navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Atlas Shrugged--the movie?
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic Atlas Shrugged--the movie? Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738


0 posted 2007-06-01 03:29 PM


I confess I still haven't finished reading the book--there's so much to think about in it I find myself distracted by the many underlying themes. I've also found that my "logical" mind (I've got one-it's just rusy) has had some difficulty in digesting it because my logical mind likes a time period, and there's so many conflicting ideas represented by advanced technologies that seemingly co-exist in what I assumed was a bygone era. But enough about why Karen can't read.

I just read that this project has been in "developemental hell" (I completely understand why) for some twenty years (at least) but the option has now been picked again, by a new agency, and they have gotten so far as to name their stars.

" Angelina Jolie has been confirmed to play the role of Dagny Taggart, and Brad Pitt is rumored to be cast as John Galt."

So, while I am curious to know of any reactions people might have regarding the choices, I also would like to pose a question:

Is there anything considered "too sacred" for film adaptation? If you think "yes", please share what works that might be and why.



© Copyright 2007 serenity blaze - All Rights Reserved
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
1 posted 2007-06-01 05:04 PM


I would vote yes for Brad Pitt and no for Angelina.....and a definite yes on it being too sacred.

They tried it with The Fountainhead with Gary Cooper and made a complete mess of it. It would be worse for Atlas Shrugged. Let's face it. The novel is anti-union, anti-governmental interference into schools, science and a host of other things, anti-organized religion and a list of other anti's that stretches as far as the mind's eye can see. It praises the man of intellect and the man willing to put in an honest hour's work for an honest hour's pay. It does not hand out excuses to the lazy, nor does it give praise where it is not due. It is not a movie that, in it's true form, the public would want (or dare) or see. The producers would simply take snippets and glue them together with the intent not to offend.

I sincerely hope they do not try.....

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

2 posted 2007-06-01 05:09 PM


What I find interesting though, is that apparently Ayn Rand, was working on the screenplay herself. (If I can trust the info on wikipedia...)

But if nothing else, the idea of a movie will force me to finish the book!

*laughing*

I really HATE seeing a movie before I read the book. And it goes without saying, I will forever wonder what vision she had for the movie version.

And btw? Thanks Mike, for the reading list advice. I just have to stop putting the book down to ponder. (I get really lost in other things when I do that.)

It truly is a feast of thought.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
3 posted 2007-06-01 05:43 PM


Her vision would have been, I am sure, to produce it exactly the way it was written. I doubt she would have found a studio willing to accept that. After all, 28 publishers turned down the book before it was put in print.

The heroes are rich, powerful business leaders, along with uncompromising intellects - hardly the type of figures today's society relates to. Just recount the attacks on people like Bill Gates or companies like Wal-Mart, whose main crime is that they ARE rich and successful and the best at what they do. No, today's society (spurred on by multi-millionaire politicians attacking the rich and successful) considers success as evil, and the more successful one is, the greater the evil. Ayn Rand would have had a difficult time making the movie in her standards but, with her staunch belief and determination that nothing is impossible if one sets one's mind to it, I won't be the one to say she couldn't have done it

Don't fret about putting the book down to ponder. That is the only way you can get the full flavor and meaning out of it. She doesn't write just WORDS - she writes thoughts and situations and comparitives designed to make on think and apply her thoughts into present life and the descriptions of her characters makes us look into our own lives for those same characters WE have run into. She will also throw in  little gems only the keen eye can spot. One one page near the beginning of AS a man looks at a large calendar lit up on the side of a skyscraper and ponders "That reminds me of some phrase but I can't recall it". Hundreds of pages later someone mentions to him that his days are numbered and he thinks "That phrase reminds me of something I saw but I can't remember what."  There are many such little caveats scattered throughout her works.

Did I mention I like her writings?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

4 posted 2007-06-01 05:52 PM


Well, reading her has certainly "upped the bar" for me for what I would like to achieve in my fiction writing.

*grin*

I used to hit the wall at chapter six, in this, um, my never-ending attempt at The Great American Novel.

Now I hit the wall at the first SENTENCE!




Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
5 posted 2007-06-01 06:13 PM


I can relate! One exercize of mine is to read a paragraph I like, put down whatever book, and try to duplicate the thought that paragraph put forth as clearly as the author. I can't do it with her at all.

She said once at a press conference that she never put a word into her books that was not relevant to the story. She said she never wrote of the hero getting up and brushing his teeth - not because her characters didn't brush their teeth - but because it was not pertinent to the story. She then allowed reporters to take sentences or paragraphs of her books and quiz her on why whe wrote it exactly that way and she always had a detailed answer.

She also mentioned at a conference that "Delay is the past tense of denial." A reporter asked her what she meant by that and she replied "I'll tell you later" and walked away. How can one not love this woman?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

6 posted 2007-06-01 06:16 PM


Nodding.

I admire efficiency too. (I am an adjective Nazi at times.)

And thanks for sharing that story--I do believe I am completely smitten with her now.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
7 posted 2007-06-01 06:42 PM


Ayn Rand’s enemy was a society built on the idea:
from each according to his ability, to each according
to his needs, ( which was pretty much Communism
as an ideal in her time), the problem being that the needs
of others are endless so the creator has little or no
chance of reward special to his effort.

Still I never understood where Rand’s objective egoism
could, for example,  justify having children.  And absent
the fear of retribution, there is an underlying: if they can’t
swim let them drown attitude.

John


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
8 posted 2007-06-01 07:10 PM


if they can’t
swim let them drown attitude.


If that's the impression you get from her, John, then you have missed her point entirely.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
9 posted 2007-06-01 07:31 PM


Mike,

I wonder if we've read the same book?

As I'm sure you know, her original title was, after all, "The Strike".

Cut that interminable train ride, cut the speech. The only thing that I suspect Hollywood types would find objectionable would be the sex scene on the train.

For me, Galt's Gulch is still the best description of real communism I can think of.

Problems with having children? Rand is very clear about this. If having children is what you choose to do, then that is what you should do. What pisses her off is that people have children so that they can pity themselves.

Sorry, for being all over the place. Don't have much time.



serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

10 posted 2007-06-01 07:45 PM


This is totally off-topic Brad--

but I just tested this:

and how come I have to be "pist" in here and have "brain-frats"--???
But apparently it's okay for you to be appropriately pi ssed? (Hmmm...)
RON???

What's up with that? C'mon Wiz...it's philosophy!!! er, ain't it?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
11 posted 2007-06-01 07:58 PM


.


It was over 30 years ago
and I was young then

Still . . .

What direct obligation or responsibility
did she recognize to those less fortunate
to be as talented or persevering?

John

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
12 posted 2007-06-01 08:04 PM


Brad, we obviously did NOT read the same book.

Galt's Gulch a pefect example of communism? I have NO idea where that comes from. True, all were committed to the same goal but no one "owed" anything to anyone and they all worked for their own profit. If you will recall, at the end when John Galt was going back to the "world", Francisco pleaded with him not to go because the world had become very unstable and it wasn't safe. What Francisco was really saying was "What would happen to us if something happened to you?" One look from Galt made him realize that and he apologized. Ergo....man's responsibility is to himself alone.  The perfect example of communism in the book was the recollection of the motor company that failed where Galt perfected his motor. She went into exact detail on that and it's unmistakeable.

What all would liberal Hollywood object to? Tell me you're joking

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
13 posted 2007-06-01 08:10 PM


Mike,


"but no one "owed" anything to anyone and they all worked for their own profit."

I don't then understand your objection.

John

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
14 posted 2007-06-01 08:12 PM


What direct obligation or responsibility
did she recognise to those less fortunate
to be as talented or persevering?


John, she expected everyone to attempt to achieve to the best of their ability. One did not have to be "as talented". One only had to do his best. She was more than willing to recognize and help those people. She was not against having children but she was against having children who could not be raised properly while the parents expected the state or others to pick up the tab.

Would she save a drowning person? Yes, but only once. She would expect that person to either learn to swim or stay away from water after that experience.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
15 posted 2007-06-01 08:13 PM


Karen,

You're on double secret probation.

John,
I hear that.

I read Atlas Shrugged a few years back as a result of this forum. Recently, however, I saw the hagiography of her life and as much as I found it also interminable, the interview clips  were very interesting. There  really wasn't anything I had a problem with. In fact, I found myself agreeing with most of it. At the very least, it's pretty much how I live my life anyway.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
16 posted 2007-06-01 08:24 PM


quote:
she expected everyone to attempt to achieve to the best of their ability. One did not have to be "as talented". One only had to do his best. She was more than willing to recognize and help those people.


That's where it comes from.

Rand's views on what women 'really' want are most definitely not in favor today (for good reason). Now that I think about it, another problem will be what's his name's (Is it Harry?) reaction when Taggert switches boyfriends.  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
17 posted 2007-06-01 08:29 PM


John, I'm afraid we have a miscommunication. My objection to what? I have no objection...

Brad, if you live your life by her standards, I salute you. I tried and found it to be too hard. Yes, many people agree with her philosophies. That's why she has sold millions of books and has as many subscribers to her Objectivist newsletter. It's also why she was the most requested college speaker of her day.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
18 posted 2007-06-01 09:15 PM


Honestly, I'm a little confused by that. If I agree with a lot of what she says, why would I try to live up to her standards?

The only standards that I have to live up to are my own.

Have I missed something here?


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

19 posted 2007-06-01 09:23 PM


"double secret probation"

Izzat like back-to-back sentences of life imprisonment???

oh myyyyyyyyyyyyy...

I've never enjoyed a conversation more, about something I know absolutely nothing about, in my life.

That's prolly not true, but it'll do. For now.


I really must finish this book.



Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
20 posted 2007-06-01 09:47 PM


woman "philosophers" and woman preachers, I take no words from them.

If she was sent to Siberia and came back alive,
she would not have had such view of world.

Thank to SB, I learned something new today.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

21 posted 2007-06-01 10:01 PM


If what you learned today, Drauntz, was a disparagement/disappointment of women, I'd like no thanks for that.

No offense taken, and none meant.

I accidentally touched upon a passionate topic. (Please note, that the initial post asked about any works considered "too sacred" for film.)

Sometimes you confuse me, sweetie...but that happens to me alot too.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
22 posted 2007-06-02 02:04 AM


always love and respect you, SB.

I do not take philosophers seriously...too much
a burden.

have a wonderful night and sleep tight.My dear lady.

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (06-02-2007 03:35 AM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
23 posted 2007-06-02 08:25 AM




.


"Ergo....man's responsibility is to himself alone."

Hence no higher duty or morality?

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
24 posted 2007-06-02 03:59 PM


The only standards that I have to live up to are my own.

Brad, since you took my wording the wrong way, let me re-phrase it.

If the standards you live your live by are similar to hers I applaud you.

No need to get feathers ruffled for no reason

Drauntz, if she had lived her life in Siberia? An excellent point! Perhaps if you would  read her first novel (not counting Anthem)WE THE LIVING, you would have your answer. Ms. Rand is Russian and grew up there. That book is based on her observations and experiences growing up under the Soviet regime. For her to begin there, emigrate to the States as a teen, learn English as a second language and become the writer she became is an incredible testament to her. You may want to run from philosophers but Any Rand did not write her novels as philosophical pieces. She said many times that her primary goal in wring a novel was to make it a good story. Whether readers agreed with the views here characters set forth or not, that was secondary. As it turned out, millions did

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
25 posted 2007-06-02 04:59 PM


"Ergo....man's responsibility is to himself alone."

John, you have reached the crux of the issue which made her so controversial. She made many such statements which invited criticism.  One needs to understand what she meant by such statements. She believed that man's responsibility to himself was to live his life on the highest moral plane possible, making as much of himself as possible without infringing on the rights of others to do the same. She believed in selfishness but not the garbled  definition many use. As far as responsibility, let's take the following example: You get married and have two children. By doing so you have accepted the moral responsibility of raising a family. So, when you do things toward achieving that goal, you are doing it for YOURSELF. You are doing it because you are living up to the responsibilities you have chosen. Yes, of course, the family benefits, but you are simply living up to the responsibilities you have set for yourself as a moral human being. (The fact that you love them is a wonderful addition!)

Selfishness is another snippet that, when taken out of context, can become distorted.  Selfishness is to many a blasphemous word simply because they don't know what it means so they throw it around  as a biting insult and miss the entire meaning....too bad.

...and, no, there is no higher morality than that which one owes to oneself....my personal opinion, of course.


btw, we had an excellent thread on this not so long ago..
/pip/Forum15/HTML/001529.html#1

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
26 posted 2007-06-02 07:17 PM


.


Mile,

My problem is that I saw no overriding moral
imperative that would separate her from Oscar Wilde
whose attitude would have been if the family disappoints
or simply bores the superior man dump them.


John


.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
27 posted 2007-06-02 08:33 PM



1.She was a Russian and She saw the Communist regime at a immature age.

2.She  was from family of agnostic and largely non-observant ethnic Jews

3 she was an atheist
4.she wrote in The Fountainhead, "The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need?"

and  "I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body.”

and  "In New York, people seemed happy with their work and weren't waiting for the weekend."

And   "I said to her, why don't you move." he recalled, "She looked at me sternly and said, 'I'll go down with  New York.'"

5. After several years, Rand's close relationship with the much younger Branden turned into a romantic affair,

6.  individual human happiness and success

7.  view on  woman  "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man." (1968)

8. View of economy
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom


9. View on Sex she writes "Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."[46]


10. View on Charity
Rand supported, in principle, the right to give charity but opposed the notion that it was a moral duty, and she did not consider it a major virtue.[55] She opposed all charity and social programs by the government. According to some, her characterization of charity in her fiction was chiefly negative.[56]

11. Her sister .  Rand received a letter from Nora in 1973 and invited her and her husband to America; her sister's views had changed and, to Rand's disappointment, Nora voluntarily returned to the USSR.[59]

12.  She was a smoker
"I like to think of fire held in a man's hand.  Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips.  I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking.  I wonder what great things have come from such hours.  When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression”


Philosophy: Who Needs It?
by Ayn Rand

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
28 posted 2007-06-02 08:45 PM


balladeer:
quote:
selfishness is another snippet that, when taken out of context, can become distorted.

I can't help but remind you that using the word "selfish" with a positive connotation is taking it out of context, and distorting the nuance of the word.  It is not synonymous with "self interest" or "self love".  Those kinds of words or expressions are to selfishness, what "growth" is to "atrophy", or what "dive" is to "drown".  

Selfish is still selfish.  And egoism either denies the possibility of it, or ensures the hermetic pervasiveness of it, by attributing ALL motives for action to self-interest.  But nobody lives as if either of these extremes were true ... which may be a clue that they aren't.    

Stephen.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
29 posted 2007-06-02 08:50 PM


only to Balladeer because he mentioned my name

I have met many and heard many similar kind but much mature ones.

Two friends of mine escaped from Vietnam.

one being jailed three times and finally find a boat and ......and came to US. He later studied medicine and is a medical doctor now. An very decent man who cares and  cherishes human life than worry about an superficial ideal.

Another lady simply float 2 months on the sea and many people died before they reached US. a extremely kind lady..love the freedom and love human relationship.

People from Heidi was turned away.

The little Cuba boy was turned away.

I do not say that her novel is bad..though I never read it and have no plan to read it. but her philosophy is a joke...if nothing new in it..
herself..a product of October Revolution.. brought quite a spirit revolution here...

not my taste.

my thought.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
30 posted 2007-06-02 09:40 PM


Drauntz, you are certainly entitled to consider her philosophy a joke if you wish, as is your right. She certainly doesn't need me to stand up for her, nor am I qualified to do so. I will say, on a light note, that it's amazing that you listed the fact that she was a smoker in there. Guess a movie about her would have to be R-rated these days, huh?
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
31 posted 2007-06-02 09:46 PM


thank you Balladeer for the read.
wish Toe  on my side

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
32 posted 2007-06-02 10:00 PM


Sir Balladeer, never knew that you had such a history with her.

still I hold my opinion. it was good that I did not blurt out bad words about her.. certainly I do not want to hurt you, dear sir.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
33 posted 2007-06-02 10:45 PM


But nobody lives as if either of these extremes were true ... which may be a clue that they aren't.

Interesting theory, Stephanos. It can be either that or a clue that it is true but no one outside of a novel is capable of doing it. By your statement, the teachings of the Bible may not be true, either.

An interesting thing happened last year which is an excellent example of her views on selfishness and sacrifice. When I read it, it really made me smile because it showed so clearly the difference between her views and so many others.

A school janitor had, over the span of 40+ years, donated one million dollars to charity and it made front page news. The janitor had decided all those years ago that donating a million to charity was to be his life-long goal. He worked overtime, took on extra jobs and did whatever he could to raise money until he finally achieved that goal. The newspapers and public applauded him for his sacrifices all those years to make his dream possible. Ayn Rand would say they were not sacrifices at all but done for one selfish reason - his pursuit of a personal goal. Did charities benefit from his dream chase? Of course. Selfishness needs not be detrimental at all and seldom is, as long as the rights of others are not violated. The janitor did not consider the things he did not do as sacrifices - he considered them opportunities to do things to reach the goal. He was a man who had a dream, fashioned his life to achieve that dream - and did it. We should all be so successful in life. That is the difference between her view of selfishness and yours.

She felt the same about self-sacrifice....it's all in the definition. If a mother gives her own life to save the life of her child, it is not sacrifice. She values the life of her child above her own. If she were to sacrifice her life for a complete stranger's, then that would be  sacrifice. Churches preach sacrifice. Governments preach sacrifice. Ayn Rand preaches run from anyone who preaches sacrifice - because they are always referring to YOUR sacrifice - not theirs. (Why does Al Gore come to mind? )

These are reasons why she had so many supporters and so many enemies......all in the definitions. She never insisted that anyone follow her ideals. She simply presented them for people to accept or reject. Fortunately millions of people accepted and made her the most sought-after speaker, and one of the most influential people, of our generation.
  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
34 posted 2007-06-02 10:49 PM


Dear Drauntz, you may say anything you like without fear of hurting my feelings. I may agree or disagree but I will never question your right to stand up for your thoughts or beliefs.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
35 posted 2007-06-02 11:06 PM


Dear Balladeer, thnak you for the words and esp  the kisses.

Hugs and kisses back to you.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
36 posted 2007-06-04 12:06 PM


Balladeer:
quote:
Interesting theory, Stephanos. It can be either that or a clue that it is true but no one outside of a novel is capable of doing it.


What I mean is that everyone intuitively has a complaint of the true selfishness (not self-interest) of others whenever it shows itself and causes pain.  And, conversely, I've never met anyone who would say (outside of the pedantry of talking about egoistic philosophy) that it is impossible to perform a "self-forgetting" act of kindness.  And I'm not sure why thinking otherwise should be considered a "capability".    

quote:
A school janitor had, over the span of 40+ years, donated one million dollars to charity and it made front page news. The janitor had decided all those years ago that donating a million to charity was to be his life-long goal. He worked overtime, took on extra jobs and did whatever he could to raise money until he finally achieved that goal. The newspapers and public applauded him for his sacrifices all those years to make his dream possible. Ayn Rand would say they were not sacrifices at all but done for one selfish reason - his pursuit of a personal goal.


That's not a true insight, but rather plays on the truism that personal goals are always our desire.  The problem is that Ayn Rand didn't go far enough.  She needed to ask the question as to why benevolence was his goal in the first place.  Is she so certain that it couldn't actually be for the benefit of others?  She could have argued the truism that doing good makes one feel good, and therefore that he did it out of a "selfish" desire for personal pleasure.  But why should doing good bring its own particular kind of pleasure?  And why is it qualitatively different from the kind of pleasure a successful theif gets from his booty?


The problem with egoism is that it offers no real foundation for moral action, other than a form of hedonism.  But if it were that simple, no one would do bad.  It would be pleasant to do good, and vexing to do evil.  


Another problem is that it lacks a way to make distinctions.  The traditional way of viewing motives, is to recognize that it is quite possible that the man did his charitable deed for the fame and praise of others ... or he could have very well done it out of a real desire to help others.  And there can be mixed motives, of course.  But with the egoist there is only one motive ... and it's either a sucess or a failure.  But there's nothing in egoism (that I can see) to dissuade the man who thinks he's happy with a less than virtuous way of obtaining personal pleasure.


By denying that selfishness exists, a gap has been created in the philosophy which doesn't match what we see, believe and practice in life ... Namely that humanity has mixed motives (the knowledge of good and evil) not variations on one.  Why else should we feel it proper to chide some actions, and praise others?  


quote:
Selfishness needs not be detrimental at all and seldom is, as long as the rights of others are not violated.


Then it's not selfishness as defined.  You (along with egoistic philosophy) are redefining the word.  I've already made the distinction between healthy self interest, and selfishness.  A distinction which is virtually impossible in egoism.  (unless you'd like to try and explain the distinction to me between the actions of a philantropist and a swindler).  To show you what I mean ... what if one feels certain that it would be to his gain, to violate the rights of someone else, or at least that it derives him more pleasure than anything else?  Your very correct mention of rights, is something that egoism can't support.  The idea of someone's rights must to be carried with egoism like Procrustes' severed head.  It simply won't lay comfortably in the bed of egoistic philosophy.  


quote:
The janitor did not consider the things he did not do as sacrifices - he considered them opportunities to do things to reach the goal.
  

A "sacrifice" is a matter of fact, regardless of what someone considers it to be.  The fact that someone doesn't call it a sacrifice, doesn't mean that it wasn't.  It could mean simply that they are humble, or self-forgetting enough not to make too much fuss about their own loss.  It doesn't mean that sacrifice isn't a reality ... only that those who are best at it aren't always hungry for recognition.  And about that goal ... we still need to go further and ask about the motive behind the goal.  

quote:
He was a man who had a dream, fashioned his life to achieve that dream - and did it. We should all be so successful in life. That is the difference between her view of selfishness and yours.


I don't disagree at all with that statement.  We should all do that.  The difference between her view of selfishness and mine, is that her philosophy can only praise.  She has no basis for telling others that they should live likewise.  If goals are defined by self, then all goals must fit the description of "selfish".  

quote:
She felt the same about self-sacrifice....it's all in the definition.


Exactly, my point is that she seems to be redefining things, quite arbitrarily.

"Of course language is not an infallible guide, but it contains, with all its defects, a good deal of stored insight and experience. If you begin by flouting it, it has a way of avenging itself later on.  We had better not follow Humpty Dumpty in making words mean whatever we please"  (C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves)

quote:
If a mother gives her own life to save the life of her child, it is not sacrifice. She values the life of her child above her own. If she were to sacrifice her life for a complete stranger's, then that would be  sacrifice.


What does it matter if the recipient of one's gift is an offspring, or a stranger?  It has no affect, either way, on the value (or cost) of the gift.  Therefore removing and reapplying the word "sacrifice" in this way is completely arbitrary.  I see no basis for it.  


If it is love that leads a woman to give of herself for her children, then preaching "sacrifice" beyond one's own family is simply an admonition to expand one's circle of love.  We're not very good at it.  But what happens to strangers that you love?  They cease to be strangers.


quote:
These are reasons why she had so many supporters and so many enemies......all in the definitions.


How about I just say that "enemy" means "a person who know better than you."  It's all in the definitions.  

Seriously though, I'm not her enemy.  But I can understand the frustration caused by someone arbitarily redefining words, with no recognition of the insight which gave birth to them in the first place.  

quote:
Fortunately millions of people accepted and made her the most sought-after speaker, and one of the most influential people, of our generation.


I'm not saying at all, that she never had any insight, or said anything valuable.  The value of "loving oneself" and not making decisions which cause oneself needless grief, is certainly needed advice.

Stephen  

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
37 posted 2007-06-04 07:09 AM


quote:
Is there anything considered "too sacred" for film adaptation? If you think "yes", please share what works that might be and why.


I'd like to say yes, but then that would make writing an elitist medium.

I once thought it would be impossible to create movies from Tolkien's works. How wrong was I about that? Sometimes, the only way a book gets read is by visual interpretations, which isn't all bad? But I did think it was funny when some of the teens around me thought Tolkien was a New Author of the "coolest fiction, ever!"

Expression, in all forms, requires knowledge, appreciation, and inspiration from many other outside artistic mediums. In essence: we're all borrowers to a degree, and the art is in the giving back (in my eyes).

I guess the argument is whether the film will do the book any justice, and whether the actors/actresses will bring any talent with them in the roles. Jolie and Pitt? They'd better seriously think about it before they accept the part.

Film could use better backbones, and frankly I'm sick of the utterly useless garbage they're charging 8$ a person.

Great storytellers are able to incite all senses, whether that be the olfactory or applied thought & controversy--which seems to be a 7th sense?

I'd just hate to be the film artist whose only controversy or incitations is how they ruined a perfectly good story.

Ayn Rand is a legend for many reasons, and it's not because she didn't have any flaws.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
38 posted 2007-06-04 10:30 AM


Thank you for putting such thought and effort into your reply, Stephanos. I doubt that our way of thinking is so far apart. It's more like the differences lie in the definitions  

The problem is that Ayn Rand didn't go far enough.  She needed to ask the question as to why benevolence was his goal in the first place.  Is she so certain that it couldn't actually be for the benefit of others?  She could have argued the truism that doing good makes one feel good, and therefore that he did it out of a "selfish" desire for personal pleasure.  But why should doing good bring its own particular kind of pleasure?  And why is it qualitatively different from the kind of pleasure a successful theif gets from his booty?

Ayn Rand didn't need to ask anything and, as anyone studying her philosophies would know, she would be certain that his goal WAS doing things for the benefit of others. Why should doing good bring it's own particular kind of pleasure? WHY NOT? There are people who live their lives in many such ways. They may dedicate their lives to helping others, or taking care of animals, or crusading for the homeless, etc, etc, etc. There have been Ghandis and Mother Theresas. You are asking why such goals should bring them pleasure? Why is it different than materialistic pleasure? Easy....it is the ONLY satisfying pleasure. "Booty" to use your word means nothing by itself. You can buy the most expensive car, live in the finest house, with a Rolex on your wrist and a bank account that would rival the Vatican's and none of it would assure you of personal pleasure or satisfaction with your life. How many poor rich people do you know? I know many. A wise man once said that the truly rich man is not the man who has the most, rather the man who needs the least.  Unearned or undeserved wealth will not bring the personal happiness one seeks, even though he may be smiling as he passes you in his Lambourghini. How about poetry? Plagiarism is rampant on the internet. Does receiving praise from stealing others works bring pleasure to the thief? Any Rand is simply saying that what we do has it's root in our own personal goals and desires. If the fellow was driven to donate to charity it was because he had an underlying desire to do so - it made him HAPPY to do so. truism that personal goals are always our desire Well, I sympathize with you if they are not because you either (1) have no goals at all or (2) spend your time on things that you hate or do not interest you at all. The flip side of what  you are questioning is not that pretty.


The problem with egoism is that it offers no real foundation for moral action, other than a form of hedonism.  But if it were that simple, no one would do bad.  It would be pleasant to do good, and vexing to do evil


...and I will submit that egoism offers the ONLY foundation for moral action. If it were that simple no one would do bad? Sure, and if all of the Christians and other religions truly believed that their God was  watching over them every second of their lives they would never sin, right?  You are writing under a grave misconception here, Stephanos, that conception being that all personal goals are to do good and be successful. What if one's personal goal was to do evil or fail? What if doing bad WAS their goal? I play poker with a couple of types like that, actually. Sure, they are in the game to win money but it's interesting that they get more mileage (and even a perverse pleasure) out of "almost" winning! They continually talk of hands they just got beat out of, how if only one card had been different, how if the other fellow had incredible luck...and so on and so on and so on. Know the type?  Any Rand states that our actions support our values and views of ourselves. Some people will continue to fail - while trying desperately to succeed - because they do not feel they deserve success. Why? Who can say? Call it continually being reminded of their worthlessness in their formative years, call it the wiring of the brain, whatever. They will continually and subconsciously sabotage their own successes. bad. Women will hook up with complete losers, while complaining that they can't find a good man. Men will proclaim their own high morals and standards and not understand why they are attracted to hookers, prostitutes and one-night stands. People can proclaim anything they want but, as Ms. Rand would say, "Your actions speak so loudly I can't hear what you're saying."

But with the egoist there is only one motive ... and it's either a sucess or a failure.  But there's nothing in egoism (that I can see) to dissuade the man who thinks he's happy with a less than virtuous way of obtaining personal pleasure.

True enough. There are only successes and failures but success doesn't always mean achieving one's goal. It also means STRIVING to achieve one's goal. If the janitor had come up a thousand short of a million, would he have then been a failure? Of course not. He dedicated his life to that purpose and, regardless of the final amount, he was a success. Those who talk the talk but don't even try are the failures. "The man who thinks he's happy?" And who would you be to tell the man who thinks he is happy that he is not? Some famous guy once said, "I think - therefore I am." Stick "I am happy" after the "think" and it's still true. Your complaint of egoism is that it doesn't give us an out for going after less than virtuous pleasures? A bummer, for sure  


By denying that selfishness exists


Ayn Rand certainly doesn't deny that. She applauds it.

(unless you'd like to try and explain the distinction to me between the actions of a philantropist and a swindler).  

that's simple enough. Ayn Rand's definition (which I have already mentioned here) involves not infringing on the rights of others. A swindler certainly infringes on those rights, wouldn't you say? You are dismissing a man's moral code and keying in only on the results of whatever actions.   what if one feels certain that it would be to his gain, to violate the rights of someone else, or at least that it derives him more pleasure than anything else?    That man would not be a part of any teaching of Ayn Rand, nor would he be a true egoist.

