, when you get hungry and choose to make a sandwich and eat it .. is the act evil? Do you pay your electric bill out of compassion for the best interests of the power company's profits, or do you do it out of self interests ... i.e., to avoid having your electricity turned off? I could list thousands of similar activities that prove that you and everyone else alive act selfishly in almost everything you do on a daily basis. Are you acting in an evil manner constantly? Of course not. Eating a sandwich and paying your electric bill on time is OBVIOUSLY not evil ... but it is in your own best interests to do so ... and therefore an act of "selfishness". So, can you at least agree that selfishness is not ALWAYS an act of evil or even a bad thing? Try. It's important to the larger point.
By the same token, altruistic actions are automatically considered to be good, by most people. And this too is an emotional response based on psychological conditioning. We are programmed to believe that the selfless act of doing things for the benefit of others is the most high minded, positive expression of behavior, ALWAYS. But is it really? Well, it's a trick question. You really cannot answer the question logically or legitimately. The reality is, whether you are acting selfishly or selflessly, this has no bearing at all on whether the action itself is good or bad. The motive for someone's actions do not define the act. Only the act itself, defines good or bad. Do you get this?
Let's use another analogy to illustrate this point ... let's say some crack addict robs a liquor store, so that he can buy more crack. Most of us would agree that this was a bad act .. and also selfish. But did the selfish nature of the act define the act as bad? Let's take the same scenario, only this time, replace the crack addict with a guy who has never broken a law .... an otherwise decent fellow who has never been in trouble and never been violent or stolen from anyone. He was laid off from his job ... can't find a new one ... money has run out and his pregnant wife and his two small children are at home, with not a crumb of food in the fridge. Out of pure desperation and love for his family, and for the sole purpose of getting some money to feed his hungry children ... he robs the liquor store. Is that OK? Is it OK to rob the store because he did it to feed his children? One could say that act was indeed selfless .. since he's risking going to prison for a long time if he's caught .... and he wasn't doing this for himself or his benefit ... he was doing it for his hungry innocent children. No .. the reasons or motives have no bearing at all on the fact that robing a liquor store is bad. Consequently (if you're still with me), eating a sandwich when you are hungry is selfish, but not at all evil, while robbing a liquor store, even if it's only out of the selfless desire to buy some milk for your hungry children is not good.
You pose a philosophical dilemma in black and white instead of looking at the circumstances just as Rand does. And frankly, Rand would be the first to rob the liquor store to feed herself, imo. Remember how she was against social security and medicare until she got cancer. She then decided it was fine for her to take the government funds. And if you think that because she paid in, she was entitled to it, you must remember that it is the generation after her that paid her benefits not her own funds.
This is just the starting point and foundation to Ayn Rand's philosophical "virtues of selfishness". What she explains far more eloquently that I can, though perhaps a bit over some peoples heads, is that this counter philosophy to "bad" selfishness ... "altruism" or good selfless action ... is the real evil because it demands that we replace morality with motive as the defining point for what is good and what is evil. It is the essence of "collectivism" and of the philosophy that the ends justify the means, thereby opening the door wide to rationalizing almost any action, no matter how evil or immoral that action might be, under the guise of good intentions and out of concern for the majority best interests. And isn't this the most common tactic and philosophy used by government? "We're doing this for your own good"? "You must comply with this requirement for the greater good of all"? "We have to go to war and bomb that country because they are oppressing their people". How about this ... "We have to go to war because it is in the best interests of the American people if Saddam Hussein is removed from power" ?
Hitler used this "collectivist" mindset to justify his actions too. Hitler actually believed he was acting in the best interests of the German people that he loved, by creating a powerful, dominant Germany that would never again suffer the consequences of the aftermath of WW I. Therefore, he justified his evil actions as necessary for the greater good, thereby using motive to define his actions as good, while Millions of Germans agreed with him. Ultimately, it led to self destruction.
Ayn Rand's contentions are that society requires a code of ethics and morality which defines good and bad, and that this code should govern individual behavior. The individual agreeing to abide that code is then free to act according to his own best interests as he should do, rather than wait and hope that someone else's selfless actions provides for his needs.
This really is the only formula for which freedom and liberty can survive, and is the soul of the American spirit. This philosophy of individual freedom (selfishness) governed by ethics and morality is the foundational philosophy of our Constitutional Republic, where individual liberty is paramount, guaranteed and protected by law.
This nonsense about selfless behavior focused on serving others without regard for one's own self interests is a big deception. It's designed to convince you to embrace the idea that it's good to be a lifelong servant, and evil to pursue your own interests and happiness. And that's no accident. The government wants you to be it's servant .... which is the opposite of our founding fathers, who believed that the government should be the servant of the people.
To thine own self be true.
Most of Rand's philosophy is black and white with little concession to individual thought. While some of this is something I agree with, unfortunately, I think Rand is not nuanced enough for our economic discussion.
Ultimately the Objectivist movement failed for the same reason that communism failed: it tried to make its people live by the dictates of a totalizing ideology that failed to honor the realities of human existence. Rand’s movement devolved into a corrupt and cruel parody of itself. She herself never won sustained personal influence within mainstream conservatism or the Republican Party. Her ideological purity and her unstable personality prevented her from forming lasting coalitions with anybody who disagreed with any element of her catechism.
