NationStates Jolt Archive

Bunkem or of vaule?

Like most philosphers and philosphy's we can safely ignore some of what Ayn Rand tells us, and some of it we can make use of.

Selfishness.

Well it is certianly true that each of us is geared towards achiving for our own sakes, but in reality we often do so in order to provide for those we love.

Mankind is naturaly aulterisc (even if this is not often evident), we all, for example, feel empathy for those caught up in natural disaster, and some of us may even act on such feelings and give our hard earned cash towards relief funds. We do infact persue our own interests, yet we often feel bad if in the course of doing so we shit upon others.

What are the merits of any philosophy that is not grounded in the reality of the situation?

Myself I belive that the philosophies of Ayn Rand goes against what is natural for our species, in which case is there any merit in a philosophy that is largly useless and seems to attract the worst of our kind?

If you take it one level further, we are altruistic because it makes us feel good inside. (Well, some of us.) Thus, while we are doing things for others in fact, we are doing those things psychologically because it validates an emotional need and therefore is a form of self-interest. In addition, nurturing those around us is a form of self-interest as well because they might return the favour when we're in trouble.

Still, defining that kind of behaviour as "selfishness" stretches the definition of the word enough to make it meaningless.

Bunkem or of vaule?

Like most philosphers and philosphy's we can safely ignore some of what Ayn Rand tells us, and some of it we can make use of.

Selfishness.

Well it is certianly true that each of us is geared towards achiving for our own sakes, but in reality we often do so in order to provide for those we love.

Mankind is naturaly aulterisc (even if this is not often evident), we all, for example, feel empathy for those caught up in natural disaster, and some of us may even act on such feelings and give our hard earned cash towards relief funds. We do infact persue our own interests, yet we often feel bad if in the course of doing so we shit upon others.

What are the merits of any philosophy that is not grounded in the reality of the situation?

Myself I belive that the philosophies of Ayn Rand goes against what is natural for our species, in which case is there any merit in a philosophy that is largly useless and seems to attract the worst of our kind?

I agree with her assesment that humans are basically selfish. Where we differ is that she seem to have thought that that's ok, or even desirable.

If you take it one level further, we are altruistic because it makes us feel good inside. (Well, some of us.) Thus, while we are doing things for others in fact, we are doing those things psychologically because it validates an emotional need and therefore is a form of self-interest. In addition, nurturing those around us is a form of self-interest as well because they might return the favour when we're in trouble.

Still, defining that kind of behaviour as "selfishness" stretches the definition of the word enough to make it meaningless.

Yes there is certianly some truth in this.

Bunkem or of vaule?

Vaule???

Anyway, not that I've ever read anything by the eminent etcetera, but from what I get from NSG and Wiki, I'd say what I said in the other thread.

I'll familiarise with the work of eminent russian-american philosopher Ayn Rand this evening: I ran out of toilet paper.

Vaule???

Anyway, not that I've ever read anything by the eminent etcetera, but from what I get from NSG and Wiki, I'd say what I said in the other thread.

I'll familiarise with the work of eminent russian-american philosopher Ayn Rand this evening: I ran out of toilet paper.

Heh come now, value can be found in all sorts of places.

Most of what she said was bunkum. Some of what she said was not. However, the parts that were not bunkum were shallow, obvious, and derivative. All in all, my take on Ayn Rand is that she contributed nothing of value to western philosophy and her reputation among teens and 20-somethings for being deep and insightful is not deserved. Also she was a lousy novelist.

But she makes one hell of an internet meme.

Heh come now, value can be found in all sorts of places.

Yes indeed. Expecially if the paper is soft but resistant enough.

Most of what she said was bunkum. Some of what she said was not. However, the parts that were not bunkum were shallow, obvious, and derivative. All in all, my take on Ayn Rand is that she contributed nothing of value to western philosophy and her reputation among teens and 20-somethings for being deep and insightful is not deserved. Also she was a lousy novelist.

But she makes one hell of an internet meme.

A rationalization for not giving a sh*t about anyone but themselves.

Do you get the feeling that everyone involved in creating the financial crisis keeps a copy of Atlas Shrugged in their desk?

A rationalization for not giving a sh*t about anyone but themselves.

Do you get the feeling that everyone involved in creating the financial crisis keeps a copy of Atlas Shrugged in their desk?

Something tells me that Barney Frank doesn't read Ayn Rand.

A rationalization for not giving a sh*t about anyone but themselves.

Do you get the feeling that everyone involved in creating the financial crisis keeps a copy of Atlas Shrugged in their desk?
And The Fountainhead under their pillows. :D

I AM SICK OF AYN RAND! Can everyone talk about some else, please.

Something tells me that Barney Frank doesn't read Ayn Rand.
As evidenced by the fact that he DOES give a shit about others.

You make this too easy, DK. It's not fun anymore. *drops old toy*

Word filters improve debate. I mean, sure every time I read "Ayn Rand" I now think "Ivanna Fuckalot," but it's really not nearly as funny as actually reading about the philosophy of Ivanna Fuckalot.

Word filters improve debate. I mean, sure every time I read "Ayn Rand" I now think "Ivanna Fuckalot," but it's really not nearly as funny as actually reading about the philosophy of Ivanna Fuckalot.
That was Frank Lloyd Wright's pet name for her, you know. Mm-hm. *nods*

Something tells me that Barney Frank doesn't read Ayn Rand.

You're objectively wrong, in fact. Because I say so. A=A.
:rolleyes:


(I swear I'm joking)

As evidenced by the fact that he DOES give a shit about others.

You make this too easy, DK. It's not fun anymore. *drops old toy*

As evidenced by the fact that he's on YouTube from 2003 and 2004, saying there's no way that Fannie Mae is a problem, and that anyone who says different is a racist.

He knew it stank on ice, and he watched it all go down the tubes.

I AM SICK OF AYN RAND! Can everyone talk about some else, please.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/1105/advicedogphpwv0.png

As evidenced by the fact that he's on YouTube from 2003 and 2004, saying there's no way that Fannie Mae is a problem, and that anyone who says different is a racist.

He knew it stank on ice, and he watched it all go down the tubes.
You should familiarize yourself with the writings of the topic eminent 20th century Russian-American philosopher. She will explain to you why your off-topic trolling of every single thread, even the spam ones, is something no one is objectively required to give a shit about. Objectively.

