Atlas Shrugged

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

Point is, as an engineer I have to set aside my preconceived notions every day at work or I'll make a mistake when reviewing data. Being objective is definitely possible.

Actually being truly objective is not possible. But engineers like to think they have that ability. That is part of the irony.

[BeyGon]

Foxpaws, most times the left doesn't like something or someone I know there must be something good about it. In this case, Now I really want to see the movie.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

-
so - Self achievement and value trump Christian values - you did get it AirKuhl -


I would really wonder if Rand would like the excuses you have made for her - She wouldn't you know...

I have to agree with you on why altruism goes downhill fast if it is forced - but Rand was against all altruism...

If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.

Being unselfish - or to have concern for others creates a better civilization - when it is voluntary - but in her world - all altruism needs to be rejected. MRM is correct with his statements about Rand in her personal life. Charity was a weakness - unless of course, she needed it.

I don't condemn capitalism - I personally think it works better than anything else -what I condemn is completely unfettered capitalism - the type Rand held to the highest regard. I understand that there is a balance between regulation and laissez-faire - and that is what we strive to achieve here in the US. Rand's form of utopia is no more feasible than Marx's. Both don't take into account real human nature.

foxpaws, I enjoy your posts, but that is so far off that it's hard to take.

You are confusing so many issues, and misinterpreting and misunderstanding so much.

First, Rand's philosophy does not reject all altruism. You need to understand the context.

Rand attempted (a huge undertaking) to develop a complete, formal, integrated philosophy that covered all 5 branches of philosophy: Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics.

You are confusing two separate branches (and areas of analysis) when you talk about altruism and capitalism. Capitalism is a *political* system. Altruism is not a political system.

Altruism is studied in the areas of ethics (or morality). When Rand discusses altruism, she does it in the context of a core ethical principal - i.e., the purpose of your life. She's not talking about whether your let your brother in law stay in your house for a month while he looks for a job, or giving $5 to someone on the street. She's talking about altruism as a basis for a philosophy of ethics. What would that look like? That would be a system where at your core, you must put the interests of others in front of your own - the purpose of your life is self sacrifice for the benefit of others.

She doesn't argue that all altruism or altruistic acts must be rejected. That is a complete mischaracterization of her philosophy of ethics.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Actually being truly objective is not possible. But engineers like to think they have that ability. That is part of the irony.

A = A.

Objectively true, no?

[RWebb]

Altruism is also studied in the area of biology.

Reciprocal altruism is found in quite a few different species.

[aways]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

Foxpaws, most times the left doesn't like something or someone I know there must be something good about it. In this case, Now I really want to see the movie.

Exactly.... When I saw that she rated it a "4/10", I knew it was a must-see!

[gtc]

I just got an email from my County's GOP chairman. They are sponsoring a showing of Atlas Shrugged this weekend. Tickets are only - get this - $25 apiece.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by McLovin

A = A.

Objectively true, no?

depends - nice sophism though

[AirKuhl]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

-
so - Self achievement and value trump Christian values - you did get it AirKuhl -

You really seem to have an axe to grind here so I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears but:

Yes, she rejected Christianity as THE basis for morality. She believed that ethics and morality were possible without being based on a set of rules handed down by some superior being. She believed that they could be based on the one trait that make humans human, which is the ability to reason. In short, she believed that humans are inherently good. And being inherently good is logical.

I realize this view is the opposite of the liberal view that humans are inherently evil and thus their behavior must be carefully regulated by a better class of people who are able to make superior choices on their behalf. Isn't that the basic mechanism of any socialist or communist system? Isn't that also the inherent hypocrisy, that a classless society can only exist with a ruling class there to enforce it?

Ever wonder why socialist countries build walls to keep people in, and capitalist countries build walls to keep people out?

Originally Posted by foxpaws

I would really wonder if Rand would like the excuses you have made for her - She wouldn't you know...

I was not making any excuses for anyone, I was just establishing context. By thinking in terms of needing excuses, you are showing that you think her position is invalid, something I disagree with.

