Ayn....

[Nietzche]

Originally posted by AmorRoark:
Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness.
Sounds like hedonism to me!
/me likes hedonism . . .
Christ its been awhile since I last posted in here.
Shout outs to all my old SPP buddies!!!! If ya'lls still here . . .

 

[AmorRoark]

Originally posted by psychoblast:

Greed may not be bad, but neither is charity. They are just part of life, part of being human.
~psychoblast~
Yes, I totally agree with you that charity and greed are both part of your lives.
However, I do not believe that chairty should be force upon people. For example, I believe the welfare system is just keeping the poor down. Making the standards of living lower. Yet, whenever I have to pay taxes, I am forced to be charitable to something that I don't even believe in!
Many say that people in general are so greedy that if it wasn't forced upon them to pay for the lower class, they wouldn't. I disagree. Before even WWII, taxes were not nearly as president and high as today. However, the amount of people living in the lower/middle lower class was pretty equivalent to now.
How is this possible? The "rich" gave to charities and their churches. Both of which they were more likely to be directly involved in. Being involved allowed them to see where their money was going in the material sense, and the spiritual sense. Both of these values give off a feeling of contentment because they shared their happiness, and saw it. Unlike the feeling of dread that most people feel when it comes to income tax. What good is charity if it isn't serving both the needer and the giver?
I realize that people are more greedy today than yesterday, but I feel that is from the lack of spirituality throughout this country atleast. And one of the reasons people aren't as spiritual is because they aren't involved in spiritual chairty. "We" altered our need to give when the government made us give. When a superior makes you do something, it is natural to become unhappy while doing it. Why don't we see that?
So if you put all my ramblings together I'm saying... forcing taxes for charitable reasons is not only immoral but also a less effective way of keeping the nation at a healthy standard.

 

[Alf]

Everyone here talks about the philosophy of her novels... has anyone read any of her books that specifically go over her philosophies? She has lots of them, but can't think of any titles off the top of my head.
I was a huge Ayn Rand fan, totally backed Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead and thought that her philosophy was the best... but as with all philosophies I found that I couldn't swallow 100% of her ideas when laid out in non-story form. She gets into a lot more detail, goes so far in some places as to be angry at the U.S. for charitably rebuilding Europe after the World Wars.
AmorRoark, have you read any of her philosophy essays, or just her books? I think you would get a lot out of them... I marked them all over, angrily and in great agreement, with a pen, and reread some of the essays as much as weekly.

 

[AmorRoark]

No I haven't had a chance to read her essays. I'm in the middle of Atlas right now. I figured reading the boks would intrest me first, then I can move to the more in-depth essays. I know one of her books is something like "the values of selfishness" or soomethig like that!!! Can you possibly tell me which one you think I should start with? thanks!

 

[SynapticSINergy678]