Buh-bye, DK, old bean. I'm going to go live in the Objectivist realization of the freedom of the human spirit now. You're not in that reality.

My grasp of the English language is insufficient to tell you how badly I hate Ayn Rand. Hate hate hate her total crap.

My grasp of the English language is insufficient to tell you how badly I hate Ayn Rand. Hate hate hate her total crap.
I feel that. :D Not only do I detest her self-serving bullshit "philosophy," but also, on literary merit, her books made me wish she had died while writing one of them, preferably in mid-sentence.

That's how one of my favorite writers, Lawrence Sterne, went. A Sentimental Journey ends in mid-sentence, in the midst of a particularly amusing scene in a bedroom in an inn. Why him, oh ye gods? Why did we have to miss out on the end of that story, but we still have every last single fucking word of Rand's boring crap available to slog through?

Mankind is naturaly aulterisc (even if this is not often evident), we all, for example, feel empathy for those caught up in natural disaster, and some of us may even act on such feelings and give our hard earned cash towards relief funds. We do infact persue our own interests, yet we often feel bad if in the course of doing so we shit upon others.

I would disagree with this, some people may exhibit altruism, but I doubt its a shared trait across all humanity. At the least everyone is partially selfish, so I'd say shes a little closer than you are.

My grasp of the English language is insufficient to tell you how badly I hate Ayn Rand. Hate hate hate her total crap.

Why don't you express your hate through your native tongue. I got Google translator.:D

You're objectively wrong, in fact. Because I say so. A=A.

You best recognize.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/1105/advicedogphpwv0.png

Yes, even advice dog is less annoying than Ayn Rand now. What on earth sparked this huge NSG revival of interest into Ayn Rand in the first place?

Yes, even advice dog is less annoying than Ayn Rand now. What on earth sparked this huge NSG revival of interest into Ayn Rand in the first place?

Her Ghost's presence, methinks.

I'm a pretty selfish person and when I explain to someone they are without value and shun them I always hand them a nice copy of one of Ayn's novels.

Objectivism is useful when I want to be a bitch.

I can't say I disagree with some of the things she's observed....although it would take some major tweaking for me to agree that it's the way things "should be".

so if we sat outside of Hydesland's house, and chanted "Ayn Rand! Ayn Rand!" over and over again for hours, would his head explode?

Her Ghost's presence, methinks.

But I think it started before that, since I think Ghost's was a reaction to this revival.

so if we sat outside of Hydesland's house, and chanted "Ayn Rand! Ayn Rand!" over and over again for hours, would his head explode?

Probably.

Why don't you express your hate through your native tongue. I got Google translator.:D

Which is horrible! It gets the words wrong, misspells them..
*Goes on a rant why machine translations are bad.*

Her Ghost's presence, methinks.
If I recall correctly, her Ghost was invoked by one of her worshippers, a certain spammy troll who I won't name in deference to forum etiquette, who was the one who first uttered the magic formula:

"You should familiarize yourself ... [etc.]"

Yes, even advice dog is less annoying than Ayn Rand now. What on earth sparked this huge NSG revival of interest into Ayn Rand in the first place?

I think it was LG's lets make a forced meme thread

who I won't name in deference to forum etiquette

any clues?

Which is horrible! It gets the words wrong, misspells them..
*Goes on a rant why machine translations are bad.*

But if it helps her...

If I recall correctly, her Ghost was invoked by one of her worshippers, a certain spammy troll who I won't name in deference to forum etiquette, who was the one who first uttered the magic formula:

"You should familiarize yourself ... [etc.]"

Hmmm... I think I know who you're referring to.:tongue:

But I think it started before that, since I think Ghost's was a reaction to this revival.

Remit to Mur'v's post.:tongue:

But if it helps her...



Hmmm... I think I know who you're referring to.:tongue:



Remit to Mur'v's post.:tongue:
Yeah, first came LG's thread. Then, independent of that, That Guy said the magic words, then I think it was Neo Art who grabbed that and ran it over to LG's meme thread, and the rest, as they say, is history. As usual, we can blame the lawyers.

But if it helps her...


When you translate *insert language* for example Finnish it just annoys me and makes me want to choke someone.

Yeah, first came LG's thread. Then, independent of that, That Guy said the magic words, then I think it was Neo Art who grabbed that and ran it over to LG's meme thread, and the rest, as they say, is history. As usual, we can blame the lawyers.

... in cat suits.

... in cat suits.
They're the worst kind, combining legal and feline attributes. :eek2:

They're the worst kind, combining legal and feline attributes. :eek2:

With Jewish savviness (I murdered that word). It's the worst combination, I tell ya'!:eek2:

Basically it went this way:

1) LG had a thread about creating a new meme
2) Bluth Corporation came back with his typical line of "you should familiarize etc. etc."
3) Gravlen suggested this be the new meme
4) Gravlen and I proceeded to bombard with it, until it started to catch, and spread
5) Ghost of Ayn Rand was made as a puppet nation
6) A Equals A Damn It has recently shown up as the second one
7) Bluth Corporation still continues, providing much opportunity for mocking

With Jewish savviness (I murdered that word). It's the worst combination, I tell ya'!:eek2:

And The Language Murderer strikes again! :)

Yeah, first came LG's thread. Then, independent of that, That Guy said the magic words, then I think it was Neo Art who grabbed that and ran it over to LG's meme thread, and the rest, as they say, is history. As usual, we can blame the lawyers.

worse, Gravlen and I, double lawyer.

Yep, NA sums up our story so far. So, sadly for all those who suffer horrible twitching fits at the mention of Ayn Rand, I don't see it fading for a while yet.

7) Bluth Corporation still continues, providing much opportunity for mocking

And now he's added "Hey, let's sell our national monuments to the highest bidder!"

worse, Gravlen and I, double lawyer.
You BASTARDS!! :D

Yep, NA sums up our story so far. So, sadly for all those who suffer horrible twitching fits at the mention of Ayn Rand, I don't see it fading for a while yet.

Actually, I think it has given more objevtivism to the spunk of the forum.

I am trying too hard.:(

Actually, I think it has given more objevtivism to the spunk of the forum.