Originally Posted by foxpaws

I have to agree with you on why altruism goes downhill fast if it is forced - but Rand was against all altruism...

She was most certainly not, unless you are just playing with words out of context. The fact that I love my family and would do anything for them, or that I help my friends out when they need it, or that I choose to donate to the Susan Komen Foundation every year, or that I let someone with just a few items check out ahead of me in the grocery store is not in any way against the concepts of Objectivism. I do all of the above for my own private reasons, of my own free will, because I choose to do so. This simple fact makes all the difference in the world.

It's no accident that conservatives donate far more time and money to charitable causes than liberals, both as an absolute dollar figure and a percentage of income. Wanting a better world is very much part of enlightened self-interest.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by McLovin

First, Rand's philosophy does not reject all altruism. You need to understand the context.

I understand Rand's tenants of Objectivism...which is based on selfishness and does not permit sacrificing oneself to others. I know that doesn't rule out that helping another person can't fit into rational self-interest. Charity is not considered a necessary part of one's life in Objectivism, because it is not a major virtue.

But, what does happen is that, in reality, very little charity - if any, would take place in an objectivist society. Man is not by nature charitable, but greedy. In a society where self is raised to deity standards because there no longer is a deity - charity will, because of the nature of man, be forever relegated to almost 'sub human' status.

Rand attempted (a huge undertaking) to develop a complete, formal, integrated philosophy that covered all 5 branches of philosophy: Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics.

You are confusing two separate branches (and areas of analysis) when you talk about altruism and capitalism. Capitalism is a *political* system. Altruism is not a political system.

Altruism is studied in the areas of ethics (or morality). When Rand discusses altruism, she does it in the context of a core ethical principal - i.e., the purpose of your life. She's not talking about whether your let your brother in law stay in your house for a month while he looks for a job, or giving $5 to someone on the street. She's talking about altruism as a basis for a philosophy of ethics. What would that look like? That would be a system where at your core, you must put the interests of others in front of your own - the purpose of your life is self sacrifice for the benefit of others.

But - there is where she goes overboard - the purpose of your life should not solely be 'self interest' either. But, in the utopia of Rand - self interest in the only thing worth achieving. The soldier who throws his body over a grenade to save his fellow soldiers would be not glorified in Rand's world, but scoffed at. That is where she is wrong, where the egoist really emerges - there are very good examples of altruism in the world - the life of Jesus for instance - and she would throw them all out in search of her perfect utopia based on self alone. She looks for absolutes, when in reality there are none.

She doesn't argue that all altruism or altruistic acts must be rejected. That is a complete mischaracterization of her philosophy of ethics.

She does, it is part of her embracing of atheism. While allowing charity - altruism is truly a sin when it comes to Rand. Charity is quite different than altruism. Once again - she is a very black/white thinker - when in reality the grays are what make humans, human. It is part of the reason her books are deadly - there isn't any real conflict within the characters. And the reason Dagny is such a good character - it is the only character in her books that has self doubt, that struggles with an old concept of what is good, and the upcoming 'Galtian' concept of world order.

Oh aways and beygon - have fun going to the movie - I actually really like the old Fountainhead movie. While watching Taylor Shilling slog through the best character in the movie - imagine Patricia Neal in that role - If you can't get the main character cast correctly in Shrugged, it isn't going to be worth watching.

I will be interested to see if it can make enough money to finance part II.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

You really seem to have an axe to grind here so I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears but:

Yes, she rejected Christianity as THE basis for morality. She believed that ethics and morality were possible without being based on a set of rules handed down by some superior being. She believed that they could be based on the one trait that make humans human, which is the ability to reason. In short, she believed that humans are inherently good. And being inherently good is logical.

But she mistakenly throws all the dice there - she doesn't allow for the fact that over the short run being inherently bad can more logical.

Ever wonder why socialist countries build walls to keep people in, and capitalist countries build walls to keep people out?

And I agree - capitalism is better than socialism - however - not when you get to the extremes of either, then both are bad. There is a balance on what capitalism can achieve, and what a cooperative (or government) can give.