Quote:
Is income really a measure of productivity? Of course not. Consider your own profession. Do your colleagues who demonstrate the greatest skill unfailingly earn the most money, and those with the most meager skill the least money? I certainly cannot say that of my profession. Nor do I know anybody who would say that of his own line of work. Most of us perceive a world with its share of overpaid incompetents and underpaid talents. Which is to say, we rightly reject the notion of the market as the perfect gauge of social value.
And there is page chock full of info at this website as well.
Anyone who is a practicing Christian and a follower of Ayn Rand's philosophy better put on the brakes, because you have been had.
The worship of the self is Satanism to the core, where you are your own GOD and need no-one or nothing.
Comparing Rand's philosophy to Satinism is just silly, and would only be done by someone that has never actually read any of her work. Like, it appears, all but about 3 of the posters in this thread. Rand attacked mysticism of any type, as an adbigation of reason, of self and of reality. It didn't matter what supernatural being was involved, she was equally critical of all. Satinism, Christianity, Islam, Buddism, all have far more in common with each other, than with Objectivism. One of her articles (or chapters in a book perhaps, I forget which) was titled "Faith and Force, Destroyers of the Modern World". Mysticism (faith) being the belief that a supernatural being had the right to dictate how you live your life and spend your earnings, force the belief that government had that right.
That's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me! Believe it or not, my strong background in Christianity has revealed a path to reconcile the two philosophies
Oh, you know I'd love to hear it! Love to hear how you navigate through that whole A=A business and around one of the things Rand gets correct: If God is everything, God is nothing.
What is it with people who think they can get into Rand's head? And good grief, her books were fiction! They do not give any insight into her own beliefs.
Oh, but they do. You have to understand that she wrote her fiction to get out her philosophy. Read her own words on that.
Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman.
She modeled her heroes on him. Interesting, isn't it?
Comparing Rand's philosophy to Satinism is just silly, and would only be done by someone that has never actually read any of her work. Like, it appears, all but about 3 of the posters in this thread. Rand attacked mysticism of any type, as an adbigation of reason, of self and of reality. It didn't matter what supernatural being was involved, she was equally critical of all. Satinism, Christianity, Islam, Buddism, all have far more in common with each other, than with Objectivism. One of her articles (or chapters in a book perhaps, I forget which) was titled "Faith and Force, Destroyers of the Modern World". Mysticism (faith) being the belief that a supernatural being had the right to dictate how you live your life and spend your earnings, force the belief that government had that right.
As much as I love her, and I do love her, her grasp of Christianity was that of a child, as is the case with the vast majority of those who claim to follow it. I don't think she had any motive to pursue a degree in the art, but had she, I think she would have shifted 45 degrees.
For the average Objectivist or Christian, because neither live it, they'll never understand the consistency between the two, and that's probably for the best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometclear
Oh, you know I'd love to hear it! Love to hear how you navigate through that whole A=A business and around one of the things Rand gets correct: If God is everything, God is nothing.
Okay, you're on!
I chatter a lot about things that I shoudn't, but I draw the line at revealing the messages of works of art. It keeps me on God's good side.
I read that she regarded warnings against smoking as a socialist plot. Really.
As I recall, she was also opposed to facial hair on men. Alan Greenspan, Nathaniel Branden, Leonard Peikoff and the rest of the men in the cult could not grow beards and they were encouraged to smoke. Beatles music was "irrational," so you couldn't listen to contemporary pop music. You can imagine how much fun it was. She was all about achieving glorious, rational happiness, of course.
I wasn't attacking Rand's belief in the Supernatural but how her Philosophy is aligned with the Philosophy of Satanism. Where, the worship of the self and the ego is all that matters, and that they are in need of no God or no-one because they are there own God.
That is Satanism to the core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
Comparing Rand's philosophy to Satinism is just silly, and would only be done by someone that has never actually read any of her work. Like, it appears, all but about 3 of the posters in this thread. Rand attacked mysticism of any type, as an adbigation of reason, of self and of reality. It didn't matter what supernatural being was involved, she was equally critical of all. Satinism, Christianity, Islam, Buddism, all have far more in common with each other, than with Objectivism. One of her articles (or chapters in a book perhaps, I forget which) was titled "Faith and Force, Destroyers of the Modern World". Mysticism (faith) being the belief that a supernatural being had the right to dictate how you live your life and spend your earnings, force the belief that government had that right.
No, you don't understand Rand. Her hero in Atlas Shrugged cared for others and even supported his brother who was a useless leech.
OTOH, Howard Roark, according to Rand's own description "was born without the ability to consider others."
Of course, It is not John Galt (the hero of the novel), but Hank Reardon who has a brother and Hank refuses to hire him when his mother asks him to give him a job saying that Phillip is a wastrel who refuses to work. I'm not exactly sure how that counts as supporting him.
Of course, It is not John Galt (the hero of the novel), but Hank Reardon who has a brother and Hank refuses to hire him when his mother asks him to give him a job saying that Phillip is a wastrel who refuses to work. I'm not exactly sure how that counts as supporting him.
Rearden was supporting Phillip financially. At the time when their mother asked him to give the other a job, Rearden was beyond the talons of guilt. He refused to give the job because Phillip was not qualified to work, suffered a bad work ethic, and had used Rearden's money to cause his company harm, but Rearden continued to support Phillip financially.
It's also notable that Phillip wanted the job so that he could spy on and prepare Rearden's factory for a violent take-over.
She modeled her heroes on him. Interesting, isn't it?
Thank you for posting that link. I was unaware of this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