I am trying too hard.:(
I suppose we should apologize to Peepelonia for turning his thread from a discussion of Ayn to a discussion of our subversive uses of Ayn, but really, there doesn't seem to be much to discuss otherwise. Bluth Corp pretty much represents the basic model for an Ayn Rand fan, and frankly I find it much more interesting that NSG may have invented a possibly unique troll management tool with our little meme. More interesting than anything Ayn Rand ever said, at least.

Basically it went this way:

2) Bluth Corporation came back with his typical line of "you should familiarize etc. etc."


http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2964735

I suppose we should apologize to Peeplonia for turning his thread from a discussion of Ayn to a discussion of our subversive uses of Ayn, but really, there doesn't seem to be much to discuss otherwise. Bluth Corp pretty much represents the basic model for an Ayn Rand fan, and frankly I find it much more interesting that NSG may have invented a possibly unique troll management tool with our little meme. More interesting than anything Ayn Rand ever said, at least.

Oh, I agree. Just like surely no one can imply that Ayn Rand had a short penis.:D

I love this forum.

Oh, I agree. Just like surely no one can imply that Ayn Rand had a short penis.:D

I love this forum.
Well, she didn't... ;)

Where's the Ghost of Ayn Rand when you need him.

Oh wait...

Yep, NA sums up our story so far. So, sadly for all those who suffer horrible twitching fits at the mention of Ayn Rand, I don't see it fading for a while yet.

I'm telling you, get the mods to word filter it to Ivanna Fuckalot.

The US election cycle was vastly improved by the redubbing of Obama as Blacky McBlack and Palin as Token Vagina.

I'm telling you, get the mods to word filter it to Ivanna Fuckalot.

The US election cycle was vastly improved by the redubbing of Obama as Blacky McBlack and Palin as Token Vagina.

You.... I like you. You make me laugh.:p

You.... I like you. You make me laugh.:p

I wish the brilliance were all mine. Alas, the Forum Lord came up with them. I am only sharing his brilliance with NSG.

Yay for laughter though! The best sort of spammer is the funny spammer.

*builds device with negative net entropy*

Nymphomania is a philosophy?

Nymphomania is a philosophy?

Cogito, ergo copulo?

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7466/busiw3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Basically it went this way:

1) LG had a thread about creating a new meme
2) Bluth Corporation came back with his typical line of "you should familiarize etc. etc."
3) Gravlen suggested this be the new meme
4) Gravlen and I proceeded to bombard with it, until it started to catch, and spread
5) Ghost of Ayn Rand was made as a puppet nation
6) A Equals A Damn It has recently shown up as the second one
7) Bluth Corporation still continues, providing much opportunity for mocking
That's about it, yup.

Strange how a careless mention by me has been a factor in creating something that's caught on so quickly. And that's not the only thing either:

... in cat suits.
...I need to use my powers wisely, I see :p

worse, Gravlen and I, double lawyer.
Oooh, now that sounds kinky! :wink:

Bunkem or of vaule?

My work is of the umtost vaule.


Like most philosphers and philosphy's we can safely ignore some of what Ayn Rand tells us, and some of it we can make use of.

To be included in the canonical philosophers is simultaneously unbelievably gratifying and sickeningly insulting. I shall orgasmically vomit.


Selfishness.

Well it is certianly true that each of us is geared towards achiving for our own sakes, but in reality we often do so in order to provide for those we love.

Your love for them is still an aspect of yourself that you gratify. You attend to the man in the boat merely to achieve bbbjcim from your partner.


Mankind is naturaly aulterisc (even if this is not often evident), we all, for example, feel empathy for those caught up in natural disaster, and some of us may even act on such feelings and give our hard earned cash towards relief funds. We do infact persue our own interests, yet we often feel bad if in the course of doing so we shit upon others.

The emotional mechanisms of ultimately self-benefiting co-operation shall from hence forth be called aulteriscism.


What are the merits of any philosophy that is not grounded in the reality of the situation?

Precisely my indictment of philosophies NOT based in rational self-interest.

[This is what Ayn Rand actually believes.]


Myself I belive that the philosophies of Ayn Rand goes against what is natural for our species, in which case is there any merit in a philosophy that is largly useless and seems to attract the worst of our kind?

My campus groups do not attract the worst of our kind. They attract freshman desperately searching for a philosophical identity to ameliorate their fear of not getting laid, sophomores flush with the ethical certainty of having taken the pre-req philo classes, and people who just generally enjoy the opportunities of the collegiate atmosphere, like networking, and daterape.

Afraid to ask, but...bbbjcim?

Afraid to ask, but...bbbjcim?

The first two b's stand for "bare back", contextually meaning "without a condom". The rest follows from there.

What on earth sparked this huge NSG revival of interest into Ayn Rand in the first place?

tangled up in blue/linus and lucy came back to entertain us again.

I agree with her assesment that humans are basically selfish.

She made no such assessment.

Far from it, she specifically rejected psychological egoism.

Her argument was that individuals should act selfishly, not that individuals necessarily do act selfishly. Meaning that those individuals who do not act selfishly are evil.

How many have actually read/studied the work of Rand?

She made no such assessment.

Far from it, she specifically rejected psychological egoism.

Her argument was that individuals should act selfishly, not that individuals necessarily do act selfishly. Meaning that those individuals who do not act selfishly are evil.

Then she was either amoral or insane.

50/50 .. is that what she was claiming? As in , I get out what I put in? I feel that I give more.. so maybe 70/30.

Also she was a lousy novelist.
I liked Elsworth Toohey . . .

I liked Elsworth Toohey . . .

Or as the ladies called him, Monkton.

The below is from another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14507174#post14507174), but I think it belongs here.

All my conclusions follow immediately from the fact that A is A. There are no intermediate steps. So there's not a whole hell of a lot more left to do.
Never understood this, but then I've never read any Rand. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I can grasp that certain propositions, certain truths can be derived from A=A; things that are, are the way the are. Fairly straightforward. But how does Rand get from that to a normative position, such as 'people should be selfish'?

There must be some intermediary steps, otherwise all is arbitrary.

It's my policy that any philosophy that has to be justified with a 1200+ page novel isn't worth having. If you can't sum it up in a couple of paragraphs, it might be time to rethink it.