The fact that someone doesn't call it a sacrifice, doesn't mean that it wasn't.  

Based on whose superior intellect? Once again, you are attempting to tell the man what his feelings REALLY are. Who, again, are you to do that? The janitor did not consider his actions a sacrifice....period. If it were your life, perhaps you would. He didn't...and that's his choice.

And about that goal ... we still need to go further and ask about the motive behind the goal.  

We don't need to go further at all. The motive behind that goal was the man's personal satisfaction from helping others. I don't understand why it is so hard for you to grasp that.

How about I just say that "enemy" means "a person who know better than you."  It's all in the definitions.  

You may as well. You've already spoken of people who "think they are happy" and someone who "doesn't understand they made sacrifices even though you state they did" so you must be one of those that knows better. Does that make you the "enemy"?   May God protect us from those that "know better".


rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
39 posted 2007-06-04 03:07 PM


"And who would you be to tell the man who thinks he is happy that he is not?"

Shrinks. They need love and a paycheck too.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
40 posted 2007-06-04 03:45 PM


To me, she is very simple.

1. She knew what was Torah and God because she was from a Jewish family though   she might have never read it. She knew that God is a  dictator..absolute power( love and justice on His one opinion)

2. she lived under a dictator for some years.

3. she found New York the free world....I wonder why she was so blindly see US...met many and in other countries too. means everything is better than hometown...  a very naive view.

then her "philosophy"...individual right.

1) why Adam and Eve followed the lying of the devil?

2)  why Cain killed Abel?

For Atheist

1) how a lion keeps his territory?
2) how wolf fights for the food?
3) how shark get itself survived all those long years?
4)how sea elephant  keeps his many wifes?

her "philosophy' is not something new. it is animal (including human) instinct.

human being's animal instinct may cause war and torture of others...

my thought

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
41 posted 2007-06-04 06:06 PM


Drautz;

One of our 'human' instincts (as the human animal) is to be cooperative with each other.  That's what permits us to build communities.

What many fail to realize though is that when we become a part of that community that community 'owes' us the benefits of membership and we 'owe' it the dues of membership.  So while Mike (Balladeer) can talk about not owing anybody anything (which I don't think he personally believes), just by being a part of the United States he 'owes' this community -- as do I -- what is distinct about our species too though -- is that we get to communicate our ideas about what the benifits and rights of the community 'should' be -- and ultimately -- it's what we decide they should be -- or -- our own standards.  

There are different levels of that morality -- collective and individual -- too many forget that without the collective (where Stephen and I may disagree on 'source' but often would find agreement in form) level -- the individual level exists only until one is murdered by anyone who desires to do so for any or no reason.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
42 posted 2007-06-04 06:33 PM


Local Rebel,"to be cooperative with each other"
is not instinct, it is forced by our weakness.

when three wolves attack a pig, you may think they are cooperating. to me, one wolf wants the hind leg. another one wants the hind leg too. the third one wants the same thing. then one of them may think that if he can not have the hind leg, he may want a front leg. Every one wants a good bite..this is not called a cooperation. to occupy a market...same thing...the animal instinct....I did not say it is good or bad.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

43 posted 2007-06-04 08:31 PM


Reggie?

quote:
I'd like to say yes, but then that would make writing an elitist medium.




Thanks lovie.

That's exactly my point. Not that I don't find the conversation and debate regarding the worth of an Atlas who shrugs or not fascinating (and immensely helpful, too, so thanks all)

But with that one sentence you shot a blow dart at the crux of my confusion. (Sometimes I need a little help to even voice what is bothering me... )

Much food for thought for karenity, the brain eating zombie.

Thanks guys...and I'm afraid I won't add much more than my thanks, because I can't pass judgement on something I have yet to finish reading.

But do continue--it helps.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
44 posted 2007-06-04 09:48 PM


I'm a little overwhelmed my Mike's excellent response (Is that condescending? Ah, hell, deal with it!)

I'm curious if anyone who has read both CS Lewis and Ayn Rand seen a connection?

Because I do.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

45 posted 2007-06-04 09:54 PM


*karen sits up, interested*

and also must express my gratitude to Mike. I knew he would have a lot to say on this subject, but I must say, with admiration, he said much more than I ever expected! Thank you Mike...

And?

I've got a whole buncha Lewis at my bedside too...so PLEASE...

bring it on!

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
46 posted 2007-06-04 10:13 PM


Hey Karen. You're welcome. Thanks for making me think.

Actually, we're all practicing the art of "Objectivism," in one form or another. Which is a philosophy developed by Ayn Rand, herself. Even Drauntz. Sorry Bud. Luv ya, but gotta give credit where credit is due.

But nevah mind that, she's one of my heroes in life because:

"The Fountainhead" produced one of the longest speeches in the history of film. She refused to give up one word. She insisted on the exacts to remain intact and always fought for that. Eeww, rhyme. In a world where novels are edited to death, (start out with a story about a bunny & end up with a story about a perverted turtle.) I admire her determination.





Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
47 posted 2007-06-04 11:27 PM


who practices philosophy? I am not a party member of any kind. or followers of any human ideal. I am the slave of my gifted conscientiousness.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
48 posted 2007-06-04 11:36 PM


It's exactly that weakness Drauntz, that drives us to cooperate and therefore survive -- otherwise, individually we would become extinct.

Likewise -- systems of cooperation that are inferior also become extinct in the face of competing groups or tribes.

The weaknesses of our own system are evident in the face of rising crime -- criminals is the term we use for those who refuse to cooperate.

The sharing of resources by the wolves is the very definition of cooperation.  Birds do it, bees do it (and I'm not so sure about the fleas) -- but inner-species cooperation is what allows many species to survive.

Dr. Will, in his ifinite wit -- declared us all cannibals -- we just haven't eaten each other because there's plenty of food.

It's basic anthropology, psychology, economics, and philosophy.

Musical chairs.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
49 posted 2007-06-05 12:16 PM


Well, obviously, Lewis's metaphysics and Rand's epistemology are very different (I'm not a fan of either of these by the way), but both write about a sense of joy in very similar ways.

For Rand, it's the joy of creation, of individual creation. I'm thinking of Galt's gulch again and when, I think it was Galt, who turned down working for Harry (you know, the guy with the green metal). There's a kind of aesthetic, ecstatic joy present. I think it's also present in her romanticism and love of movies.

For Lewis, you can pretty much see the same thing in the Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, and in Surprised by Joy if in the two former works it is a contrast, "You mean, you actually let him read a book he likes."

It is precisely this kind of ecstatic aestheticism, this sense that joy, at least a type of joy, comes, not when you're comparing yourself to other people, but when you are doing something that you truly enjoy.

This is what I'll defend in both even if I don't quite agree with a lot of the other stuff they put forward.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
50 posted 2007-06-05 12:32 PM


Local Rebel

"we just haven't eaten each other because there's plenty of food."
Absolutely wrong. look at those wars, those killings. Who is Dr. Will? either he is wrong or both of you are wrong. He shall put his wit on his patient...as a cannibal.

We have not eaten each other because we have a human heart like People gave the lifeboat to children, women, and older people when Titanic was down. The little spark that came with our birth. When hungery, you may say, mother eats child. but that will be, i believe 1/1000 mothers.

people in forest ate other humans not because they did not have other food. it is  because human meat was tastier. who changed them? not Hamberger and French fries. it is God's words and dead Preachers.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
51 posted 2007-06-05 12:41 PM


Balladeer:  
quote:
Why should doing good bring it's own particular kind of pleasure? WHY NOT? There are people who live their lives in many such ways. They may dedicate their lives to helping others, or taking care of animals, or crusading for the homeless, etc, etc, etc. There have been Ghandis and Mother Theresas. You are asking why such goals should bring them pleasure? Why is it different than materialistic pleasure? Easy....it is the ONLY satisfying pleasure.


But isn't saying that moral action is the "ONLY satisfying pleasure", making a qualitative judgment?  In which case, the egoist has to admit that there is a good kind of selfishness versus a bad kind.  Or else say that the bad ones aren't selfish enough, making the traditionally negative term "selfish" into a positive one, by fiat.  The problem is, with egoism, self-interest is claimed to be the ONLY motive for human action ... period.  If that is true, then no distinction can be made within the framework of egoism.

You don't have to sermonize me.     Of course I agree that moral action is more fulfilling than doing evil.  I simply don't think that egoism supports that within its own assumptions.  That addendum has to be held in great tension with egoism.  

Unless of course Ayn Rand's philosophy differs somewhat from classical egoism.  I admit I haven't read Rand much, but I do have an understanding of egoism as articulated by philosophers much earlier than Rand.

quote:
What if one's personal goal was to do evil or fail? What if doing bad WAS their goal?


Only you're placing evil in the context of failure.  There are those who place it within the context of success.  Now of course I agree with you.  But egoism simply makes "self-interest" the motive and goal of all action.  If this is the case, how can an egoist tell a person who enjoyingly does evil, that he is a failure?  If "self" is the foundation, then "self" must also be the determiner of what is and is not "success".  The egoist pulls this qualitative judgement out of another paradigm entirely.  It doesn't come from its own ranks.


quote:
"The man who thinks he's happy?" And who would you be to tell the man who thinks he is happy that he is not? Some famous guy once said, "I think - therefore I am." Stick "I am happy" after the "think" and it's still true. Your complaint of egoism is that it doesn't give us an out for going after less than virtuous pleasures? A bummer, for sure


MIKE!  You've totally got it backwards.  That's what I'm asking you!  The man who does evil and "thinks he's happy" ... Who are YOU to tell him he isn't?  Who are you to tell him that only moral pursuits satisfy?

My complaint with egoism is not that it doesn't give us an out for going after less than virtuous pleasures ... but that it doesn't give us a deterrent.  No disincentive coming from its philosophy.  If self is the center (the erroneous claim of egoism), then selfishness (in all of its forms) must be okay.  If self-fulfillment is what it's all about, then ANY chosen path to that must be a valid attempt.  There's no way around this impasse, for egoism.

quote:
Ayn Rand certainly doesn't deny that (selfishness). She applauds it.


That's the problem.  Either she ends up inadvertently praising what is not worthy of praise, or she redefines "selfishness" as a virtue.  The latter would actually seem better, since it is only a breach of language, rather than an outright approval of vice.  (Though, this willy nilly changing of language is rash, unwise, and insulting to one's intellect)  But even if we allow the language to be twisted, in changing a term which once meant a vice into a virue, egoism offers nothing to disallow what is the opposite of virtue.  If you're going to praise "selfishness", then you're automatically decrying something else.  Only that "something else" springs from (you guessed it) self interest, which is something egoism cannot but approve.  

quote:
that's simple enough. Ayn Rand's definition (which I have already mentioned here) involves not infringing on the rights of others. A swindler certainly infringes on those rights, wouldn't you say? You are dismissing a man's moral code and keying in only on the results of whatever actions.


I'm not dismissing a man's moral code.  I'm saying that egoism doesn't support one.  Infringing on the rights of others is indeed part of the moral law.  However egoism offers nothing to censure infringing on someone's rights, if it is done out of self interest.  Many rob others, very stealthily, out of self interest.  Egoism claims that ALL actions stem from the same principle.  Then how can it condemn the man who chooses a darker path to meet the needs of "self"?  


And Mike, it's like a big glaring hole in these arguments.  I honestly can't understand how you're missing it.  You are arguing a philosophy in which self-interest is king.  And when I ask for a justification of moral action versus immorality, you answer "we shouldn't violate the rights of others", which is just a restatement of morality, not it's justification.  When you say "the rights of others" you tell me, in effect, that self-interest is not so central.  Any moral code you bring in, must always come from outside egoism.  

quote:
Stephen:  what if one feels certain that it would be to his gain, to violate the rights of someone else, or at least that it derives him more pleasure than anything else?  

mike:  That man would not be a part of any teaching of Ayn Rand, nor would he be a true egoist.


Why (according to the principles of egoism) would he not be a true egoist?  I hear the statement, I'm not hearing the explanation.  My belief is that Ayn (like any egoist) must hold her morality in spite of her philosophy.

quote:
Based on whose superior intellect? Once again, you are attempting to tell the man what his feelings REALLY are. Who, again, are you to do that? The janitor did not consider his actions a sacrifice....period. If it were your life, perhaps you would. He didn't...and that's his choice.


I disagree, in that I take a more "objective" view of sacrifice.  However, let's say I give you that one ... Why would someone going through great pains for a stranger, be any different?  What if a person says it is his life's joy to feed people (even to his own financial strain) in a far away land?  Whether for a stranger, or for one's own flesh and blood, you are still speaking of a virtue.  The fact that Ayn doesn't like the term "sacrifice" is irrelevant.  (although it represents the same twisting of language I mentioned before ... only this time, changing a traditionally positive connotation into a negative one).

quote:
Stephen:  And about that goal ... we still need to go further and ask about the motive behind the goal.  

mike:  We don't need to go further at all. The motive behind that goal was the man's personal satisfaction from helping others. I don't understand why it is so hard for you to grasp that.


But you DID go further.  You said that it was his personal satisfaction from helping others.  But was his goal to be satisfied, or to help others?  It's an important question.  In my framework, satisfaction is a byproduct of doing good, not the good itself.  If you don't think motives are important, then you're being naive.  People can perform all kinds of "good works" with less than sterling motive, and all out of self interest.

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.  When you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." (words of Jesus, Matthew 6:1-2)  


And the only reason I bring motives up, in speaking of egoism, is that as a philosophy egoism needs to tell us why a personal satisfaction from doing good, is better than personal satisfaction from deception or vainglory or other less-than-virtuous methods.  Intuitively we know that all motives are not equally virtuous.  But philosophically egoism cannot tell us why.

quote:
You may as well. You've already spoken of people who "think they are happy"


Actually that was my challenge to YOU.  The fact that people can merely "think they are happy" was implicit in your statement that doing good is the only thing that satisfies.  Since there are many people who think otherwise, you seem to be claiming to know better.  Don't worry, I don't blame you for haughtiness (like you've done me), but attribute the fault to egoism, which must do something to justify the distinction between moral and immoral action (both of which spring from self interest, according to it).  I guess the only way for the egoist to accomplish this, is to objectively define what is "self-interest" for another (which is quite a contridiction of the SELF part) by claiming to know best what is false and true happiness for someone else.  

The difference is, in my world-view, and Theistic framework, I'm allowed to say there's true and false happiness, since self (including mine) is not the final arbiter.  

quote:
... and someone who "doesn't understand they made sacrifices even though you state they did" so you must be one of those that knows better. Does that make you the "enemy"?    May God protect us from those that "know better".


The difference is, where you accuse me of arrogance, I am really being the opposite.  Claiming that a mother really did give sacrificially, even though she didn't think of it that way, is not to insult, but to give a compliment.  "Sacrifice" historically has not been a negative term, but originally was an expression of meaningful and intentional offering to the gods.  When conferred upon another, the term usually brings attention to the cost of what was given, thereby praising the person for generosity.  Denying "sacrifice" on the part of oneself, is certainly not a deflection of an insult, but the deflection of a praise, usually out of humility and a desire to not attract attention.  It is not letting your left hand know what your right hand does.    


So, if complimenting someone with a virtue, makes me someone to be protected from, then I can only say that you are confused ... perhaps by all of this hyper-plasticity of language exhibited by your favorite teachers?


quote:
I'm curious if anyone who has read both CS Lewis and Ayn Rand seen a connection?

Because I do.


Okay, I admit, I haven't read alot of Ayn Rand.  But I am well familiar with the claims and implications of egoism, from David Hume onward.  C.S. Lewis is as far from an egoist as anyone I could think of.  I recognize that a "connection" certainly doesn't imply an integral likeness, nor does it deny significant difference.  But I'm curious about the connection you see, being an avid reader of Lewis.  Can you explain in detail?  I'm skeptical.            


LR,

Hey, glad you're back.  


Stephen.
              

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

52 posted 2007-06-05 12:44 PM


c'mon Drauntz...

People eat what is easily accessible. The discernment of digestion comes later--after the "deluge" of discovery of what is not.

I'm always amazed the people readily accept that man "invented" fire--and "discovered" that the cooked meat was easier on the digestive tract, than raw... as if  lightning and ensuing wildfires did not exist, and animals could not have been discovered from that, fully barbecued.

We just invented the "sauce", sweetie.



*laughing*

with love,

from the land of "roux"!

serenity

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

53 posted 2007-06-05 12:46 PM


sigh...



I always hate posting after Stephen...

I type off the top of me head, and his answers are always so well thought out.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
54 posted 2007-06-05 12:47 PM


Brad,

I saw your post AFTER I posted.  Ignore my request.  I would only add that Lewis would probably say that that joy comes best when we are self forgetful ... and that that doesn't necessarily rule out enjoyment or pleasure. It's the neurotic frantic seeking of selfish pleasure that brings the least of that joy.  Lose your life, and you'll find it.  I've read enough of Lewis, and lived enough myself to know that this is also very true.


Stephen

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

55 posted 2007-06-05 12:57 PM


[quote]"joy comes best when we are self forgetful"[/unquote]

Wow.

That is the place I try to get to, to write from...so I think I understand that.

I'm at my best when I am not watching me...  

When I am that conscious of myself, every critic I have never met is my audience. So what you say makes good sense to me Stephan.

thank you

See what I mean? suddenly I can't do the quote thingie...


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
56 posted 2007-06-05 01:04 AM


my dear SB, I am glad that you are on my side though I do not understand your hint.

hugs and kisses, have a good night and good sleep.  

Ps, we eat all 4-legged... the table is the hardest to cook. we eat the winged object...the airplane is the hardest to net.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
57 posted 2007-06-05 01:08 AM


Karen:
quote:
I always hate posting after Stephen...

I type off the top of me head, and his answers are always so well thought out.


Don't hate posting after me.  I like reading your posts very much.  Not to mention that your posts are probably a pleasurable alternative to mine.  Mine are too long.  I am too wordy.  (though I don't see me reforming in the near future.  ha ha)


And too, if anything I said helps you, you're welcome.


Stephen.



serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

58 posted 2007-06-05 01:16 AM


It all tastes like chicken to me.

Two legs.

TWO.

g'nite lovie...


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
59 posted 2007-06-05 01:26 AM


My dear lady SB, you are so smart.

Your "Two Legs" made my hair standing up. it is night, dear lady, don't tell horror stories.I have a weak heart. and i need good sleep to write good poems.

love you.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
60 posted 2007-06-05 01:50 AM


quote:
  The problem is, with egoism, self-interest is claimed to be the ONLY motive for human action ... period.  If that is true, then no distinction can be made within the framework of egoism.

There is, indeed, a distinction, Stephen, and I think that's the part you're missing about Rand.

Objectivism doesn't simply advocate self-interest but, rather, rational self-interest. That's a vital distinction. It is not rational to eat ice cream at every meal, even though it tastes good, because the long-term self-interest is more important than short-term gratification. Similarly, it is not rational to hurt any other human being because, in the long-term, it will always come back to bite you in the butt.

quote:
"Sacrifice" historically has not been a negative term, but originally was an expression of meaningful and intentional offering to the gods.

Actually, Stephen, historically I think it was a VERY negative term, at least to the person or animal typically being sacrificed against their will. And that's the very problem that Objectivism has with the word today. Sacrifice typically isn't what YOU want, but rather is what someone else tells you that you should want. If you're doing it for yourself, then it's not really a sacrifice. If you're doing it for someone else, then it's not really self-interest. Objectivism does not recognize any value in applied guilt.

I think you have to remember the context of Rand's experience with sacrifice to understand her take on it. Communism was TOTALLY about sacrifice, after all.

quote:
The difference is, in my world-view, and Theistic framework, I'm allowed to say there's true and false happiness, since self (including mine) is not the final arbiter.  

But that's also why your arguments continue to fail, Stephen.

You are trying, again, to prove the existence of God, this time by showing a philosophical need for God. Sorry, old chum, but I'm still convinced your attempts are futile. God doesn't want to be proven. Not through evolutionary arguments, not through philosophical or ethical arguments, and certainly not through literary arguments. Everything we see supports the existence of God, but nothing we see will ever prove the existence of God. Such would obviate the need for faith.



serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

61 posted 2007-06-05 03:43 AM


quote:
Actually, Stephen, historically I think it was a VERY negative term,


whew...

I had to step in here to say that historically, as an avid student of anthropology, I can attest to many cultures where voluntary human sacrifice was considered an honor--and many worldly goods were bestwowed on them that made such choices. (Golden Bough--James Frazier) and this is in fact backed up by the voluntary modern suicide-bombers, who do not necessarly consider a Jihad (or Holy War) into such an act of "self-sacrifice"---the families of suicide bombers are promised a monetary stipend (for life) that the ordinary man could not otherwise provide for his family otherwise.

Does that back up, or deny the Rand philosophy?

Because? Suddenly, nothing tastes like chicken.        

and no, I'm still not doing the quote thingie right, but that's what I get for going into other forums, I suppose. *laughing* (I managed to tick m'self off here Ron...*laughing*---everybody say YAY for the quote thingie!)<--I don't give up.  

And let's not forget about the 72 virgins...something Americans find questionable, but I happen to know that the number 72 is equivelant to our shrug of "thousands", meaning "innumerable."

Don't ask me why virgins are preferable though.

I have no answer.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

62 posted 2007-06-05 03:51 AM


grrr
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

63 posted 2007-06-05 03:52 AM


IN....


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

64 posted 2007-06-05 04:25 AM


and out.

"against their will"

I apparently gloss-read that, Ron.

But you have my apologies for quoting you (and with so much glee, too) and misrepresenting what you said.

So--let me re-focus here. (and don't spoil the ending) but is there no such thing as altruism in Rand's philosophy?

Is every act self-motivated?

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
65 posted 2007-06-05 06:12 AM


Karen, I believe every act is self-motivated, but as several people ahve mentioned- people often give to others on a self-motivated basis. So- maybe it could be said that we are all selfish... but Rand's ideal is selfishness... not greed?

Brad- Henry (Hank) Rearden- not Harry. Harry has me picturing Harry Osborne from the Spiderman movies. :}

" do not say that her novel is bad..though I never read it and have no plan to read it. but her philosophy is a joke...if nothing new in it.."

Draunts, you might be surprised- I am fairly liberal, and in favor of measured Rand probably would ahve been vehemently against, like socialized healthcare... but, like Mike says, she articulates hewr arguments with such impeccable logic that it's almost impossible to argue. Not only that, as someone else m,entioned- it's a fabulous story. I expected it to be a tedious read, but I got sucked in and spent the entire summer after I graduated high school reading it... on the beach in South Carolina, or out in the sun while camping- there I was, glued to this tattered paperback copy I just couldn't put down or live without.

[oops- had to self edit a spoiler for Karen's benefit]

Brad pitt could be a perfect Galt- he's a human God. I think a younger Willem Dafoe would be a perfect Rearden (but Hollywood makeup can always acheive that, right?) I think Angelina Jolie could maybe do Dagny... I always pictured her as a curly-hairerd blond with steely eyes- like nicole Kidman but with sharper features, and strong like a statue- Kidman is a little too porcelain-doll I think.

Would a movie be good? Dunno- It's a long, long book... and the movie for Stephen King's The STand sucked based on the fact that they made it long enough to capture most of the book (and the bad, bad special effect) . I'm not sure about it being too offensive, but I do think details would get glossed over (they'd have to). Regardless, I'd be interested to see what they came up with.

Stephen- just exactly what do you think the individual owes to be part of a society? I agree in some aspects- like paying taxes in order to fund public services- but what else? I for one think of a draft- which I don't believe in.

Great thread.

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
66 posted 2007-06-05 06:14 AM


Eww, sorry about all the typos- I'm typing in the dark with a cat on my lap.
rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
67 posted 2007-06-05 11:08 AM


quote:
So--let me re-focus here. (and don't spoil the ending) but is there no such thing as altruism in Rand's philosophy?

Is every act self-motivated?


I've often asked that same question. I'd like to hear thoughts on this, because it seems to me, most people's beliefs in fellow man depend on their personal viewpoint. If a person is cynical, then yes, everything is self-motivated. If the person is optimistic, then there's leeway and hope of the  altruistic kind. I don't know anyone who is completely selfless, but I have seen selfless acts of kindness. But what about if you throw in someone like the Stoic?

hmmm, here's some examples.

Non profit organizations--cynics claim they are nothing but tax shelters.

Prestigious groups who donate large sums of money to organizations--cynics claim they are elitists who give in order to have control of those organizations.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
68 posted 2007-06-05 11:45 AM


"Two principles in Human Nature reign,
Self-love to urge and Reason to restrain;
Nor this a good, nor that a bad we call;
Each works its end, to move or govern all:
And to their proper operation still
Ascribe all good, to their improper, ill. "

-Pope

(From Essay on Man)


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
69 posted 2007-06-05 11:52 AM


Ron
"Objectivism does not recognize any value in applied guilt"

Opportunity cost! Opportunity cost! Opportunity cost! Opportunity cost!!!!!!

if she quited out the free education that Russia Government (communist) provided and had a demonstration on the street, and get jailed, she would have a better ideals about life. and the selfish..every animal's instinct...no need to learn. we all try to be  pretend "civilized", "educated" and socially "a high class".
Send her to Africa, she would eat all because there was a famine.  

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
70 posted 2007-06-05 11:56 AM


Ron,
"rational self-interest"

Don't sweeten your words with ice cream. in a famine, my "rational self-interest" was to eat you first or local rebel first.

and Ron
"historically I think it was a VERY negative term"

"Sacrifice"  is a very heroic term. heroic term!!! something for both a great thinker and tinker like George Washington. and superman, Indiana Jones and    Clifford the big red dog   ...i see that they are all American heroes and made great "sacrifice" for this great country. This country is not built on silly words. It is built on Blood....yes, blood.

If she wanted to protect New York (wish she was there on 911) and at the same time...selfish interest...quite a self-conflict. If she knew that there were many poor and homeless in New York, I wonder what would be her words.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
71 posted 2007-06-05 12:01 PM


Ron:  
quote:
There is, indeed, a distinction, Stephen, and I think that's the part you're missing about Rand.

Objectivism doesn't simply advocate self-interest but, rather, rational self-interest. That's a vital distinction. It is not rational to eat ice cream at every meal, even though it tastes good, because the long-term self-interest is more important than short-term gratification. Similarly, it is not rational to hurt any other human being because, in the long-term, it will always come back to bite you in the butt.


It's not always irrational to gamble, Ron, even though the odds may be against you.  Your (and Rand's) insistence that the distinction is about rationality fails to establish any criterion for rationality.  It's all about the end result, which in the past has always been variable, and in the future has yet to be seen.  Therefore rationality is like a square peg in a round hole.  It doesn't fill the moral question.


It may be quite easy to knock down the straw-man of ice cream every day.  It's not as easy to give someone a merely rational reason why they shouldn't continue to launder money, which has been most beneficial to them and their family all these years.  Since "success" is subjective, and the "self" is purportedly the goal, then sheer rationalism cannot prescriptively rule out any action.  Good old fashioned moral preaching can.  Whether or not it is heeded is another question.


quote:
Actually, Stephen, historically I think it was a VERY negative term, at least to the person or animal typically being sacrificed against their will. And that's the very problem that Objectivism has with the word today


I sympathize with those who have suffered from abuse, or the travesty of something valid.  There are people who can't ride in cars, because they were in an auto accident when they were young.  But that doesn't justify a campaign against cars.  There are people who can't love properly, because all they ever saw was dysfunction.  And as much as we may sympathize, it doesn't make a universal campaign valid.  The root of "sacrifice" is still one of a willing offering which happens to be costly.  That illegitimate systems have used it to their own ends, doesn't change that.  As a side note, it is interesting that egoism holds nothing philosophically which may chide such systems, having no moral reason, but only "rationalism".  Communist rulers are also acting on self interest.


quote:
Objectivism does not recognize any value in applied guilt.


Like anything else, the concept can be abused, or used for someone else's personal gain.  But where there IS guilt, it would be futile to ignore it.  The problem with objectivism, is that it doesn't (or can't) recognize what we all know intuitively; that we are subject to real guilt, and real praise.  We may hold a philosophy that disagrees, but our actions belie such philosophies.


quote:
I think you have to remember the context of Rand's experience with sacrifice to understand her take on it. Communism was TOTALLY about sacrifice, after all.



I can recognize that, and sympathize.  In the way of sympathy I can recongnize a valid complaint.  In the way of philosophy, I can't recognize the validity of her solution.

quote:
But that's also why your arguments continue to fail, Stephen.


I'm not sure you are the judge of whether my arguments ultimately fail or not (beyond yourself), any more than I am the judge of yours.  I've never been in a philosophy setting where people would openly and immediately change views, based on what someone said in a moment of time.  Its usually a slow process changing your mind.  And it's a matter of dignity for someone to reflect, and come to see things in their own time.  Truth is humble enough to let us all "think its our idea".  I'm not claiming originality, that's for sure.
  

As to whether arguments for the existence of God are futile, I don't think you're correct.  Did G.K. Chesterton and George MacDonald help C.S. Lewis move from a bitter atheism to the Christian he is?  Sure they did, according to Lewis.  Their arguments are not so very different (though they are far better stated) than mine.  Could they accomplish anything without the internal working of God in their hearers?  Absolutely not.  Therefore I hold a much more balanced view of argumentation ... admitting both its desperation and hope.  But if you want to say that rational, or philsophical arguments about God are out of court and ineffective (a priori), you just lost much of what the apostle Paul wrote, among other Biblical writers.