Originally posted by Setarcos:
[QB]Thanks for the explanation and post, it was 2 in the morning here though and I decided it would be stupid for me to think about it at that time.
Unfortunatelly, on consideration, I disagree with almost all of it, heh
I am a determinist (though this doesn't matter much as from our PoV there is free will).
In reality (on the politics side):
I disagree with laissez-faire capitalism being put in place, but I might well be wrong (I can see how it might work if it was implaced globally).
As long as there exist numbers like the current >60 million starving / aids in Africa then I will believe that we need to think about others more (I think there should be a minimum standard of living we should all try and support worldwide).
I agree with setarcos. But personally the simple fact that she wrote a book called the virtues of selfishness having to do with capitalism is something I find moderately disturbing.
She sounds like an elitist to me that would support concepts that had detrimental effects on others. I've read several of her books "atlus shrugged", and "anthem". I think she had spectacular writing capability, but I personally don't subscribe to her pro capitalism philosophy since capitalism lends towards darwinsim, and social stratification, and one section of the population ends of being oppressed so the other more fortunate section of the population can enjoy undeserved preferential treatment, and priviledges. And I don't believe that the purely self serving pursuit of happiness is all that important in of it self.
And I think her ideas regarding productivity in relation to achievement just exposes how large her ego was. My philosophy is the exact opposite.
I think that helping others selflessly is absolutely necessary for the improvement, and spiritual evolvment of humanity. I think we should look for some fufillment ourselves, but also try to help others instead of apathetically ignoring their unfortunate plights.
I think the greatest joy a person can have in life is not productive achievement in the conventional sense.
But instead is accessed through the process of creating and physically manifesting something that initially started as a thought or a visualized end result you wanted to achieve.
I've always been happiest when involved in different projects.
Like painting, writing short fiction, theorizing,or writing poetry, or industriously studying new fascinating subjects.
I enjoy anything that consists of utilizing the analytical thought processes, and abstract reasoning abilities, and inductive or deductive reasoning capabilities.
Her idea of happiness was probably excessive amounts of money and unecessary extravagancies.
But since she was born in the soviet union I guess all the impoverishment she tolerated during her childhood there probably made her unreservedly embrace a more affluent lifestyle completely when she migrated to America.
From growing up in the Soviet Union and enduring poverty as a youth I think she developed a mortal fear of ever becoming impoverished again.
So she portrayed "do gooders" as incompetent imbeciles, and avariciously greedy individuals "hardworkers" with positive character traits, and attributes such as ambition, and high intelligence because she was afraid that a selfless mentality instead of a greedy one would probably bring her financial indigence again. So her perspective regarding the necessity of selfishnesses surfaced in her fiction.
[ 01 August 2002: Message edited by: SynapticSINergy678 ]

 

[Alf]

Originally posted by SynapticSINergy678:

But personally the simple fact that she wrote a book called the virtues of selfishness having to do with capitalism is something I find moderately disturbing.

I think it's because you haven't read it. Don't go mouthing off about philosophers' titles when you haven't read their works. Her definition of selfishness isn't what I think you would define selfishness, those little kids on the playground who won't share and push each other to the ground. When she talks about selfishness, she recognizes that the world WILL GET NOWHERE if there isn't someone out there being selfish, working hard, getting the work done so they can have money, satisfaction of their work, whatever. Selfishness means reaping the benefits of your own work instead of giving up everything you have worked for to someone who drinks at work and breaks things (this you should know if you read even only her books, not her philosophy essays).

Her idea of happiness was probably excessive amounts of money and unecessary extravagancies.
But since she was born in the soviet union I guess all the impoverishment she tolerated during her childhood there probably made her unreservedly embrace a more affluent lifestyle.
Again, you're leading me to believe that you walked away with NOTHING from her books. Her idea of happiness, in my opinion, is NOT that you work hard and get lots of money. That's not the point. The point is that you get happiness from exercising yourself as a human being, not whining and scraping from the leftovers of others' work, but doing it yourself. Nothing sadder than someone who doesn't know their own self-worth, and that is what I think her definition of the highest level of unhappiness is.
And have you ever read anything about her past? From what it sounds like to me, she didn't endure that much poverty, since she went to school at a university and all....
Stop talking about things you haven't read up on. It's annoying and misleading.
That said, AmorRoark, I highly recommend The Virtues of Selfishness as a starter on her philosophy. As I said in an earlier post, I don't agree with everything she says, but I understand it a lot more clearly than I did by just reading her novels. The one I have is a little tiny paperback I found at a secondhand bookstore You might want to mark it up, so I recommend getting one.
[ 01 August 2002: Message edited by: Alf ]

 

[psychoblast]

I think it is worth considering Ayn Rand's background in evaluating her philosophy. I do not believe she was an impoverished philosopher who happened to come to hold these beliefs using the best of her reason. Rather, I think she was well-off and was sick of being made to feel guilty about it by college liberals. Or to justify why she had plenty of food to eat and could go on trips and stuff when so many people were destitute. And I think it was politically motivated as a response to the New Deal politics of FDR. I think the timing is right, but I'm not sure.
So, anyway, I think she is like a philosophical equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. I could be wrong about my guesses, and even if I'm not that, by itself, does not discredit her work. But it is something to consider. It is easy for the well-off to complain about taxes and accuse people on welfare of being lazy. But I think that is a knee-jerk conservative's response and the truth is that we all start in different positions in life and I think that greatly affects our chances to become in need of welfare.
~psychoblast~

 

[Alf]

^^ I agree that it's important to consider her background when looking at her philosophies. I don't think you can make a blanket statement and say she hates taxes and welfare.
I would agree with you about her being anti-welfare, not because it helps the poor, but because she feels like it degrades the human spirit. From what I have read, I think that she would feel those people on welfare are having a life unlived, where they never have the chance to see what they are worth. Then she would also say that there is no reason to punish another member of society for the failings of another, which are not their fault (even though they might not be the fault of the poor person, either).
I don't remember reading anything about her hating taxes. I would think that she would be in favor of some taxes, for the pure and simple reason that she believes progress is good, and in order to have progress we must have roads, bridges, etc. However, she would not be in favor of taxes that take away from what a human has accomplished for him of herself, to give to another (welfare).
(edited) *I'm going to go home tonight and try to find some quotes we can actually have a full discussion on, instead of just saying what we think she says.*
[ 02 August 2002: Message edited by: Alf ]

 

[psychoblast]

If she hates welfare because it leads to a life unlived, she should also oppose inheritance, right? I don't see a difference between some one deciding to be lazy and live off government hand outs and some one deciding to be lazy and live off their parents' money.
If she does oppose inheritance, it would go a long way (with me) to proving she is a philosopher with a consistent world view, and not a right winger trying to defend her conservative political views.
~psychoblast~

 

[illimex]

I like the book Farenheit 451. I think that's what our society is becoming more like. (the wife with her "virtual" soap opera world, the burning of books, the planes flying overhead...etc..) Ray Bradbury may have predicted the future. All those other books about the future are so idealistic IMHO. I mean, a book that categorically seperates people into two different types of people? um...no...that's a tad unrealistic. I'll admit that 451 is not the most realistic book in the world, but my gawd, it's damn near like that now.
I'm more of a sci fi reader myself. I like William Gibson and C.S. Lewis are my favorites I think.

 

[Alf]

Okay, here are some quotes, taken from her book Philosophy: Who Needs It?. (I highly recommend this one as well, as it both inspired and pissed me off more than The Virtue of Selfishness.
p 132: "The man who consuemes without producing is a parasite, whether he is a welfare recipient or a rich playboy."
p 133: "The government is not a productive enterprise. In respect to its legitimate functions--which are the police, the army, the law courts--it performs a service needed by a productive economy. When a government steps beyond these functions, it becomes an economy's destroyer."
From Atlas Shrugged : (this is something she disagrees with, that the "bad" character says) "The men of ability? I do not care what or if they are made to suffer. They must be penalized to support the incompetent. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not. I take pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the needy is concerned."
So that's why I'm pretty sure she's pro-tax (to a limit), and positive she is anti-welfare. It kind of bothers me that she never addresses (that I can remember reading) what happens to the incompetents, the cripples, those down on their luck. I'm not sure if she's of the Ancient Greek mind (kill the cripples) or if she thinks that families should support their own, I'm not really sure. I'd love to hear some quotes that address it, and I'm going to keep looking.

 

[AmorRoark]

I want to thank whoever asked what Ayn thinks about the needy. That's always been in the back of my head, and this gave me some modivation to find out. So, I started searching on the Objectivist Center and this is what I found...
Question:
What is the objectivist position on charity for the poor, children who are poor, the disabled?
Answer:
Objectivism holds that there is nothing wrong with charity, so long as one is pursuing one's own values in providing it. As Ayn Rand said, charity is a marginal issue: it is not especially noble to engage in it, but if pursued prudently and seriously, and not at the cost of other important values, it can be a source of good for one's society and ultimately one's self. Objectivists tend to view their donations to causes as investments in some kind of improvement: a better culture, a better city, etc. But like investments, these require attention to make sure they are paying off.
The Objectivist view of charity is very different from most traditional moralities, such as Christian ethics or secular altruism. These ethics esteem self-sacrifice. They are contemptuous of wealth and are suspicious of individuals who seek achievement and happiness for the sake of their own well-being here on earth. These ethics see greed as a major vice, and charity as a major virtue. Many ethicists and religious leaders today believe that those who are successful have an obligation to support those who are not. They see incompetence as having a claim on competence, and seem to think wealth is created by making other people poor.
Objectivism rejects the altruist premise of self-sacrifice. It holds that the what is most morally admirable is achievement, productivity, rationality, all in the service of one's own life and happiness. This doesn't mean that we should crush others underfoot: we benefit from benevolent relations with others, which can include generous support of causes and individuals we think deserve extra support. (You can read more about the Objectivist view of benevolence in David Kelley's monograph "Unrugged Individualism," available from, among others, Principle Source.)
Objectivism sees benevolent generosity as the complement of justice, not its antithesis. One reason we don't have blanket obligations to support "the poor," for example, is because many poor people are poor because of their own choices and congenital vices. You mention poor children, on the other hand, and here at least we may see opportunities to invest in people and see results, since children can be taught better ways of living. But mere charity is not necessarily helpful even in the case of children, as generations of government welfare programs and decades of ever-rising public school spending have proved.
Indeed, even to some degree in the case of children, Objectivism holds that the best we can do for others is grant them benevolent independence, an open field for achievement in a free society. This will encourage virtues of independence and productivity in parents, and allow diligent and talented children to experience the rewards of these traits. The ethics of self-sacrifice holds that the poor should envy the rich, and the rich should feel guilt. Rather than making envy the standard of social obligation, Objectivism seeks to make individualism and mutual respect the hallmarks of our society. If we can achieve this, this may help untie the knot of social pathologies that attracts so much attention from today's social planners and would-be social improvers.
Ultimately, each of us is responsible for our own lives. This must lie at the heart of any moral system based on the facts of human nature. Objectivism recognizes this, and the Objectivist view of charity as morally marginal is a consequence.
Answered by: William Thomas on 7/19/2002

 

[AmorRoark]

uhmm comments guys?

 

[DjIgnite]

the age old question has finally been ansewred. If a tree falls and no one is around to see it, then it doesnt really fall.
I'm new to all this but to me it seems that all she's trying to prove is that with perfection comes bliss. Question is, what does it take to achieve perfection; and more importantly, is it even possible?
[ 07 August 2002: Message edited by: DjIgnite ]

 

[AmorRoark]

Originally posted by DjIgnite:
the age old question has finally been ansewred. If a tree falls and no one is around to see it, then it doesnt really fall.
Will you please explain how this charmingly whitty comment has anything to do with the discussion?

 

[AmorRoark]

Good point. Perfection is undefinable for me. However, instead of 'giving up' the notion of perfection because it is unattainable. I think we should stive for a civilization with the least amount of problems. And yes, I do believe a lot of Ayn's philosophy can lead to that.
Hey btw I'm not sure if I got the drift of what you were saying or not. Are you suggesting like I stated of giving up because perfection is an impossible dream?

 

[DjIgnite]

Originally posted by AmorRoark:
Good point. Perfection is undefinable for me. However, instead of 'giving up' the notion of perfection because it is unattainable. I think we should stive for a civilization with the least amount of problems. And yes, I do believe a lot of Ayn's philosophy can lead to that.
Hey btw I'm not sure if I got the drift of what you were saying or not. Are you suggesting like I stated of giving up because perfection is an impossible dream?
It's 3am and I have work in 4 hours. Gimmie about 13 hours, and I'll reply

 

[Alf]

^^ thanks for interrupting the train of discussion... it's a bulletin board, we know people go away and come back

Objectivism holds that there is nothing wrong with charity, so long as one is pursuing one's own values in providing it.
I found this really interesting, because I think it's a contradiction within her own philosophy. I wish I could get an answer about this from Ayn herself, and I'm still looking for a quote, but my problem is this: What if your own values ARE to sacrifice yourself? It seems like she could never approve of someone else making themselves poor and suffering for the good of others, but here it makes it seem like it's ok, as long as you are doing what feels right. Can anyone clarify this for me?

Objectivists tend to view their donations to causes as investments in some kind of improvement: a better culture, a better city, etc. But like investments, these require attention to make sure they are paying off.
I wonder who they think should be in charge of safeguarding these investments? And who will safeguard the safeguards from being corrupt?

Objectivism sees benevolent generosity as the complement of justice, not its antithesis. One reason we don't have blanket obligations to support "the poor," for example, is because many poor people are poor because of their own choices and congenital vices.
Who decides what choices and vices cause a person's poverty to be their own fault? I think this is a pretty dangerous line to draw. Yep, drinking on the job is stupid, that's your own fault. But people get fired for lots of things, rents go up, people can't make ends meet and end up destitute... there is always someone who is going to say that a person could have done more to keep themselves out of poverty, off of the street, but the fact is that it's not always true.
How can we then decide who we should help (or can help) and who we shouldn't?

 

[AmorRoark]

Originally posted by Alf:

Who decides what choices and vices cause a person's poverty to be their own fault? I think this is a pretty dangerous line to draw. Yep, drinking on the job is stupid, that's your own fault. But people get fired for lots of things, rents go up, people can't make ends meet and end up destitute... there is always someone who is going to say that a person could have done more to keep themselves out of poverty, off of the street, but the fact is that it's not always true.
How can we then decide who we should help (or can help) and who we shouldn't?
First of all, poverty is a choice for a lot of people. When people choose welfare, they choose poverty. I understand that it is difficult for some to live a semi-comfortable life without welfare, but it isn't impossible. I have heard time and time again about how instead of taking welfare people rose up and made things work.
When people are put in desperate situations they have the choice to sink or swim. If nobody helps them swim, they will try to swim on their own. However, if they are drowning, then is the time to help them swim. I have no sympathy for the people that just sit on their asses all day, and complain about how horrible the conditions they live in are.
I don't believe anyone should be able to tell another that they shouldn't help this person. It is their choice who they want to aid. But, I also think that it isn't anybody's position to make one help another.
Example? taxes towards welfare.
The welfare system in our country is outdated and rediculous. Ironically, it is this system that keeps the poor, poor. The government talks of trying to lower the poverty rate, but they encourage one of the factors for the increase in this statistic. The money that is handed out to welfare reciepients could be used to help them out of poverty by creating better programs and schools.
I didn't know where to put this, but I used the example of welfare as aid to the poor because it is probably the type of help that effects everyone the most.. we are all forced to provide this aid with taxes.

 

[Alf]

Hmmm... what about the situations when it is impossible to live without welfare? In some places, the cost of living is so high that you cannot even rent a little one-room piece of crap apartment for EVERYTHING you make. Do we make the people who are just barely holding on, working as hard as they can, sink because there are those who are abusing the system?
I have a really hard time with this, because I would like to say, yep, you've got to break some eggs to make an omlette, everyone will be better off once we get rid of welfare and redirect the money towards making people more educated. But then I have my misgivings.... How do we redistribute that tax money (because you better believe the government won't just let it go!) do you think it's going to go to schooling and housing? I wish it was, but given the government's last few spending decisions, I think that it's going to go to bombs, and I'd MUCH rather have my money go to a vaguely misdirected humanitarian aid than to war.