I can grasp that certain propositions, certain truths can be derived from A=A; things that are, are the way the are. Fairly straightforward. But how does Rand get from that to a normative position, such as 'people should be selfish'?

Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Et cetera.

¬.¬

It's my policy that any philosophy that has to be justified with a 1200+ page novel isn't worth having. If you can't sum it up in a couple of paragraphs, it might be time to rethink it.
Many respectable philosophical systems can be summed up in a couple of paragraphs and require lengthy explanation to be fully understood.

Those of Marx, Rawls and Kant come instantly to mind.

Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Et cetera.
Again, that doesn't lead us to any normative conclusions.

(Though I realise you're not being serious.)

Never understood this, but then I've never read any Rand. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I can grasp that certain propositions, certain truths can be derived from A=A; things that are, are the way the are. Fairly straightforward. But how does Rand get from that to a normative position, such as 'people should be selfish'?

There must be some intermediary steps, otherwise all is arbitrary.

there are. but her intermediary steps don't really help even if you buy them, as she badly misunderstands hume. literally, her argument winds up with:

The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between 'is' and 'ought'.

Well it is certianly true that each of us is geared towards achiving for our own sakes, but in reality we often do so in order to provide for those we love.
That may be true of you but you obviously have lived a sheltered life if you think it's true of the rest of the world. There is someone out there carrying a bullet for you (figurative of litteral), the trick is to get him before he gets you. Humans didn't get to be top dog of an entire planet by letting other species walk all over us. Any dominant species is only so because they are strong and cunning and ruthless and natural born killers. This even applies to plants. Pine trees litter the ground with their needles and make the topsoil so acidic that nothing but pine trees can grow in it.

Mankind is naturaly aulterisc (even if this is not often evident), we all, for example, feel empathy for those caught up in natural disaster, and some of us may even act on such feelings and give our hard earned cash towards relief funds. We do infact persue our own interests, yet we often feel bad if in the course of doing so we shit upon others.
Mankind is naturally sadistic. How else could you explain genocide and war? And it's not just us. Dolphins have been known to kill porpoises not for territory or food or anything like that, they kill for the hell of it. A lot of animals do. Red squirrels will chase down and kill gray squirrels without reason.

I have no sympathy for those that live in a flood plain and then cry when their house washes away before the nearby river crests after the spring thaw. When people do stupid things they should learn from the consquences because if they don't they'll end up dead and probably pull a couple of other folks along with.

What are the merits of any philosophy that is not grounded in the reality of the situation?
Like altruism? Warm fuzzies, maybe?

Myself I belive that the philosophies of Ayn Rand goes against what is natural for our species, in which case is there any merit in a philosophy that is largly useless and seems to attract the worst of our kind?
And I believe that you believe that believing is all that matters. I, on the other hand, believe that humanity evolved into the dominant species because we were the best at acquiring and utilizing resources even if it was at the cost of another creature's survival.

Bunkem or of vaule?

Like most philosphers and philosphy's we can safely ignore some of what Ayn Rand tells us, and some of it we can make use of.

Selfishness.

Well it is certianly true that each of us is geared towards achiving for our own sakes, but in reality we often do so in order to provide for those we love.

Mankind is naturaly aulterisc (even if this is not often evident), we all, for example, feel empathy for those caught up in natural disaster, and some of us may even act on such feelings and give our hard earned cash towards relief funds. We do infact persue our own interests, yet we often feel bad if in the course of doing so we shit upon others.

What are the merits of any philosophy that is not grounded in the reality of the situation?

Myself I belive that the philosophies of Ayn Rand goes against what is natural for our species, in which case is there any merit in a philosophy that is largly useless and seems to attract the worst of our kind?

That is very much of an oversimplification of her beliefs. Many have argued much more eloquently that her philosophy represents a much more natural state than our continued insistence on dogmatic reliance of judeao-christian values

You best recognize.

...it as a tautology.

Her philosophy and novels might not be up to much, but we should at least acknowledge her charity work as a Shriner
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/americannovel/timeline/images/rand_pic.jpg

Selfishness.

Well it is certianly true that each of us is geared towards achiving for our own sakes, but in reality we often do so in order to provide for those we love.

And Ayn Rand wouldn't disagree with you on this. She never claimed that it was immoral to provide for people one loves, or that one would never feel "geared" to do so. Providing for people one loves is still "selfish" in the sense she means the term.

I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of her use of the word "selfishness". It's not what you think, and this is the cause of many misunderstandings of her philosophy.

I love her for making her characters borderline tourettes.

"Hey there - LOOTER! - how are you? -LOOTER SCUM!-"

Like, one second impersonal railroad magnate, next second screaming Objectivist. Gotta love Dagny.

Then the random sex scenes, bondage + rail road sex? BRILLIANT!

Not even that, the railroad sex was not on a train - it was literally on the tracks! Haha, John Galt is a God!

I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of her use of the word "selfishness". It's not what you think, and this is the cause of many misunderstandings of her philosophy.

Ok, let's rewrite the whole english language, so Ayn "Gina Randa" Rand's work may have a meaning.

Objectively = I won.
In fact = I pwn you.
tautology = the only way to unveil new truths.
Parmenides = Ayn Rand when she went back in time to found philosophy.
true = I say so
actual = I say so, you moron.
A=A = ur 7|-|e 5Uc|<3rz.

Bunkem or of vaule?

The former.

Well it is certianly true that each of us is geared towards achiving for our own sakes, but in reality we often do so in order to provide for those we love.

Mankind is naturaly aulterisc (even if this is not often evident), we all, for example, feel empathy for those caught up in natural disaster, and some of us may even act on such feelings and give our hard earned cash towards relief funds. We do infact persue our own interests, yet we often feel bad if in the course of doing so we shit upon others.

Is/ought. Bluth Corporation is right: Rand does not deny the existence of altruism but merely rejects its legitimacy. What she is concerned with is refuting the major trend in Western philosophy, which at least since Christianity and (I certainly would argue) even long before has advanced a notion of individual duty to others and to the public as a whole. To say "altruism is natural" in no sense addresses her point; perhaps it is, but that does not make it right.