The thing is ... the Bible's approach is two-fold.  There is certainly a side which says "God is God ... period" and attempts no justification.  But there is also a side which recognizes that God is not so wholly "other" that he does not and cannot appeal to the intellect of men or women, and the confirmations of creation.  It seems that your watertight dichotomy of faith and reason is unreasonable, and has more in common with Kirkegaard than the apostle Paul.  I am certainly not lifting anything (from archaelogical to philsophical) as incontrovertible proof.  If ultimate reality (God himself) may be denied, then certainly arguments can.  But in the spirit of persuasion, I offer them, much in the same way you offer your views.  I don't deny the philosophical problems involved whatever one may believe.  I simply think that unbelief leads to a more profound babel than the road of belief and faith.


It's no different when you say God is seen in all things.  You are stating a kind of proof, simply by saying so.  I was never speaking of empiricism, or an end of argument, so why the complaint?  It seems that we simply disagree about the level of responsibility we might have in articulating such things, by way of persuasion or conviction.    


It's enough for you to say "your arguments fail for me".  To say anything more, you are moving beyond what you can be certain of.  You'll certainly not hear me stating such a conversation stopper as that, to you.


Karen:
quote:
whew...

I had to step in here to say that historically, as an avid student of anthropology, I can attest to many cultures where voluntary human sacrifice was considered an honor--and many worldly goods were bestwowed on them that made such choices.


Karen, don't worry.  Anything positive can be made negative.  If sacrifices were made to honorable gods, it had to be possible for people to make themselves into gods (not very good ones) and demand sacrifice from those they oppressed.  My only point is that Rand's problem with the word (and concept), goes beyond a recognition of abuse, and enters into a denial of an entire history.  She's partially right in wanting to ditch the word.  But it's just too arbitrary (and quick) to me.  Is this an example of philosophic political correctness?


Stephen.    

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
72 posted 2007-06-05 01:32 PM


Hush
you mentioned my name. I am not a liberal AND I am against socialized health care because it is wasting health resources and the example of Australia, UK are not good.

My mentor said "I started to read one of her books   and didn't finish it because I wasn't comfortable with her ideas . . .  
it seemed too selfish and socially harsh.  But I know many people who  loved her writing.  These people tend to be a bit more "rule guided"  "

I will not read her novel not because her novels are not good...may be they are very good. But I like to spend time on reading some poems here and enjoy good hearted friends. she is no way a person I admire, or to be friend with.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
73 posted 2007-06-05 02:56 PM


quote:
It's all about the end result, which in the past has always been variable, and in the future has yet to be seen. Therefore rationality is like a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't fill the moral question.

I think you're underestimating the potential power of rationality, Stephen. Newton believed that if you knew the position and acceleration of every particle in existence, you could mathematically calculate the future. Rand lived in a similarly deterministic world, possessed of an intellect far sharper than most. Her conclusions weren't always right, but she apparently (who can know for sure?) never doubted them at all.

I don't see a great deal of difference, Stephen, between interpreting what someone told you to do (and not always getting that right, either) and reasoning out for yourself what is the best course of action to follow. Both, I think, rest on a foundation of faith.

quote:
As to whether arguments for the existence of God are futile, I don't think you're correct.

Sorry, Stephen, I obviously didn't make my point clearly. I certainly don't have a problem with arguing the existence of God. Shoot, I do it all the time. What I don't do, what I believe is ultimately futile, is argue that God is the ONLY thing that exists and that God's existence can be proven by disproving all other alternatives. Naturalism, egoism, Objectivism, these are all moral alternatives that must exist, and indeed, must be viable, if Man is to have a Choice. Christianity doesn't have the market on morality. It can't if God's promise of free will is to be believed.

quote:
I had to step in here to say that historically, as an avid student of anthropology, I can attest to many cultures where voluntary human sacrifice was considered an honor--and many worldly goods were bestwowed on them that made such choices. (Golden Bough--James Frazier) and this is in fact backed up by the voluntary modern suicide-bombers, who do not necessarly consider a Jihad (or Holy War) into such an act of "self-sacrifice"---the families of suicide bombers are promised a monetary stipend (for life) that the ordinary man could not otherwise provide for his family otherwise.

Are you describing sacrifice, Karen? Or are you describing just a rather twisted form of employment? You do this for me/us and this (honor, worldly goods, stipends, virgins) is what you'll get in return?

Again, that's the problem that Objectivism has with the historical concept of sacrifice. Self-sacrifice has to come from within, not from without. If someone else has to convince you to make the sacrifice, which has certainly been the case more often than not throughout human history, then it's not really a rational act. It's usually just a scam.

True sacrifice, I think, where this is no tit for tat, nor even the potential for personal gain, is extremely rare. Usually, we expect something in return. Objectivism simply contends we should look at the exchange rationally. Is what we expect to get really worth what we have to give?

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
74 posted 2007-06-05 03:33 PM


Ron
"Self-sacrifice has to come from within"

where?
Congenital?...genes?
taught?...by whom to build the value system?
experience? what kind?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

75 posted 2007-06-05 03:51 PM


I didn't say it was smart.

I was just pointing out its existance.

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
76 posted 2007-06-05 04:24 PM


quote:
Don't sweeten your words with ice cream. in a famine, my "rational self-interest" was to eat you first or local rebel first.


Forgive me, but this made me laugh out loud. I'm loving your words. For whatever reason, my mind even attached Antonio Banderas' voice-over as Puss N Boots from Shrek.

and "Clifford the Big Red Dog."

You're quite a character. Keep it coming, Drauntz.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
77 posted 2007-06-05 04:58 PM


rwood,
you are very smart that you get entertained here. I enjoyed the conversation too.

something reminded me of Simpson the TV show. I only watched twice...quite a entertaining  and philosophical.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
78 posted 2007-06-05 06:07 PM


quote:

people in forest ate other humans not because they did not have other food. it is  because human meat was tastier.



Historically speaking, beginning with the more contemporarily known occurrences of the Donner Party and the Andes Plane Crash -- cannibalism was the survival means of last resort.

This is also commonly true throughout history -- if, however, you would choose to be eaten rather than eat -- then Rand would say that you do so for your own reasons.

Of course there were cultures -- not even ones far removed from 'human' sacrifice -- that used canibalism as a means to shock enemies (not because the meat was tasty -- but because victory was sweet) -- and it was used primarily as a means to illustrate that thier enemy was less than human.

I'm sorry I can't spend more time with this -- I have to get ready for the local Clifford Day parade, when we re-enact his heroic deeds that saved our nation!  


On that note Hush --

I know you posed the question to Stephen, for reasons I admit I don't fully comprehend, but since I sort-of initiated the tributary;

It's an amazing coincicdence that the military doesn't want a draft either -- why?  Because they've found soldiers who want to be there, for their own reasons, are far better soldiers than ones who don't want to be there.

And I'm going to bet that Mike (and we know Drauntz) think we owe soldiers  -- and may even owe our community the response of joining the military.  I'll bet we might even hear the phrase uttered at some point that 'Freedom isn't free'.

While I think also that we owe our uniformed and un-uniformed who choose service our gratitude and continued financial support -- I have often found it odd though that many equate that act of nationalism with freedom.  The ability to win wars was the reason for the emergence and dominance of the nation-state in history -- regardless of form of government -- and has nothing to do with a liberal democracy.  However necessary it may be it has nothing to do with 'freedom'.

When I was undergoing neuropsych tests last week I took an MPII and one of the questions was -- "do you get angry at the law when a criminal is set free?"  My response was no. Because persons who are set free are persons who can't be proved to be criminals...

I think that's one of the first things that we 'owe' our community -- that is the sacrifice of absolute security -- because in order to have 'freedom' (and it isn't that far from Rand's Objectivism) we have to employ a system that is more likely to err on the side of (dammit, my brain is fried now -- I'll have to finish later)

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
79 posted 2007-06-05 06:33 PM


Local Rebel

"if, however, you would choose to be eaten rather than eat -- then Rand would say that you do so for your own reasons."

No, she would say, "on the mark, everybody eats, go."

I wonder if she would applaud for Hitler. She will, according to you.

I  can not help relating her and Ann Coulter together. same thinking. both needed be given quite amount of housework  to be real women with soft hearts.

someone is going to jump at me. Ahhhhhh.

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
80 posted 2007-06-05 07:46 PM


'I  can not help relating her and Ann Coulter together. same thinking. both needed be given quite amount of housework  to be real women with soft hearts.'

Ummm... *raises eyebrows* Since when does housework make women "soft?" Have you ever done any amount of housework?

If you deride Rand and refuse to read her, and praise the Simpsons for philosophy, I have to assume you probably wouldn't get her anyway.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
81 posted 2007-06-05 07:56 PM


Hush

"If you deride Rand and refuse to read her, and praise the Simpsons for philosophy, I have to assume you probably wouldn't get her anyway."

I do not refuse to read her novel but I have better books to read. like "Uppity Women of Medieval Times".

Her way?  I am simply too stupid to understand her.

I love every human beings and I make friend with ones with kind hearts.  

and I do not deride Rand as a human being. but her "philosophy" disgusts me.

Housework  does make woman more female
but to be a mother is a chance to experience that one may die for the baby, children....etc.

I read some of her quotes....most of them are simply nonsense. Most of  her words have no clear definition at all.  

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (06-05-2007 11:23 PM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
82 posted 2007-06-05 08:04 PM


.


A young man
jumps on a grenade
to save those around him from harm.

What is the rational self-interest in that,
or was he just stupid?

.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
83 posted 2007-06-05 08:16 PM


Sir Yi Huan,
Of course he is stupid. look at the smart presidents.....Clinton and Bush.

Personal value...

Rand's value is trash....proper term.....out of date for thousand years.

"A lion fighting to death is better than the chicken waiting to be on the plate"

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
84 posted 2007-06-05 08:34 PM


who wants to be around with selfish people?

I don't

do you?

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
85 posted 2007-06-05 08:48 PM


"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, but only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn)." by Ayn Rand...

some Governments will love her dearly.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
86 posted 2007-06-06 01:47 AM


Thinking those policemen and firefighters died in 911 can still make me cry. Ayn Rand, based on her stupid "philosophy" might think those heroes were too stupid to mention....as Local Rebel said "if, however, you would choose to be eaten rather than eat -- then Rand would say that you do so for your own reasons."

She is an evil hearted and cold blooded, by-product of communism.


"In another incident, related by the columnist Samuel Francis, when Rand learned that the economist Murray Rothbard's wife, Joey, was a devout Christian, she all but ordered that if Joey did not see the light and become an atheist in six months, Rothbard, who was an agnostic, must divorce her. Rothbard never had any intention of doing anything of the sort, and this estranged him from Rand, who found such "irrational" behavior intolerable."
http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm

what a crazy person she was!!!!!

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

87 posted 2007-06-06 02:06 AM


Dang Drauntz...

this is getting kind of harsh, ain't it?

I am a bit taken aback, I do confess, and a bit perplexed by the vitriol there. But I don't know enough about you, OR the book to pass a judgement.

But you are right about one thing.

I didn't get enough sleep last night. (Teenagers--y'been there? sigh...I am reminded nightly how many apologies I owe my parents--my son didn't get in until well after sun up--so no, I could not sleep.)



So sweet dreams? And kisses, 'cause I like kisses too!

Ta..and thanks all. This thread is amazing, and it serves as just example of the underlying, overlapping thematic structure of this wondrous book.

I think that nearly each post here could be a topic worthy of its own thread.

What amazing responses from all of you.

My humble gratitude.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
88 posted 2007-06-06 02:16 AM


my dear SB, since you mentioned this person, I have to find out who she is to get all the attention. Then I found out that she is not my type...trust me, I have known many her like..just did not write a novel or self define a "philosophy". I do not like her.

you, I love you and respect you because you are very kind and intelligent and humble. I respect you even if you like Ayn Rand. You have your reasons like Balladeer. I respect him and his admiration for her.

I give out my opinion openly. I talk frankly and say what I mean. if someone get hurt, I will say sorry.

Dear lady you need to have a good sleep. Don't let my words bother you. many hugs and kisses, love ya!!

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
89 posted 2007-06-06 09:20 AM


Forced good....
when she was in Russia, there was an activity called Saturday volunteer Action...every Saturday, people had to work for free to clean the street, dirty block, to do something for widowers, orphans, or what they did as day job. This was forced. Obviously she hated it.

Individual right and self interests...her family property was confiscated by Government due to revolution and she obviously belong to the "problemed" group...many people disrespect her if I guess but she was very smart one...to survive through this, one had to have a strong self-protection....the base of her "philosophy".

about the social structure.....since she was from communist-Russia, she must have learned  Marxism...he's theory about a development of a society was  original society--slave stage-feudalisms--capitalism--empiricism--socialism
---communism.  
Russia was in Socialism stage when she was there...property belonged to all people=belonged to society=belonged to the
government=only Government or a few officials had the right to make decisions. She hated that.Everybody owned a piece of land or properties before revolution hated that. SO she stressed the  on the Government should not put fingers on individual...based on her experience.

She was for a short visit but she stayed in US...I wonder if she was granted political Asylum....if she had ever talked about the suffering of Russia and other countries and Jews in WW2....if not...obvious a traitor of humanity kind....She had let Communism ate her soul alive.
"“World War I led, not to [Wilson’s] ‘democracy,’ but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War II led, not to [Roosevelt’s] ‘Four Freedoms,’ but to the surrender of one-third of the world’s population into communist slavery.”Ayn Rand.  I can understand what she said but she had no knowledge of the real life of others...she was from the sort of privileged family. And if she hated communism..it did not mean that she could not have a heart for people there.
The way she brainlessly flirt the city of New York really made me laugh...why? Russia is such country with long history and many beautiful architectures...her different taste?... could be why the simple lined and the beauty of light and brightness and scenic and smoothly melted with nature...the Frank Lloyd Wright style interested her.

Because she has never been through a physically tough life she might ideally emphasis the "self-interest". if she was sent to Siberia, she would had learned that "self-interest" led to a pathetic death.  

my thought

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

90 posted 2007-06-06 04:13 PM


Okay.

I'd like to try to clarify the intent of my original post, as we seem to be veering off into personal tastes of the one work, and justifications regarding the philosophy and life of Ayn Rand.

I should explain that I have a fascination with screenplay writing (mostly because it suits my general predisposition to both dialogue and my distaste for the sometimes annoyingly tedious chore of correct punctuation necessary to write a novel)

But anyhow, I did, and yes I repeat myself, ask if any works were considered too sacred for film adaptation, because I also had in mind a film that almost completely re-wrote a novel--and much improved the body of work.

I'm speaking of the movie Forrest Gump. If you've never read the book--I think that you, like me, will walk away from it with greater admiration for the art of film adaptation. (Just an example of when adaptation can be a good thing.)

Here's an interesting article on that very subject:
http://www.the-write-stuff.com.au/archives/vol-1/reviews/gump.html

I apologize if I appeared to intentionally begin a conversation to which I had little to contribute. (I knew Mike would have much to say about the example I used, and I genuinely wanted others input about this book which baffles me with its intricacy, but I did not consider that no more "a trap" than asking, simply, "What's up with this book everyone talks about?"

So I appreciated very much when Reggie came in to address my question--just as much as I appreciate the time and energy others put in to discuss a topic that I honestly had no clue would incite a near-riot. (And I will let you all know if I understand why that is, when I finish reading it, k?)

Now I hope the conversation can continue, as I do find it interesting.

You all have my gratitude for your participation, and your patience.

*peace*


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
91 posted 2007-06-06 04:48 PM


Honestly, Karen, I considered your original question entirely rhetorical, which is why I didn't even try to answer it. Which, I suppose, is my answer?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
92 posted 2007-06-06 04:52 PM


Karen:
quote:
But anyhow, I did, and yes I repeat myself, ask if any works were considered too sacred for film adaptation


Considering that "The Passion of the Christ", and "Crime and Punishment" were film adaptations of either sacred writings, or classic literary works ... I would say "no" to your question.


Stephen


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

93 posted 2007-06-06 04:59 PM


grin...Ron, I have learned over time that sometimes, no answer IS the answer. (Especially when the non answer does not come from you!) <--still not making sense, but I think you know what I am talking about anyway!

And thank you, Stephan, my ever patient friend!

I'm gonna go soak some charcoal now.

Grilling burgers for supper, here.

Thanks again.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
94 posted 2007-06-06 05:35 PM


Dear Sb, You asked about the novel but this novel is related to a "philosophy". So I just picked up the philosophy branch and talked about it. I do not think that I did anything wrong. I did not attack your poster and I did not attack any individual on PIP. I love you all. Why I was labeled acting poorly? by your thread? give me your answer!!!!
Ha ha ha. have a laugh, my dear lady.

have a wonderful day, my dear SB.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

95 posted 2007-06-06 06:23 PM


Drauntz--please consider carefully that I am not a moderator--so I do not know what happened here. (When I said I was going to sleep--for once, I was actually able to do that.)

I am as confused as you are, if not more.

I am not taking any joy in your pain, but I am confused as to how you came to your conclusions regarding the work and philosophy of my example--because that is what it was, an example of my point regarding film adaptation.

If you re-read this thread, you will read me repeatedly stating that I couldn't judge "Atlas Shrugged" without reading it.

And no, I didn't know you were joking about the "trapped" comment, and so yes, I was baffled that you would jump to the conclusion that all of this conversation was a crafty manipulation to hurt you.

The exchanges between Ron and I, as well as Stephanos and I are the result of what I hope is some understanding that we have achieved over time--and yes, through many previous misunderstandings, quite like this one.

If you feel hurt as well, I would not presume to tell you that your feeling is wrong--because feelings just are, but if you know my heart, then you know that if I thought I hurt you, I would apologize until you begged me to stop.

So please don't take this to heart sweetie.

You have been very kind to me in the other forums, and I would truly be bothered if you thought that I would repay that kindness by "setting you up".

This thread was not directed at you.

It was open for general discussion to all.

I am sincerely sorry that it caused you any pain, even if I was merely inadvertantly a catalyst.

And I hope you take this, what I say now, in the spirit that I intend.

As I said to you earlier in the thread--no offense meant and none taken.

Okay?

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
96 posted 2007-06-06 06:40 PM


my dear Sb,I always respect you!!!
You are soo very kind.

I am very humors person.
It is not the topic. It is what I said hurt someone who admires her very much. I allow myself to tell my true opinions.

you, A kind heart never hurt me, even you lose your temper on me.

It is Ron who did something so I can not open the page and  all email to moderator is blocked. He knew what he did.... to punish me for nothing....or for giving my opinion in a humors way. I am not mad. I am just disappointed.

thank you and big hug to you. don't worry.
I love you, truly. I cherish all kind hearts with my own heart.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
97 posted 2007-06-06 07:02 PM


Drauntz, if you can't open the page how are you reading what Karen said to you? How are you answering her? You have NOT been banned, at least not to my knowledge. If you were banned, the screen would directly say so when you tried to post. If you have a problem, it's not with me.

My email address is ron@piptalk.com and it has never been blocked.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
98 posted 2007-06-06 07:06 PM


Ron:
quote:
I think you're underestimating the potential power of rationality, Stephen. Newton believed that if you knew the position and acceleration of every particle in existence, you could mathematically calculate the future. Rand lived in a similarly deterministic world, possessed of an intellect far sharper than most. Her conclusions weren't always right, but she apparently (who can know for sure?) never doubted them at all.


Admittedly, I don't hold much trust in the idea of autonomous reason, or reason-in-itself.  The existentialist philosophers cured me of that.  Just consider the things that Kirkegaard, Schopenhaur, Nietzsche have said about that very thing.  

But Ron, knowing my view of reason and intelligence (as an important thing, but contingent), you should realize that I'm not doubting Ayn Rand's intelligence, or her confidence.  Though I'm not claiming that she was all wrong (nor are egoists), I'll simply remind you that plenty of smart and confident people have been mistaken.  So an appeal to intelligence, isn't the only thing that matters in such a discussion as this.

quote:
I don't see a great deal of difference, Stephen, between interpreting what someone told you to do (and not always getting that right, either) and reasoning out for yourself what is the best course of action to follow. Both, I think, rest on a foundation of faith.


Faith is still no in-itself-virtue.  The object of faith is still the issue.  Faith (in something) is simply a given.  But also, I wonder how faith in God is justified in your own mind if you see "no great deal of difference", between going it on your own, and trusting God.  Unless I've misunderstood you.    

quote:
I certainly don't have a problem with arguing the existence of God. Shoot, I do it all the time. What I don't do, what I believe is ultimately futile, is argue that God is the ONLY thing that exists and that God's existence can be proven by disproving all other alternatives.



Then you have misunderstood me as well.  I don't say that God is the "only thing that exists".  Within his truth is great liberty.  So much that even lies are rife with with it.  Nor do I interpret everything as negatively against Christianity (I just got through arguing that Evolution would not imply atheism- as many assert).  But, where systems of thought (whatever it may be) take away the foundation for what is good and evil, and replace that foundation with something like autonomous reason, then I will point out the predicament.


quote:
Naturalism, egoism, Objectivism, these are all moral alternatives that must exist, and indeed, must be viable, if Man is to have a Choice. Christianity doesn't have the market on morality. It can't if God's promise of free will is to be believed.



I don't doubt that there is truth in all of these philsophies and world-views.  But, your premise about viability doesn't make sense, if it is based merely on free-will.  Sometimes you can look at an extreme, to see the fallacy of an argument.  And if you could consider that Hell itself (in Christian Theology) would represent at least some kind of respect (on God's part) to man's free will, then you might be able to admit that the ability to choose a path, and live there, doesn't necessarily make something "viable".


I don't mind you arguing for objectivism, naturalism, or any other "...ism", as long as you don't resort to free will as some kind of carte blance justification.  If that were true then all things are justified.  And I know you too well to think you believe that.


Stephen.    

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
99 posted 2007-06-06 07:25 PM


My answer to that question is of course no.

Or rather I don't really understand the question because I can't think of anything that  would fit the criteria.

--------------

When you read Rand, Everybody I've talked to identifies with the Prime Movers (Galt, Dagny, Rearden -- thanks Hush) and nobody with the parasites or looters(Dagny's brother James).

This is both the strength and weakness of Atlas Shrugged.

When you read Lewis, regardless of your belief system, everyone I know starts questioning their actions, double checking to make sure that they are not like the people who are in hell or on the road to hell. It is not his protrayal of hell that scares people. They simply do not want to be like that.

This, like Rand, is both the strength and weakness of his work.

Both are splendidly didactic.

--------------------------

As far as Rand's selfishness, if you accept my thesis that the two writers are essentially talking about the same thing -- you can describe it anyway you like -- then, how would you feel if people were constantly trying to take that away from you?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
100 posted 2007-06-06 07:58 PM


quote:
It is not his protrayal of hell that scares people. They simply do not want to be like that.


I would add that, for Lewis (like Dostoevsky), the worst part of Hell would not be where you are, but who.


Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
101 posted 2007-06-06 08:41 PM


Since a comparison of Rand and Lewis has come up, I wanted to give a couple of quotes which illustrates the divide in their thinking, concerning reason.  


"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."  (Ayn Rand, from the appendix of "Atlas Shrugged")


"Reason may win truths; without Faith she will retain them just so long as Satan pleases. There is nothing we cannot be made to believe or disbelieve. If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the gift of faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference." (C.S. Lewis, from his essay "Religion: reality or substitute?")


Stephen

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
102 posted 2007-06-06 09:24 PM


Well, since you brought it up, how do you read the Inquisitor thing in Karamazov. I know one person who became an atheist after reading that.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
103 posted 2007-06-06 10:43 PM


I don't think "The Grand Inquisitor" is something that can be fully grasped after just one or two reads ... but I'll tell you what I think so far.  
  

Firstly, its a reaction against certain kinds of organized religion (in the historical setting, it was certain abuses and tendencies within Roman Catholicism), hence the character of Jesus is set as an antagonist to the inquisitor.  This makes it not a denunciation of proper religion, but rather against its travesty.  

Secondly, Dostoyevsky understood well the arguments from unbelief, and being such a gifted writer, was able to articulate them in an unsettling and convincing way.  I think it illustrates that the most ardent believers have struggled with that side of themselves, or rather with themselves apart from grace.


But as well as he was able to articulate, through Ivan's poem, the problem of evil, and the apparant innocence of impiety, his ultimate identification with Alyosha (& Zosima) as the "heroes" tells me where D. really stood.


Stephen          

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
104 posted 2007-06-07 02:13 AM


Yeah, that's pretty much how I read it too.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
105 posted 2007-06-07 11:19 AM


When you read Rand, Everybody I've talked to identifies with the Prime Movers (Galt, Dagny, Rearden -- thanks Hush) and nobody with the parasites or looters(Dagny's brother James).

Interesting, Brad. I have to truthfully say that I could not identify with the heroes - not that I wouldn't have liked to, but I saw the impossibility of being that perfect - my major problem with her portrayal of the "good guys". What I most got out of here stories was the comparison of her "bad guys" with actual people in real life. Gail Wynand is alive and well in real life. So is Dagny's brother and the governmental agencies he was part of, so is the wheeling-dealings of those agencies, such as forcing the most successful to carry the lesser successful in industries, such as the breaking up of the rail system of America in the name of "fairness" - which met with disastrous results. You can see so many of these things happening in real life, even though she wrote it half-century ago.

To me, though, her crowning achievement was Ellsworth Toohey. If I had to choose the most evil, despicable and terrifying monster in literature, he would be my choice with his expertise in mind-shaping and mental maniputation. Guess what? He's alive and well, too.

So that's what I got the most out of her stories, not the perfection of her heroes but the unmistakeable comparisons of her "bad guys" and events, where you can look around and see alive and happening in todays world.

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
106 posted 2007-06-07 02:58 PM


Mike- I agree that I couldn't relate to her "heroes." I saw Dagny Taggart the way Dagny saw Galt- this larger-than-life example of human perfection. But it's unreal- an ideal. She paints both extremes with black-and-white brushes. My biggest problem was the lack of emotion- there were moments of unbridaled joy from Dagny- Riding on the train she helped to engineer her meeting Galt- but no human element of questioning oneself. Of course, ther "perfect" person would have no reason to... The hero with the most realistic and "human" traits of being torn, to me, was Henry Rearden- he felt responsible to his family, although they had done nothing for him other than to be family, and he felt ambivalence and guilt towards them.

Karen- I don't think anything is too 'sacred' for screen adaption. I mean, if the movie ends up sucking, it doesn't diminish the book in my mind. My boyfriend is a movie buff- and we always debate about The Shining. I think the Novel is better- it's one of my favorite books. He thinks the Stanley Kubrick film is better. Kubrick takes a lot of liberties, though. The movie has a lot of differences from the book- and a lot of movies do that. I guessa question that comes now would be what is better? Adapting a book faithfully or taking liberties with the plot? Is it sometimes necessary and/or preferable to alter the book's content to make for a more concise  or better movie?

'Housework  does make woman more female'

Yes, I was an androgynous little child... then my mom decided she wanted a girl and started making me do the dishes.

So, are you enjoying your 'Uppity Women' book? Or just thinking about how much better the world would be if they had scrubbed a few more floors?

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
107 posted 2007-06-07 03:32 PM


Hush,do you mean every women or women with power,or ideal or with rich husband?
women shall do women"s thing, I agree with you 100%.

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
108 posted 2007-06-07 04:19 PM


Does the word 'sarcasm' have any meaning to you?

*sigh*

Never mind.

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
109 posted 2007-06-07 04:47 PM


quote:
women shall do women"s thing, I agree with you 100%.


Whoa, besides childbirth and lactating, what's considered strictly woman's work? Hush, I know you were being sarcastic but I'm not sure with Drauntz. Why is cleaning and housework considered a woman thing? I've never understood that.

“Suddenly a giant Cabbage Patch Doll jumps out from behind the shower curtain and grabs him violently.”

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

110 posted 2007-06-07 05:22 PM


Sorry hush--I've had a case of "the vapors".



Seriously, I've just decided to start all over again, and I'm going to go for the story first.

But I can say one thing about my copy of Atlas Shrugged--great cover art!

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
111 posted 2007-06-07 06:33 PM


My dear SB, you are always the smart one.

I give out my opinions why some one just wanted to talk me down?

Ryn Rand is a public figure. many people like her, many don't. it is a fact.

have a wonderful day, my dear lady. i am still struggling with the slow speed thing.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
112 posted 2007-06-09 11:37 PM


Hush:
quote:
Stephen- just exactly what do you think the individual owes to be part of a society? I agree in some aspects- like paying taxes in order to fund public services- but what else? I for one think of a draft- which I don't believe in.


(sorry so late in replying to you)


I think he owes (in the sense of obligation) nothing, if egoism is true.  About the best egoism can offer is to try and assure us that the odds are in our favor if we treat others faborably, and live AS IF we are concerned about more than self.  But I honestly don't see how it could reprimand anyone for not playing it safe, if self interest is still the zenith of life.  


From my worldview, I think we have much obligation to society.  "Love your neighbor as yourself" ... "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ... "Submit to the governing authorities".


We could talk specifics, but then there's a thousand possibilities.


Did you think that I don't feel we have any obligation to community?  Like Local Rebel, I'm trying to understand your question to me.
  


Stephen.    

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
113 posted 2007-06-10 01:21 AM


quote:
About the best egoism can offer is to try and assure us that the odds are in our favor if we treat others faborably, and live AS IF we are concerned about more than self.

Just out of curiosity, Stephen, do you know of anything that offers us more in this life?



Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
114 posted 2007-06-10 02:08 AM


Ron is very right.

"Stephen, do you know of anything that offers us more in this life?"

1. if  you view yourself as a king, you will be happy if other treats you as a king and you will be mad if other won't which means that they owe you.

