Opinions on Ayn Rand and her notion of ethical egoism. I'm conscious that her lack of philosophical structure puts her in the backwoods as far as academic discussion is concerned, and that she is used more to justify unfettered capitalism and a sense of man being indispensable as far as objective reality is concerned (That's my interpretation of her work), but is there anything in her that can be relevant for us today?
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
I, Fountainhead of... progress
- Thread starter Pindar
- Start date
Legerity
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 2,965
If self-interest is defined as one's own needs/desires then I'm somewhat skeptical that this is a satisfying life pursuit. The line between needs/desires is quite vague and in general it seems that once one desire is fulfilled another one pops up to take it's place. At least in my experience that's how things turn out.
But at the same time I like the idea of taking care of oneself. I feel that people often dissolve into society and end up following a certain direction that they are told is best for themselves but is in reality just away of maintaining the status quo. I'm quite individualistic overall and I don't think I or anybody else owes anything to anybody. But I also don't think that satisfying the ego is going to ever be fulfilling. But it's sure as hell better than living trying to live up to the wants/needs of others.
But at the same time I like the idea of taking care of oneself. I feel that people often dissolve into society and end up following a certain direction that they are told is best for themselves but is in reality just away of maintaining the status quo. I'm quite individualistic overall and I don't think I or anybody else owes anything to anybody. But I also don't think that satisfying the ego is going to ever be fulfilling. But it's sure as hell better than living trying to live up to the wants/needs of others.
IamMe90
Bluelighter
Rand's morality is like an extremist Mill utilitarianism that removes one of the only provision Mill provides for protecting others. Under her ethical egoism as I remember it (though admittedly I read into her egoism only a long time ago and don't remember much, and was not nearly as versed in philosophy as I am now) it could be permissible to shoot a homeless man on the street so long as it honestly suited my own needs. Her egoism needs to be fleshed out quite a bit with provisions for others to avoid such obvious reductio ad absurdum counterarguments.
Her criticism of Kant in her explication of objectivism is completely absurd as well as she essentially restates Kant's argument as a way to attack it. "The attack on man's consciousness and particularly on his conceptual faculty has rested on the unchallenged premise that any knowledge acquired by a process of consciousness is necessarily subjective and cannot correspond to the facts of reality, since it is "processed knowledge...[but] all knowledge is processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An "unprocessed" knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition."
This is precisely the point Kant makes, that all knowledge is processed, which is why access to noumenal reality, whether it exists or not, is impossible. Her definition of reality is essentially phenomenal reality as Kant puts it, and it angers me that she criticizes one of the most important philosophers in history as the "most evil man in history," when her definition of reality in essence coincides with phenomenal reality.
Her criticism of Kant in her explication of objectivism is completely absurd as well as she essentially restates Kant's argument as a way to attack it. "The attack on man's consciousness and particularly on his conceptual faculty has rested on the unchallenged premise that any knowledge acquired by a process of consciousness is necessarily subjective and cannot correspond to the facts of reality, since it is "processed knowledge...[but] all knowledge is processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An "unprocessed" knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition."
This is precisely the point Kant makes, that all knowledge is processed, which is why access to noumenal reality, whether it exists or not, is impossible. Her definition of reality is essentially phenomenal reality as Kant puts it, and it angers me that she criticizes one of the most important philosophers in history as the "most evil man in history," when her definition of reality in essence coincides with phenomenal reality.
B9
Bluelight Crew
That's undoubtedly mostly the case but is it entirely the case ?
I'd need to hear an accurate description of what processed knowledge consists of & where the boundaries are drawn - I could speculate but I reckon you know your own mind better than I could know it
gaktattack
Bluelighter
As most of her work was expressed in novels instead of dissertations, I think that is why she is not taken as literally.
I like her work, and I think it is very relevant. Being true to oneself in rational self interest is very important. I find work often dissatisfying when the money I am working for is used to fill voids to try and put bandaids on dysfunctional areas of my life. Like working for drugs or consumerism. Her ideas in the fountainhead of working to be the best you can be at something in as much as you desire to be it does have a moral imperative, but does coincide with plato. In the republic where he said if someone is great at robbing people, should pursue it simply because it is what he is best at? The rational part comes into play because obviously being the best murder around would have some life stymieing consequences.