More interestingly, one might also argue that truly natural "altruism" is not actually Rand's target at all: when we are motivated to help others on grounds of our emotional relationship to them, because we love them or admire them or even (somewhat less clearly) because we have compassion for them, she has no problem. It is when we perceive an obligation, a duty, of aid that altruism becomes objectionable--perhaps also when such aid becomes indiscriminate, rather than focused on particular individuals.

While I do not have extensive exposure to Ayn Rand's written work myself, from my discussions with Objectivists (including Melkor and NL here) and my somewhat greater familiarity with some of what she saw as her philosophical influences (Aristotle), I'm inclined to think that she goes wrong, ironically, in committing exactly the same fallacy you just have: she conflates what is right with what is natural, and therefore replaces an ideal of happiness for a moral rationality principled enough to contemplate (and demand) "pure" altruism.

What are the merits of any philosophy that is not grounded in the reality of the situation?

No moral theory ought to be grounded in empirical reality. To ground it so is fatal to ethics.

No moral theory ought to be grounded in empirical reality. To ground it so is fatal to ethics.

why?

While there is a great deal I find viscerally objectionable about the values and worldview of Ayn Rand, I think her failure to recognize any break between personal ethics and political morality is really her greatest intellectual failure.

For me, the most important kind of "altruism" is a sense of political justice, a commitment to establishing a just society--and interestingly enough (I'm not sure how well it can be reconciled with the rest of her theory) Rand seems to have not rejected this kind of duty at all. Her writings, after all, are unabashedly political; she does not have pure selfish disdain for, say, campaigning to make sure other people's rightful property remains theirs.

But that means that, even without critiquing her selfish personal ethics argument, it is possible to make a moral-political attack on her doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism--but from my admittedly only partial exposure to her ideas and arguments, I don't think she ever really contemplated this kind of argument as a possibility. For her, any economic alternative is inherently "altruist" in all the worst senses she imagines--though this is certainly not the case.

why?

Because "is" does not logically imply "ought." What is natural has nothing to do with what is right.

Because "is" does not logically imply "ought." What is natural has nothing to do with what is right.
Why not?

There is after all a fairly large slice of philosophical thought that disagrees with you.

I wish the brilliance were all mine. Alas, the Forum Lord came up with them. I am only sharing his brilliance with NSG.

Yay for laughter though! The best sort of spammer is the funny spammer.

You are like... gods, like the female version of LG.:fluffle:

And Ayn Rand wouldn't disagree with you on this. She never claimed that it was immoral to provide for people one loves, or that one would never feel "geared" to do so. Providing for people one loves is still "selfish" in the sense she means the term.

I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of her use of the word "selfishness". It's not what you think, and this is the cause of many misunderstandings of her philosophy.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/1105/advicedogphpwv0.png

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/a3485c96a2.png

I would disagree with this, some people may exhibit altruism, but I doubt its a shared trait across all humanity. At the least everyone is partially selfish, so I'd say shes a little closer than you are.

Nope sorry man, I think you are wrong on this one.

How did you feel when you heard about the twin towers, the tsunami at xmas, the flooding of New Orleans, and now the fires in Victoria?

What is your gut reaction to the thoguht of as child being sexualy molested by an adult? Mankind is emphatic to others of his species, even those without any cultural simularities.

Yes of course we are all a little selfish, but I think that we are more aulteristic than selfish, more empahtic then not, more careing than hating.

You are like... gods, like the female version of LG.:fluffle:

Oh.

My.

God.

This may be one of the nicest compliments I've EVER received.

Oh.

My.

God.

This may be one of the nicest compliments I've EVER received.

What's more, I should start calling you Lunatique Goofballete!:D

What's more, I should start calling you Lunatique Goofballete!:D

I totally had a dream about doing ballet. Fairly hilarious since I don't dance, like, at all.

But, yeah, just call me Dubsy.

That may be true of you but you obviously have lived a sheltered life if you think it's true of the rest of the world. There is someone out there carrying a bullet for you (figurative of litteral), the trick is to get him before he gets you. Humans didn't get to be top dog of an entire planet by letting other species walk all over us. Any dominant species is only so because they are strong and cunning and ruthless and natural born killers. This even applies to plants. Pine trees litter the ground with their needles and make the topsoil so acidic that nothing but pine trees can grow in it.

Hah me, lived a shelterd life? Shit mate, I can safetly say you know nothing. The language you use here shows your paranioa, umm a typical sign of thoes who subscribe to her philosophies. Yes man kind is also violent, and yes we are at the top of the evolutionary tree, but because of our own actions? Nope because of evolution.

As well as speices predating on each other, they also enter into freindly relations. The pine tree would be dead without pollenatng insects, to which they give up some of their resources in order to attract.


Mankind is naturally sadistic. How else could you explain genocide and war? And it's not just us. Dolphins have been known to kill porpoises not for territory or food or anything like that, they kill for the hell of it. A lot of animals do. Red squirrels will chase down and kill gray squirrels without reason.

So mankind has not the ability to BE two seemingly conflicting things at the same time?


I have no sympathy for those that live in a flood plain and then cry when their house washes away before the nearby river crests after the spring thaw. When people do stupid things they should learn from the consquences because if they don't they'll end up dead and probably pull a couple of other folks along with.

Yes I agree we should all learn from our mistakes, but to feel no empahty for the plight of your fellow man, is not normal human thinking. Umm yes I believe that is another of those typical signs. And a further reason why I say the majoruty of it is bunkum. It makes you think in a way not consistant with normal mental health.


Like altruism? Warm fuzzies, maybe?

You see the differance here is that I spoke what is true, whilst you deny it and instead tell me that normal empathy for your fellow man is what, some sort of fuzzy falseness. Umm now which of us looks like the dick?


And I believe that you believe that believing is all that matters. I, on the other hand, believe that humanity evolved into the dominant species because we were the best at acquiring and utilizing resources even if it was at the cost of another creature's survival.

Then you also show your ignorance on the concept of evolution. We had no hand in how and why we evoluved as we did.

I totally had a dream about doing ballet. Fairly hilarious since I don't dance, like, at all.

But, yeah, just call me Dubsy.

Dubsy it is.

That is very much of an oversimplification of her beliefs. Many have argued much more eloquently that her philosophy represents a much more natural state than our continued insistence on dogmatic reliance of judeao-christian values

Yes it is, philosophy. Start simple and build up to the complex.