2. If you view yourself as a servant, you will be happy to serve and you will be happier if you are served. (extra bonus of life)

3. if you think every body is equal, unless every one is chained by something or some rules, there will be always bloody fight, which is  what egoism leads. Because the boundary of ego is invisible, unmeasurable
and very flexible to be enlarged.

my 1 cent.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

115 posted 2007-06-10 08:36 AM


I'd like to state, most officially:

"I'm sorry I asked."

(and that shouldn't happen in a Philosophy Forum!)

My official smilie:

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
116 posted 2007-06-10 12:00 PM


Dear SB, don't feel upset. Everybody had a good time here. either talking About story or the philosophy. I thought I would post a new topic on this. But you have all the credit to bring this interesting topic up, so I write on.

have a wonderful day, dear lady

Many hugs and kisses
with respect

my speed is still slow.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
117 posted 2007-06-10 03:23 PM


.


How can one not be selfish
unless his acts do not create or foster
his self-esteem?

This question comes after reading again
Ivan Morris on Saigo Takamori.  Yet
could even someone like Mother Theresa
be deemed wholly free if in some way
she derived personal satisfaction in being
as she was?

In truth, isn’t this all just word play?

What is it that motivates the spontaneous act
of self-sacrifice?

In conversation once a fireman told me
that in entering a burning building he
left behind the man he was outside and
became another.

As with the young man jumping on a grenade example,
to suggest an equivalent between those like him and a
Mother Theresa, and someone who sits comfortably
back behind the lines enjoying his food, wine and other things
is just so much sophistry.

.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
118 posted 2007-06-10 06:11 PM


Agree with Sir Huan Yi.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
119 posted 2007-06-10 06:11 PM


Agree with Sir Huan Yi.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
120 posted 2007-06-10 07:10 PM


What is it that motivates the spontaneous act
of self-sacrifice?


Interesting question, John. How many acts of pure self-sacrifice do you know? Your fireman is exactly right. We DO become different people when faced with extreme challenges. That's how a 130 lb woman can lift the front of a Ford to rescue a trapped child. That's how police and firemen work. That's how soldiers going into battle work. Your fireman is not going into the burning building as a self-sacrifice, however. He's going in with every intention of getting the job done and surviving. He is simply aware of the fact that the situation is very hazardous. Soldiers have no intention of dying, either, even though many do. What about the terrorist suicide bombers? Why do you think they are told that their names will be revered throughout eternity for their actions? Why do you think they are offered those 76 virgins waiting in heaven to pleasure them? They are doing for rewards that surpass the life they now have, in their minds. All of these people have personal motives for their actions.

The soldier falling on the grenade? I saw it in a movie once, not in real life. Have you? Having said that, I can still understand it. If the grenade falls into the foxhole and you know that all will be dead, if you know that YOU will be dead and there is no escape, I can understand a moral person taking the stand to save others by falling on the grenade. He is not sacrificing his life, though....his life is over in either case. It's just how he will die as being the only option left open to him.

I ask again....how many instances of pure self-sacrifice for no personal gain or reward can you point out?


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
121 posted 2007-06-10 08:26 PM


"I ask again....how many instances of pure self-sacrifice for no personal gain or reward can you point out?"

Dear sir, if you give your definition of "pure self-sacrifice" and "personal gain" I 'll see if I can give you some examples.

"pure self-sacrifice".....is it the kind of mother raise a child?

"personal gain" ...does it include the fulfillment of the feeling of love. if I love somebody, I want to do something for him then my heart will be satisfied. There is no material reward or heavenly reward.

with respect.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
122 posted 2007-06-11 07:21 PM


balladeer:
quote:
I ask again....how many instances of pure self-sacrifice for no personal gain or reward can you point out?


The question is not whether "altruistic" acts invariably involve some benefit to the doer ... but whether those benefits MUST be the sole consideration, as opposed to the possibility of being motivated by the benefit of the recepient of the deed.  If there is the possibility for real concern for others, then egoism is incomplete ... regardless of whether we happen to benefit from helping others.  The mistake I think you're making is assuming that the alternative to egoism has to be an extreme altruism.  (although, those scenarios are possible too, only much rarer ... perhaps involving incidents of giving one's mortal life in order to save another.)  


Stephen.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
123 posted 2007-06-11 08:42 PM


Mike,

"The soldier falling on the grenade? I saw it in a movie once, not in real life. Have you? "


I saw a what a grenade, as it happened,
did to two young men, (the lucky one died immediately), but there
was nothing intentional on their part.  However when I was
in I noticed that in Leatherneck magazine
that was pretty much how enlisted men got
the MOH which was often.  I've no reason to believe it didn't happen.

In truth, back then, I was one
who would have done it himself.
I was very young . . .

And Mike, even with a grenade there's a chance . . .

John


hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
124 posted 2007-06-12 08:46 AM


'The question is not whether "altruistic" acts invariably involve some benefit to the doer ... but whether those benefits MUST be the sole consideration, as opposed to the possibility of being motivated by the benefit of the recepient of the deed.'

Actually, Stephen, the question I see argued (again and again) is whether the satisfaction derived from performing what one sees as a moral action (where others benefit) constitutes selfishness or self-interest.

I volunteer at the local humane society because it gives me pleasure to care for unwanted animals and take them on visits to nursing homes, allowing the elderly to interact with animals. Some might call this altruistic (although I do admit a very [selfish? greedy? what's the word?] motivation- I get to pet doggies!) but I don't consider it altruism- I go, even if I don't feel like it on a day a pet visit is scheduled, because I think it's the right thing to do, and doing the right thing makes me feel good.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
125 posted 2007-06-12 03:19 PM


Well said, hush...

If there is the possibility for real concern for others, then egoism is incomplete

An incredible statement. If that's what you want to state then your expertise on egoism is lacking. There does not have to be a concrete wall between the two...actually the two of them can exist quite comfortably together...and what difference should it make which one is the stronger force? That point is purely philosophical.

If I go to a starving bum on the street with a ham sandwich in my hand and try to explain to him that my main reason for giving him the sandwich is that it makes me feel good as a person to do things to benefit others and it's not really him I am doing it for, but for me, he's going to say "Whatever you say, pal, just hand over the grub!!"....as it should be.

Thanks to different facets of Society, people have been indoctrinated to believe that doing for others is noble and doing for self is evil, Personal sacrifice is a virtue. There is no "i" in team (all except for Michael Jordan, who added "but there IS an "i" in win") I've see a list of the ten mosted despicable words in the English language. Which one was listed as the worst? "I". With that type of brainwashing from birth, it's little wonder that people who do things for their own enjoyment are selfish and evil and, as you alliterated to in the above phrase, incapable of feeling real concern for others. No problem. For those of you that wish to wear that yoke of self-flagellation, have fun with the self-inflicted guilt. There are many who don't - and that doesn't make them unfeeling, selfish, egoistical ogres. If my life were to depend one one singular individual, I would want it to be one of them, believe me.


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
126 posted 2007-06-12 03:49 PM


Everyone has one's own comfort zones.

A tree, struck by lightning to ground, dose not make a lawn.

Grass, at the top of the mountain, still under other's feet.

Parenting, personal value, and choice. esp at gun point.

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
127 posted 2007-06-12 04:22 PM


"If there is the possibility for real concern for others, then egoism is incomplete"

I too, disagree.

Some people feel it's bad to be alone. Why? Because you're not doing anything for someone else? No one knows what you're doing when you're home alone? You're not being as productive to society by spending time with yourself? I'm not talking about shut in, but time alone. I like it. I feel you have to like yourself a whole lot before anyone else really does.

So not to worry my Momma, I visit her and the family from time to time so everyone knows I'm alive and kicking. I care about them. But  the visits also ward off numerous phone calls and messages.

I hate talking on the phone.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
128 posted 2007-06-12 09:15 PM


Most of your answers since my last post, made it sound as if egoism were not really egoism.  But I have studied egoism enough to know what it is.  (and yes, Mike, it IS purely philosophical, since in its pure form it doesn't match all the data, especially our psychology).  Egoism states quite emphatically, that ALL human motivation stems from self-interest alone ... period.  If that's not what you believe then you are not an egoist.


If genuine concern for others, and self-interest can co-exist and overlap, then fine.  I have always believed so.  Pure altruism is rare, if at all.  But egoism doesn't state their coexistence as much as their essential sameness.  Egoism says, in effect, that "concern for others" is really self-interest in disquise.  I simply don't believe that.  (though I believe that "good works" may be hypocritical ... I don't believe they must be).  It doesn't match our view of morals, nor our psychology.


From the way Mike, and others, are arguing here, it doesn't sound like you believe egoism either.  

(BTW, I am aware that egoism would not consider "good works" done for a selfish motive as hypocritical ... but rather praiseworthy, rendering the traditional form of approval within a radical reinterpretation of motives and morals.  My only complaint is that the amoralistic (or strictly rationalistic) reinterpretation doesn't really support either traditional praise or censure, nor provide a means of making distinction between "rational self-interest", and "irrational self interest".  The proof of this is, we don't usually feel that horrible deeds are only miscalculations, or mere lapses of reason.  Nor do we praise benevolent action with the same kind of praise that we would give to someone who snuffed up a good bargain at the store, or made a good investment for himself.  It's not the same thing.  And that's what egoism is missing.  


Stephen

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
129 posted 2007-06-12 09:37 PM


I'm not sure why this thread turned into another selfish/selfless thread. Again, I put to anybody really interested, Rand's selfishness is not a bad thing. It is the very idea of valuing something over another. What happens when that is taken away from you?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

130 posted 2007-06-12 09:47 PM


I'm confused too Brad.

But then, I started out that way.

Great question too.

Curious though, is there a distinction made between basic surival instinct and ego-oriented self-interest?

(that's right, I'm just popping in here again, asking an innocent question and ducking!)



(and Brad? Have a hug, It's been another tough year all around, I think.)

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
131 posted 2007-06-12 09:51 PM


quote:
I put to anybody really interested, Rand's selfishness is not a bad thing. It is the very idea of valuing something over another.

Brad,

for me it has to do with the assumption that "value" has to relate only and ultimately to myself, rather than the ability to be outwardly concerned.  

The fact that she has taken a traditionally negative term, and sought to change it, tells me that her philosophy (which is simply a restatement of classical egoism with minor differences) seeks to eulogize a focus upon the self, rather than to admit its dangers.  The fact that self interest is sometimes healthy, and never absent, is the truth she uses to make egoism credible.  But something being always present, and something being omnipresent, as it were, are two different things.  Making it omnipresent, forces her to go outside of traditional moral categories in order to issue (or explain) praise and reproof.  But the naked rationalism that is offered as a surrogate, doesn't fit at all what we really think about St. Teresa, or Billy the Kid.


Stephen.          

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
132 posted 2007-06-12 10:06 PM


quote:
If I go to a starving bum on the street with a ham sandwich in my hand and try to explain to him that my main reason for giving him the sandwich is that it makes me feel good as a person to do things to benefit others and it's not really him I am doing it for, but for me, he's going to say "Whatever you say, pal, just hand over the grub!!"....as it should be.


Mike, I almost forgot to ask you this ...

I wonder if you might try saying something like that to your wife when you do something kind to her next time?  The point is, it IS possible to be "political" in most or all things that we do.  But we usually consider that a moral fault.  And the very fact that you would pause to say that kind of thing to your wife or your son, tells me that you agree on some level.  Why do you think people sometimes say "it's the thought that counts"?  Because, while it may not count for all, it really does count.  

One more question (this one from the poor guy) ...

Why does it make you feel good "doing things that benefit others"?


Stephen.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

133 posted 2007-06-12 10:14 PM


Maybe he gets thank you notes written in tears...


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
134 posted 2007-06-12 10:31 PM



"The fact that she has taken a traditionally negative term, and sought to change it"

Stephanos, right to the point. Bravo!!!!

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
135 posted 2007-06-12 10:43 PM


/pip/Forum8/HTML/000442.html

In case anyone is interested, we've discussed the proper understanding of "self interest" versus "selfishness" before.


Stephen.

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
136 posted 2007-06-13 08:04 AM


Thank you for providing the link Stephen.

quote:
Most of your answers since my last post, made it sound as if egoism were not really egoism.  But I have studied egoism enough to know what it is.


For what reason did you study egoism and come to know it so well?

quote:
Egoism states quite emphatically, that ALL human motivation stems from self-interest alone ... period.  If that's not what you believe then you are not an egoist.


That’s irrational, based upon the fact that nothing is set in stone throughout the continuum of life. Philosophy in and of itself is a search, an ongoing process, systems, and collections of thought and study. Egoism can have as many levels as the social stratums governing the birth of thought.

What I’ve observed and experienced is: Beyond personal reasoning lies moral justification-which muddles up everything. To each his/her own becomes To each of us you owe. Then anything we want for ourselves becomes bad. It feels like applied structuralism in the form of group-sociopathic control. What I mean is: If you ain’t with the in crowd, you’re out. Which is very anti-social.

There’s no rationality to that aside from social acceptance, and at best complacency. I want more than social acceptance and definitely more than complacency. Where do I start? With myself.

Selfless, selfish, are common moral/immoral labels. You don’t have to be an Altruist or an Egoist to get pinned with one.

Egoism isn’t bad, as Brad says, but I don’t need him to say that. In answer to his question of :

quote:
What happens when that is taken away from you?


If you’re not able to value something over another?  Oppression? Apathy? Death? Eminent downfall of man?  I don’t know because there are values within myself that no one can take away.

Since we can all agree that altruism is almost non-existent, though again I believe that depends on one’s personal perception since we are not all knowing of who is doing what and why, then what’s left?

Rational self-interest with regard to long term affects sounds most reasonable and dignified to me.

that could be an act so simple as writing this sentence because it suits me whether anyone agrees or cares.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
137 posted 2007-06-13 01:06 PM


rwood:
quote:
For what reason did you study egoism and come to know it so well?


It was purely out of self-interest.          

No, seriously, it is simply a part of my lay-study of Western Philosophy, and a phenomenon of thought that caught my interest for several reasons.


quote:
Stephen: Egoism states quite emphatically, that ALL human motivation stems from self-interest alone ... period.

rwood:  That’s irrational, based upon the fact that nothing is set in stone throughout the continuum of life.


The statement, "nothing is set in stone througout the continuum of life" is itself a philosophical statement (first articulated by Heraclitus?) which is often disputed, and oddly enough contains an absolute.

However I will agree with you that egoism's assertion about self-interest being the foundation for all human action, is irrational, simply because there's too much it doesn't take into account.

quote:
Philosophy in and of itself is a search, an ongoing process, systems, and collections of thought and study. Egoism can have as many levels as the social stratums governing the birth of thought.


Yes, philosophy itself is an ongoing process, and as a whole, is a jumble of disagreement.  But many of its "systems" have presented absolutes and firm answers.  Egoism is one of them, that I happen to disagree with.  

I'm not sure of what you mean when you say that egoism can have "as many levels as the social stratums governing the birth of thought".  Could you further explain?  

It seems to me that any philosophical system is somewhat self-defining, within its own premises.  And any reference to the diversity of philsophical thought in general, doesn't change the specificity of any one system.  In other words, it doesn't change what egoism says about itself.

quote:
What I’ve observed and experienced is: Beyond personal reasoning lies moral justification-which muddles up everything. To each his/her own becomes To each of us you owe. Then anything we want for ourselves becomes bad.


Oppressively imposing morals upon others for the purpose of "self interest" is not what I am suggesting.  I am talking about the ability to make an ethical decision, based upon something other than "me".  That is what egoism, by its own tenet, denies.

If misuising moral law to abuse others muddles things up, I would also suggest that eradicating moral categories also muddles things up.  Morality and rationality often overlap, but they can't be conflated without negative consequences.

quote:
Selfless, selfish, are common moral/immoral labels. You don’t have to be an Altruist or an Egoist to get pinned with one.


They're not only moral "labels" but inward realities as well.  Jesus said to get the beam out of my eye before I worry about your specks.  But what he didn't say is "Just don't worry about the eye".  

In your argument, you seem to point to the abuses of traditional moral categories to make your case, such as "labeling others".  But you're not speaking of proper use.  My point is that referring to the abuse of something is not always an argument against it.  


quote:
Rational self-interest with regard to long term affects sounds most reasonable and dignified to me.


side note... Its Interesting that you used the word "dignified", an older-school word for honor nobility and the like.  

Does this mean that literally everything you do must stem from "rational self-interest"?  Or could you actually do something for the sake of someone else?  Remember, I'm not questioning whether this good deed invariably comes with benefits to self.  I'm questioning whether self has to be the sole motivation.

quote:
Since we can all agree that altruism is almost non-existent, though again I believe that depends on one’s personal perception since we are not all knowing of who is doing what and why


Is that a concession, that it is possible for action to spring from something more, or other than, self interest?

quote:
that could be an act so simple as writing this sentence because it suits me whether anyone agrees or cares.


Apply egoism to another simple act, such as giving your child something to eat.  Of course you wouldn't want to be turned in to the Department of Family Protective Services.  Of course you want them to quit crying or constantly asking you for something to munch, because it annoys you.  Of course you want to "feel" like you're being a good mother because guilty feelings are a hassle.  Of course you want them to grow up healthy and strong so they can perhaps take care of you when you're older, because being alone is no fun.  But are those reasons (the ones that have to do with self) the only reasons?


Stephen


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
138 posted 2007-06-13 04:47 PM


Egoism states quite emphatically, that ALL human motivation stems from self-interest alone ... period.  - Stephanos
There are three major phases of egoism, sir.

Egoism can be a descriptive or a normative position. Psychological egoism, the most famous descriptive position, claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare. Normative forms of egoism make claims about what one ought to do, rather than describe what one does do. Ethical egoism claims that it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be morally right that it maximize one's self-interest. Rational egoism claims that it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be rational that it maximize one's self-interest.

If you wish to read more about these three types, you can find them here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/#  You will find nowhere where there are emphatic absolutes or demands stated. By the way, "stemming from self-interest" is not synonymous with having self-interest as the only gola or purpose.

Your stand on/against Ayn Rand confuses me. As a self-stated student of philosophy you have done a lot of reading, quoting a variety of names and quotes. You acknowledge that you have not read much or studied Ayn Rand
Okay, I admit, I haven't read alot of Ayn Rand. But I am well familiar with the claims and implications of egoism, from David Hume onward
I admit I haven't read Rand much, but I do have an understanding of egoism as articulated by philosophers much earlier than Rand.

.......and yet you will quote others as fact and dismiss her or try to point out the flaws of this person you are so unfamiliar with.
The fact that she has taken a traditionally negative term, and sought to change it, tells me that her philosophy (which is simply a restatement of classical egoism with minor differences) seeks to eulogize a focus upon the self, rather than to admit its dangers
Your negative comments on her philosophy you are not that familiar with makes one wonder why?


wonder if you might try saying something like that to your wife when you do something kind to her next time?
What have I said to my wife more times than I can count? I love you. Perhaps you have said that, too. What is the subject of that sentence?  Why, it's I!   and you are describing how you feel. There was a popular greeting card phrase a while back that went, "I love you for what you make me feel when I'm with you". Well, you would have to call that egoistical, too, wouldn't you?


Why do you think people sometimes say "it's the thought that counts"?
.....because it's a tie they hate? Because they think "You shouldn't have...." and really mean it?   Because someone really screwed  up? I'd wager a large sum that 95% of the time that someone says that it means they hate the thought or action presented. If you ever got a terrific gift from your wife and said "It's the thought that counts, dear", her reply would be...WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT???

No, Stephanos, I've never claimed to be a pure egoist or anything of the kind. I'm not into personal labels. I'm simply saying that I agree that thoughts and actions stem from self-interest and when those actions are handled rationally and morally and do not infringe on the rights of others, I find nothing wrong with it. I believe everyone is that way. I believe you have no choice in the matter - it's not something you can control. It is our nature. Interesting example......when I was in the 7th grade studying history, our teacher asked the class "If you were fighting in a war and the person next to you (your best friend) got shot, what would be your first emotion? The answers ranged from horror to shock to sadness, etc, etc, etc. The teacher said we were all wrong....the first emotion would be relief, a gladness that it hadn't been us. Man, we argued with him over that one! Years later, I acknowledged that he had been right. It may hit and pass so quickly that you don't even realize it was there, but it was. I believe it's the same way for everything, that the first instinct for action is based on self, whether or not it lasted long enough for you to be conscious of it or not.
Our "superior" teachers have, over the years,  proclaimed that egoism and selfish and self-centered is evil so many times that people come to beleive it and condemn it and, sadder still, develope a feeling of self-disgust for having it. These are people that politicians and priests love. They are so easy to control.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
139 posted 2007-06-13 06:17 PM


Sir Balladeer, a very good story.

I have heard more than once that when some so timid guys scared to death to fire but as soon as his buddies were down, he ducked then revenged with all his might. because the individual self-interest has evolved into self-interest of the tightly bound group (oil families, today)
Individual human can not survive as species. and that is why individual egg has to GIVE UP half of its DNA for a reproduction. so self-interest means death.
Philosophy based on that...same ending.

And I see you changed face. cute.


Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
140 posted 2007-06-13 06:31 PM


quote:
I'm simply saying that I agree that thoughts and actions stem from self-interest and when those actions are handled rationally and morally and do not infringe on the rights of others, on the rights of others, I find nothing wrong with it.


I got lost in this, 'Deer.  Specifically, "...stem from self-interest."

I hold the door open for elderly ladies who have to handle different types of walking apparatus, to get from point A to point B.  Nothing in that action of mine leads to anything of self-interest.  It's a kindness, an act of compassion, overall.  But before it is even a kindness, it is a thought processed into some, that we do unto others what we would have done for and/or to us...    

quote:
Our "superior" teachers have, over the years,  proclaimed that egoism and selfish and self-centered is evil so many times that people come to beleive it and condemn it and, sadder still, develope a feeling of self-disgust for having it. These are people that politicians and priests love. They are so easy to control.


Again, being true to one's self, knowing that to give is reward in and of  itself, is better...

Wasn't that, overall, Ayn's message?


[This message has been edited by Sunshine (06-13-2007 08:00 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
141 posted 2007-06-13 06:41 PM


Mike:  
quote:
If you wish to read more about these three types, you can find them here


Thanks.  I have read quite a bit about egoism already.  I'm not unfamiliar with what you've presented.  


quote:
You will find nowhere where there are emphatic absolutes or demands stated. By the way, "stemming from self-interest" is not synonymous with having self-interest as the only gola or purpose.


self interest is the only goal or purpose = an absolute.


And as to your distinction between actions "stemming from self interest" versus "having self interest as the only goal or purpose", it is only semantical.  Mind explaining the difference to me, if you're saying there is one?  Funny I'm just as comfortable using your statement as mine, when describing egoism.

quote:
Your stand on/against Ayn Rand confuses me. As a self-stated student of philosophy you have done a lot of reading, quoting a variety of names and quotes. You acknowledge that you have not read much or studied Ayn Rand


Really the reason I haven't read much Rand, is because I haven't wanted to.  I have read enough to know that her philosophy is egoism repackaged for more contemporary people.  If it makes you feel more comfortable, you could consider that my criticisms are not against Ayn Rand, per se, but against egoism, which is the basis of her philosophy.


quote:
and yet you will quote others as fact and dismiss her or try to point out the flaws of this person you are so unfamiliar with.


If you think I've tried to point out personal flaws, rather than doubtful philosophy, then you haven't been reading very closely.

quote:
Your negative comments on her philosophy you are not that familiar with makes one wonder why?



It wouldn't be quite accurate to say I am not familiar with her philosophy if I am familiar with egoism.  But again, if it makes you feel better to consider what I say a critique of egoism (and objectivism only so far as it includes egoism) then fine.  


quote:
What have I said to my wife more times than I can count? I love you. Perhaps you have said that, too. What is the subject of that sentence?  Why, it's I!    and you are describing how  you feel.


Okay .... and?  The object of the sentence is still your wife.  And if my love is, at root, only about myself, then there's a problem.  I never said that love wasn't rewarding to self, or that self-interest is not bound up in love.  What I'm saying is that it is not ALL there is to it.

You keep pointing out (over and over) that self is an ingredient, which I've never once denied.  It's like me arguing that candy bars have chocolate AND sugar rather than chocolate alone, while you keep rebutting me with the fact that they have chocolate.  

quote:
There was a popular greeting card phrase a while back that went, "I love you for what you make me feel when I'm with you". Well, you would have to call that egoistical, too, wouldn't you?


Um, if that's all there was to it, then yes, I would.  There's also the "I love you for who you are" greeting cards.  Stands to reason then that both aspects are (or should be) present.  

quote:
.....because it's a tie they hate? Because they think "You shouldn't have...." and really mean it?   Because someone really screwed  up? I'd wager a large sum that 95% of the time that someone says that it means they hate the thought or action presented.


So which is it the thought (intention), or the action?  You just slurred these together, but really you need to make a distinction to make sense of this little saying we all sometimes say around Christmas.  


quote:
If you ever got a terrific gift from your wife and said "It's the thought that counts, dear", her reply would be...WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT???



Of course it would be.  That's why you would never say that to her.  "It's the thought that counts" is something we typically say to ourselves to check any self-absorbed disappointment.  I never said there couldn't be something wrong with the gift, or the act itself, only that motive is often as (if not more) important in our minds.  Yeah I may be disappointed that my grandmother got me that tacky shirt, but as soon as I shake off the selfish disappointment, I realize that she probably did it out of genuine love.


quote:
No, Stephanos, I've never claimed to be a pure egoist or anything of the kind.


Good.  

quote:
I'm not into personal labels.


Hey i didn't make the label.  I'm only speaking of whether the philosophy is tenable.


quote:
I'm simply saying that I agree that thoughts and actions stem from self-interest


Let me ask a clarifying question ... one you've seemed to be slipping all around but not really addressing:  


Are you saying that you agree that ALL thoughts and actions stem from self-interest ALONE?  Or, do you think that all other-directed acts have ONLY self interest as their motivation?


Before you answer, remember that I'm not asking whether self-interest is a part of all human action, so don't remind me of that.  I asked a very specific question.


quote:
and when those actions are handled rationally and morally and do not infringe on the rights of others


Of course I agree with that (not believing egoism is tenable)

But assuming egoism is true, why wouldn't "rationally" be enough?  Why include "morally"?  Egoism makes the distinction between long-term and short-sighted self-interest, but shies away from traditional views of morality altogether.  


Egoism has never answered why self-interest can't logically "infringe on the rights of others", apart from dragging along old-fashioned moral censure and approval as a foreign passenger.

quote:
The answers ranged from horror to shock to sadness, etc, etc, etc. The teacher said we were all wrong....the first emotion would be relief, a gladness that it hadn't been us. Man, we argued with him over that one! Years later, I acknowledged that he had been right. It may hit and pass so quickly that you don't even realize it was there, but it was.


I have no argument for your teacher either.  Only the egoist would tell us that the subsequent emotion (sorrow at a friend's demise) must be due Soley for what he could have done for us in the future ... just as self-centered as the first emotion.  


So I have no argument against the statement that we tend to think of self first.  I only argue against the statement that that's what we're thinking of always, only in disguised forms.


If you concede that you may have genuine sorrow for your friend's life, even some time after the initial relief for your own escape, then you are not talking about egoism.  I would call that "mutualism", the middle path between altruism and egoism.


quote:
Our "superior" teachers have, over the years,  proclaimed that egoism and selfish and self-centered is evil so many times that people come to beleive it and condemn it and, sadder still, develope a feeling of self-disgust for having it. These are people that politicians and priests love. They are so easy to control.


I've never heard a moral teacher (in religious context, or otherwise) who didn't take for granted self-interest, or self concern.  Even Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself" ... (though not 'when you love your neighbor you're really loving yourself)  What I typically hear in good moral instruction is that self may be given too much prominece at improper times and create what is commonly known as "selfishness".  It's not "absence" versus "presence", but "enough" versus "excess".  It's ironic you should point out corrupt politicians and religious leaders, whose main criticism in popular culture has been their selfishness, whether that means being overly concerned with power, position, money, or fame.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-13-2007 08:32 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
142 posted 2007-06-13 07:50 PM


quote:
So I have no argument against the statement that we tend to think of self first.  I only argue against the statement that that's what we're thinking of always, only in disguised forms.


And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with egoism at least as you describe it. It's not that it's wrong, it's that you  reduce or can reduce everything to its tenets. It's the same thing as when someone says, "Everything is about getting laid." or "Everything is about death." You can say that, but you reduce an interesting insight to the point where it is useless.

Reductionism.

But I still think that much of this argument is too abstract for what Rand's point was. Too much Rationalism, not enough Romanticism.

Rand saw the world as divided between makers and takers, producers or looters, Prime Movers and parasites (the same thing three times). To me, its obvious that part of the problem here is that division, but for anyone who has worked in a collective enterprise, you must have experienced that point where you keep throwing out ideas and others keep batting them down -- with no substitutes of their own.

Her point is that it is not bad to believe in your own ideas and to work to make them real.

It's also implicit in her writings that the experience of these forms should also be treasured. Creativity and the experience of others' creativity. Her greatest fear was that these would be taken away from her.

Her hatred was reserved for those who try. But not even that. Her greatest hatred was reserved for those who found a perverse joy in taking those away.

A form of Evil, is it not?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
143 posted 2007-06-13 08:07 PM


On another day, different thread maybe, I'll get into where Rand goes wrong (and cunningly right)... but for now...

If you believe in Karma -- then you're doing it for yourself?

If you 'fear' God (something Jesus said you should do since he can kill your 'soul' not just your body)-- you fear him/her on your own behalf -- your acts of Christian charity are then acts you do out of your love of neighbor because you 'fear' God.