I think you could boil down her philosophy to something more along the lines of do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others. And that no decisions should be made based on social observance try and protect the status quo. We dont have capitalism, we have basically the system she despised in atlas shrugged. Fettered by incapable but powerful fraternal syndicates that impede progress and efficiency.
Ill entertain any and all arguments for or against this subject. I love playing the devils advocate.
The limits of rational self interest are the subjects ability to understand his desires and the consequences of their pursuit. For many people this philosophy would be catastrophic, as they aren't cognizant or dont have the capacity for an enlightened predisposition. In this sense her philosophy is of total culpability for your actions. You and you alone are responsible for understanding your desires, convictions and consequences of your actions. Thats what makes it liberating for me.
I like her work, and I think it is very relevant. Being true to oneself in rational self interest is very important. I find work often dissatisfying when the money I am working for is used to fill voids to try and put bandaids on dysfunctional areas of my life. Like working for drugs or consumerism. Her ideas in the fountainhead of working to be the best you can be at something in as much as you desire to be it does have a moral imperative, but does coincide with plato. In the republic where he said if someone is great at robbing people, should pursue it simply because it is what he is best at? The rational part comes into play because obviously being the best murder around would have some life stymieing consequences.
I think you could boil down her philosophy to something more along the lines of do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others. And that no decisions should be made based on social observance try and protect the status quo. We dont have capitalism, we have basically the system she despised in atlas shrugged. Fettered by incapable but powerful fraternal syndicates that impede progress and efficiency.
Ill entertain any and all arguments for or against this subject. I love playing the devils advocate.
The limits of rational self interest are the subjects ability to understand his desires and the consequences of their pursuit. For many people this philosophy would be catastrophic, as they aren't cognizant or dont have the capacity for an enlightened predisposition. In this sense her philosophy is of total culpability for your actions. You and you alone are responsible for understanding your desires, convictions and consequences of your actions. Thats what makes it liberating for me.
Last edited:
Shrooms00087
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,282
She's completely disassociated from normal lines of ethical reason. Greed, it's very definition is derivative from unethical practices. From the very start her philosophy was to seek an ethical gap for greed consisting of things like "creativity" "personality" etc.
She's a dumb anti-Christ, spurred by communism and its related failures to later become just a mouth piece of propaganda for capitalism (if only she was around to see the pinnacle of failings in capitalism)
She's a dumb anti-Christ, spurred by communism and its related failures to later become just a mouth piece of propaganda for capitalism (if only she was around to see the pinnacle of failings in capitalism)
gaktattack
Bluelighter
That is a way of looking at it. Would you mind elaborating on each of those declarations so I can get more insight into your line of reasoning?
Is rational self interest greed?
Define anti-christ.
If communism/capitalism both failed, what system do you propose?
Do you think we have capitalism in the united states?
Is rational self interest greed?
Define anti-christ.
If communism/capitalism both failed, what system do you propose?
Do you think we have capitalism in the united states?
Shrooms00087
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,282
Define rational self-interest. Because I don't believe it can exist.
Reincarnation of Satan. Pretty much all the things associated with Satan, greed, self-indulgence, etc, etc.
Why must I propose a system to vilify that they failed? Socialism? But can't have that without uprooting deeply embedded capitalists IE communism (a communism we haven't seen) then some anarchic system.
We have capitalism as it was intended to be, outside the realm of rhetoric and misconceptions. So yes. But that isn't the main reason it is failing.
Reincarnation of Satan. Pretty much all the things associated with Satan, greed, self-indulgence, etc, etc.
Why must I propose a system to vilify that they failed? Socialism? But can't have that without uprooting deeply embedded capitalists IE communism (a communism we haven't seen) then some anarchic system.
We have capitalism as it was intended to be, outside the realm of rhetoric and misconceptions. So yes. But that isn't the main reason it is failing.
YellowPolkaDotHalo
Ex-Bluelighter
Ii just think the capitalists cant afford the lifestyle anymore
gaktattack
Bluelighter
Rational self interest is taking into account negative consequences for solutions to a problem at hand and acting to achieve the best result for yourself. EG Im hungry, I can eat the largest ears of corn now, which will select for smaller ears in successive generations or I can eat the smallest ears saving the large ones for planting so as to select for production increasing yields and better dealing with successive hunger.