And Ayn Rand wouldn't disagree with you on this. She never claimed that it was immoral to provide for people one loves, or that one would never feel "geared" to do so. Providing for people one loves is still "selfish" in the sense she means the term.

I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of her use of the word "selfishness". It's not what you think, and this is the cause of many misunderstandings of her philosophy.

You see I don't understand this. You say that Ayn would not disagree with my assesment but then you tell me that I should try to understand what she meant by the word selfish? How can I then be correct and incorrect at the same time on the same issue?

Ohh and so you know, my use of the word selfish in my OP was as a heading.

That may be true of you but you obviously have lived a sheltered life if you think it's true of the rest of the world. There is someone out there carrying a bullet for you (figurative of litteral), the trick is to get him before he gets you. Humans didn't get to be top dog of an entire planet by letting other species walk all over us. Any dominant species is only so because they are strong and cunning and ruthless and natural born killers. This even applies to plants. Pine trees litter the ground with their needles and make the topsoil so acidic that nothing but pine trees can grow in it.


Mankind is naturally sadistic. How else could you explain genocide and war? And it's not just us. Dolphins have been known to kill porpoises not for territory or food or anything like that, they kill for the hell of it. A lot of animals do. Red squirrels will chase down and kill gray squirrels without reason.

I have no sympathy for those that live in a flood plain and then cry when their house washes away before the nearby river crests after the spring thaw. When people do stupid things they should learn from the consquences because if they don't they'll end up dead and probably pull a couple of other folks along with.


Like altruism? Warm fuzzies, maybe?


And I believe that you believe that believing is all that matters. I, on the other hand, believe that humanity evolved into the dominant species because we were the best at acquiring and utilizing resources even if it was at the cost of another creature's survival.

This post seems to have been made under the assumption that man is in fact the dominant species of the planet. This amuses me. Would it be so great a tragedy (in ecological terms) if humankind went extinct tomorrow? Would any of the great intellectual accomplishments made by humankind be considered important or even remembered by its future descendants, or whatever other sapient species might arise after its doom? I think it rather unlikely.

And Ayn Rand wouldn't disagree with you on this. She never claimed that it was immoral to provide for people one loves, or that one would never feel "geared" to do so. Providing for people one loves is still "selfish" in the sense she means the term.

I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of her use of the word "selfishness". It's not what you think, and this is the cause of many misunderstandings of her philosophy.

I already pointed this out. That's just redefining the traditional meaning of "selfishness" until it means more or less "just about anything people do". I and most of my fellow humans use a more restrictive meaning (doing things to the sole or primary benefit of yourself, disregarding others) which puts it in opposition to what is ordinarily known as altruism (doing things that benefit others, even if there is also a direct or indirect benefit to yourself).

And Ayn Rand wouldn't disagree with you on this. She never claimed that it was immoral to provide for people one loves, or that one would never feel "geared" to do so. Providing for people one loves is still "selfish" in the sense she means the term.
In the same sense that Dawkins and other sociobiologists use the term?

i.e., in the way that they can call altruism 'selfish'?

In the same sense that Dawkins and other sociobiologists use the term?

i.e., in the way that they can call altruism 'selfish'?

Presumably yes, although redefining that way makes it lose most of its useful meaning -- what's it being placed in opposition to?

Presumably yes, although redefining that way makes it lose most of its useful meaning -- what's it being placed in opposition to?
I fully agree.

The whole, 'altruism is selfishness in disguise' shtick is nonsense; if it's selfish then, by definition, it isn't altruistic.

Is/ought. Bluth Corporation is right: Rand does not deny the existence of altruism but merely rejects its legitimacy. What she is concerned with is refuting the major trend in Western philosophy, which at least since Christianity and (I certainly would argue) even long before has advanced a notion of individual duty to others and to the public as a whole. To say "altruism is natural" in no sense addresses her point; perhaps it is, but that does not make it right.

It is good that you took this line of reasoning, it is important to my stance.

When I say that mankind is more aulteristic than selfish, I am of course talking about the nature of mankind.

The claim I make about Ayn's philosophy(re: selfishness) is that she says man Ought to be selfish, when man Is aulteristic. If A=A is true(and really it seems that it is)

Then no amoung of talk about what man should be can change what man is.

Can a rabbit hunt, kill and eat a fox? No because that is not the nature of rabbit. Can mankind then become more selfish than alturistic? Again no, because that is not mankinds nature.

Seen like this then Is/Ought becomes meaningless, it is in this regard that I ask what use are philosophies not based in the reality of the situation?

I totally had a dream about doing ballet. Fairly hilarious since I don't dance, like, at all.

But, yeah, just call me Dubsy.

You do have a tendency to spin around in circles though, I'm sure that counts ;)

You do have a tendency to spin around in circles though, I'm sure that counts ;)

Indeed, and shake my ass. But not in the "Ballet" dancing category. It was so funny, the dream.

I also dreamt my Roomie got us a puppy.
her "I got us a Puppy while at the vet."
me *thinking, shit, no dogs allowed on the lease!* "What's his name?
her "Puppy! He's a cat, I named him Puppy."
And then I felt a rush of relief.

My brain had a very interesting night. . .

Bunkem or of vaule?

Like most philosphers and philosphy's we can safely ignore some of what Ayn Rand tells us, and some of it we can make use of.

Selfishness.

Well it is certianly true that each of us is geared towards achiving for our own sakes, but in reality we often do so in order to provide for those we love.

Mankind is naturaly aulterisc (even if this is not often evident), we all, for example, feel empathy for those caught up in natural disaster, and some of us may even act on such feelings and give our hard earned cash towards relief funds. We do infact persue our own interests, yet we often feel bad if in the course of doing so we shit upon others.

What are the merits of any philosophy that is not grounded in the reality of the situation?

Myself I belive that the philosophies of Ayn Rand goes against what is natural for our species, in which case is there any merit in a philosophy that is largly useless and seems to attract the worst of our kind?
The thing is, we're both selfish and altruistic. We're selfish in many ways as part of our normal survival instincts--instincts every animal species has in one way or another--but we're also altruistic because of how we've evolved, and more specifically because we're social creatures, and thus we depend on others of our community.

This is why you see far, far, FAR more often people who are claiming to be superior to others using something like "my culture" or "my race" instead of "myself." It's all base instincts there, all uplifted by our sapience and turned into something far more complicated.

In my opinion, anyway. Obviously I'm no authority on such matters.

Indeed, and shake my ass. But not in the "Ballet" dancing category. It was so funny, the dream.

I also dreamt my Roomie got us a puppy.
her "I got us a Puppy while at the vet."
me *thinking, shit, no dogs allowed on the lease!* "What's his name?
her "Puppy! He's a cat, I named him Puppy."
And then I felt a rush of relief.

My brain had a very interesting night. . .

I am so happy you're back!

That way I won't feel so alone on the innuendo department.http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/2401_smokers_in_love.gif

I am so happy you're back!

That way I won't feel so alone on the innuendo department.http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/2401_smokers_in_love.gif

:)

I do have a gift for innuendo, what can I say? Keeps the mind sharp.

:)

I do have a gift for innuendo, what can I say? Keeps the mind sharp.

Oh, I can see, objectively, into your innuedo gift. Keep on giving!:tongue:

Can a rabbit hunt, kill and eat a fox? No because that is not the nature of rabbit. Can mankind then become more selfish than alturistic? Again no, because that is not mankinds nature.

This is really bugging me, so...the word is "altruistic."

That aside...you and Soheran ignoring the foundation of Randian ethics, which is that survival is the most fundamental of all values.

This is a perfectly legitimate argument, since those who do not value survival will be dead soon enough, and the dead have no use for philosophy.

And it's also important to remember that by "survival" Rand did not mean simply biological survival (though it's certainly essential), but "survival" in the manner appropriate for a man, that respects and uses his vast heroic potential that comes about through his rational mind.

Rand does not argue "selfishness is good because it's in man's nature," but rather "selfishness is good because it's the only means of promoting the most fundamental value (survival)."

I love her for making her characters borderline tourettes.

"Hey there - LOOTER! - how are you? -LOOTER SCUM!-"

Like, one second impersonal railroad magnate, next second screaming Objectivist. Gotta love Dagny.

Then the random sex scenes, bondage + rail road sex? BRILLIANT!

Not even that, the railroad sex was not on a train - it was literally on the tracks! Haha, John Galt is a God!

Ok, let's rewrite the whole english language, so Ayn "Gina Randa" Rand's work may have a meaning.

Objectively = I won.
In fact = I pwn you.
tautology = the only way to unveil new truths.
Parmenides = Ayn Rand when she went back in time to found philosophy.
true = I say so
actual = I say so, you moron.
A=A = ur 7|-|e 5Uc|<3rz.
:hail: :hail:

These two ^^ pretty much sum everything there really is to say about the eminent 20th century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. You are both obviously fully versed in her writings. Case closed as far as I'm concerned. :D

The thing is, we're both selfish and altruistic. We're selfish in many ways as part of our normal survival instincts--instincts every animal species has in one way or another--but we're also altruistic because of how we've evolved, and more specifically because we're social creatures, and thus we depend on others of our community.

This is why you see far, far, FAR more often people who are claiming to be superior to others using something like "my culture" or "my race" instead of "myself." It's all base instincts there, all uplifted by our sapience and turned into something far more complicated.

Yes I agree we are both.

There is after all a fairly large slice of philosophical thought that disagrees with you.

Yep, but Hume and Kant and Moore and Wittgenstein and many other major philosophers have shown it to be fallacious pretty well, which I think has considerably decreased the size of the slice of philosophical thought that still agrees with it.

This is really bugging me, so...the word is "altruistic."

That aside...you and Soheran ignoring the foundation of Randian ethics, which is that survival is the most fundamental of all values.

This is a perfectly legitimate argument, since those who do not value survival will be dead soon enough, and the dead have no use for philosophy.

And it's also important to remember that by "survival" Rand did not mean simply biological survival (though it's certainly essential), but "survival" in the manner appropriate for a man, that respects and uses his vast heroic potential that comes about through his rational mind.

Rand does not argue "selfishness is good because it's in man's nature," but rather "selfishness is good because it's the only means of promoting the most fundamental value (survival)."

Please don't let my spelling mistakes bug you so much, in the grand scheme of things it really is a tiny little piece of nonsense, be bugged by things that deserve people getting buggy about.

As to selfishness being the ONLY means of promoting survial that is bunk though innit?

Look at the history of man, he has worked together to create this world. Alturism is the norm for us, the only thing that has changed is the scope. First the family, and then the tribe, and the world grows smaller and the tribe becomes the village, then the city, the country, the continant, the union. Eventualy the globe.

This IS what is happening, why take up a philosophy that says that such a thing is not good?

No one denies that men can and do work together to achieve great things.

What matters when determining whether such actions are selfish or altruistic is their motives.

Rand argues that each individual should only be concerned with his own individual survival qua man. If he has to work with others to achieve that end, so be it, but he should remember that his fundamental, primary goal is his own life, not someone else's.

No one denies that men can and do work together to achieve great things.

What matters when determining whether such actions are selfish or altruistic is their motives.

Rand argues that each individual should only be concerned with his own individual survival qua man. If he has to work with others to achieve that end, so be it, but he should remember that his fundamental, primary goal is his own life, not someone else's.

a equals a motherfuckers!

A =/= A, I just proved you wrong, Bluth Corporation.

No one denies that men can and do work together to achieve great things.

What matters when determining whether such actions are selfish or altruistic is their motives.

Rand argues that each individual should only be concerned with his own individual survival qua man. If he has to work with others to achieve that end, so be it, but he should remember that his fundamental, primary goal is his own life, not someone else's.


Ahhh thank you for posting this.

Should vs Is again.

I argue that mankind is more alturistic in nature than selfish. Rand argues that mankind should be more selfish in nature than alutristic.

Can mankind change his fundemental nature?

And it's also important to remember that by "survival" Rand did not mean simply biological survival (though it's certainly essential), but "survival" in the manner appropriate for a man, that respects and uses his vast heroic potential that comes about through his rational mind.

which is another point at which her argument is fallacious. from whence comes this 'manner appropriate for a man'? her argument before (if it worked, which it doesn't) would only get us to bare survival, since the only options are existence or non-existence.