It seems to me that any philisophical system comes full circle into a fundamental instict of self-preservation.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
144 posted 2007-06-13 08:28 PM


Brad:
quote:
Reductionism.


And I guess that, is finally what I believe egoism amounts to ... a form of reductionism.

Where Rand (and others) are insightful and brilliant, is precisely where egoism doesn't fit.  And I have, admittedly, been focused on the error of egoism in this thread.  We could talk about what is useful or beautiful in Ayn's observations.  I simply like to clear the debris before I build.  

quote:
If you 'fear' God (something Jesus said you should do since he can kill your 'soul' not just your body)-- you fear him/her on your own behalf -- your acts of Christian charity are then acts you do out of your love of neighbor because you 'fear' God.



I think scripturally, there is a balance, where self is never absent and yet never presented as the center, or the sole motivation.  


Actually, the lone desire for self-preservation could be viewed as more of a jump-start to piety, and therefore as the most underdeveloped stage of faith.  One would move from the mere fear of perdition, to a love that is willing to give all (Christ as the example).  This is somewhat different than egoism, in that there is more than one kind of motivation involved.

C.S. Lewis' description of "need love" and "gift love" in his book The Four Loves is quite a good meditation on this.


Stephen.

    

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
145 posted 2007-06-13 09:11 PM


"Rand saw the world as divided between makers and takers, producers or looters, Prime Movers and parasites (the same thing three times)."

Big hug to you Brad

Those are exact views of the communists on this world. Based on this view (or philosophy),there came the revolution in Russia, east Europe, China, north Korea, Cuba.  

and children in Kindergarten I believe, now, today, in North Korea know this saying.

it is not even second hand saying. it is third handed believing.

I have no words for all the uncontaminated soul.

  

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (06-14-2007 11:35 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
146 posted 2007-06-14 04:19 AM


Well, no. In communism the division is between workers and owners (more specifically capitalists) through social property relations.

There is no division of people in communism except through social property relations.

But, I've been trying to show that the goals, the utopia that Rand and Marx envision are based on similar assumptions. If that's what you meant I'm in agreement, but the only similarity here is that society is divided into two.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
147 posted 2007-06-14 10:26 AM


Dear Brad,
I did not say that those were division of communism. I said that those are how communist viewed this world and started their revolution. those divisions were not from Rand.  those were what she  was taught in school. Everybody from communist country knows those divisions. But when middle class becomes the  main part of the society, this theory does not fit into the reality.

And Brad, do you notice that this kind of division, one group is great, another group needs to disappear?   Who is to be the fair judge to tell who belongs to which group? Now you might understand why the killings of Stalin, Mao, and all killings in Communist countries.  If you were judged into the “Sin” group, the fate is death. Those groupings   justified all the cold blooded killings happened in Communist countries. You may think that this is a marvelous theory, but millions have already pay their lives in reality.
  

why Rand is evil!!!!

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (06-14-2007 11:22 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
148 posted 2007-06-14 02:33 PM


There's also a division in Communisim of rulers and ruled.  I just visited Beijing, where a tour guide told us that we could speak of the massacre at Tiananmen Square on the bus, but warned that it would not be wise to make mention of it anywhere else.  

(I agree however, with Brad, that Rand's philosophy and communism actually have little in common)  


Stephen.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
149 posted 2007-06-14 06:40 PM


quote:
I did not say that those were division of communism. I said that those are how communist viewed this world and started their revolution. those divisions were not from Rand.  those were what she  was taught in school. Everybody from communist country knows those divisions. But when middle class becomes the  main part of the society, this theory does not fit into the reality.


I guess I didn't make myself clear enough.

My bad.

The division that is taught in communist schools is the division between those who own the means of production and those who work in  a wage labor system. That is class by definition.  The middle classes, except to mean the owners and not the aristocracy, has no existence, it is an illusion.

That is what is taught in communist schools.

Rand's division is the division between those who create and those who attempt to destroy the creation.

And then ask for more.

The Evil I was referring to was not the division but to the specific type of person that asks you to create something, tears it apart until there is nothing left, and then asks for something else.

And offers nothing but that.

I've been there.

"Atlas Shrugged", the working title was called the Strike, is about a group of creators who decided to leave, to strike, to move and live by themselves.

It is not about killing other people, it is about trying to live your life without the interference of others.

That Rand was influenced by teachings in her youth is obvious (and, I admit, interesting), but that she was controlled by those same teachings, is simply false.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
150 posted 2007-06-14 08:20 PM


I won!
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
151 posted 2007-06-14 08:57 PM


Not really Drauntz.  

There is no finish line here -- and in a debate the Ad hominem attacks on Rand wouldn't win you any points (unless the debate was being held about 500 years ago when the Vituperation was considered a valid argument).

In order to beat Rand (which is what you're really trying to do) you have to beat her ideas -- not her.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
152 posted 2007-06-14 09:08 PM


.


There’s a problem in this that some
have already alluded to in that you can’t understand
another’s view or, more elaborately, philosophy
except as an apperception which then discounts
it as anything the rest of us can rely on or refer to
in making their own judgments.


.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
153 posted 2007-06-14 09:09 PM


Local Rebel,
no body picked up her idea in real life. or whoever piked up has already dropped.
First, it is not hers.
Second, it is not fit to human behaviors.
Third, I do not like this "philosophy" to whomever it belongs
Fourth. I won again!

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
154 posted 2007-06-14 09:38 PM


quote:

it is not fit to human behaviors



This, is the beginning of an argument against Objectivism.

Whether anyone (Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Alan Greenspan, Anton Lavay) was influenced by Rand, whether or not you like her philosophy, or whether or not Objectivism is Rand's idea -- are not arguments against Objectivism.


hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
155 posted 2007-06-14 11:53 PM


Well, there you have it. Drauntz won. "Ryn" Rand is evil.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
156 posted 2007-06-15 02:13 AM



Local Rebel

About Reagan

"On May 15 of that year, the riots increased, and the officers resorted to using firearms, shooting and killing a 25 year old San Jose man and injuring many others.[37] Reagan then called out 2,200 state National Guard troops to the university to crack down on the anti-war protesters"...government

"Please tell me you're Republicans."--freedom?

"Every country and every people has a stake in the Afghan resistance, for the freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability"....Global interest...not self interest.

"Air traffic controllers' strike"... power of Government

"The award, the highest given by the Reagan Foundation, is presented on a regular basis to one person in the world who has "made monumental and lasting contributions to the cause of freedom worldwide"...award to the hero not the self interested head.

"Reagan stated that he considered himself a “born-again Christian.”....not an atheist.

"Beginning in 1926, Reagan was employed as a lifeguard at Lowell Park in Dixon. He was credited with saving 77 lives during the 7 summers he worked there." life saving job...self interest?

"REASON: What about Rand or Rothbard?

REAGAN: No. I haven’t read Ayn Rand since The Fountainhead. I haven’t read Atlas Shrugged."

"Miss Rand also speaks her mind on Jane Fonda and Ronald Reagan—whom she described as a "cheap Hollywood ham" and whose presidential candidacy she completely opposed." http://www.boxofficemojo.com/features/?id=1947&p=.htm


if Reagan once admired Rand was when they all testified in Hollywood against the communist activity.

I will post information about other names you dropped.  

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
157 posted 2007-06-15 04:20 AM


We are now in Bizarro world where Rand was a communist and Reagan was a social reformer.
rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
158 posted 2007-06-15 06:45 AM


Drauntz,

What exactly did you win?

quote:
Rand is evil!!!!

no body picked up her idea in real life. or whoever piked up has already dropped.
First, it is not hers.
Second, it is not fit to human behaviors.
Third, I do not like this "philosophy" to whomever it belongs.


This is how books and people get burned.

I picked up her idea/s and her book/s and I'm still standing.


quote:
woman "philosophers" and woman preachers, I take no words from them.

I do not take philosophers seriously...too much a burden.

2.She was from family of agnostic and largely non-observant ethnic Jews.

3 she was an atheist.

12.  She was a smoker.

"Reagan stated that he considered himself a “born-again Christian.”....not an atheist.




I don't know you, but your statements are very discriminatory. Your book, thus far, is taking shape as "Atlas Demonized."


rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
159 posted 2007-06-15 10:42 AM


Stephen:

Clearly I’m not a complete textbook Egoist, because it would be in my best interest to agree with you and everyone else in this forum.  

Heraclitus? Thanks. I’m happy to know who I’m borrowing from, though doesn’t death absolve the absolute nature of my statement? Dunno. Absolutes are tricky and I’ve been too busy to think lately, so please bear with me while I try and reply.

Actually he’s a good example of my statement of the birth of thought. I didn’t know who said what I said, but such ideas span across many different cultures, doctrines, systems, social structures, successors and protégés of philosophy. Ideas can be perfected, most respectfully, even in the form of a Savior that some may believe in or disbelieve in. A presence is still formed. Yes?

I think “pure form” is what we’re disagreeing on.

I have a hard time understanding the nature of “pure form” philosophy. The static absolutes.

I feel like we’re missing something. How can a person operate on one single system of belief or principle at all times? Especially a static absolute? Isn’t that a bit programmed and impossible? So why not improve or build on it and take it as a form of or a derivative of, instead of dismissing as? whatever.

It seems that Rand’s objectivism leads to an egoism that advocates continual betterment of self for one’s self, not the world, though the world benefits. Say I’m an alcoholic. I can’t quit drinking for you. Though I’m sure anyone would be worth it, I still have to do it for myself.

“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” (Ayn Rand)

where prior, egoism seems just egoism. Something one dimensional and static, so I’m not sure how that term grew with any clarity unless it contrasted some established means or mores.

quote:
Oppressively imposing morals upon others for the purpose of "self interest" is not what I am suggesting.  I am talking about the ability to make an ethical decision, based upon something other than "me".  That is what egoism, by its own tenet, denies.

If misusing moral law to abuse others muddles things up, I would also suggest that eradicating moral categories also muddles things up.  Morality and rationality often overlap, but they can't be conflated without negative consequences.


Morals are imposed for all kinds of purposes. When I made my statement, I wasn’t thinking of abusive case. Labels seem to be a natural phenomenon. Why does my doctor need to know whether I’m divorced or not? So he can ask me for a date after diagnosis? How many heroes get pinned with heroism and they never once thought they were being a hero?

I’d never suggest the eradication of morality but fitting into the categories can feel like being a square peg in a round hole. There’s not much space between im & moral, ha, or ir & rational.

it’s hard to be human.

Anyway: I don’t think Rand meant that man is an island. Oh no, I didn’t say it.

P.S. I fed my children for the same reasons you studied Western Philosophy.

They really caught my interest then and still do. They give me new reasons every day of why life is priceless.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
160 posted 2007-06-15 12:00 PM


rwood

I am talking about Rand and her "philosophy" not anyone else. Do please focus on her.


since you know her so well, why tell something  about her. like her novel is well written, idea well expressed. I will 100% percent agree with you.

say something about her, not me. You are very right...you don't know me.

again  I won!

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
161 posted 2007-06-15 02:06 PM


Local Rebel

Rush Limbaugh
"Prescription drug addiction" and
"Leukemia and lymphoma telethon"

you know how Rand view those behaviors.
*****************
Rush Limbaugh on Relationships...a man can not hold three marriages?

I shall get a cow from India for butter and milk but not as a god.

If I took his words seriously, call me big fat idiot.


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
162 posted 2007-06-15 02:15 PM


Local Rebel,

Alan Greenspan. a very close friend of Rand and suppose to like her view of "capitalism" and "objectionism"

who is Alan Greenspan?  Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006.
During the 1950s and 1960s Greenspan was a friend of author Ayn Rand and a proponent of her Objectivist philosophy, which among other things holds that reason, egoism and capitalism are the necessary cornerstones of a free and civilized society. He wrote articles for Objectivist newsletters, and contributed several essays for Rand's 1966 book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. In Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, Greenspan wrote an essay strongly supporting the gold standard.[7] More recently however, he has been criticised by some Objectivists for his actions.

He has come under heavy criticism from Objectivists, most notably Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger,[10] as they believe that working for the Federal Reserve is an abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan

His position in Fed is not the in the "philosophy of Rand" if we know what fed is doing.

and who is Anton Lavay??? i do not know him.

I won again.

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
163 posted 2007-06-15 03:33 PM


Drauntz,

Did you read my post? No.

Did you read Atlas Shrugged? No.

So how can you disagree/agree with me about something you've never read? Obviously you haven't even read my other posts where I spoke of Rand's work. I'm not going to re-write her book for you since you said you had no interest. Yes, I read that too.

I made an observation about your statements, not about you as a person. You're doing a good enough job discrediting yourself all on your own.

Here's another question you may also care to ignore.

How does it feel when you think someone you don't even know is passing judgment on you as a person?



Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
164 posted 2007-06-15 05:26 PM


rwood

see here, Ron's ice cream becomes your spirit.

"Say I’m an alcoholic. I can’t quit drinking for you."

Exactly. To drink is your self interest...your likeness.  To quit is your self-interest too...for your physical and mental health. The two self-interests would fight. Whoever wins is determined by a rational self-interest.....where does the role of "Objectivism" play here?

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
165 posted 2007-06-15 05:30 PM


What are you even talking about? You sound like a 12-year-old with an 8-year-old's understanding of English language and grammar. People might take you more seriously if we could even make out what you are trying to convey.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
166 posted 2007-06-15 05:42 PM


hush,

which part do you misunderstand? I'll try my best to explain.  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
167 posted 2007-06-15 06:38 PM


self interest is the only goal or purpose = an absolute.....presented by Stephanos

I don't know if you presented this as a direct quote or simply your view. If it is a direct quote, I would not agree with it, no matter who said it, even Ms. Rand. If it is YOUR concept, then I would suggest you are not looking at the bigger picture. There can certainly be other considerations which can result as by-products - and these considerations may give the doer pleasure - but self interest is the base, just as the brain may not be the only organ in the body but the body cannot exist without it. In one section of Atlas Shrugged, Henry Reardon, who had just created a new metal to be used replacing railroad ties (along with a myriad of other uses) states to a reporter that he intends to "skin the public to the tune of millions of dollars" with his new product. The reporter replies, "Wait a minute. Wouldn't the public be benefitting greatly from all of the possibilities this new invention open up?", to which reardon replies, "Oh, have you noticed that?"

Let me ask a clarifying question ... one you've seemed to be slipping all around but not really addressing:  
Are you saying that you agree that ALL thoughts and actions stem from self-interest ALONE?  Or, do you think that all other-directed acts have ONLY self interest as their motivation?
Before you answer, remember that I'm not asking whether self-interest is a part of all human action, so don't remind me of that.  I asked a very specific question.


Well, I'm sorry, sir, if you seem to feel I'm "slipping around" your questions. I'm trying to answer in the best way I know how and, if they are not acceptable to you, they are still the best I can do.  I believe that all of our actions stem from self interest. You seem to attach a great deal of importance, having mentioned it several times, to the word ALONE as if that's the part that you have such disagreement with or something. Frankly, I don't see why but I'll state as clearly as I can that I believe that self interest is the vital key of all actions. In sunshine's example of helping an old lady across the street, you don't just stand there and say to yourself "I'm going to help that woman across the street because it makes me feel good and that is my only concern so i'm gonna do it."  You simply help the woman across the street, knowing that she needed assistance and felling good that you were able to exercise an act of kindness for another human being. Let me ask you this. If helping the lady across the street was something you really didn't want to do, or something that you hated doing, would you do it anyway? Let me ask you one better. Have you ever done a kindness for someone that went unappreciated? How did you feel then? If you helped that woman across the street and she responded by saying "Get your filthy hands off me, creep!", what then?? Would you still have that rosy feeling of having helped a fellow human being? I find it unlikely. Ever hear anyone complain about not receiving a thank you note for a gift sent? Of course you have - it's human nature. So is having self interest as the motivation for every act.

I think that every philosophy "expert" has their own opinions on what true egoism is. Ayn Rand has hers and others have theirs. You seem to have zeroed in on the definition of egoism itself which explains why Brad wondered what happened to the direction of this thread, since the thread was initially about Any Rand, her book, and the feasibility of making it into a movie. Much of my responses has been to HER philosophical views and not egoism as a whole, since i have never studied it. Actually, i didn't read Ayn rand to study philosophy, either. I read her books because they were incredible stories and, since i happened to agree with the way her main characters thought and acted, that influenced me to learn more about what made the author tick.

Like her on not, she can tell a good story....


BTW.....Brad, I have to tell you I'm impressed by the way you were able to discuss what her views and thoughts were with such accuracy. For a fellow who hasn't read her "for some time", your knowledge of her views has a lot of merit


rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
168 posted 2007-06-15 08:07 PM


quote:
Like her on not, she can tell a good story.


Amen. I certainly hope they do her book justice.

I second Brad's kudos and yours too, Mike. Refreshing input.

I think Karen's thread might be a slight example of the tension and release Ayn was marvelous in building.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
169 posted 2007-06-15 08:30 PM


.


Let’s take this to another scene.
What would Rand say about Jesus
giving up his life for the sins of others,
or his father letting him do it?


.

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
170 posted 2007-06-15 08:55 PM


Drauntz,

So be it. I'll take Rand's philosophy and Ron's Ice Cream any day over your prejudiced, sexist, and downright inconsiderate views.  

Sincerely,

A smoking philosophical female who's not afraid or disrespecting of Atheists, Agnostics, Ordained females, or Jews.

huh, there's that rhyme thing again.


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
171 posted 2007-06-15 09:05 PM


rwood,

Rand was an Atheists and Reagan was a Christian. those are facts. why does it bother you?

people have different faiths which is fact too.


and why does Ron let you take his ice cream, rwood?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
172 posted 2007-06-15 09:45 PM


You could argue Drauntz (and win), that the people interacting with you about Rand aren't influenced by her because of the mere fact that they are still talking to you.

You continue to be sidetracked by your own red-herrings.

What you have to defeat, in order to defeat Rand, are:

Reason
Individualism
Capitalism

quote:

But few people knew that Reagan ranks among the most prolific Presidents, author of more than 5,000 letters on everything from his love of Snoopy to his guilt about sex, his hatred of gossip and his taste for Ayn Rand. And so the private account of a public life, to be published in Reagan: A Life in Letters, is a code breaker for anyone still curious about which version most resembles the Real Reagan.
http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Letters-Kiron-K-Skinner/dp/book-citations/0743219678



The Conservative movement that overtook the Republican Party with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 walked straight out of Galt's Gulch.

It's possible that you don't fully comprehend the meaning of the English word 'influence'.  

Since you are obviously good at impressing yourself -- perhaps you are an inadvertent practitioner of Rand's philosophy.  

quote:

We are now in Bizarro world where Rand was a communist and Reagan was a social reformer.  




Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
173 posted 2007-06-15 09:54 PM


Finally, we are at the same side.

Bravo!!!!

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
174 posted 2007-06-15 10:26 PM


Drauntz,

Reb's right. You win!!

How very Randy of you.<---That is a pun meant to make you smile. Now I'm going to be blunt with my point to you because you don't seem to actually be reading anyone's posts.

Properly address my questions and I'll address yours.

Otherwise? You're playing with yourself.

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
175 posted 2007-06-15 11:17 PM


Hush,

quote:
You sound like a 12-year-old with an 8-year-old's understanding of English language and grammar.


I admit I cannot always understand what Drauntz is talking about and she has some backwards views about certain things. But you are being downright rude to her. Let's try to show a little discretion shall we.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
176 posted 2007-06-15 11:31 PM


Balladeer:
quote:
Henry Reardon, who had just created a new metal to be used replacing railroad ties (along with a myriad of other uses) states to a reporter that he intends to "skin the public to the tune of millions of dollars" with his new product. The reporter replies, "Wait a minute. Wouldn't the public be benefitting greatly from all of the possibilities this new invention open up?", to which reardon replies, "Oh, have you noticed that?"


And most people intuitively know that motives still matter.  One may feel better about making money, after one is assured they are acting out of a real interest for other people as people, and a desire to benefit them.  When that's not there, I think the propensity to hurt or disregard people as people is greater on the way to self's goals (even if it is said to be 'for their own good').  This hearkens back to Brad's C.S. Lewis thread.


The thing is, it sounds to me as if Reardon would not greatly care if the public benefited or not, as long as he could have his millions.  Reminds me somewhat of the Tobacco industry.  If the true public benefit is secondary, it is often expendible.


quote:
In sunshine's example of helping an old lady across the street, you don't just stand there and say to yourself "I'm going to help that woman across the street because it makes me feel good and that is my only concern so i'm gonna do it."  You simply help the woman across the street, knowing that she needed assistance and felling good that you were able to exercise an act of kindness for another human being.


Exactly!  It does not seem in your example, that self interest is the only motivation.  The awareness of another's need, is also a motivation.  


quote:
Let me ask you this. If helping the lady across the street was something you really didn't want to do, or something that you hated doing, would you do it anyway?


I might.  It is not my view that doing what is right is always something we "want" to do.  
    

Let me ask you a question.  Do you only do "good deeds" when you feel like it?  Would you only help the proverbial little old lady across the street when you were in perfect leisure, didn't have other things to get to, or just felt as if you had boundless energy?  Would you do it even if you had a headache, and reservation at the restaurant?  

I bet you might.

quote:
Let me ask you one better. Have you ever done a kindness for someone that went unappreciated? How did you feel then?


Disappointed, of course.  But what does that prove?  That certainly doesn't mean that I wasn't motivated (at least partially) from outward concern.  Perhaps part of the disappointment is self-centered, but part of it may be due to the fact that the person wasn't benefited, or didn't recognize it.  So even this disaapointment may flow from true concern about the other person, as well as from concern about my own ego.  

quote:
? If you helped that woman across the street and she responded by saying "Get your filthy hands off me, creep!", what then?? Would you still have that rosy feeling of having helped a fellow human being?  I find it unlikely.


Okay ... same answer as above.  

quote:
Ever hear anyone complain about not receiving a thank you note for a gift sent? Of course you have - it's human nature. So is having self interest as the motivation for every act.


Ever hear anyone say they really didn't mind that a thank you note didn't come?  Of course not, they typically wouldn't be so noticable.  They would demurely live on, and give on, just being glad to be able to bless.  Again, examples of selfish concern don't rule out better examples.  Heck, it doesn't even rule out the possibility of real concern in those who were the bad examples.  Mutualism is much more realistic, where motives may be mixed.


quote:
You seem to have zeroed in on the definition of egoism itself which explains why Brad wondered what happened to the direction of this thread, since the thread was initially about Any Rand, her book, and the feasibility of making it into a movie.



Well if you'll notice, very few have actually talked about what Karen first intended (sorry Karen     ).  It can be frustrating sometimes, and yet some of our best discussions can be about surrounding issues.  The philosophy (and the egoism within that philosophy) of Ayn Rand is certainly valid to talk about


Stephen

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
177 posted 2007-06-16 08:19 AM


quote:
The thing is, it sounds to me as if Reardon would not greatly care if the public benefited or not, as long as he could have his millions.

Stephen, I think you're still confusing self-interest with rational self-interest. It would not be rational for Reardon to unnecessarily complicate his life by cheating people.

Neither Ayn Rand nor egoism invented self-interest, any more than Isaac Newton invented gravity. These things simply exist. To claim that a person's actions are more complicated than simple self-interest, while certainly true, is irrelevant because ALL of those very complicated motivations are still rooted in our eternal quest to find pleasure and avoid pain. That's all there is. The removal of "self" would also remove all desire to do anything. Can you spell vegetable?

Ayn Rand didn't invent self-interest. She just explored a better way of doing it. Rationally.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
178 posted 2007-06-16 11:51 AM


Ron,
"Ayn Rand didn't invent self-interest. She just explored a better way of doing it. Rationally."

Definition of Rational: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason.

So, rational is based on reasons.

May I ask if those reasons are self-interest or not? by your understanding of Rand.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
179 posted 2007-06-16 09:19 PM


quote:
To claim that a person's actions are more complicated than simple self-interest, while certainly true, is irrelevant because ALL of those very complicated motivations are still rooted in our eternal quest to find pleasure and avoid pain.


I wouldn't agree with that reductionism (which is simply hedonism) ... but even if I grant it, it's still not only pleasure for myself.  I may desire to bring it to others for their sake.  It's still not only avoiding pain for myself.  I may desire to avert it from others for their sake.  And saying so is at least more relevant than the philosophy of egoism, since it is more true.  

quote:
Stephen, I think you're still confusing self-interest with rational self-interest. It would not be rational for Reardon to unnecessarily complicate his life by cheating people.


Not at all, you wouldn't even have to go so far as to say "cheating".  Many people willfully desire what is harmful to them, especially when others help nurse and propel that desire.  Whether it be tobacco, pornography, or a myriad of other things.  Still one's interest may be centered around the self, which brings harm to others, and (arguably) doesn't bring significant trouble to oneself, or at least not enough to outweigh the perceived boon.


But even if we're talking about what most people consider "cheating", there are hosts of people who will argue that they have been helped and not harmed, by its measured and careful use.  It's always been a wonder (expressed in religious and ethical literature) why the wicked sometimes prosper as they do.  It would have to be that way (to some degree) else morality would be nothing more (notice I didn't say nothing less) than a business deal.  Which makes egoism ethically useless, having no ability to offer anything prescriptive.  The qualitative outcome of self-interest, (other than the glaring defeater of being wholly determined by self) cannot be judged in any case prior to the final outcome, as to whether it was rational or beneficial to the self.  Gamblers often win, even if the likelihood of losing is part and parcel of casinos.  The only alternative is the traditional view of morality which offers prescriptive insight, not based on morally naked reason or mere self interest, but upon an imposed standard of right and wrong, which is often just as true before during or after an action, and in spite of its percieved benefit or harm to self.
                    

quote:
The removal of "self" would also remove all desire to do anything. Can you spell vegetable?


A non-sequitur.  My argument has never denied that ALL INTERESTS must come through self.  My assertion is that the self may also hold interests that are truly other-directed, not merely masquerading self-interest.  I may own a piece of land.  And while it would be granted that everyone who walks on it would be on my land, it does not therefore follow that everyone must also be mine.  


self interest may be understood two ways:


1) interests which the self holds

2) interests which are about oneself


In your statement about self being all there is, you seem to be confusing these two definitions.

Stephen.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
180 posted 2007-06-16 11:11 PM


I may desire to avert it from others for their sake. And saying so is at least more relevant than the philosophy of egoism, since it is more true.
Why? Why would desire to avert it from others? Your answer would be in the first three words of your example- I MAY DESIRE...

Many people willfully desire what is harmful to them, especially when others help nurse and propel that desire.   
which has to do with what, exactly, when discussing Rand's rational self-interest?

It's always been a wonder (expressed in religious and ethical literature) why the wicked sometimes prosper as they do.
Wicked people who prosper would have nothing to do with her philosophy, either.

I may own a piece of land. And while it would be granted that everyone who walks on it would be on my land, it does not therefore follow that everyone must also be mine.
I have no idea what this example is supposed to represent. If I owned land, everyone one it would either be my guest, a trespasser or someone who just got lost. What this has to do with egoism or Rand escapes me completely.

Stephen,  it is very clear that, even aside from your own admission, you are not familiar with either her writings or her philosophy, with the exception of superficial knowledge. That being the case,  the discussion becomes apples and oranges, since we are discussing one thing and you are describing another. That makes it an impossibility to arrive to a common ground. I will acknowledge your declared study of egoism in general. I would wish that one day you would include an in-depth study of Rand's views along with the others you have studied...either that, or just read Atlas Shrugged, which may well indeed answer many of the questions you have asked here. Peace....


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
181 posted 2007-06-16 11:12 PM


quote:
Many people willfully desire what is harmful to them, especially when others help nurse and propel that desire. Whether it be tobacco, pornography, or a myriad of other things.

And you would consider that rational self-interest, Stephen?

quote:
But even if we're talking about what most people consider "cheating", there are hosts of people who will argue that they have been helped and not harmed, by its measured and careful use.

And you would consider that rational self-interest?

quote:
Gamblers often win, even if the likelihood of losing is part and parcel of casinos.

And you would consider that rational self-interest?

Again, and again, and again, Stephen, you're confusing self-interest with rational self-interest. The qualitative outcome of rational self-interest CAN be judged prior to the final outcome, as indeed it always must be. Indeed, it is far more prescriptive than your so-called traditional view of morality -- which can only advise action when your moral dilemma has been previously documented. Reason doesn't guarantee perfect answers, of course. Just as it doesn't guarantee accurate interpretation of Scripture. We all make mistakes.

quote:
I wouldn't agree with that reductionism (which is simply hedonism) ... but even if I grant it, it's still not only pleasure for myself. I may desire to bring it to others for their sake. It's still not only avoiding pain for myself. I may desire to avert it from others for their sake.

But WHY? Why would you want to bring pleasure to others or avoid pain for others?

The only reason to do so, Stephen, is to further your own self-interest. As the words I bolded in your quotation should attest? No matter what you want to do, it's still YOU wanting to do it.

Objectivism simply recognizes the INEVITABILITY of that link and advises being rational in determining what it is you want. Don't do it because someone else scammed you into feeling guilty or sorry for them. Ayn Rand was pushing tough love long before Dr. Phil made it popular.



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
182 posted 2007-06-16 11:18 PM


quote:
Don't do it because someone else scammed you into feeling guilty or sorry for them.


That's it.


rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
183 posted 2007-06-17 09:07 AM


Yep. That's it. The above quote hits home with me.

I’m sure the below is completely circular in debate, but here goes:

RSI: A person who openly professes rational self-interest as the motivation.