Life is one continuous self indulgence, I piss when I need to, eat when necessary. Smoke when I get the urge. Sleep when my body needs it. Work to pay for what I need. Copulate to feel good and produce progeny. etc etc etc. You wouldn't do something if you didnt have a compelling reason. eg I give to charity because it makes me feel good about myself and reassures me that I am good person. I listen to a friends complaining because I want to maintain the friendship, what I am listening to is a minor inconveiniance as I know my friend wont always complain and we will eventually do something fun. People lie to themselves all the time about their motives, especially with examples like I CARE ABOUT THEM, or I give cuz I care about the poor. Lets face it, it makes us feel good. Greed can have rational limitations as well. If I want to keep all of the goods to a kingdom to myself and kill all my subjects i have to do all the labor myself... not very kingly. Thats why they allow us serfs a modicum of standard of living. Because they have to to keep control.
The satanism remark is lunacy as I cant empiracly work with a figment of foolish imagination.
Our capitalism is as true to capitalism as Soviet Socialism was to communism. Its an aristocratic system where there are those with money and power and the rest are subjects. Just because kraft sells 5 brands of cheese does not a capitalism make.
No, it is we who cant afford our lifestyles, and havent been able to for quite some time. We used debt to compensate for our lack of wage increases, as our good paying jobs were destroyed and outsourced for short term profits. There is nothing rational about how our plutocracy is run. They only toe the line enough to keep us from rioting and chopping off their heads like with what happened with the french revolution. It took the rich a long time to regain control of france, and even to this day they dont have near the power as they do here.
George Bush always talked about capitalism, there is a free labor market... and thats about it. The rest is systematically controlled by a very few very wealthy individuals.
Life is one continuous self indulgence, I piss when I need to, eat when necessary. Smoke when I get the urge. Sleep when my body needs it. Work to pay for what I need. Copulate to feel good and produce progeny. etc etc etc. You wouldn't do something if you didnt have a compelling reason. eg I give to charity because it makes me feel good about myself and reassures me that I am good person. I listen to a friends complaining because I want to maintain the friendship, what I am listening to is a minor inconveiniance as I know my friend wont always complain and we will eventually do something fun. People lie to themselves all the time about their motives, especially with examples like I CARE ABOUT THEM, or I give cuz I care about the poor. Lets face it, it makes us feel good. Greed can have rational limitations as well. If I want to keep all of the goods to a kingdom to myself and kill all my subjects i have to do all the labor myself... not very kingly. Thats why they allow us serfs a modicum of standard of living. Because they have to to keep control.
The satanism remark is lunacy as I cant empiracly work with a figment of foolish imagination.
Our capitalism is as true to capitalism as Soviet Socialism was to communism. Its an aristocratic system where there are those with money and power and the rest are subjects. Just because kraft sells 5 brands of cheese does not a capitalism make.
No, it is we who cant afford our lifestyles, and havent been able to for quite some time. We used debt to compensate for our lack of wage increases, as our good paying jobs were destroyed and outsourced for short term profits. There is nothing rational about how our plutocracy is run. They only toe the line enough to keep us from rioting and chopping off their heads like with what happened with the french revolution. It took the rich a long time to regain control of france, and even to this day they dont have near the power as they do here.
George Bush always talked about capitalism, there is a free labor market... and thats about it. The rest is systematically controlled by a very few very wealthy individuals.
Shrooms00087
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,282
This is the gap I speak of. Negative consequences only relate to the agent who invokes the good aspects of the variable. But one person affects other persons and for this they have a term, "systemic risk". Basically, the agent is the only person that matters. And that is supposedly "rational". As for the rest of it, we could just use an example of moral government (while still capitalist) like America post WW's where they taxed the shit out of top income earners. Gradually owners of top capital chipped away at the government and then completely stalled wages of laborers and then you just add debt (amongst many other factors, I am over simplifying). Independent agents acting out of greed will always do the most they can get away with while ignoring systemic risk. Thus greed is immoral and this attempt at logic only seeks to justify it. To take a step back and look at your simple corn analogy, I might use high yield crops (Disregarding soil degradation etc) make a load of money then, say, the ground erodes to land that no longer produces, then starvation and we can even theorize the agent hoarded food to stay alive. That's systemic risk, and that's not rational nor moral but completely in line with supposed "rational self interest"
Then you lack imagination and common understanding of words altogether.