Okay ladies and gentelmen, I'm off now. I going for a booze up with some friends, and then off to jury duty next week, so that's it from me for at least two weeks.

Play nice, don't miss me too much, and have yourselves some fun huh!

There is after all a fairly large slice of philosophical thought that disagrees with you.

Well, no, there isn't. Not really. There is a "fairly large slice of philosophical thought" that misunderstands the nature of the fallacy and fails to carry it out to its full implications, but that is not the same thing.

"Is" simply does not imply "ought." To say it does is a logical fallacy of the same sort as saying that correlation proves causation. There is no complicated argument necessary to prove this; it follows from the simple content of the terms. Simply because something is is no indication that it should be, because they are distinct statements about something.

Can mankind then become more selfish than alturistic? Again no, because that is not mankinds nature.

If you're going to assume pure determinism, then it is entirely pointless to talk about ethics, because ethics is about decision-making, and if we are determined then we do not decide.

So, you're right, in a sense. Meaningful discussion of moral theory requires the postulate that we have free will, that we are capable of defying our natures, and this follows quite directly from is/ought.

This is a perfectly legitimate argument, since those who do not value survival will be dead soon enough, and the dead have no use for philosophy.

No, this is a fallacious argument, because "survival" does not have anything to do (inherently) with right or wrong either. How is it logically impossible for the correct moral theory to insist upon conduct that is not conducive to survival?

Certainly it is true that a moral theory that advocates "survival" might survive better than a moral theory that does not, but that is no proof of the moral legitimacy of the moral theory in question. Traditional Christian ethical theories, after all, have survived (and even been dominant) for quite a long time, but I don't think either of us would be inclined to endorse their legitimacy.

And it's also important to remember that by "survival" Rand did not mean simply biological survival (though it's certainly essential), but "survival" in the manner appropriate for a man, that respects and uses his vast heroic potential that comes about through his rational mind.

This higher sense of "survival", of course, also is one that has nothing to do with your earlier argument, because human beings would still be around even if they only survived biologically.

Rand does not argue "selfishness is good because it's in man's nature," but rather "selfishness is good because it's the only means of promoting the most fundamental value (survival)."

I understand this, but her reasons for making survival out to be the most fundamental value abridge the is/ought fallacy. It's not the evolutionary, biological sort of "nature" she points to necessarily, but one more along the lines of an older conception of the human "essence", and your own argument highlights this. What about "survival" in your full, higher sense is morally important?

Most of what she said was bunkum. Some of what she said was not. However, the parts that were not bunkum were shallow, obvious, and derivative. All in all, my take on Ayn Rand is that she contributed nothing of value to western philosophy and her reputation among teens and 20-somethings for being deep and insightful is not deserved. Also she was a lousy novelist.

But she makes one hell of an internet meme.

This.

Perhaps you all should familiarise yourselves with the work of eminent russian-american singer-songwriter and pianist Regina Spektor and forget about all this nonsense..

Perhaps you all should familiarise yourselves with the work of eminent russian-american singer-songwriter and pianist Regina Spektor and forget about all this nonsense..

Never!

Ayn is that special.

This post seems to have been made under the assumption that man is in fact the dominant species of the planet. This amuses me. Would it be so great a tragedy (in ecological terms) if humankind went extinct tomorrow? Would any of the great intellectual accomplishments made by humankind be considered important or even remembered by its future descendants, or whatever other sapient species might arise after its doom? I think it rather unlikely.
If we're not the dominant species then would you be so kind as to name another? Is there a single other which has attained greater speeds than man? That is smarter or is capable of greater strength? Is there any other species on this planet that has built cities as grand as ours? No. We have knives and guns and cranes and planes ande spanners and drills and all sorts of other tools and devices that we use to bend circumstance to our whims. No other species on this planet can compare. Humanity is the dominant species on Earth.

Hah me, lived a shelterd life? Shit mate, I can safetly say you know nothing. The language you use here shows your paranioa, umm a typical sign of thoes who subscribe to her philosophies. Yes man kind is also violent, and yes we are at the top of the evolutionary tree, but because of our own actions? Nope because of evolution.
Evolution is the result of non-random survival of randomly varying replicators. Our predecessors survived and reproduced because they were highly intelligent (for their time), alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

As well as speices predating on each other, they also enter into freindly relations. The pine tree would be dead without pollenatng insects, to which they give up some of their resources in order to attract.
Or they would have evolved more like ferns and not bothered with pollination. Either that or they'd have died. They took advantage of a parasite's feeding. When Life hands you lemons you squeeze them in the eyes of Life and run off with Life's wallet.

So mankind has not the ability to BE two seemingly conflicting things at the same time?
So, I was thinking about the nature of duality. If man can be both good and evil at once, then why does society bind these two contrary principals to the concept of "Heroism" and "Villany"? Doesn't celebrating one and shunning the other, in essence, make us less human? How do anti-heroes factor into this debate? Like my father once said, FATHER NOT FOUND

Yes I agree we should all learn from our mistakes, but to feel no empahty for the plight of your fellow man, is not normal human thinking. Umm yes I believe that is another of those typical signs. And a further reason why I say the majoruty of it is bunkum. It makes you think in a way not consistant with normal mental health.
I should probably point out that you're categorizing me as a paranoid sociopath seems to be both an attempt to dismiss my arguments without actually addressing them and paint me as less than human and make it easier for you to shit on my beliefs. Good job! You get an Aleph-Plus!

You see the difference here is that I spoke what is true, whilst you deny it and instead tell me that normal empathy for your fellow man is what, some sort of fuzzy falseness. Umm now which of us looks like the dick?
This isn't about who's a bigger dick, it's about who's right and since we're dealing with morality that's going to be a dicey issue as everyone has a differing opinion on what is an isn't right. Once again, you're trying to dismiss my argument and philosophy (which is not objectivism, though there are parts of it I like) with the only justification being your say so.

Then you also show your ignorance on the concept of evolution. We had no hand in how and why we evoluved as we did.
You're the one that has no fucking idea how evolution works. It's the survival of the fittest. That means that cunning killers have a better shot at living and procreation than something like a jackoffasaur. It's not pretty, it's not fair, it's not nice but that's how it works. Even plants are hardwired to do their best to ensure their own survival. Every living thing is.