She was most certainly not, unless you are just playing with words out of context. The fact that I love my family and would do anything for them, or that I help my friends out when they need it, or that I choose to donate to the Susan Komen Foundation every year, or that I let someone with just a few items check out ahead of me in the grocery store is not in any way against the concepts of Objectivism. I do all of the above for my own private reasons, of my own free will, because I choose to do so. This simple fact makes all the difference in the world.

It's no accident that conservatives donate far more time and money to charitable causes than liberals, both as an absolute dollar figure and a percentage of income. Wanting a better world is very much part of enlightened self-interest.

So - just a little fact - remove giving to the church from the right (which of course would happen if we embrace objectivism) and the right falls way behind the left...

You can give to those things all you want - that isn't against objectivism. Feeling good because you give to the Komen Foundation gives you a 'selfish' reason. Giving becomes selfish - unlike what is proclaimed by most Christians, where you give selflessly. When giving has a goal - to create a selfish reason, such as feeling good - then soon, giving will 'give way' to other interests that make you feel better, that fed the selfish reason.

Remember 'honor they father and thy mother' is antithesis to Rand, family values...

[aways]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Oh aways and beygon - have fun going to the movie - I actually really like the old Fountainhead movie. While watching Taylor Shilling slog through the best character in the movie - imagine Patricia Neal in that role - If you can't get the main character cast correctly in Shrugged, it isn't going to be worth watching.

I will be interested to see if it can make enough money to finance part II.

I've never been one who puts much emphasis on a film's production quality, special effects, star appeal, etc. I'm strictly a plot guy, and in fact, it's a plus that there aren't any "name stars" in this film. I have no idea what to expect from Taylor Schilling, but I predict that she'll do no worse that whatever "big name" leftist Hollywood bimbo a major studio would have come up with would have done. If she does, I'll be the first to acknowledge it.

[AirKuhl]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

But she mistakenly throws all the dice there - she doesn't allow for the fact that over the short run being inherently bad can more logical.

Since when is being short-sighted and not thinking through repercussions logical?

Originally Posted by foxpaws

So - just a little fact - remove giving to the church from the right (which of course would happen if we embrace objectivism) and the right falls way behind the left...

You just make stuff up as you go along, right?

I guess I agree that churches do more charitable work than everything else put together, but removing that is ridiculous on many levels. Not the least of which is that aside from Protestants specifically, most church-goers self-identify as Democrats. I realize this is not the picture the MSM likes to paint by showing the wacky evangelical right wing extremists all the time, but it's trivial to look up the data.

from CNN:

Originally Posted by foxpaws

You can give to those things all you want - that isn't against objectivism. Feeling good because you give to the Komen Foundation gives you a 'selfish' reason. Giving becomes selfish - unlike what is proclaimed by most Christians, where you give selflessly. When giving has a goal - to create a selfish reason, such as feeling good - then soon, giving will 'give way' to other interests that make you feel better, that fed the selfish reason.

Wow, you make a bunch of assumptions about my motives (all of which are wrong, btw), then built a strawman around them that wouldn't have held up anyway, in order to create an illogical argument. And you wonder why I might be defensive when people like you want to make my decisions for me?

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Remember 'honor they father and thy mother' is antithesis to Rand, family values...

/facepalm

OK, I'm pretty sure you are just trolling for fun now, but in the sense that she stood against the blind adoration of anyone without logical reason, it's possible it could be true.

And since you brought it up, that means that you believe that all children should honor all parents regardless of circumstance.

And since that includes abused children, liberals such as yourself therefore hate children and fully support their abuse.

Why won't you stop abusing children? It's pretty sick you know.

Ok, that was kinda fun, I can see why you do it I guess.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

I realize this view is the opposite of the liberal view that humans are inherently evil and thus their behavior must be carefully regulated by a better class of people who are able to make superior choices on their behalf.

That would make pro-life republicans liberals! I think you've gone out on a limb there that won't support you.

[wdfifteen]

I'm enjoying this discussion, though I get tired of the term "liberal" being thrown around so cavalierly.
I wonder what Ms Rand would think of this.

YouTube - Tea Partiers Mock And Scorn Apparent Parkinson's Victim

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

I'm enjoying this discussion, though I get tired of the term "liberal" being thrown around so cavalierly.
I wonder what Ms Rand would think of this.

YouTube - Tea Partiers Mock And Scorn Apparent Parkinson's Victim

I imagine her exact response would be "I don't think of it."

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

Since when is being short-sighted and not thinking through repercussions logical?

Many people make money on things that are good in the short term, bad in the long run, because they will be 'long' gone when any repercussions happen.

You just make stuff up as you go along, right?

Nope...
But the difference can be explained in one word, and it's not "compassion." It's "religion." A recent survey from Google similarly found that self-identified conservatives gave more to charity than did self-identified liberals. But they also found that "if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do." Indeed, religious congregations are far and away the largest recipients of charitable gifts: In 2006, they made up 32.8 percent of all giving. But is that charity, at least charity as Kristof and Brooks are defining it? For instance: Utah is among the most Republican states in the nation, largely because of its heavily conservative Mormon population. Mormons tithe 10 percent a week to their church. But is that charitable giving? Or is it a membership fee? How much of it goes to anti-poverty programming? How much to church administration?

Conservatives do give more to the church - liberals give to the arts - charity is where the heart is? (and I do stand corrected - the right doesn't fall far behind if you remove religious giving - it is just slightly behind).

OK, I'm pretty sure you are just trolling for fun now, but in the sense that she stood against the blind adoration of anyone without logical reason, it's possible it could be true.

To some extent - but, it is true as well.

Her ideal of 'self interest only' creates huge vacuums. There is a reason we have self sacrifice, and it isn't because we are bad humans - it is because we are human. She can't get beyond we aren't only rational creatures, and that is what makes us human - a compromise of emotion, rationality, self interest and community good. There is no compromise in Rand's utopia - which is why it fails.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Her ideal of 'self interest only' creates huge vacuums. There is a reason we have self sacrifice, and it isn't because we are bad humans - it is because we are human. She can't get beyond we aren't only rational creatures, and that is what makes us human - a compromise of emotion, rationality, self interest and community good. There is no compromise in Rand's utopia - which is why it fails.

Fox - I like your rational replies.
It's been several years since I read her books. I don't recall how she dealt with the her character's responses to those who can't produce - the sick, mentally ill, mentally retarded, etc. What was her answer for that?

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Fox - I like your rational replies.
It's been several years since I read her books. I don't recall how she dealt with the her character's responses to those who can't produce - the sick, mentally ill, mentally retarded, etc. What was her answer for that?

She was a social Darwinist even though she denied it. Her actions spoke as loud as her words - the differences are minute, and have to to with 'reason' and the rather odd idea that man won't necessarily advance with laissez-faire capitalism. Objectivists, believe that even if man is left free to produce and achieve, it is not inevitable that human society will progress, where social Darwinists believe it is inevitable that society will advance with a laissez-faire capitalist structure.

So, while you could give, personally, to those who were sick, old, mentally ill, etc, society had no responsibility to those who you mention. If you were old without progeny or had progeny that could care less, and ran out of funds because of say, a catastrophic illness - well, no one would be there to pick up the pieces, and you could easily die of hunger and exposure and illness. That would be OK with Rand. She also thought that health care really should be structured for the young, and rationed for the elderly. There was a very real motive to keep young people alive, and let old ones die.

But, being a life-long smoker she did get lung cancer and did depend on SS and Medicare in the last years of her life - she didn't really take any personal responsibility for causing her own cancer. Which is odd - because personal responsibility is one of the cornerstones of objectivism.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Actually being truly objective is not possible. But engineers like to think they have that ability. That is part of the irony.

No, you can be truly objective about certain things 2+2=4, what is the wavelength of the light that hydrogen gives off when you burn it. Whether or not Elvis is the King, well, that is open to debate