I actually keep meaning to getting around to reading this.
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.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
Oh yeah, The Stand. God that's a great, great book. It's like LOTR if LOTR didn't suck and go off on stupid tangents about things no-one cares about.
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
LOTR. In my opinion, any book which is "optimally" read by having a geneology whilst you're reading so you just remember who the fuck is talking is not a good fucking book.
Rent on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
I think Rand's work is fantastic, and they are among my favorite novels.
I'm trying to figure out where to start unraveling the fucked up in that statement, and failing miserably.
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.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
What about Rand-Know-Nothingers? Seriously, I tried to read the Fountainhead and thought it was like the driest, more boring, and most nonsensical shit I had ever read. Never finished the first chapter.
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.
What about Rand-Know-Nothingers? Seriously, I tried to read the Fountainhead and thought it was like the driest, more boring, and most nonsensical shit I had ever read. Never finished the first chapter.
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.
I'm not going to argue for Ayn Rand on this forum for the same reason I don't try to skip through the Quneitra crossing into Syria: I like my balls, my tits, and my rectum; I don't need any of them deep fried for wading into a mob.
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.
I will make an admission: The Fountainhead was an okay novel. I am glad I read it, even if I didn't enjoy the process entirely.
The philosophy espoused by said okay novel, though? Not so okay.
nescientist on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
What is Ayn (what's up with people putting unneccesary y's in their names? seriously) Rand's philosophy? From what little I do know about her novels I know that permeates throughout her novels.
What is Ayn (what's up with people putting unneccesary y's in their names? seriously) Rand's philosophy? From what little I do know about her novels I know that permeates throughout her novels.
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.
It also ignores how beneficial altruism can be to the individual.
Well now if one realized the activity would eventually benefit them maximally in the end it wouldn't be altruistic would it? ;-)
Organichu on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited October 2008
Altruism isn't Absolutist.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
After reading the article I'm more worried about her complete and utter support for laissez-faire capitalism, which is such a dangerously stupid idea that it's hard to express in words.
After reading the article I'm more worried about her complete and utter support for laissez-faire capitalism, which is such a dangerously stupid idea that it's hard to express in words.
Well it might work just fine if people were super-intelligent robots.
And this is the point that bothers most people. For christ's sake, she wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.
It also ignores how beneficial altruism can be to the individual.
Well now if one realized the activity would eventually benefit them maximally in the end it wouldn't be altruistic would it? ;-)
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.
Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist."
Various philosophers define the doctrine in various ways, but all definitions generally revolve around a moral obligation to benefit others or the pronouncement of moral value in serving others rather than oneself. Philosopher C. D. Broad defines altruism as "the doctrine that each of us has a special obligation to benefit others." [4] Philosopher W. G. Maclagan defines it as "a duty to relieve the distress and promote the happiness of our fellows...Altruism is to...maintain quite simply that a man may and should discount altogether his own pleasure or happiness as such when he is deciding what course of action to pursue."
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.
And this is the point that bothers most people. For christ's sake, she wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.
It also ignores how beneficial altruism can be to the individual.
Well now if one realized the activity would eventually benefit them maximally in the end it wouldn't be altruistic would it? ;-)
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.
Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist."
Various philosophers define the doctrine in various ways, but all definitions generally revolve around a moral obligation to benefit others or the pronouncement of moral value in serving others rather than oneself. Philosopher C. D. Broad defines altruism as "the doctrine that each of us has a special obligation to benefit others." [4] Philosopher W. G. Maclagan defines it as "a duty to relieve the distress and promote the happiness of our fellows...Altruism is to...maintain quite simply that a man may and should discount altogether his own pleasure or happiness as such when he is deciding what course of action to pursue."
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.
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.
Because unless you limit it to mostly material rewards, the whole thing becomes meaningless and can be used to justify anything. Spritual rewards and martyrdom for examples are something I doubt Rand ever intended rewards to cover.
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.
Again, that is only if you stretch the word so far that it becomes nearly meaningless.
1. One's personal interest or advantage, especially when pursued without regard for others.
# S: (n) opportunism, self-interest, self-seeking, expedience (taking advantage of opportunities without regard for the consequences for others)
# S: (n) egoism, egocentrism, self-interest, self-concern, self-centeredness (concern for your own interests and welfare)
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.
Because unless you limit it to mostly material rewards, the whole thing becomes meaningless and can be used to justify anything. Spritual rewards and martyrdom for examples are something I doubt Rand ever intended rewards to cover.
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.
Again, that is only if you stretch the word so far that it becomes nearly meaningless.
1. One's personal interest or advantage, especially when pursued without regard for others.
# S: (n) opportunism, self-interest, self-seeking, expedience (taking advantage of opportunities without regard for the consequences for others)
# S: (n) egoism, egocentrism, self-interest, self-concern, self-centeredness (concern for your own interests and welfare)
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. ;-)
If taking a philosophy to its logical conclusion basically results in a philosophy that says "continue doing everything you are already do," that philosophy is pretty goddamn useless and has no application.
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.
Rent that is certainly a controversial stance, yes.
Here's the problem with laissez-faire capitalism and it's polar opposite, communism. Both assume ridiculous facts about society and how it works. Communism assumes everyone'll act in everyone else's best interest, which is just fucking retarded since people sin, and laissez-faire capitalism assumes everyone'll act to maximize profit which is disproven because people are morons.
If taking a philosophy to its logical conclusion basically results in a philosophy that says "continue doing everything you are already do," that philosophy is pretty goddamn useless and has no application.
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.
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.
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.
You wouldn't have time for vindication. You would just be dead. A person who takes a bullet in order to save a person won't be able to get any vindication.
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.
You wouldn't have time for vindication. You would just be dead. A person who takes a bullet in order to save a person won't be able to get any vindication.
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.
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.
In that case you would be living for another person instead of yourself, at which point it would be altruism by most accepted definitions of the word.
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.
In that case you would be living for another person instead of yourself, at which point it would be altruism by most accepted definitions of the word.
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.
It seems reading Ayn Rand makes you a dick, whether you like her or not. Except for a few people.
So thankfully I've avoided that.
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.
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.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Are you describing LOTR or Stephen King?
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...
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
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.
but they're listening to every word I say
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.
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.