Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
It's Banned Books Week. Go Read One To Spite Sarah.
Posts
Do it. It's been a really long time since I read it, but I remember being absolutely fascinated. Also, don't wiki/google anything about it until you're done.
Are you describing LOTR or Stephen King?
You're muckin' with a G!
It was all the butt sex in The Stand that I really liked.
Sure, that didn't come til the end, but when it did...
It's alright. It's a proverbial not-so-Gordian Knot for which I hold no shame.
Lets try and not turn this thread into a Rand Bashers against Rand lovers thread.
I kind of feeling bad for never reading it, but I'd really like to know why it sucks/rocks.
I seem to remember a stupid ugly self-obsessed friend of mine loving it. And my dad. Both of whom I deeply mistrust.
I never red Atlas Shrugged, but I did read a cyberpunk book called Sewer, Gas and Electric which contained a tiny holographic robot Ayn Rand for the sole purpose of pointing out the obvious flaws in her philosophy. Plus it's pretty decent on its own.
If you're talking strictly fiction, and you're willing to read through one of her two giants, I recommend The Fountainhead. If not, I recommend We The Living.
The philosophy espoused by said okay novel, though? Not so okay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
It has several painful shortcomings, but she essentially defined it as the following: recognizing that there is an objective reality and that it can be observed and studied, employing reason as man's only guide to knowing that reality, rational self-interest as the bedrock of ethics, capitalism as the socioeconomic paradigm that most perfectly represents the first three fields, and aesthetics/art as meta value judgments... reducing down to 'art is a recreation of reality according to the values that man ascribes to metaphysical existents.
So baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasially, Ayn Rand would say: a.) reality is real, b.) think, because that's good, c.) altruism sucks cunt, d.) fuck communism, and e.) art is a selective encapsulation of how we value the things we observe.
(guys I'm just the messenger, be cool guys be cool)
And this is the point that bothers most people. For christ's sake, she wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.
So thankfully I've avoided that.
It also ignores how beneficial altruism can be to the individual.
It could be worse. She could have written a book called-
No. No, I'm not going to Godwin this thread, as ironic as it would be considered the thread topic. :lol:
Well now if one realized the activity would eventually benefit them maximally in the end it wouldn't be altruistic would it?
Well it might work just fine if people were super-intelligent robots.
You could use that to say altruism doesn't actually exist because most individuals considered altruistic do get emotional benefit out of it. Just because there is a reward for it doesn't mean the individual actually expected a reward. If I saved someone's life without expecting anything in return and ended up getting a material benefit from it, that doesn't mean saving someone's life wasn't altruistic.
If serving others benefits a person, that doesn't mean the person didn't act altruistically even if he knew that he might get a material reward in return.
Besides, almost nobody actually thinks about maximizing their rewards except in an extremely general way when deciding what to do on most issues.
I'm not sure why you're only considering 'material' rewards as vindication? Unless I misunderstand your usage of the word. For example Rand would hold that dying for a person whom you hold particularly dear isn't altruistic and she isn't referring to a potential cash reward.
I would agree with your postulation that altruism might not really even exist. Isn't just about every action done out of self-interest? If you dive in front of a car to save another, then clearly that value is pretty high up there and your receipt for that action is intellectual validation.
Eh, a thread should probably be made about this where more qualified people than myself can discuss it. I'm not going to posture as philosophically studied.
Again, that is only if you stretch the word so far that it becomes nearly meaningless.
Right, but I'm not sure why that's a problem. I mean, what is the problem with extrapolating upon meaning if it invalidates a concept? It very well may be that the alleged concept (Rand's deinition of 'altruism') is impossible. Don't mistake me as agreeing with her on all these issues. It might seem 'meaningless', but I think it's because Rand's concept of altruism- a behavior or attitude undertaken without regard for self- is intellectually oxymoronic. It's contradictory, as far as I can tell.
Since this makes Rand look dumb maybe you should agree with me.
People use self-interest to mean looking out for the self without regard to others. Ayn Rand used the word reward not to mean the psychological benefits from martyrdom and giving all of your money and property to the Church. Rand obviously believed altruism existed. If it didn't, she wouldn't be able to say it is self-destructive and immoral. If you do take it to mean those things, you end up with a useless philosophy.
Almost nobody considers doing shit that benefits you in a vague way with a ton of material disadvantages as being part of self-interest.
Basically, you end up with psychological egoism with a shitty aftertaste of bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
Right, like I said I wasn't defending Ayn Rand's philosophy, I specifically told you that I disagreed with it. Don't take me not calling her an empty headed loon as me being a Randroid.
I know that were I to die for my wife I'd consider that acting very much in my self-interest- it'd be a vindication of my very strongest values in my life and my commitment to protect them. I'm not trying to make a philosophical 'point' about this, it seems to me to be more a point of semantics. It could also be impacted by me having ESL.
But I'm saying that if I did not highly value my wife- if she didn't mean that much to me, if she weren't such an intense embodiment of my values- I wouldn't react to jump in front of her. I mean, unless you're attempting to make the argument that societal constructs (the idea that a man protects his wife, and that's that) would guide me, and it wouldn't have anything to do with my 'values'.
Perhaps a better analogue would be one of those silly and ridiculous action movies where a guy takes on an entire crime family to get back his wife or whatever.
Let's avoid making this into an objectivism, atheism, abortion or libertarianism thread, yeah?
Please?
Pretty please?
I've read most of the books on the banned lists that end up being circulated.
Is there any book that should be banned? I mean, if we let Mein Kampf get read, not much else ought to be banned, surely?
What? No, I think there's a profound difference between what I describe and living 'for' someone. And even if you did live 'for' them, that would ultimately be the thing that granted you the most lasting and powerful satisfaction (with all the knowledge you currently possess) and so it'd be in your self-interest. This stuff is quite convoluted.
addendum: Oh I see the poster above me requests a redirection to the thread topic. Fair enough. It was nice discussing things with you, wise Couscous. I shall weigh your words, spherical wheat person.
I don't think any books should be banned. Though... hm. I guess I could maybe see a world in which that might be feasible. Like, what if enriched uranium were readily available, like gravel. Maybe then a 'KISS guide to nuclear weaponry' ought to garner a ban.
Objectivism really isn't that bad if you look at it broadly, up close is where it gets sorta nasty and weird. It does sorta get bashed on this forum, for both fair and unfair reasons.
I used to be a giant Randian philosophy whore.