“I’m doing this for me, not for you.”

Honest?

O: A person who openly professes caring for others as the motivation.

“I’m doing this for you, not for me.”

Honest?

I think at least we know what the RSI’s interests are up-front. The O’s? How can we be so sure?

I mean with the scams, guilt trips, ulterior motives, narcissists, liars, cheats, fakes, ignorance, etc.

Why not cut out the middle “mania,” and take it upon one’s self to look after self instead of becoming a victim of others for the rest of one’s life?

That’s what I don’t want. If I only value self-sacrifice, in essence, am I not setting all of society up to take the blame for my every need and disappointment?


BTW:

HAPPY FATHER'S DAY TO ALL OF THE BLUE PAGE'S WONDERFUL DADS!


[This message has been edited by rwood (06-18-2007 09:33 AM).]

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
184 posted 2007-06-17 09:38 AM


In case anyone's interested. There's a wealth of videos/debates of Rand on YouTube.

Including the Donahue interviews of 75 year old Ayn. I saw this when it originally aired. Nearly every sentence she utters is a topic of wild debate, including the hair styles.  

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5



Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
185 posted 2007-06-17 05:55 PM


To Sir  Balladeer

“That being the case,  the discussion becomes apples and oranges, since we are discussing one thing and you are describing another.”

……Dear sir Balladeer, I see you changed your icon back to the little cute girl again. So I say to her, “Snow white, It is an “apple” but is it a “play dough” painted with poison colors. Don’t bite!!!

To Sir Balladeer,

“That makes it an impossibility to arrive to a common ground.”
……The common ground here is to keep a philosophical talk. Two opposite philosophies can not be in the same ground.
  

To Sir Ron,

“The qualitative outcome of rational self-interest CAN be judged prior to the final outcome, as indeed it always must be”

…..To be judged by whom and by what criteria and how?  If all the factors(a group of other rational self-interesters) involved in judgment all need to be pre-judged, then Sir, you get yourself into a dead cycle…the “philosophy” then has some logical problems.


To Sir Ron,
“But WHY? Why would you want to bring pleasure to others or avoid pain for others?
The only reason to do so, Stephen, is to further your own self-interest”

…. Then I consider your Smili is a sign of rudeness

To Sir Ron,

“Objectivism simply recognizes the INEVITABILITY of that link and advises being rational in determining what it is you want”

…..when one lives in Objectivism, one can not reason with yourself what you want. It is what you want, Sire Objectivism? It is to obey fully to it. A manipulatable Objectivism is not Objectivism.

To Sir Ron,

“Don't do it because someone else scammed you into feeling guilty or sorry for them.”

If you believe that every motivation is self-interest or rational self interest, then this sentence is the bomb of your own belief.

To Sir Ron,

“Ayn Rand was pushing tough love long before Dr. Phil made it popular”

………….Dr.Phil admires Oprah Winfrey who has quiet a heart to the children in underdeveloped world and area. His program is  sponsored  by Oprah to help people with life issues…which is quite contradictory  to Rand’s view of the world. Not in the same planet to the least between Dr.Phil and Rand.

Sir Ron is right again  “We all make mistakes.”.

To Brad,

If you believe that every motivation is from self-interest or rational self- interest, why do you believe that people will do such thing? As you quote.
“Don't do it because someone else scammed you into feeling guilty or sorry for them.”…
even people do this,  still because of self-interest or rational-self interest(by your philosophy, EVERY MOTIVATION IS BASED ON SELF-INTEREST”.. Then why do you have to warn them?


To rwood,

“I mean with the scams, guilt trips, ulterior motives, narcissists, liars, cheats, fakes, ignorance, etc.”

…..why do you give all those self-interests and rational self interests those evil labels?

**********************************
This is a purely philosophical

You have mortgage to pay
You have children to feed
Your cars have  dead  batteries

Then Rand invites your four for a meal
who is going to pay the bill?
Based on your rational self-interested “philosophy”?  

Happy father's day to all!!!!

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (06-17-2007 10:41 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
186 posted 2007-06-17 10:17 PM


quote:
..To be judged by whom and by what criteria and how?

That's the second time you've asked me essentially the same question, Drauntz. I didn't answer then and I won't answer now because, had you read the book, you'd (presumably) know I've already answered the question. You certainly don't have to read any book you don't want to read, but please don't expect me to provide you with Cliff Notes. That isn't my job.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
187 posted 2007-06-17 10:21 PM



quote:
Again, and again, and again, Stephen, you're confusing self-interest with rational self-interest. The qualitative outcome of rational self-interest CAN be judged prior to the final outcome, as indeed it always must be. Indeed, it is far more prescriptive than your so-called traditional view of morality -- which can only advise action when your moral dilemma has been previously documented. Reason doesn't guarantee perfect answers, of course. Just as it doesn't guarantee accurate interpretation of Scripture. We all make mistakes.


Therein lies the problem Ron, Rand's objectivism categorises deviations as errors in judgement, the application of irrational self-interest if you will, or as you put it mistakes. Objectivism as a description of the method of ethical decisions in the real world as we see it fails because of the insistence that rational self-interest is the yardstick by which ethical decisions are said to be measured.

I know that sounds confusing so let me try to simplify it.

People use mathematics to arrive at answers to numeric problems.

The above statement is true.

People use sound mathematics to arrive at answers to numeric problems.

The above statement is clearly false, sometimes people use decidedly unsound mathematics which is demonstrated when people get the answer to numeric problems wrong.

The reason the first statement is true and the second is clearly false is that the first attempts to describe the mechanism by which people arrive at answers to numeric problems; it doesn't rely on a judgement of the outcome or answer to validate its own truth value Rand's subjectivism attempts to describe the mechanism by which ethical decisions are made but the insistence of using rational self-interest presupposes an objective (and external) judgement of the outcome as being a good choice or a mistake. Hume would have said objectivism describes the ought not the is and Moore that the application of a truth value is an example of naturalistic fallacy.

Worse still for Rand is the subjective nature of rational self-interest itself - one mans rational self-interest may be irrational to the next man.

Rand's Objectivism suddenly becomes the objective judgement of a subjective ethical decision.

I think Rand herself was confusing self-interest and rational self-interest she'd have been better off dropping the rational part and just sticking to self-interest.



Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
188 posted 2007-06-17 11:07 PM


To Sir Ron,
First, Happy father's day to you!!!

I haven't expected you to give me any answers because there isn't one.

Such as, you use your smiley as a sign of politeness(other's interest). Then you say the politeness is for your own interest. Then you will say that your own interest for the good of other people (other's interest again), then you say a peaceful world is for your own interest (your self-interest again).

See, a smiley can be both a rational self-interest or other's interest just based on how you explain it. I do not consider  that this kind of theory is a "philosophy."
no smiley either.

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
189 posted 2007-06-17 11:26 PM


Drauntz? Why are you so interested? Please prove you know how to read and answer the question or don't pose anymore to me.

Trust me. I'm not smiling.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
190 posted 2007-06-17 11:42 PM


*sigh*

I never said that people are always and ever motivated by rational self-interest. That just makes the term vacuous.

Neither did Rand.

Given mistakes or confusing self-interest with rational self-interest, I do think rational self-interest, or if you want another adjective, enlightened self-interest, is the best way to go.

Why?

It seems to me you get better results that way.

Who decides and by what criteria? I decide and I make the criteria.

With all the mistakes and short sightedness that goes along with that.

While Rand's absolutism will always put me off (though I suspect that's part of her appeal for others), her basic point that one is fufilled by following what one wants to do is, I think, correct.

The problem isn't with this sentiment, it's that most people don't have any idea what they want.

I'm not sure, perhaps others who have studied  her more intensely than I can correct me here, but she doesn't deal with that fundamental question.

-----------------

As an aside, I was trying to explain my views on a possible utopia -- essentially, Galt's Gulch writ large -- and a good friend of mind rolled his eyes and said, "It's a great idea for a few people, but the suicide rate would go through the roof."

He's right and I don't know how to fix that.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
191 posted 2007-06-18 12:17 PM


deviations as errors in judgement, the application of irrational self-interest if you will,
Actually, I won't.  I don't believe an error in judgement need always be the application of irrational self-interest at all. Making a mistake does not automarically make one irrational whether self-interest is present or not. Nor do I see where this is a flaw in Rand's philosophy.
Sound people use sound mathematics to arrive at answers. People who do not use sound mathematics will arrive at incorrect answers. That certainly coincides with her thoughts to me.

one mans rational self-interest may be irrational to the next man.  Sure, and murder to one man may be necessary population reduction to another....like Hitler, for example   Does that make it acceptable? People seem to run from absolutes for some reason, as if acknowledging their existence is evil.  There IS good and evil, there IS right and wrong and there IS rational and irrational.  A rock is a rock, no matter much  you claim it's bread and try to eat it. Ayn Rand does not claim that irrational self-interest exists, only that it is evil.

she'd have been better off dropping the rational part and just sticking to self-interest

LOL! Hardly.....rational is the entire base of her philosophy. Take away the rational and moral and you open the door for every criminal, dictator and murderer in history, who ALL were motivated by self-interest.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
192 posted 2007-06-18 12:33 PM


Grinch, I don't think rationality depends on "a judgment of the outcome or answer to validate its own truth value," any more than sound mathematics relies on the correct solution to a numerical problem. There are principles to be applied to each. People can learn sound mathematical principles and, in my opinion, people can also learn to exercise rational, critical thinking.

A man sitting at a blackjack table, staring at his Queen and five of spades, has a decision to make.

If he has a patient dealer or a quick mind, he can mentally calculate the odds of getting a card that will help his hand as just slightly less than fifty fifty. Glancing at the other cards already showing on the table, he might even be able to adjust the odds accordingly. If he does this -- whether he eventually wins the hand or loses it -- he is an Objectivist. The process determines his status, not the outcome.

Another alternative is to look at a cheat sheet. If the dealer's up card is six or less, he will stand, otherwise he will ask for another card. This is the realm, I think, of classical Ethics. Someone else has figured out your "probable" best course of action for you and listed it out for easy use. Of course, a blackjack cheat sheet reflects very finite possibilities and is thus MUCH smaller than the vastly greater variation in human interactions, but I think the principles are very, very similar.

Whether the man uses rational logic or a cheat sheet, his decision to stand or hit should ultimately be the same. Both processes lead to the same destination. Similarly, I really don't care why someone refrains from killing me as long as they DO refrain. Maybe they figured out it would likely be bad for their continued health? Or maybe their Sunday School teacher convinced them it would be bad for their soul? From my perspective, both work equally well.

Rand's complaint with classical ethics and morality, of course, is that not all the rules always seem to be geared strictly towards the benefit of the individual. One might almost suspect a few rules were slipped in there to benefit those already in power? To extend my analogy almost to its breaking point, if the blackjack cheat sheet was supplied by the casino, the players might well have good reason to be cautious. As Brad and Regina have resoundingly confirmed, I think THAT is one of the principle messages of Objectivism. Cheat sheets are dangerous.

Unfortunately, our blackjack player has yet another alternative, one that seems to be followed by many more people than not. He can listen to his gut. Maybe he's suddenly feeling lucky, maybe he's trying to impress the blonde sitting to his left, maybe he just has to use the bathroom really badly and wants to get the hand over, for whatever reason, he always has the option of asking for a hit JUST BECAUSE. Needless to say, the casinos just love to welcome this all too typical player to the table.

Here's the one thing, however, we can be pretty darn sure our blackjack player is NOT going to do. He's not going to purposely lose the hand so the strangers at the table with him have a better chance of winning theirs.    

From a semantic perspective, Craig, I tend to agree with you that rational probably isn't the best way to describe what I think Rand was trying to say. Personally, I would much rather differentiate between short- and long-term self-interest, not because the distinction relies any less on rationality, but because I think most people can more readily see the difference.



Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
193 posted 2007-06-18 12:43 PM


My dear Sir Balladeer, I just knew that you had a skeleton in your closet. it is quite a miniature.

"There IS good and evil, there IS right and wrong and there IS rational and irrational"

.......who said this? what is your criteria for this grouping?

"LOL! Hardly.....rational is the entire base of her philosophy. Take away the rational and moral and you open the door for every criminal, dictator and murderer in history, who ALL were motivated by self-interest."

....tell me sir, how does  a "good" rational self-interest grows out of the dirt of "bad" self-interest? how?

have a very wonderful father's day, sir!



Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
194 posted 2007-06-18 12:50 PM


Enlightened self-interest?

Thanks, Brad. I think I like that.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
195 posted 2007-06-18 12:51 PM


"It's a great idea for a few people, but the suicide rate would go through the roof."
Brad, I would suggest that the suicides would not be the people in Galt's Gulch, rather the people that would belong in Galt's Gulch but forced to live in the outside world. These would be the people in a constant mental tug-of-war between their thoughts and convictions and a world telling them that they were wrong. It would be them attempting to live their lives in a john Galt manner and being beaten down at every turn. It would be these people so torn apart by contradictions that they could choose suicide. Guess what? I suggest that it happens right now. It wouldn't happen to Rand's characters. They are too strong, which is another reason why I cannot identify with her heroes but even they, with the exception of Galt himself - Midas Mulligan, Reardon, Hammond, Dagny, and even Francisco were on their way to becoming broken people, saved only by Galt's recruitment. Remaining rational in an unrational world is a very hard thing to do.

It's remindful of the story of a kingdom in which an evil witch dumped a liquid in the drinking water which would cause insanity. The entire kingdom drank from the well, save the king, and all were made insane. The king tried to combat the insanity while the people tried to get the king to drink from the well. Beaten down, the king finally drank from the well, went mad, and the entire kingdom celebrated the king's return to sanity.

Drauntz, I thank you for the father's day wishes. As for the rest, I'll answer you after I have consulted with the miniature skeleton in my closet, whatever that is supposed to mean


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
196 posted 2007-06-18 01:00 AM


A minute ago I knew what I was going to say and it made sense -- but now all I got is this:

I would have been interested in a debate between Rawls and Rand.

Wouldn't the 'Veil of Ignorance' be rational self interest though?

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
197 posted 2007-06-18 01:29 AM


To Brad,

Is suicide a behavior of darkened self-interest or enlightened self-interest?

To Sir Balladeer,

“Remaining rational in an unrational world is a very hard thing to do.”

But with a beautiful mask of the soul, we are free. Esp the  sparkled ones which quite go with all sorts of enlightened self-interests. If you name them.

You told a marvelous story, Sir. But  the king is no longer a king to me if he has no authority over people. That is probably  Rand’s world.


And you ruined Local Rebel’s mood.

To Sir Ron,

How very interesting to read that you explained the logic of philosophy with the odds of gambling.
  
Man of the Year in Time, David Ho was kicked out two times by Casino because he kept winning ...even if one wanted to show one's enlightened self interest, it is just not allowed, even in Casino for a game.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
198 posted 2007-06-18 03:13 AM


I've already answered that question:

quote:
I never said that people are always and ever motivated by rational self-interest. That just makes the term vacuous.



Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
199 posted 2007-06-18 06:43 AM


Mood hasn't any effect here.  I'm a grownup -- I use my cerebral cortex for thinking -- not my hippocampus.  It's just that mine needs a new hard-drive.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
200 posted 2007-06-18 12:47 PM


To Sir Ron,

"You certainly don't have to read any book you don't want to read, but please don't expect me to provide you with Cliff Notes. That isn't my job."

Sir, I know that that is not your job. But what if you think as your rational self-interest?

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
201 posted 2007-06-18 01:08 PM


For the 200th time.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
202 posted 2007-06-18 06:17 PM


.


Isn’t “rational” or “objective”  self-interest influenced
if not controlled by an understanding of the consequences
a given society is or might be able to successfully inflict
on getting caught?


.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
203 posted 2007-06-18 06:23 PM


quote:
Given mistakes or confusing self-interest with rational self-interest, I do think rational self-interest, or if you want another adjective, enlightened self-interest, is the best way to go.

Why?

It seems to me you get better results that way.

Who decides and by what criteria? I decide and I make the criteria.

With all the mistakes and short sightedness that goes along with that.


Brad given the above Rational and even Enlightened are surely redundant - neither are predetermined constants but are subjective and dependant on the individual.

I think Rand was correct to assume that self-interest was central to morality and ethical decision-making but why insist on decisions based on rational thought where irrational thought can't exist?

Could you or anybody you know actually act on a decision you believed to be irrational or the wrong thing to do?

Balladeer

quote:
Sound people use sound mathematics to arrive at answers. People who do not use sound mathematics will arrive at incorrect answers. That certainly coincides with her thoughts to me.


While it may coincide with her thoughts it doesn't make them correct, for instance you missed out sound people using sound mathematics but arriving at incorrect answers and people who use unsound mathematics but still arrive at the correct answer.

quote:
one mans rational self-interest may be irrational to the next man.

Sure, and murder to one man may be necessary population reduction to another....like Hitler, for example Does that make it acceptable?


Are you asking Hitler or me?

My rational answer would be that it's not acceptable his rational answer was that it was acceptable.

quote:
There IS good and evil, there IS right and wrong and there IS rational and irrational.  A rock is a rock, no matter much  you claim it's bread and try to eat it.


A rock is a rock and a straw man is a straw man.

There definitely is rational and irrational but irrational self-interest? I'll ask you a similar question to the one I asked Brad:

Could you (or even Hitler) actually act on a decision you believed to be irrational or the wrong thing to do?

quote:
Ayn Rand does not claim that irrational self-interest exists, only that it is evil.


She'd have had a field day with WMD's    

quote:
rational is the entire base of her philosophy. Take away the rational and moral and you open the door for every criminal, dictator and murderer in history, who ALL were motivated by self-interest.


The door is already open, criminals dictators and murderers make what they believe are rational choices so exactly how would Rand's philosophy, if applied, make any difference?
Ron,

quote:
From a semantic perspective, Craig, I tend to agree with you that rational probably isn't the best way to describe what I think Rand was trying to say. Personally, I would much rather differentiate between short- and long-term self-interest, not because the distinction relies any less on rationality, but because I think most people can more readily see the difference.


Short and long term self-interest I can live with (and buy).    

Rand's philosophy is confusing in many ways, my biggest gripe is that it's often put forward as a description of what is instead of a template of what ought to be, the former fails but the latter has it's good points including this gem of a quote:

"Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice — and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man — by choice; he has to hold his life as a value — by choice; he has to learn to sustain it — by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues — by choice.
"A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality."


I'm not convinced we can teach irrational people to think rationally, perhaps the best we can do is convince them that it'd be in their own self-interest to at least try.    

[This message has been edited by Grinch (06-18-2007 06:58 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
204 posted 2007-06-19 12:09 PM


Isn’t “rational” or “objective”  self-interest influenced
if not controlled by an understanding of the consequences
a given society is or might be able to successfully inflict
on getting caught?


In a word.....no. It is certainly true that many people's actions are influenced by the punishment of getting caught but that does not make them either rational or objective. (just look at what happens inside a department store if there is a power failure and the lights go out).

As Bobby Jones once said, "Honesty is not the ability to not rob a bank." In Rand's philosophy it is not the punishment society can inflict, rather the self-inflicted punishment of the mind regarding irrational behavior, which is much more powerful. The old adage, "It ain't cheatin' if no one sees you" won't cut it.


.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
205 posted 2007-06-19 12:58 PM


Dear Sir Balladeer,

If  "(just look at what happens inside a department store if there is a power failure and the lights go out)." is true, (I know that it is true.)

Then where does this come from,

"rather the self-inflicted punishment of the mind regarding irrational behavior, which is much more powerful."

Are you saying that traditional self-interest is to be able to commit crime but Rand' self interest is to be able to  make self-punishment based on other people's opinion? because the judging of rational and irrational behavior comes from the view of a society like your story about the sane King.

How does one know that a behavior is rational or irrational? then come to the self -torture of self-punishment?

DO you say that self-punishment is one of the rational self-interest? Then for punishing over-eating ice cream shall be "eat more".

have a wonderful night, sir!!


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
206 posted 2007-06-19 02:17 AM


quote:
Brad given the above Rational and even Enlightened are surely redundant - neither are predetermined constants but are subjective and dependant on the individual.


Not really. Only on a mythical island, could such a thing be true. It's a question of authority and responsibility, not subjectivity. And that's a whole other bag of worms.

quote:
I think Rand was correct to assume that self-interest was central to morality and ethical decision-making but why insist on decisions based on rational thought where irrational thought can't exist?


I agree, but I don't agree that irrational thought can't exist.

quote:
Could you or anybody you know actually act on a decision you believed to be irrational or the wrong thing to do?


Yes, I have many times. I think people make irrational decisions all the time. I'm a democrat and saw Bush reelected.



rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
207 posted 2007-06-19 07:26 AM


quote:
Yes, I have many times. I think people make irrational decisions all the time. I'm a democrat and saw Bush reelected.


Touché

quote:
I think Rand was correct to assume that self-interest was central to morality and ethical decision-making but why insist on decisions based on rational thought where irrational thought can't exist?


Ayn never insisted that. She more than acknowledged the existence of irrational thought. She fought with it often. Personally & professionally, to harsh degrees.

In the interview I watched, she said she'd lost her one, her highest value in life, her husband, and if she wasn't a rational thinker, she'd commit suicide to get him. Which leads one to another irrationality based upon her beliefs, but she still wrestles the "thought" simply because she's human. (in the video).

quote:
Brad given the above Rational and even Enlightened are surely redundant - neither are predetermined constants but are subjective and dependent on the individual.


? Fact based is objective/rational. Determinism is fate based, without free will. Anything predetermined suggests individuals are subjective and dependent on everything else but the individuals choices, because their fate has already been laid out for them. Correct? Thinking in terms of the future doesn't necessarily mean people believe they've got a cod lock on what's going to happen.

Arg-another bottle of rum with the bag of worms, please.

quote:
Isn’t “rational” or “objective”  self-interest influenced
if not controlled by an understanding of the consequences
a given society is or might be able to successfully inflict
on getting caught?


Sure, some people know exactly how their acts go against what society feels is best and rational, like remaining seated in the front section of a bus, or standing in front of the White House during a war time president’s reign, in the rain and freezing cold, and protesting the idea of not being able to vote, with Wilson’s own quote:

quote:
We shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts, for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments.


national/rational self-interest, objective in that self-government was a fact enjoyed by many men, why not women? Despite the beatings, being spit on, and jail time.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

208 posted 2007-06-19 10:25 AM


I'm not popping in here to agree or disagree with anybody--yet. I just wanted to answer hush's question.

Yes, I am reading the book. I confess that as this thread gathered numbers, the book started to weigh heavier, so I quit reading the thread.

But I did say I was going to go back and just try reading it for the story. I have not read this slowly in a long, long, time either. Ayn Rand is um, teaching me how to "chew my food."

I find a paragraph on every page that I can relate to personally, and yes, I still put down the book to ponder (and sometimes remember) as her artfully intricately woven characterizations seem to each evoke an aspect of individual psyche--individuation to actualization. Awesome. Yum.

She writes beautifully--and I think she may have renewed my appreciation for the properly placed adjective. I am also trying to stop myself from looking at the beauty of the construction for the time being, just because it distracts me.

I'll be back with my take on the philosophies later.

"Motive power"--heh.

Yep, gotta get me some of that!

Ya'll enjoy. I know I am. (thanks again Mike)

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
209 posted 2007-06-19 10:49 AM


quote:
Stephen: Many people willfully desire what is harmful to them, especially when others help nurse and propel that desire. Whether it be tobacco, pornography, or a myriad of other things.


Ron:  And you would consider that rational self-interest, Stephen?


Of course not.  But rationality will always accept the morality on it's own terms.  It becomes irrational when it rips the moral question from its moorings, and places it on the foundation of something like self-interest or isolated reason.  Barring the moral question, why would someone getting wealthy by selling pornography be considered "irrational"?

Egoism's idea of "rationality" seems to be a subdivided and separated entity, when it should include an authority other than itself.  Moral teachers have always taught that goodness and reason are closely related.  But they cease to be what they are, when they are arbitrarily ripped from each other, by certain philosopher types.  The curious change of language (which has not become popular, thankfully) which tries to make the word "selfish" a compliment, illustrates my point.  

quote:
Stephen: But even if we're talking about what most people consider "cheating", there are hosts of people who will argue that they have been helped and not harmed, by its measured and careful use.


Ron: And you would consider that rational self-interest?


Same answer as above.


quote:
Stephen: Gamblers often win, even if the likelihood of losing is part and parcel of casinos.


Ron: And you would consider that rational self-interest?



Same answer as above.

Of course, this time I will add the observation that the principle by which you would call gambling irrational (low probability, or great difficulty) is the same principle by which many truly great people did great things.  And truly, if you make the moral questions always about amoral reason, you will end up referring to "reasons" which are at other times laudable.

quote:
Again, and again, and again, Stephen, you're confusing self-interest with rational self-interest.


Again, and again, and again, Ron, you're avoiding the question of why we never treat people who do atrocious things as if they merely slipped keys on their calculator.  If it's all about THEIR self interest, then the universality of moral outrage is itself irrational.  To get rid of the idea of egoism, I only need to close my books.  To get rid of moral indignation (even in yourself) you'd sooner have to wipe out the sun.  And please don't resort to the "vengeance is bad" routine, to prove that moral indignation is irrational.  I haven't even gotten as far as action yet, or whether mercy should be shown to those who deserve otherwise.  Mercy presupposes culpability.  Calling morally reprehensible acts merely irrational, doesn't make sense of many things.  Likewise calling praiseworthy acts merely reasonable, doesn't make sense of many things.  It's like removing all line breaks, erasing all romantic words, and forcing poetry into prose.  In short, it doesn't match life.  


quote:
Stephen: I may desire to bring it to others for their sake. It's still not only avoiding pain for myself. I may desire to avert it from others for their sake.


Ron:  But WHY? Why would you want to bring pleasure to others or avoid pain for others?  The only reason to do so, Stephen, is to further your own self-interest. As the words I bolded in your quotation should attest? No matter what you want to do, it's still YOU wanting to do it.



Your still confusing these two definitions:

1) Self interest:  Interests which the self holds.


2) Self interest:  Interests which are about oneself.  


And as long as you do that, you'll continue to erroneously argue your case by pointing to the ever-presence of self.  But I've never denied that.  The question is not whether the self is always present.  The question is whether the ever-present self may have motives that are other-directed.


Get it?


quote:
Don't do it because someone else scammed you into feeling guilty or sorry for them.


I agree with this.  But one of the reasons I think we shouldn't do so, is because it isn't in the best interest of others to always give them what they want ... one reason that is not rooted in self-interest.  Though I admit it's also not in my best interest.  Yet I'm not fooled into thinking my motives are monistic.  Mutalism just makes more sense, since life isn't solipsismal and we live in an interactive and relational world.


The apostle Paul once said that if man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat.  I guess tough love existed long before Phil or Ayn.  It certainly isn't exclusively a product of egoism or objectivism.        


Stephen
              

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
210 posted 2007-06-19 12:00 PM


Stephanos, wonderful and powerful write!!!!


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
211 posted 2007-06-19 12:45 PM


quote:
It becomes irrational when it rips the moral question from its moorings, and places it on the foundation of something like self-interest or isolated reason.

Ripping morality from its moorings is a bit dramatic, Stephen, but it's certainly nothing more (or less) than what everyone does every day. Including you. And that's a good thing, too.

Morality has to be judged, not merely accepted. If you have a criteria better than reason by which to make those judgments, I'm all ears.

quote:
Of course, this time I will add the observation that the principle by which you would call gambling irrational (low probability, or great difficulty) is the same principle by which many truly great people did great things.  And truly, if you make the moral questions always about amoral reason, you will end up referring to "reasons" which are at other times laudable.

There's a subtle difference between betting against the odds, Stephen, and betting on yourself in spite of the odds. However, more importantly from a rational perspective, there exists this thing called a cost/benefit analysis. Rationality certainly doesn't try to eliminate risk. It just tries to manage it.

quote:
Again, and again, and again, Ron, you're avoiding the question of why we never treat people who do atrocious things as if they merely slipped keys on their calculator.  If it's all about THEIR self interest, then the universality of moral outrage is itself irrational.

But, Stephen, it's not about THEIR self-interest. On the contrary, that's exactly the mistake Objectivism is attempting to rectify.

It's always about MY self-interest.

When people do atrocious things, Stephen, my outrage is neither moral nor irrational. On the contrary, my outrage is a reflection of the way I want the world to run. Which, I suppose, explains why I can be almost as outraged over Jerry Falwell as over Jeffrey Dahmer?

More succinctly, Stephen, we don't judge others because they've slipped some keys on their calculator and acted against their own self-interest. We judge them when they act against our OWN individual self-interest. And when enough people do that, when enough feel so infringed, we call their acts atrocious.

quote:
The question is not whether the self is always present. The question is whether the ever-present self may have motives that are other-directed.

And the answer is a resounding No.



rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
212 posted 2007-06-19 01:14 PM


quote:
Barring the moral question, why would someone getting wealthy by selling pornography be considered "irrational"?


In my personal opinion, they are already divorced from any social mores and operate solely by the laws of venue and venture, because they can until the law says they can’t, and then they will dive further into the underground and continue as they do.

quote:
The curious change of language (which has not become popular, thankfully) which tries to make the word "selfish" a compliment, illustrates my point.


Wait. You’re too smart for that kind of statement. Context matters. “Godly” isn’t always a compliment either.

I agree that terms are hard to come to, when terms seem so conditional, maybe in time?


well, we know our maker will settle this.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
213 posted 2007-06-19 01:58 PM


To Sir Ron,

“Stephen, but it's certainly nothing more (or less) than what everyone does every day. Including you. And that's a good thing, too.”