Exactly and I accounted for that.
Yeah, it's called competition.
gaktattack
Bluelighter
We seem to agree on most points, you retracted your statement about capitalism in the united states. And also agreed that greed without a rational consideration of consequences leads to self destruction. You cannot feed yourself if your people are starving and the soil is destroyed.
I misunderstood your capitalism as it was intended to be comment, I see it more as capitalism as it has been molded from its ideallogical roots.
I cant see how an organism can function using irrational altruism. I cant pee for you, or eat for you. If you have an alternative way you would like to describe your contrasting theory of how we should operate I am open to it.
The reason I refrain from dealing with the satanism is that I view it as an insulting attack without grounds for reasonable debate, its like calling someone a dickhead.
I misunderstood your capitalism as it was intended to be comment, I see it more as capitalism as it has been molded from its ideallogical roots.
I cant see how an organism can function using irrational altruism. I cant pee for you, or eat for you. If you have an alternative way you would like to describe your contrasting theory of how we should operate I am open to it.
The reason I refrain from dealing with the satanism is that I view it as an insulting attack without grounds for reasonable debate, its like calling someone a dickhead.
Shrooms00087
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,282
Which part, I cleaned up a bit for relevance so you'll have to excuse me. If you remember just outline it and I'll address it.
You can however not be able to forecast every interaction* and it's unintended consequences. Systemic risk.
Capitalism is competition of job markets with the freedom to make products to be competitive. People controlling this aspect through capitalism, is still capitalism.
You can not be a glutton to ensure against famines. Or overproduce etc, etc. It's a simple game we're playing here without concrete ideas I can only remark against your backdrop of "peeing" and "eating"
She is a dick head.
*Sorry I hate to edit but to clarify it isn't profitable to forecast every interaction
You can however not be able to forecast every interaction* and it's unintended consequences. Systemic risk.
Capitalism is competition of job markets with the freedom to make products to be competitive. People controlling this aspect through capitalism, is still capitalism.
You can not be a glutton to ensure against famines. Or overproduce etc, etc. It's a simple game we're playing here without concrete ideas I can only remark against your backdrop of "peeing" and "eating"
She is a dick head.
*Sorry I hate to edit but to clarify it isn't profitable to forecast every interaction
Last edited:
gaktattack
Bluelighter
You must have some alternative philosophy to self interest. What is it? The peeing and eating are functions of an organism that must be done for oneself. You cant do them for others.
You are absolutely right that all variables cannot be accounted for. I am an absurdist, through science we know that the human race cannot exist forever, just as our sun wont, and I highly doubt earth will still be habitable billions of years from now. So, what are we doing this all for? What is the motive? I think a lot of it boils down to instinct. Pleasurable orgasms were selected for as Im assuming species with pleasurable ones do not copulate.
Instincts are out of self interest. We keep breeding despite our knowledge of finite resources etc. And it is leading to global tension as people outbreed the earths carrying capacity.
If you enjoy mathematics I reccomend this video on youtube about how growth is unsustainable in any form. I really like the guy and his points are valid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
You are absolutely right that all variables cannot be accounted for. I am an absurdist, through science we know that the human race cannot exist forever, just as our sun wont, and I highly doubt earth will still be habitable billions of years from now. So, what are we doing this all for? What is the motive? I think a lot of it boils down to instinct. Pleasurable orgasms were selected for as Im assuming species with pleasurable ones do not copulate.
Instincts are out of self interest. We keep breeding despite our knowledge of finite resources etc. And it is leading to global tension as people outbreed the earths carrying capacity.
If you enjoy mathematics I reccomend this video on youtube about how growth is unsustainable in any form. I really like the guy and his points are valid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
Shrooms00087
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,282
Logical beings. We stand the chance of colonizing other planets. Which would answer the main two questions.
We do not keep breeding despite anything, rather, it's for profits and is encouraged.
Thank you for the video.
We do not keep breeding despite anything, rather, it's for profits and is encouraged.
Thank you for the video.
gaktattack
Bluelighter
If you get around to watching the video let me know what you think.
I might add that the video addresses your space exploration theory.
I might add that the video addresses your space exploration theory.
Last edited: