We've all given this Hugh character much more time than he is worth. He is all up in arms about some forced notion of altruism that is in fact NOT forced and in this country has never been forced and isn't going to be forced.
Okay, what's next?
We've all given this Hugh character much more time than he is worth. He is all up in arms about some forced notion of altruism that is in fact NOT forced and in this country has never been forced and isn't going to be forced.
Okay, what's next?
Picayune wrote:
He is all up in arms about some forced notion of altruism that is in fact NOT forced and in this country has never been forced and isn't going to be forced.
Exactly. This is from Rand's definition that Hugh used "...man...has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence"
Well of course living in this type of society would suck. Fortunately, we sure as hell don't live in anything close to this. People like Hugh lose all credibility when they try to equate this notion of altruism with the world we live in.
I have read Rand's books and a lot of the ideas resonate with me. But ultimately it is irrelevant for the reasons "DontFeedTheTroll" highlighted. It wouldn't work when applied to a large scale. The "Lone Assholes" he mentioned. These people are everywhere and they always have been. From pickpocketers to the fraudulant corporate executive who conned his way to the top. And that is not going to change anytime soon.
Hugh Akston wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is. Driving a car that you bought from someone else is not cooperation; the act of exchange with the dealer is. Living in a house that someone else built is not cooperation; the act of exchanging money with the builder is. The builder cooperates with the construction workers by paying them. We survive by means of voluntary exchange, not some mindless form of humanitarian brotherly love, as you seem to be implying.
Did you drive on public roads in that car? Did you stop at the red lights? Did everyone else stop at the red lights? Did you roughly follow the speed limit?
Welcome to the world. Rules are necessary for a social structure to operate. Stopping at a red light can't be voluntary, and neither can most other laws. As much as objectivists (and followers of various other philosophies) might like to believe in the nature of man, without rules there will be chaos. You do give up some freedom to live in a society, since you are bound by our laws.
If voluntary exchange doesn't work on a large scale, what does? Socialism, like the Soviet Union had? Or is the best system really a mixed economy like the one we have now, which is on the brink of the Great Depression II? If capitalism doesn't work on a large scale, how do you explain the industrial revolution, which created the greatest improvement in standard of living in the history of mankind? The really is no serious debate to be had here. The real reason people hate Rand is because her ideas fundamentally undermine the way they think about the world. Modern "liberals" have conditioned themselves to view society as the fundamental unit of reality, and are thoroughly enamored with ideas of altruism human inter-dependence. Rand comes along and challenges this ideology, and the collectivsts are simply disgusted. They find it absolutely abhorrent that anything in life could be considered more important than poor people. They are absolutely sickened by the idea that needing somethng does not make one entitled to it. They could care less about trivialities like oil, gold, corporations, etc. because, to them, what really matters is children. Not rich children, mind you, but poor children--especially minorities. The broker, fatter, stupider, sicker, or blacker your are, the better the person you are, according to them.
I will surely yield to your deeper understanding of the ideas of Ayn Rand, but as I read them very superficially they seem to be essentially anti-Christ. That is to say, they seem to be specifically contrary to Christian ideas and ideals. Yes?
perspective wrote:
I will surely yield to your deeper understanding of the ideas of Ayn Rand, but as I read them very superficially they seem to be essentially anti-Christ. That is to say, they seem to be specifically contrary to Christian ideas and ideals. Yes?
Without question.
Blowing.Rock.Master wrote:
If you were to choose the top 5 philosophers or writers of the 20th century, Ayn Rand would certainly be included.
Top 5 writer of the 20th century? Really? Ayn Rand?
Sagarun wrote:
I think you are jealous. You're probably a liberal government employee. The events of the past four years validate Ayn Rand's philosophy. It was the Democrats and big government that got the US into this mess. After 2010, it will be the Republicans who get us out of it. Message to all you government workers sucking the taxpayer teat: Find a new job now while you still have one. Your days are numbered. Your pensions are unsustainable. Your compensation is too high. Your numbers will soon be greatly reduced.
America will return to it's prosperous ways soon.
Hooray ! Early morning weekend tee times are just around the corner.
Qwals wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4kMike Wallace interview with Rand. She needed a tube of toothpaste.
Lively, piercing eyes, though. Let's give the woman some credit, if only for her courage. She's a pretty tough bird.
I think she would be a lot of fun. Where I grew up, we'd refer to her as a hot sh*t.
perspective wrote:
I will surely yield to your deeper understanding of the ideas of Ayn Rand, but as I read them very superficially they seem to be essentially anti-Christ. That is to say, they seem to be specifically contrary to Christian ideas and ideals. Yes?
They don't clash with a belief in Christ, they absolutely clash with that belief being a factor in choosing how to act.
back to the original question: have him/her read "My Life with Ayn Rand" by Nathaniel Brandon. her schizoid side really comes out.
themanontherun wrote:
perspective wrote:I will surely yield to your deeper understanding of the ideas of Ayn Rand, but as I read them very superficially they seem to be essentially anti-Christ. That is to say, they seem to be specifically contrary to Christian ideas and ideals. Yes?
They don't clash with a belief in Christ, they absolutely clash with that belief being a factor in choosing how to act.
But she flatly states she's atheistic and anti-faith. What sort of belief in Christ is it that would deny God and faith? If God does not exist, Christ is not Christ, in the sense of being a divine being. Or perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying.
perspective wrote:
I will surely yield to your deeper understanding of the ideas of Ayn Rand, but as I read them very superficially they seem to be essentially anti-Christ. That is to say, they seem to be specifically contrary to Christian ideas and ideals. Yes?
Objectivism is against the idea that your beliefs can be informed by anything other than facts and logic. So far as Christian ideals are in conflict with reality, Objectivism is opposed to them. Chrisitian fundamantalism, or Biblical literalism, demands the total capitualation of one's mind to an ancient volume of unkown authorhip, and that is absolutely antithetical to Objectivism. Some of the ideas contained in the Bible are compatible with Objectivsm and others not. But faith, or arbitrary belief in the existence of something with no material evidence to support its existence and no logical/intellectual reason to believe it exists, is irrational and therefore incompatible with Objectivism.
Got it. Thanks.
perspective wrote:
But she flatly states she's atheistic and anti-faith. What sort of belief in Christ is it that would deny God and faith? If God does not exist, Christ is not Christ, in the sense of being a divine being. Or perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying.
She was against Christianity, true. My point was that the point of objectivism is to use logic and reason to dictate your actions. Believing in God/Christ doesn't mean you don't act rationally, it just means you hold an irrational belief. There are plenty of people in this day and age who believe in God but don't follow the irrational parts of the Bible.
Vitto Marconi wrote:
troll alert wrote:You must be a real joy at parties. Come back when you're older than 17 and taken off daddy's trust fund.
I'd like to see you fail in a real debate with someone like Hugh Akston. There's some people who can debate, and some who shouldn't even try.
I, won't even try.
Debating with fourteen year olds who believe they have solved all of the world's problems through whatever simplistic, stubborn application of any "flavor of the week" ideology is fruitless. Reading books about theoretical utopias is nice and intellectually stimulating, but vehemently arguing for their implementation shows how naive and short-sighted someone really is.
troll alert wrote:
Debating with fourteen year olds who believe they have solved all of the world's problems through whatever simplistic, stubborn application of any "flavor of the week" ideology is fruitless. Reading books about theoretical utopias is nice and intellectually stimulating, but vehemently arguing for their implementation shows how naive and short-sighted someone really is.
So then if implimenting rational ideas is short-sighted, would you say it's more practical to impliment irrational ideas in the long run?
themanontherun wrote:
She was against Christianity, true. My point was that the point of objectivism is to use logic and reason to dictate your actions. Believing in God/Christ doesn't mean you don't act rationally, it just means you hold an irrational belief. There are plenty of people in this day and age who believe in God but don't follow the irrational parts of the Bible.
I see what you are saying. I would also add that many "religious" people are moving more and more away from any aspect of faith that runs counter to logic or natural laws. There are Christians, some even in schools of theology, who deny the miracles cited in the gospels. They see Jesus more as an enlightened man than as the truth, the way, and the life.
Hugh Akson is da man.
Wiggins wrote:
Blowing.Rock.Master wrote:If you were to choose the top 5 philosophers or writers of the 20th century, Ayn Rand would certainly be included.
Top 5 writer of the 20th century? Really? Ayn Rand?
Not my post. Check the spelling of the handle. There's some very clever people on Letsrun (eyes roll).