Rand, just coming out of the extreme high pressure of the governing of CP, came to US with such a freedom. She found a place that she could release her anger. So when she saw you eating one cup of ice cream with each meal, she would say ‘I’ll teach you to eat two cups ice cream with each meal for the feeling of free.” …(self-interest of her)

When you realized that eating too much ice cream would be bad to your health in the long run, (rational self-interest), then Rand would say “ give me all your left over and I will auction them in the market to earn some money (both you and Rand rational self-interests and capitalism).

Rand would auction your ice cream with your signature but without telling the bad long term effect of it…(for the self-interest- of money and rational self –interest of the capitalism.  Such as drug company)


People are all selfish and know that being selfish can not live a happy life( because there is objectivism==mind-independent reality)  while she tries to teach how to double your selfishness.

Where is the logic? And where is the root of her “thought”?

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
214 posted 2007-06-19 02:57 PM


To Sir Ron,

“However, more importantly from a rational perspective, there exists this thing called a cost/benefit analysis. Rationality certainly doesn't try to eliminate risk. It just tries to manage it.”

To put it in a simple way.

CDC wanted to lower the risk of getting Flu (rational perspective) so it suggests everybody over 40 shall get flu shots ( the result of cost /effect analysis.)

50% got flu and other did not get.(it does eliminate some of the risk) and it is the main purpose of rationality.  Because One can lower risk but one can not  put risk under organization as when, or where, or how it should happen.

So, to the best, the rational self interest is a merely good will (meaning to other’s interest)  but this  is not what you were talking about in your writing. So your rational self interest is still the self interest  and it is as old as the age of human species.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
215 posted 2007-06-19 03:55 PM


quote:
In my personal opinion, they (purveyors of porn) are already divorced from any social mores and operate solely by the laws of venue and venture ...

Is being "divorced from social mores" necessarily a bad thing, Regina? What if the current social mores dictated you had to attend a Baptist church every Sunday or couldn't eat pork? What if they said you had to walk four feet behind the men folk?  

I purposely didn't respond to Stephen's question about porn, wealth, and irrationality because doing so would have been agreeing that HIS morality was something carved in stone. He was assuming I would automatically agree that getting wealthy by selling pornography was a bad thing. Why? Because someone said so? I suspect that is exactly the kind of knee-jerk morality that Objectivism finds distasteful.

We need to think for ourselves. Even if doing so is considered selfish.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
216 posted 2007-06-19 04:08 PM


"We need to think for ourselves. Even if doing so is considered selfish"

Big hug to you, Sir Ron. You are so very right. Because that is absolute part of human Characters.


rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
217 posted 2007-06-19 04:10 PM


Is being "divorced from social mores" necessarily a bad thing, Regina?

No, not at all. We agree. I feel social mores just don't apply at all with the porn industry. Morality, rationality, irrationality, nothing along those lines applies in principle because they have to be an Anything Goes industry. And as long as the law say they can the have a right to be.

Though child pornography IS BAD and anyone who disagrees will hopefully fall onto a very big powered-up chainsaw.

So yes, I know what it feels like to be made to go to a Baptist church, that's why I don't  knock too loudly on people's freedoms, because I enjoy my right to choose as much as they do, if not more.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
218 posted 2007-06-19 05:03 PM


To Sir Ron,

"I purposely didn't respond to Stephen's question about porn, wealth, and irrationality because doing so would have been agreeing that HIS morality was something carved in stone. He was assuming I would automatically agree that getting wealthy by selling pornography was a bad thing. Why? Because someone said so? I suspect that is exactly the kind of knee-jerk morality that Objectivism finds distasteful."

If you have granted free will heavenly, why do you scared of Stephen's assuming? because you do not want to be judged wrongly by the thought of mainstream...means you yield to them. self-conflict.




Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
219 posted 2007-06-19 07:09 PM


Let's see if I can jump back a little:

LR: a Rand/Rawls debate would have been great.

Mike: Yes, the Prime Movers do get dragged down, hobbled and chained like the 'superman' in that famous Vonnegut short story.

I do think 'rational' and 'enlightened' can be used interchangably -- at least that's how it looks to me in this thread. The only difference is connotative. Rightly or wrongly, 'enlightened' implies a holistic awareness while 'rational' implies a narrowing of perspective (Damn you, Spock!).

But this is still a poetry site so I'll side with 'enlightened'.

Which brings me, yet once more, to a point that just seems to be getting lost. Rand, of course, keeps stressing the importance of the creative power of the individual.

What do we do with poems?

If you write a poem and someone sticks their name on it, how do you feel?

If you write a poem and we stick a collective PIP on it, how do you feel?

If an industrialist has his factories nationalized, how does he or she feel?

If an architect has his designs altered to the point of unrecognizability, but still has his name on it, how does he feel?

If it were really about money or capitalism, I don't think Rand would resonate in the way that she does.


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
220 posted 2007-06-19 09:48 PM



Dear Sir Brad,

You may want to get signed agreement before you use the term "enlightened" on Rand's thought .

"What do we do with poems?"
what do we do with our breath? same way

"If you write a poem and someone sticks their name on it, how do you feel?

If you write a poem and we stick a collective PIP on it, how do you feel?

If an industrialist has his factories nationalized, how does he or she feel?

If an architect has his designs altered to the point of unrecognizability, but still has his name on it, how does he feel?"

......No matter how one feels it is other party who invades the copyright. So find a lawyer. Tear has no use here.

"If it were really about money or capitalism, I don't think Rand would resonate in the way that she does."

you are so very right. She would be First  Alan Greenspan  who has been under heavy criticism from Objectivists.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
221 posted 2007-06-20 02:16 AM


Ron:
quote:
Ripping morality from its moorings is a bit dramatic, Stephen, but it's certainly nothing more (or less) than what everyone does every day. Including you. And that's a good thing, too.


I'm talking about philosophers who assert that morality can be decided by human reason alone, rather than a higher moral law, not simply interpreting that moral law.  


quote:
Morality has to be judged, not merely accepted. If you have a criteria better than reason by which to make those judgments, I'm all ears.


The criteria is a "reason" which does not reject moral absolutes, or pin the entire moral question upon rationalism or self-interest.  

Have you ever read "The Abolition of Man"?  It's a short read of three essays.  I'll make a deal with you, if you read it, I'll read Atlas Shrugged.  Then we'll talk again and compare ideas.

quote:
There's a subtle difference between betting against the odds, Stephen, and betting on yourself in spite of the odds. However, more importantly from a rational perspective, there exists this thing called a cost/benefit analysis. Rationality certainly doesn't try to eliminate risk. It just tries to manage it.


It's naive to think that all magnanimous acts proceed from such a calculated process as "cost/benefit analysis" ... or that all vile deeds result from a lack of such thought.  I think the Third Reich was well thought out actually, and (if reason may be divorced from moral absolutes, and married to self interest alone) not at all unreasonable.  Even risk managers suffer loss.


quote:
But, Stephen, it's not about THEIR self-interest. On the contrary, that's exactly the mistake Objectivism is attempting to rectify.

It's always about MY self-interest.


These atrocious ones still acted on THEIR self interest (according to egoism), no matter what you say.  And if the only reason you feel indignation is because you have a different calculation (and no moral fire) then you are hardly making sense of outrage.  You have totally circumvented the question of WHY you think the world should be run as you do, the answer to which is, doubtless, brimming with moralisms.  

quote:
Which, I suppose, explains why I can be almost as outraged over Jerry Falwell as over Jeffrey Dahmer?


There is another explanation actually, beyond your self-interest.  Whether Falwell or Dahmer, they must have violated something that you find foundational, and morally non-negotiable.  That judgement of yours would be a fact, even if you lived on Mars.  There's no way you can reduce that kind of judgement to self-interest alone.  The fact that many people disapprove of things that do not (really) affect them, shows that yours is fallacious (or at least incomplete) reasoning ... And ultimately not in your best interest, I might add.           


quote:
More succinctly, Stephen, we don't judge others because they've slipped some keys on their calculator and acted against their own self-interest. We judge them when they act against our OWN individual self-interest.


That's the truth, but only part of the truth.  We also sometimes judge them because they act against the best interest of others, and we are morally offended.  You can, if you wish, say that that is rooted totally in self interest.  But you have no real support for it, other than wildly pointing at the existence of self.  But since the very question is about the nature of self (as to whether it can be concerned for others, for others sake), that's only begging the question.  Remember that others exist too.


quote:
And the answer is a resounding No.


That "no" still sounded pretty flat to me Ron, unless you happened to belch it out.      


Stephen

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
222 posted 2007-06-20 02:34 AM



quote:
Stephen: Barring the moral question, why would someone getting wealthy by selling pornography be considered "irrational"?

Regina: In my personal opinion, they are already divorced from any social mores and operate solely by the laws of venue and venture, because they can until the law says they can’t, and then they will dive further into the underground and continue as they do.



And so I'll ask again ... barring the moral question, why would that be considered irrational?


quote:
Stephen:  The curious change of language (which has not become popular, thankfully) which tries to make the word "selfish" a compliment, illustrates my point.


Regina: Wait. You’re too smart for that kind of statement. Context matters. “Godly” isn’t always a compliment either.



Of course context matters.  That's my point.  Ayn simply denied the weighty context of accepted usage of the word "selfish", and by a quasi-moral denunciation, attempted to change the meaning of the word.  

And sure "godly" could be an insult, but only in the sense of sarcasm.  That's different than someone coming along and saying that "godly" really means impious.  One is a legitimate play on language.  The other is an arbitrary, sudden (and futile I might add) wresting of language from its history.  The thing is, people still talk every day about "selfish" in its proper usage, but hardly anyone says it in the way Ayn self-defined it.    
    
Stephen

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
223 posted 2007-06-20 10:03 AM


quote:
I'm talking about philosophers who assert that morality can be decided by human reason alone, rather than a higher moral law, not simply interpreting that moral law.

And my whole point, Stephen, is that there's no real difference between the two. Remove human reason from either and the result is Crusades and Inquisitions.

quote:
I'll make a deal with you, if you read it, I'll read Atlas Shrugged.  Then we'll talk again and compare ideas.

Okay, Stephen, I just ordered a copy. I've read it before, but it's been some few decades. (Then again, it's been even longer since I read Rand.) At the risk of getting ahead of ourselves, I'll throw out a first "comparison," if I may, albeit one based on a thirty-year-old memory.

Lewis, especially in "Men Without Chests" was writing of a world as it is. We are, indeed, ruled by our emotions, not just the noble ones like courage, but sadly also by the less noble ones like hatred and fear. We are motivated by our "chests," and use our heads only to justify those motivations. History suggests they're not always so easily justified, either.

Rand, on the other hand, wrote of the way the world should be. She wrote of a Utopia that, as others in this thread of already said, probably can never exist. Who is John Galt? There is no John Galt.

quote:
It's naive to think that all magnanimous acts proceed from such a calculated process as "cost/benefit analysis" ... or that all vile deeds result from a lack of such thought.

Agreed. And, ah, more's the pity.

Our world needs a lot less magnanimity, in my opinion. Were we to actually use reason, Stephen, instead of settling for a shallow and momentary sense of feeling good about ourselves, we might stop giving men fish to eat and start insisting they learn how to fish for themselves.

The trouble with tough love, though, is that it rarely makes you feel, uh, magnanimous.

quote:
And if the only reason you feel indignation is because you have a different calculation (and no moral fire) then you are hardly making sense of outrage. You have totally circumvented the question of WHY you think the world should be run as you do, the answer to which is, doubtless, brimming with moralisms.

Sorry to disappoint, Stephen, but most of my outrage (and there's too little of it yet left) is not fired by morality but rather inspired by moralists. Morality is a private conversation, one to be held between the individual and his god. The Law, on the other hand, is a public conversation and should never be confused with the private one.

Please, my friend, do not imbue me with moralisms!

quote:
Whether Falwell or Dahmer, they must have violated something that you find foundational, and morally non-negotiable. That judgement of yours would be a fact, even if you lived on Mars. There's no way you can reduce that kind of judgement to self-interest alone. The fact that many people disapprove of things that do not (really) affect them, shows that yours is fallacious (or at least incomplete) reasoning ...

I honestly believe it's the other way around, Stephen.

I think the unreasoned (and too often unreasonable) moral outrage you describe, Stephen, is little more than a reflection of empathy. We know what it feels like, and it's a not a feeling we want to feel again. In protecting others, we protect ourselves. It's not (and more importantly, need not be) any more complicated than that.



rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
224 posted 2007-06-20 12:29 PM


Stephen,

quote:
And so I'll ask again ... barring the moral question, why would that be considered irrational?


Again, In my opinion, I don’t consider it irrational. I just don’t really consider (adult) porn at all apart from a business. I am a business owner and I appreciate my freedoms. God forbid housekeeping to become unlawful, or I’m out of business.

I’m sorry I was unclear of that when I gave my perspective in post #217.

Your question of money and porn=industry. I have no right to judge a man for making money off of his lawful venture. Because the fact is: I’m only involved if I’m buying something from him or If I’m a direct affiliate. Otherwise, “considering” anything about him beyond business is a waste of my time, but more importantly, Any denunciation of his practices just helps him build a stronger market.

Oddly enough, this man’s name comes up again (free from any influence of the prior posts….weird).

Case in point: Jerry Falwell VS Larry Flynt.

Falwell catapulted Flynt—which was just what he needed when he needed it.

Ironically: "I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling." (Larry Flynt upon Falwell’s death)wiki

The world’s ideals of what’s bad=Profit for the porn industry. The Porn industry’s ideals=Profit for the agents against porn. They soundly and successfully feed off each other.

So if anything’s irrational, it’s how certain groups who oppose porn become host to the porn industry by giving them exactly what sustains them: harshly proposed standards that strengthen their business but hold no water when the Law is all abiding.  

About all I might be attentive to in the interest of porn/business in general is what’s unlawful.

Unlawful Porn.

Sexual harassment=I’m not sure how that applies but anything’s possible.

Unequal Opportunity Porn=huh?

Porn Monopoly=ridiculously reaching here.

Unsafe environment. Does OSHA monitor porn?


Irrational Idea of a proposed porn operation:

Moral Porn=The transference of the risk factor: Profit to non-profit. Which I find no more twisted than moral fronted operations that prey on the goodness and naivety of others, such as Televangelists.

Love offerings?


quote:
Of course context matters.  That's my point.  Ayn simply denied the weighty context of accepted usage of the word "selfish", and by a quasi-moral denunciation, attempted to change the meaning of the word.


Point taken: Godly wasn’t a perfect example. I just have problems with words that aren’t allowed to be used or change meaning, I mean after all, how many are already listed that have? Trademarks I understand, sometimes.

Though I ask you: Is it possible that she helped you strengthen your own definition or sense of moral fiber? And without contrasts, perhaps that would be harder to do?

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
225 posted 2007-06-20 12:56 PM


Stephanos,  loud and clear, powerful again. enjoyed.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
226 posted 2007-06-20 01:39 PM


Ayn Rand, living in Russia through October revolution,  should have understood that the revolution was not for all. It was for certain social class, though not hers. And  she also had a chance to learn the common fact… most of the people were climbing the ladders to top official  by any possible available human nature….it was very cruel.

I believe that she saw, if she had eyes in her heart, that during that revolution, Husbands and wives betrayed  each other, so did parents and children, among siblings, relatives, and close friends. Trust between humans was totally lost…extremely selfish for a political right…which was typical rational self-interest, if you call it.

And when she refused to retune back to Russia…I believed that she were considered as traitor in Russia…her parents and siblings and relatives all could be monitored by police and they might loss all chance to have a good promotion. Many good opportunities were forever closed to them….. Other people’s selfishness which she broadcasted it here in US?

If her life was tortured, it were all in the concept of human beings’ selfishness. Her family and her relatives were also victims. How come she came to US, protected by US Government for its’ own benefit, song such a loud song of selfishness?! If she has a human heart, if she has any sense, if she has a brain, she would have go other way. She is a good writer, but  she should leave “philosophy’ alone. A joke. If only for the ‘selfishness’ alone was learned from  Bolshevik.

Her thought, a hallucination, good in a poem, in novel, why a philosophy??? if for a moment of pleasure, what is the difference between a trash philosophy and a bathroom  roll?

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
227 posted 2007-06-20 02:10 PM


To Sir Ron,

“And my whole point, Stephen, is that there's no real difference between the two. Remove human reason from either and the result is Crusades and Inquisitions.”
.....Where does human reason come from?

To Sir Ron,

”Okay, Stephen, I just ordered a copy. I've read it before, but it's been some few decades. (Then again, it's been even longer since I read Rand.) At the risk of getting ahead of ourselves, I'll throw out a first "comparison," if I may, albeit one based on a thirty-year-old memory.”

.....are you serious? I am talking to a 30 years old memory?(in probably 90 years old brain? Are you 90 years old yet?)        

To Sir Ron,

“Morality is a private conversation, one to be held between the individual and his god.”

...Have you ever seen any gods staying quietly in one’s heart? Not shouting out with multiple languages and  available means to manifest himself?

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (06-20-2007 08:48 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
228 posted 2007-06-20 07:25 PM


quote:
......No matter how one feels it is other party who invades the copyright. So find a lawyer. Tear has no use here.


Rand should trust the government.

quote:
Ayn Rand, living in Russia through October revolution,  should have understood that the revolution was not for all. It was for certain social class, though not hers. And  she also had a chance to learn the common fact… most of the people were climbing the ladders to top official  by any possible available human nature….it was very cruel.


Rand should have known that it wasn't just about her.


quote:
I believe that she saw, if she had eyes in her heart, that during that revolution, Husbands and wives betrayed  each other, so did parents and children, among siblings, relatives, and close friends. Trust between humans was totally lost…extremely selfish for a political right…which was typical rational self-interest, if you call it.


Rand should have seen that the Revolution hurt people.

quote:
And when she refused to retune back to Russia…I believed that she were considered as traitor in Russia…her parents and siblings and relatives all could be monitored by police and they might loss all chance to have a good promotion. Many good opportunities were forever closed to them….. Other people’s selfishness which she broadcasted it here in US?


Rand should have stayed because leaving hurt people.

quote:
If her life was tortured, it were all in the concept of human beings’ selfishness. Her family and her relatives were also victims. How come she came to US, protected by US Government for its’ own benefit, song such a loud song of selfishness?! If she has a human heart, if she has any sense, if she has a brain, she would have go other way.


She should have known that the US government protected her.

quote:
She is a good writer, but  she should leave “philosophy’ alone. A joke. If only for the ‘selfishness’ alone was learned from  Bolshevik.


And she should have learned that everything she wrote was really the Bolshevik government in a different voice.

quote:
Her thought, a hallucination, good in a poem, in novel, why a philosophy??? if for a moment of pleasure, what is the difference between a trash philosophy and a bathroom  roll?


She should have avoided philosophy and written Harlequin romances.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
229 posted 2007-06-20 07:30 PM


quote:
they must have violated something that you find foundational, and morally non-negotiable.


Stephen,

You may have noticed that I have a couple of issues with Rand's objectivism, the main one being that rationality, reason and enlightenment when it comes to an individuals ethical choices can't be assumed to have a positive value from individual to individual so their inclusion is redundant. To be more precise as far as the individual is concerned their choices always seem rational, reasonable and arrived at by using as much enlightenment that the individual possesses at the time they make them. After all if they really didn't think they were all three why would they make them in the first place.

I've a sneaky suspicion that Hitler didn't wake up one morning and think, "wow I've had the most unreasonable, irrational and unenlightened idea - I'll do it". I think he believed it was reasonable, rational and enlightened, I also believe he was mistaken but the method in his madness is likely to be the same mechanism I used to conclude that he was mistaken.

Given the above you may think that a fixed and universal morality inherent in all humans would be an attractive alternative, unfortunately you'd be wrong. I believe Rand's philosophy is flawed but not half as flawed as a fixed and universal morality.

The first problem you encounter when imagining a universal morality is that moral values in the real world are not universal; I don't hold the same moral values as someone three blocks away never mind someone three thousand miles away.

The next problem is that morality has clearly changed over time, what was morally correct and ethical a thousand or a hundred years ago is not necessarily moral or ethical today. This changing or evolving morality isn't compatible with the notion that mans moral framework is either fixed or universal or indeed non-negotiable.

There are some Philosophers that suggest that ethical choices made by individuals are arrived at by whim. I don't think that can be true either because pure whim suggests a random choice without direction at all which would result in haphazard and unpredictable choices in individuals. An individual's actions would be a chaotic mix of moral and immoral acts changing minute by minute.

I believe Rand was correct that self-interest is the guiding force when it comes to making ethical choices; I also believe that the mechanism used is deductive but subjective in nature based on the a priori and a posteriori knowledge of the idividual, seasoned with a sprinkle of possibile causality.

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
230 posted 2007-06-20 08:32 PM


quote:
She should have avoided philosophy and written Harlequin romances.


Yeah, because all the "Fabio" cover models are so self-interested.

Perfect.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
231 posted 2007-06-20 08:46 PM


My dear Sir Brad,

you got it!!!!!

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
232 posted 2007-06-20 08:59 PM


Connect the dots Brad... or , um... show her the disconnection.  It's the only way.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
233 posted 2007-06-20 09:57 PM


quote:
To be more precise as far as the individual is concerned their choices always seem rational, reasonable and arrived at by using as much enlightenment that the individual possesses at the time they make them. After all if they really didn't think they were all three why would they make them in the first place.

Craig, you need to sit in on an AA meeting sometime. Or watch a woman at lunch who is trying to lose five pounds before the weekend. Or visit a bar some evening and watch some kid just barely past puberty trying to pick up a hot chick. And if those don't convince you that people do stupid things even knowing they are stupid things to do, I'll introduce you to my first wife. She had me jumping through hoops that gave irrational a whole new perspective.  

People are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Trouble is, those two motivators are almost always in tension with each other. No pain, no gain? People become addicted due to pleasure. They stay addicted, in spite of knowing full well it's not a rational thing to do, because they want to avoid the pain.

I think rational self-interest, in almost every single case, means being able to make a sacrifice -- not necessarily for others, but rather for your own long-term betterment. More importantly, I honestly think that's the kind of perspective that can be taught to people. Unfortunately, it's certainly not something Western Civilization is trying to teach.



Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
234 posted 2007-06-20 10:28 PM


if a person was tortured by extreme selfishness, when she came out of it, should she teach people to be more selfish or should she cherish human relationship more?

what German did to other people, other people did not do the same thing back to Germans even they had the chances. Because people, in general love peace.

Why don't you tell me which part of Rand's theory touched you deeply?

Because I know for sure that all people here in this Forum are very kind, very intelligent and they have never consider selfishness as a good characters in their whole life but why they like Rand's theory? I want to know the "why".

I will get back to you later about all you post.

and Local Rebel, you too. I have asked many top neuro-scientists about the function of the brain. I will get to you too!!!!!

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (06-21-2007 02:10 AM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
235 posted 2007-06-20 10:39 PM


“People are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.”
.


Yet as an ideal, a guide, pleasure may be that which an entire culture
with its people may be measured involving ultimate self-abnegation.

In the argument against there seems to be a suggestion  for instincts
no reputable scientist finds in man.


.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
236 posted 2007-06-21 12:52 PM


Grinch:
quote:
as far as the individual is concerned their choices always seem rational, reasonable and arrived at by using as much enlightenment that the individual possesses at the time they make them. After all if they really didn't think they were all three why would they make them in the first place.


But Grinch, I don't subscribe to the view that humans never act against their own moral insight, for selfish reasons or baser things like lust and greed.  Sadly, we can alter or damage the aparatus of insight.  You can stifle and finally all but kill the conscience.  But I totally reject the notion that we all simply do the best we can, (including those we've considered to be moral monsters).  I believe the sad fact about sin, is that we choose to act against our own moral insight.  I know that experientially.  It's the gut that trips us more than the head or the heart.  


quote:
I've a sneaky suspicion that Hitler didn't wake up one morning and think, "wow I've had the most unreasonable, irrational and unenlightened idea - I'll do it". I think he believed it was reasonable, rational and enlightened, I also believe he was mistaken but the method in his madness is likely to be the same mechanism I used to conclude that he was mistaken.


Actually I think the mechanism you're using is quite different.  Whether or not you say so, I see a moral objection in what you say.  Hitler didn't merely miscalculate, or simply choose what was least fitted for his biological survival ... He committed real moral horrors, and you know it.  

And while I agree that it didn't happen overnight, I won't conclude that that means he had no misgivings or battles with his God-given conscience along the way.  A man has to take hold week by week, month by month, year by year, and murder his own conscience before he can coldly murder millions of people.  It's no accident that Hitler loved the Nietzschian body of philosophy, in which was stated:

"Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain?  The ability to suffer is a small matter;  in that line, weak women and even slaves often attain masterliness.  But not to perish from internal distress and doubt when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of it- that is great, that belongs to greatness."

What is the nature of this internal distress and doubt that was overcome?  It is the slow and self-torturous murder of a God-given conscience.  We feign innocence in our long  and convoluted waywardness, but it really isn't as innocent as you make it out.  I'm not saying Hitler wasn't totally self deceived at some point, and didn't in some frightful way come to believe that what he was doing was noble.  I'm just saying that it was a willful and terrible path to get there, with many merciful obstacles along the way.  


quote:
The first problem you encounter when imagining a universal morality is that moral values in the real world are not universal; I don't hold the same moral values as someone three blocks away never mind someone three thousand miles away.


Actually the idea that we all hold grossly different ideas of morality, is an overstatement.  Of course most people (being sinful) are inconsistent even with their own ideas of morality, or apply them to others but not themselves, leading to perceived differences of moral understanding.  However, examining the moral codes of civilations throughout history reveals much more likeness than difference.  I would also recommend to you C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man" where he demonstrates a harmonization of moral codes from all of the ancient civilizations.  They reveal an amazing consistency, as if imperfect hands and eyes were all looking at the same image, when they attempted to sketch it.  There's no denying the caricature of an oversized feature here, or a forgotten shade there.  Yet the likeness is still far more striking than the difference.  


quote:
The next problem is that morality has clearly changed over time, what was morally correct and ethical a thousand or a hundred years ago is not necessarily moral or ethical today. This changing or evolving morality isn't compatible with the notion that mans moral framework is either fixed or universal or indeed non-negotiable.


Morality, and people's conceptions of it (or practice) are not the same thing.  If there is a universal moral law, it is certainly possible for a society to become morally corrupt.  Hitler's Third Reich is a prime example.  Their conception changed, and yet that doesn't make them really moral.  In one sense morality is like music, being intuitive.  In another way it is like math, with the potential of getting it very wrong.  But with a society, as well as with an individual, this doesn't happen quickly.  Of course there are godless philosophies, and all kinds of justifications of thought offered by various "teachers" along the way, which may help this spoiling along.  My point is, a change in morals, as you call it, can be mistaken for a loss of morals.  Of course moral improvements can be made too, where moral principles were either overblown or atrophied, excessively or inadequately applied.  I don't believe a universal moral law, implies that there are not fluctuations in our imperfect expressions of it.    


quote:
I believe Rand was correct that self-interest is the guiding force when it comes to making ethical choices


If self interest is the guiding force, then I don't think morality has a necessarily moral foundation.  It takes more than self interest, since morality most often concerns itself with how we treat others.  (I'll sustain that by continually reminding you that ill treating others does not universally guarantee a loss of pleasure for the self ... other than that darned conscience which bothers us, which BTW doesn't concern itself with only self-interest).  


And since rationality, on its own, is subjective ... so is "long term" versus "short term".  I've no doubt that an over-emphasis on self, based on long term concerns, can also lead to immoral decisions.  The question of what constitues long term success, versus short term success, is still plagued by the subjectivity you see in rational versus irrational self-interest.  Applying different adjectives doesn't change the inadequacy of self-interest as a basis for morals.  


Stephen        

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
237 posted 2007-06-21 01:18 AM


Karen,

Geesh, look how long your off-track thread has become.  We sewed quite a different garment than you imagined.  But that's probably true of most "threads" eh?


Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to explore.

Stephen.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
238 posted 2007-06-21 11:57 AM


Local Rebel,

Scientist says that people thinks with whole brain not only cerebral cortex or even half of it as you mentioned in other thread.

I did left traps, the missing ring of my logical thinking,   if you wanted Sir Brad to walk in.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
239 posted 2007-06-21 12:26 PM


Sir Yi Huan

search "innate behavior" in
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed

you may read some papers which I do not understand at all.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
240 posted 2007-06-21 01:56 PM


quote:
I'll sustain that by continually reminding you that ill treating others does not universally guarantee a loss of pleasure for the self ..

If you're still looking for universal guarantees, Stephen, you'll have to wait until the after-life. You certainly won't find any in Objectivism, Capitalism, or even in Christianity this side of the grave. There's even less of a universal guarantee for treating people well, so much so in fact that it led to the adage, "No good deed goes unpunished." Let's face it, life is frequently unpredictable and very often sucks.

So what? Treat others unfairly and -- much more often than not -- it will come back to bite you in the butt. Punching someone in the nose is a darn good way to get punched back. No, not always, but the rational man doesn't look for guarantees he knows won't come.

Let's carry that a bit further, to an obvious extreme. What if the guy I wanted to punch in the nose was tied down and I had on a mask? What if there seemed to be absolutely no chance of any negative repercussions? Would a rational man take the opportunity to pummel an enemy?

No, because the rational man -- again -- knows there are no universal guarantees. There is always the possibility for negative repercussions when you hurt someone else. Especially in instances where you are essentially teaching your enemies the best way to hurt someone. The rational man knows that come next week he's liable to the one tied down and facing a guy in a mask.



Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
241 posted 2007-06-21 02:58 PM


“If you're still looking for universal guarantees, Stephen, you'll have to wait until the after-life. You certainly won't find any in Objectivism, Capitalism, or even in Christianity this side of the grave.”

…you are right Ron. Sun shines on good and bad and in between.

“Let's face it, life is frequently unpredictable and very often sucks.”

….that is why I come to the fantasy land of PIP which you constructed.


”Punching someone in the nose is a darn good way to get punched back. No, not always, but the rational man doesn't look for guarantees he knows won't come.”

….this and all later comments I read as, sir, you are a very kind hearted man.
I say, “rational” here is the purpose of punching. If someone hurts my parents, I sure will punch him again and again without a mask no matter what. (what if I get jailed later?) will be too weak a reason for not protecting my parents.

my thought

Have a wonderful day!! Sir Ron.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

242 posted 2007-06-21 03:39 PM


Stephan? It's okay. I glanced at some of it--and when I'm done reading the book, I'll be back with my take on it.

And yanno? I always did seem to have a knack for this sort of thing, grin, I find myself thinking, "ask a simple question..."

Well. I thought it was a simple question.

Btw? I can't remember who owes whom an "e"-but I sure would like to see some pics!

Love ya!

*ahem*

Ya'll may continue.

Even the person in this thread that I will now forever think of as "Wesley Mouch."
*laughing*

(Carry on, good people, and um, is it possible to interrupt your own thread?)

*laughing again* ohhhhhhhhh boy!

It's all gravy.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

243 posted 2007-06-21 05:26 PM


OH. I was so busy socializing I forgot I had something to share here. I had loaned my copy of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" to my daughter's boyfriend, and I had to pry it out of his hands to get it back, but it was returned to me this week. Last night, while I was hugging it, I thumbed through it and randomly picked a page to read, and oh-I- love serendipity, because this is what I happened upon:

"In 1887, with a huge surplus in the treasury, Cleveland [as in Grover, of course] vetoed a bill appropriating $100,000 to give relief to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought. He said, "Federal aid in such cases...encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." But that same year, Cleveland used his gold surplus to pay off wealthy bondholders at $28 above the $100 value of each bond--a gift of $45 million."

Hmmm.

I paused to consider that in the context of this conversation, but I'm glad I didn't stop reading, because much to my surprise, Zinn's next paragraph leapt out at me:

"The chief reform of the Cleveland administration gives away the secret of reform legislation in America. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 was supposed to regulate the railroads on behalf of the consumers. But Richard Olney, a lawyer for the Boston & Maine, and other railraods, and soon to be Cleveland's Attorney General, told railroad officials who complained about the Interstate Commerce Commission that it would not be wise to abolish the Commission "from a railroad point of view," He explained:

(italics mine)The commimission...is or can be made, of great use to the railroads, at the same time that that supervision is almost entirely nominal....The part of wisdom is not to destroy the Commission, but to utilize it. "

I just happen to be at the point in Atlas Shrugged where I found this bit of history pretty enlightening, and I will not pretend that I completely understand how this fits in the context of this conversation, but I wanted to make a note to myself--and if I kept that note anyplace else but here, nod, I'd lose it.



So consider that tidbit for what it's worth, if you all think it is worth anything--shrug. I found it rather insightful m'self, but I'm again conceding from the philosphy until I read the book. I realize I could fake reading the book by skimming the net and reading other people's conclusions but um, why?

I'd only cheat myself. (I have always hated Cliff Notes, Ron.) If I did that, I would have lost the joy of discovery of some of Rand's subtle points, particularly lovely when she describes music, from the viewpoint of Dagney:

"If music was emotion and emotion came from thought, then this was the scream of chaos, of the irrational, of the helpless, of man's self-abdication."

Beautiful. (And Rand wrote that without ever attending a Dio concert too.)

Brad, that is hardly "purple prose" that is the hallmark of the romance novel. Tsk. Read the book again if that's all you got out of Rand's style.

Now, back to the book.

You all enjoy. I know I am!


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
244 posted 2007-06-21 08:20 PM


quote:
Craig, you need to sit in on an AA meeting sometime. Or watch a woman at lunch who is trying to lose five pounds before the weekend. Or visit a bar some evening and watch some kid just barely past puberty trying to pick up a hot chick. And if those don't convince you that people do stupid things even knowing they are stupid things to do, I'll introduce you to my first wife. She had me jumping through hoops that gave irrational a whole new perspective.


Ron,

Hindsight is a wondrous and useful tool for judging choices, as useful as guilt and regret are at influencing future choices people make but they are all tools that can only be applied after the fact. I'm willing to bet that at the time you married your first wife you believed it was the right thing to do, that it was only later, with more knowledge, that you realised it probably wasn't.

I'm not suggesting that people can't make choices that they, and indeed others, later recognise as being stupid; I'm not even suggesting that at the time they make the choice that stupidity isn't part of the calculation. All I'm saying is that at the time they make the choice they, for some reason, believe it is the correct and right thing to do.

I think Rand missed a trick when she created her utopian philosophy; she failed to explain how you get from is to ought, to me part of this failing was because she concentrated on the consequences and judging the moral value of choices instead of the mechanism employed to arrive at those choices.

She says people should "think rationally" but people already believe that they do, they believe their choices are rational measured against the information they have at the time, it's only by understanding why they came by that belief can we hope to rectify their mistakes.

My own view is that an individuals existing rationality can be used - all you need to do is tip the balance of pain and pleasure by emphasising the consequences of one above the other, you could call it a dose of harsh hindsight. Of course that leads to an obvious problem - who sets the standard of morality?

quote:
But Grinch, I don't subscribe to the view that humans never act against their own moral insight, for selfish reasons or baser things like lust and greed.


Stephanos,

That's presuming they have a moral insight, which is something I don't subscribe to but I'm willing to suspend my subscription for a few moments to see where it takes us.    

Morality is judged in two ways, the first is used by the individual faced with a choice, lets call it subjective. The second is the view of a third party (society) or by the individual with the advantage of hindsight, lets call that objective.

The moral insight you're talking would be used in both subjective and objective judgements of morality.

Now let's introduce a moral insight, let's say that there exists in every individual a moral insight that says that a man shouldn't sleep with another man. I'm willing to accept that in such a case a man that slept with another man could be said to have acted against his moral insight for the selfish reason of lust and to fulfil his base desires. He could be said to have wilfully ignored his moral insight and made the wrong choice. However, when it comes to an objective judgement what would a third party have to gain by ignoring his\her moral insight and not condemning the transgressor? Surely a third party if they don't judge the act as morally wrong have acted selfishly against their own moral insight for no reason or gain at all.

You touched on the same dilemma when you suggested that I recognised the immorality shown by Hitler by reference to the very same moral insight I'm trying to deny, if moral insight is universal and the same why do people making objective judgments fail to see the immorality?

In this scenario the subjective misjudgement is understandable but the independent objective misjudgement seems to suggest that the universal moral insight doesn't actually exist or is so weak as to be almost useless.

It could be said that the third party objective judgment in this case is simply a mistake but that suggests, at least to me, that the moral insight isn't much of an insight if it can't be clearly recognised without the obscuring factors of lust or greed.

Back to my subscription

A man deciding whether to sleep with another man is guided by his own self-interest and after weighing the consequences and their effects in the short and long term decides that the pressure outweighs the possible pain. When I look at the man and have to decide my moral stance on homosexuality I'm guided by my own self interest and weigh the possible consequences as they pertain to me, I decide his actions don't affect my short or long term self-interest and conclude that his actions aren't immoral.

Which scenario seems closest to what we see in the world around us?

I'll try to get back to this thread tomorrow when I've worked out whether I'm Karen's Wesley Mouch.  

[This message has been edited by Grinch (06-22-2007 05:45 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
245 posted 2007-06-22 11:52 AM


Well, well, well...we certainly travel down many roads on this topic, don't we? Ayn Rand would be pleased, i'm sure, since one of her main goals was to get people to think.

It is the slow and self-torturous murder of a God-given conscience.

Interesting, Stephan. I didn't realize that Christians believed that God-given consciences could be murdered or overcome by man. Actually you have referred to several religious points to support your philosophies, as if arguing against rational self-interest by using references to a belief that has no actual basis in hard fact is valid. You have brought up many interesting points, however your sentences fairly bristle with the thought that self-interest could be the driving force behind human action.

Grinch also presents extremely intelligent arguments to support his views but it seems we are doing our best to make something as complex as possible out of something simple. Hitler's actions were rational to Hitler? So what? If insanity is rational to a mental patient does that make his thoughts rational or acceptable? To him, perhaps but, again,....so what? Who has the right to declare what is moral or rational? Well, somebody better because chaos is the only alternative. "Don't judge, lest ye be judged." Sound familiar, Stephan? Well, Ayn Rand was not concerned about being judged. Actually I think she would have said, "Bring it on!"

To me, the bottom line is this. Ayn Rand preached:

Rational self-interest.
Respect for others.
A constant strive to be the best you can be while granting others the right to do the same.

For those of you who would argue against these goals, I'm at a loss what to say.


karen, as I said before, that is the real beauty of the book. You can look at the news and see perfect examples of what she penned there, 50 years later! (think soybean and extracting oil from shale) I'm SO pleased you are getting so much out of it.

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
246 posted 2007-06-22 12:54 PM


Drauntz

'if a person was tortured by extreme selfishness, when she came out of it, should she teach people to be more selfish or should she cherish human relationship more?'

The extreme selfishness you are citing, by example (the communist revolution), is the exact greed of the "moochers" (the villains) of her book. You continue to amaze me by arguing the axact point Rand was arguing while thinking you are arguing against her... it's cute, kind of. It's like if I wanted to argue astrophysics with a bunch of people in an astrophysics class, but I said "Pfft! I'm not going to go to one of your lectuers or read the book- I already know enough about it, it's a waste of my time."

And blaming Rand for her family being made an example of is kind of like blaming the woman for the rape, right?

How utterly ridiculous for an immigrant to see America as a land of opportunity, and to want to stay...we should send all people seeking political asylum back where they came from.

I don't know why I keep coming back to beat my head against this wall... but maybe if they make a movie, you'll go see it? It is easier than reading a 1000+ page novel.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
247 posted 2007-06-22 02:08 PM


Hush,
Any government can not survive if it is the enemy of the general society. Take Sadam, he has his people. He had supporters. Communism came into power because it had grassroots to support and the grassroots are not all villains.) It claimed that it was for the poor, about 80 percent of the population, meant 80% people of the country support it, you know!). Rand’s family belonged to the privileged family. It is not personal thing (an interest of a social class) But Rand’s personalized it. Or I shall say that selfishness is one of the build-in human characters( there is a usage of it, biologically, of course) .How come she was the one to teach to be “self-interest?” All her theories are not hers.

Republican Party may claim that democratic party selfish. So it may say, “if you are selfish, I shall double my selfishness”. Can republican achieve it? May be temporarily but will end either the close of the Government or off the stage after 4 years service. Based on this, one has to learn bargain which needs wisdom (the summary of human wisdom called philosophy). When Bargain, you give up some and gain some…a balance.,, one may claim that this is rational self-interest. But the little fox in Aesop’s Fables had said “the grapes are quite sour.” For the interest one gave up to others.

A soldiers coming back from war rarely says that war is a marvelous thing. But why did Rand say that war was good?
War=selfishness.  

I know some of her likes and I call them trash no matter how they have been labeled  with brand names.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
248 posted 2007-06-22 02:33 PM


some "philosophies " brings quite a fantasy over tea and cake. But Fantasy is not truth and can not be applied to reality. For the best of one's interest, a 15 minutes fame and a shooting star... at lease shined once just   accidentally crossing the atmosphere of earth and then back to a rock.  


rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
249 posted 2007-06-22 03:02 PM


Drauntz,

Maybe you should write a book with your own philosophical views.

Instead of expressing so much disdain for another's work, you could use your energy in a positive manner and create a respectable contrast of her work to be published.

Who knows? You might create something many people are still reading 25 years after your death, too?


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
250 posted 2007-06-22 04:09 PM



Sir Balladeer,

"1.Rational self-interest.
2.Respect for others.
3.A constant strive to be the best you can be while granting others the right to do the same."

Sir, philosophically, 1 will fight with 2, and the number 3 will have a internal conflict.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
251 posted 2007-06-22 04:49 PM


quote:
Ayn Rand was not concerned about being judged. Actually I think she would have said, "Bring it on!"


Ouch!

Drauntz,

Let's get real, okay? You have not tried to understand Ayn Rand. You have not tried to understand where she comes from (She was not a member of the Russian aristocracy.). You have not tried to understand Russian history. And you have no clue when it comes to the Bolsheviks.

You talk about a logical error in your thinking but logic is irrelevant if you don't get your assumptions right.

All cars are green.
You have a car.
Therefore, it is green.

You make up things as you go along (80% support -- are you kidding?).

There's a reason the Bolsheviks stopped having elections.

They lost the first one.

You asked what has touched so many of us. I've been trying to tell you that (at least for me.)and if you would just stop jumping on individual words, taking them out of context, and changing them as you go along, you would have had your question answered:

(I'm using man in the following in the Randian mankind sense.)

Rand concentrates on the noble power of man's imagination and ingenuity to create and change the world around him. Her point, again and again -- and again, is that when you take that away from man, when you take that away from any man, the collective group suffers. When it is exalted, the collective benefits.

But in order for the collective to benefit, it must let man be man. In order for this to happen, the collective cannot guarantee itself a spot at the dinner table. When it does that, nobody benefits.

Let me say that again,

When the collective interferes with the individual's power to create, it does not benefit. It hurts itself and in the long run  destroys itself.

You have chosen to belittle that.

And you have chosen to belittle it, not by challenging the actual philosophy, but by challenging Rand's personal life.

Why?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
252 posted 2007-06-22 05:03 PM


quote:

1.Rational self-interest.
2.Respect for others.
3.A constant strive to be the best you can be while granting others the right to do the same.

Sir, philosophically, 1 will fight with 2, and the number 3 will have a internal conflict.


No, Rational self-interest, by definition, already includes a respect for others. The only conflict in '3' occurs when '1' and '2' are not applied.

They are philosophically vague (and that is a problem), but they are not in conflict.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
253 posted 2007-06-22 05:21 PM


Sir Brad,

I don't mind if you corrected  Sir Balladeer's summary.

" Rational self-interest, by definition, already includes a respect for others"

But you have a different definition of "rational self-interest" from Ron's. And what is Rand's?




Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
254 posted 2007-06-22 05:40 PM


What is Ron's definition of rational self-interest?

I still want you to explain the need to avoid and berate at the same time.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
255 posted 2007-06-22 07:00 PM


If Rand's had one clear definition of rational self-interest, one of you would have posted out.

self interest is self interest. There is not need to beautify or belittle it. Love is love, there is not need to hide. Both are build-in human characters. Of course there are more build ins like judgment, conscience, all are some functions of human brain.  

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
256 posted 2007-06-22 07:18 PM


Two questions.

Neither have been answered.


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
257 posted 2007-06-22 07:38 PM


To Sir Brad,

1. First question,

Ron's word

"Objectivism doesn't simply advocate self-interest but, rather, rational self-interest. That's a vital distinction. It is not rational to eat ice cream at every meal, even though it tastes good, because the long-term self-interest is more important than short-term gratification. Similarly, it is not rational to hurt any other human being because, in the long-term, it will always come back to bite you in the butt."

DO you read out the meaning of "respect others"? (there is a trap here if you try to fit "respect" into his statement)

I do not want to get into trouble with Sir Ron.
you may have a meeting with him since you are one of the Reverend Moderators.

Second...not even a question.

my explanation?
my interests.

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (06-22-2007 08:42 PM).]

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
258 posted 2007-06-22 08:29 PM


quote:
Brad I still want you to explain the need to avoid and berate at the same time.


quote:
Drauntz Second...not even a question. my explanation? my interests.



That's pretty loud and clear. Thanks. That's the first question she's actually answered with an answer.



Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
259 posted 2007-06-23 02:01 PM



Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
260 posted 2007-06-23 05:53 PM



quote:
Second...not even a question.

my explanation?
my interests.


I think you mean your self-interests Drauntz, which you must admit seems a little odd as you insist on denying them any part in the decision making process.

If you really don't think self-interest plays a part in that process perhaps you could suggest an alternative we could discuss.


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
261 posted 2007-06-23 07:58 PM


Grinch,

my interest, my self interest or if there is one, rational self-interest(to benefit myself) are all the same. It is human nature. We do not need to be taught to be self-interest because biologically, it is part of who we are.  Can we survive well solely based on my interest, my self interest or if there is one, rational self-interest(to benefit myself)? No!

That is why Rand's "philosophy" is fantasy..another extreme like communism( Rand also borrowed some concepts from it) based on that all people were  kind and reasonable and clearly self-ruled by a build-in moral, which does not exist at all. every one knows it.

my thought.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
262 posted 2007-06-23 09:33 PM


quote:
Can we survive well solely based on my interest, my self interest or if there is one, rational self-interest(to benefit myself)? No!



You agree that decision-making based on self-interest is part of human nature - well that's a start.

Can we survive if you make choices based solely on your self-interest? YES humans do it all the time, Ayn Rand called it The Trader Principle -  you may call it co-operation.

Ever heard the saying two heads are better than one? Many hands make light work or a problem shared is a problem halved. What about safety in numbers, the enemy of my enemy is my friend or you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.

Self-interest isn't the same as selfishness which is what you seem to be confusing it with.


quote:
That is why Rand's "philosophy" is fantasy..another extreme like communism( Rand also borrowed some concepts from it) based on that all people were  kind and reasonable and clearly self-ruled by a build-in moral, which does not exist at all. every one knows it.


Communism didn't have a built in universal moral code and neither does objectivism for two very good reasons, the first is that both are made up of individuals with individual moral codes based on self-interest. The second is that a fixed and universal moral code doesn't seem to exist as I pointed out earlier in this thread.


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
263 posted 2007-06-24 08:08 PM


Grinch,

Thank you very much for your patience.

Grinch

“You agree that decision-making based on self-interest is part of human nature - well that's a start.”

………No. try not to trap me.  I did not say that. I said any decision shall not be made solely on the base of self-interest. Because that is not going to work.  Wisdom!

Grinch

“Can we survive if you make choices based solely on your self-interest? YES humans do it all the time, Ayn Rand called it The Trader Principle -  you may call it co-operation.”

.....sir, Co is not self. ..means take other’s interest into consideration.
Sir, your self-interest has changed  concept again.

Grinch,

“Ever heard the saying two heads are better than one? Many hands make light work or a problem shared is a problem halved. What about safety in numbers, the enemy of my enemy is my friend or you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.”

....This is the horse without tied. Your self-interest goes too far. I am glad that you mention enemy here. If Rational –self interest is taking other people interest in then you shall delete the “self”.  Is group interest in the concept of Rand’s rational self-interest?  If it is, then she shall not blame government, communism or anything. And she shall sing a loud song of Sacrifice for the benefit of the group. Did She?

Grinch

“Self-interest isn't the same as selfishness which is what you seem to be confusing it with.”

....No. I am not. Selfishness is part of self-interest. Selfishness is part of human character while self-interest is part of ego.

Grinch

“Communism didn't have a built in universal moral code”

....you are right. It is fantasy just like Rand’s thought.  They all think that human being are all nice, gentle, reasonable, kind, good citizenship, trust worthy and honorable and loyal. You know, I know that those are not true. Those are the best thing I can say about Rand’s and communism.,, and it is for you interest. For mine? I‘d say again that they are garbages. and I can certainly tell you where the communism came from.  

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
264 posted 2007-06-24 09:09 PM


Drauntz,

quote:
………No. try not to trap me.  I did not say that. I said any decision shall not be made solely on the base of self-interest. Because that is not going to work.  Wisdom!


There was no intended trap Drauntz this is what you said I simply presumed you actually meant it.

quote:
It is human nature. We do not need to be taught to be self-interest because biologically, it is part of who we are.


If self-interest is part of who we are it seems reasonable to suppose it plays a part in driving our choices. Not wisdom just common sense.

quote:
.....sir, Co is not self. ..means take other’s interest into consideration.
Sir, your self-interest has changed  concept again.


I didn't change concepts you did, you jumped from objectivist ethics which deals with self (the individual) to objectivist politics which deals with the self's interaction with others (the group).

The individuals self-interest is amended by group interaction so yes it does change, but then again I never suggested it was a fixed concept - that's your hang up with self interest not mine.

quote:
Is group interest in the concept of Rand’s rational self-interest?


Yes, only as I said above it comes under Objectivist Politic and is outlined in the Traders Principle not under Objectivist ethics that is a subject based solely on the individual.

You really need to get your self and your groups in order.

quote:
....No. I am not. Selfishness is part of self-interest.


As I keep trying to tell you self-interest is based at the level of the individual, unless you believe you can be selfish to yourself the above comment is twaddle.

If a man on a desert island alone decides that it would be in his own self-interest to build a shelter to sleep in where does selfishness come in?

quote:
Communism didn't have a built in universal moral code


I can expand that if you like:

Nothing we know of has a built in universal moral code


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
265 posted 2007-06-24 09:20 PM


I'm inclined to disagree Craig.

Two things that are built in are the insticts to cooperate and quantify/qualify.

We measure the cooperation of others and pass judgement on whether or not they are doing their 'fair-share' -- based upon whatever the perceived terms of cooperation are.

This is built in.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
266 posted 2007-06-24 09:29 PM


"Nothing we know of has a built in universal moral code"

I disagree as well.  The universe has a moral code, but it is not exactly as you seem to demand it to be in order to treat it as an existing thing.  

Just as the rest of the universe varies and changes, morals vary and change as well.  So do laws.  So does everything I ever met.  But despite how many variations there are, there is still oneness in the end, a "code" and "order" to things.  


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
267 posted 2007-06-24 10:54 PM



Grinch,

"If a man on a desert island alone decides that it would be in his own self-interest to build a shelter to sleep in where does selfishness come in?"

Sir you are very right. name how many people live like that? one person's behavior does not make a philosophy.

And as for the selfishness.. what if he eats all the bananas and left nothing for the monkeys? what if he ruins the local eco- system and end up he has no food and no water? why do we have senses???????? to sense our surroundings and to act out accordingly.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
268 posted 2007-06-25 05:35 PM



LR

quote:
Two things that are built in are the instincts to cooperate and quantify/qualify


But are they universal.

It could be argued that they are intrinsic at some level but a universal moral code requires it to be constant and the same in each instance and example.

Can it be said that there's a universal penal code, a universal dress code and a universal highway code?

There can certainly be types of penal codes but there isn't one unified penal code that could be classed as universal.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
269 posted 2007-06-25 08:54 PM


No.  That's not what I'm saying.

The morality of the Sopranos and the morality of the Simpsons may be different -- just like English and Japanese are different -- but they are both language and both morality -- both operating on the built-in mechanism.

Every culture will determine its' rules of cooperation -- but in the end all morality boils down to the same question:

How well are the terms of cooperation being fulfilled?

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
270 posted 2007-06-25 09:27 PM


"Every culture will determine its' rules of cooperation -- but in the end all morality boils down to the same question:

How well are the terms of cooperation being fulfilled?"

I know. The south keeps trying to "do it again". They must keep getting the cooperation thing all wrong because they have to reenact it every year.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
271 posted 2007-06-26 02:29 AM


quote:
Stephen: But Grinch, I don't subscribe to the view that humans never act against their own moral insight, for selfish reasons or baser things like lust and greed.

Grinch: That's presuming they have a moral insight, which is something I don't subscribe to but I'm willing to suspend my subscription for a few moments to see where it takes us.


Good.  Seeing that all civilizations (and even communities you would not call civilized) have had something amounting to a moral code, it would be a reasonable thing to consider.

quote:
when it comes to an objective judgement what would a third party have to gain by ignoring his\her moral insight and not condemning the transgressor? Surely a third party if they don't judge the act as morally wrong have acted selfishly against their own moral insight for no reason or gain at all.


First of all, "condeming" is a strong word.  I suspect that you meant to say something like "disapproving".  Not disapproving of something someone else does, can sometimes be explained by apathy.  This is not "acting against one's moral insight" in the same way a violator would do so.  


Of course, psychologically, there are other explanations as well.  Sometimes people don't condemn others, even of things they themselves DO disapprove of, because they believe that "Judge not" is a higher moral principle.  I know people who morally disapprove of abortion, but would not want to "impose it on others".  Of course, I believe this to be a misunderstanding of the moral principle "judge not" ... a hypertrophy if you will, that can be passively accepting of all kinds of evil, in order to save someone's feelings.  But it's important to note that the mandate not to "judge" others, is also a part of the moral law itself.  Whether or not it is sometimes misapplied, is another matter.


Another explanation is that sometimes people embrace an absurd accomodation because it makes them feel somehow less guilty for their own sins.  It goes something like this (even if not consciously thought out):  "I don't condemn anyone for anything, therefore I'm basically a good person".  


So, what you present as a problem for universal moral insight, is really no problem at all.  The exception can be explained in terms of the moral law itself, or a desire to be quietly exempted from its demands in exchange for doing so to others.  Or, it can be explained by a simply apathy.  There are probably more explanations even than these.  But however it is explained, I do not see how it would discount the notion of a transcendent morality.  

quote:
You touched on the same dilemma when you suggested that I recognised the immorality shown by Hitler by reference to the very same moral insight I'm trying to deny, if moral insight is universal and the same why do people making objective judgments fail to see the immorality?


I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  Do you actually fail to see the immorality of Hitler?  Do you actually think his slaughter of millions was innocent ... a simple miscalculation?  The fact that most people unrelated to the events of the Third Reich (people making objective judgements) see this as an atrocity, tends to support my view of universal morality.  The minority that differs, is quite consistent with the possiblity of a damaged or corrupted sense of that morality.  I've never said our relationship to the moral law was perfect, only that it is consistently evident in human behavior and thinking.  Therefore an absolute compliance, or unanimity of agreement is not required.


quote:
It could be said that the third party objective judgment in this case is simply a mistake but that suggests, at least to me, that the moral insight isn't much of an insight if it can't be clearly recognised without the obscuring factors of lust or greed.


Lust and Greed often fail to obscure the moral insight, but rather make it difficult to follow.  That's why lust and greed often carry with them the baggage of psychological and spiritual guilt.  If consistently followed, they can lead to a real obscuring, much like a callous, or a damaged nerve.  But usually this comes after our repeated violations of conscience.  Sins are easier with practice, and that little angel on the shoulder can be gagged fairly successfully for a time.  I think what you fail to accept (but is evident to me) is that people may sometimes wilfully choose what they know is not right.


quote:
A man deciding whether to sleep with another man is guided by his own self-interest and after weighing the consequences and their effects in the short and long term decides that the pressure outweighs the possible pain. When I look at the man and have to decide my moral stance on homosexuality I'm guided by my own self interest and weigh the possible consequences as they pertain to me, I decide his actions don't affect my short or long term self-interest and conclude that his actions aren't immoral.


Morals are sometimes irrelevant to the mere calculation (which is often erroneous anyway) of personal pain or gain.  It also involves others.  This is particularly true of sexual sins.  And it's beside the point whether or not you feel that a person's homosexuality adversely affects you personally ... since you've already mentioned that we make judgements all the time upon actions that do not directly affect us.  I think you called them "objective judgements".


quote:
Which scenario seems closest to what we see in the world around us?



Actually, you'd be surprised at how many people think homosexuality is morally wrong ... even those who would not say so to others for fear of "judging".  It's due to the explanation I gave above, about elevating tolerance (which IS morally important) beyond proper bounds.  There's also the popular scientific mythology of genetically predetermined homosexuality which affects the way people think about it.  There's also the tendency to be accomodating of the deeds of others, for a guilt-anesthetizing effect in ourselves.  But again, whatever the reasons, this doesn't reasonably discredit the idea of a transcendent morality.


quote:
Nothing we know of has a built in universal moral code


Except that people universally have always formed moral codes built on the same principles, differences notwithstanding.


quote:
It could be argued that they are intrinsic at some level but a universal moral code requires it to be constant and the same in each instance and example.


No more than the proposal that the universality of mathematics requires that all our equations be right in each instance and example.  My C minus in 5th Grade math didn't touch the insight of Pythagoras.

quote:
Can it be said that there's a universal penal code, a universal dress code and a universal highway code?


Being that the penal code depends upon ideas of morality, it could be said that all penal codes operate on foundational principles like justice, protection, and proportional punishment.  Penal codes that don't operate in such principles we call despotic (another word for immoral).
  

An enforced universal dress code would violate the moral code.       It can at least be said that all cultures have struggled with the principles of modesty versus exploitation, and the principles of beauty, adornment, and honor, in dress.  I think the much wider diversity in the subject of clothing, is due to the simple fact that it is often of less import than morals.


How much real variation have you seen among highways in the world?  The very fact that you can, with a glance, call any one of them a "highway" tells me there is a great deal of conformity.


Stephen.      

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-26-2007 03:15 AM).]

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
272 posted 2007-07-02 03:34 PM


I just finished reading The Bridge of San Luis Rey by Thornton Wilder, and I think you guys would get a lot out of it, in respects to this thread. It's all about self-interest in life and mostly love. It's a lightning read. It took me just a couple of days to get through it, reading about two or three hours per day. So, if you got an afternoon, I'd check it out. It might shed some light on this topic.

Just a harmless recommendation.

“Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.”

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Atlas Shrugged--the movie?

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary