My friend thinks Ayn Rand is a genius. How do I save them?

Templar21 wrote:

history has many more examples of the right wing being the one to take over.

You are delusional. History shows many more examples of the left stomping all over liberty. The great oppressors throughout the modern era have been leftist governments: The Soviet Union, China, Cuba... Pol Pot... the list goes on and on. Even the Nazis, claimed over and over by the left to have been a right wing movement, were a SOCIALIST party! It is a deft ploy that the left tries to convince people they were more similar to the American right than the left. Not true!

perspective wrote:

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.

When I asked the priest at my church what he thought of some of the historical findings regarding things that supposedly happened in the Bible, he replied, "The Bible, as I understand it, has always been about Truth, not Fact." That's pretty much how I view it.

Oh good, we are still talking about this. First, I would like to point out that the United States is the only country that equates liberalism with government control, as we are the only nation that allocates power to our states in the manner that we do. As far as world politics go, Nationalism and Corporatism fall on the right side of the spectrum, and both of which filled the policies of Hitler. I would like to reiterate to the idiots who read the first line of my post about the Nazi party and failed to read the rest, it was the NATIONAL socialist party; again, having a specific name in your party title means little (otherwise the GOP would actually be grand in some way). Saying I’m wrong because they took freedoms away is, well, you should read more.

[quote]Hugh Akston wrote:Objectivism is against the idea that your beliefs can be informed by anything other than facts and logic.[quote]

Hugh, since we've already established that we're not far appart on the definition issue I'd like to bring this up... if you don't mind.

You provided Rand's definition of Altrusim and I refered to it as a straw man. Repeatedly. Regardless, we seem to agree that acting for the sake of others 100% of the time isin't ethical. We just seem to differ on our option as to if that really counts as a legitimate definition of Altruism.

I'm willing to say our difference here becomes problematic when talking about reason. This is, precicely, because the traditional grounding of ethics stems from human nature. At least, when you take God in the traditional sense out of the picture.

Since this is the case I'd like to know:

Since the founding fathers explictly ground our rights in human nature granted by our creator... can Rand offer a viable alternative?

Also, if objectivism says we can only be ethical by grounding our ethics in facts and logic then why is that the case?

Mr. Price wrote:

Since the founding fathers explictly ground our rights in human nature granted by our creator... can Rand offer a viable alternative?

The Objectivist view of ethics is that they are inherent to the nature of man regardless of which country or which historical period one lives in. In other words, we get our rights from reality rather than from written documents. The Founding Fathers recognized the same basic principle of natural rights, but ascribed them to a creator because supernaturalism was the prevailing doctrine of the day. Rand's idea is that the characteristic feature of a civilized society is that the use of physical force is banned from human relationships. In primitive times, before men were civilized, they acted on animal instinct, i.e. a man would just physically take what he wanted from another man when faced with an obviously inferior opponent. Animals survive by using physical force to kill and eat each other. What sets man apart is the ability to refrain from such behavior and survive by production rather than savagery. The essence of civilization then is the prohibition of physical force. Societies range from less to more civilized depending on how much force permitted. So Rand's concept of human rights, the rights to be free from force and fraud, come from her view of human beings as intelligent, rational, productive beings as distinct from savage animals. Men who choose to live like savage animals loose their rights and get thrown in prison.

Qwals wrote:

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

I'm sure your teeth would have been picture perfect had you lived your teenage years in Leninist Russia.

They would have been, relatively, I believe. I think she should have shown more altruism in her dental hygiene.

They would not have been, relatively or otherwise.

Ayn Rand as been a FAD of every 20 something generation since she first was popular.

By the time these people have lived a little, they laugh at her philosophy of selfishness etc.

You can use a lot of logic to shoot down her philosophies.

I think Warren Buffett has done it pretty well. Wouldn't you say that he is a pretty good expert at capitalism? He's been around a bit, been successful, worked with the government in rehabilitating businesses...

Warren Buffet has said that in order to have a successful capitalist society you must have some social nets. Protection for those that do not succeed. Because other wise they are a higher cost to society.

I've witnessed him, in person, say that we needed to have social nets like medicare and welfare.

And judging by his rousing support of the corporate welfare that bailed out the banks last year...

Well, you get the picture.

It is hard to take you conservatives seriously.

Conservatives are the first people to go to the government for help when their shit hits the fan, personally or corporately.

The most "conservative" person I know, listens to Limbaugh, and right wing radio all day long...and relies on welfare and social services to pay a good portion of her bills.

How the human mind makes that juggle is beyond me, but it really tells you something about the ability for delusion and denial.

She hates people taking public handouts from the government, and she's been an EXPERT at it for 20 years. The circuits in her brain just don't connect her hypocritical actions.

That is probably the same for a lot of you.

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

Enjoying the Idiots Here wrote:

I think Warren Buffett has done it pretty well. Wouldn't you say that he is a pretty good expert at capitalism? He's been around a bit, been successful, worked with the government in rehabilitating businesses...

Warren Buffet has said that in order to have a successful capitalist society you must have some social nets. Protection for those that do not succeed. Because other wise they are a higher cost to society.

I've witnessed him, in person, say that we needed to have social nets like medicare and welfare.

The validity of a philosophy is not established by whether Warren Buffet agrees with it. He is intelligent in his field, investing, and unintelligent outside of it. The rest of your post is so blindingly stupid I simply refuse to take it seriously.

Hugh Akston wrote:The validity of a philosophy is not established by whether Warren Buffet agrees with it. He is intelligent in his field, investing, and unintelligent outside of it. The rest of your post is so blindingly stupid I simply refuse to take it seriously.

Nor is it established by whether Hugh Akston believes it. Nor is it established by whatever you mean by "logic." Give us a criterion (or two) for the value of a philosophical theory and then we'll have a conversation.

Hugh Akston wrote:The most altruistic society in history was Nazi Germany. One of the two cornerstones of their ideology, the other being racism, was that Germans should forfeit all individual interests for the benefit of the group. The rise of Nazism was a direct result of the influence of altruist philosophers, particularly Kant and Hegel.

So explain again how putting Jews in gas chambers is derived from the categorical imperative? I want to hear this.

Honestly, you so brazenly continue to twist and distort the notion of altruism as anyone knows it, practices it, or recommends it the 21st century that I don't understand why more people here don't perceive how much you're blowing smoke and wasting our time.

deleuze wrote:

Nor is it established by whether Hugh Akston believes it. Nor is it established by whatever you mean by "logic." Give us a criterion (or two) for the value of a philosophical theory and then we'll have a conversation.

The validity of an idea is determined in the court of reality by using logic. Like math, logic is universal, absolute and not subject to differences of opinion. To evaluate a philosophical system, we have to get into the technical details of metaphysics and epistemology.

Objectivist metaphysics is based on three axioms: 1) existence exists independently of man's mind, 2) everything that exists has a distinct identity which determines its characteristics and behavior, and 3) consciousness is proof of 1 and 2.

In other words, existence exists, and the fact that you are conscious to frame the question is proof of such.

These statements are axioms because because you have to accept them and use them in order to attempt to refute them. They're inescapable.

deleuze wrote:

So explain again how putting Jews in gas chambers is derived from the categorical imperative? I want to hear this.

The actions of the Nazis represented an amalgam of bad philosophy, not just altruism. They combined altruism with racism and the belief in the Fuher as an infalliable source of divinely inspired truth. Those few who retained their ability to think independently were rightfully scared shitless and afraid to defy orders. Nazi Germany represents an extreme example of what can go wrong when men abdicate the responsibility to think independently and accept the notion that reality is to be ascertained by the collective beliefs of society as a whole.

I wish 'Templar21' was still posting because he/she clearly was the only person capable of intelligible discourse on the subject. Everyone else needs to stop talking and start reading.

Hugh Akston wrote:

The validity of an idea is determined in the court of reality by using logic. Like math, logic is universal, absolute and not subject to differences of opinion. To evaluate a philosophical system, we have to get into the technical details of metaphysics and epistemology.

Objectivist metaphysics is based on three axioms: 1) existence exists independently of man's mind, 2) everything that exists has a distinct identity which determines its characteristics and behavior, and 3) consciousness is proof of 1 and 2.

In other words, existence exists, and the fact that you are conscious to frame the question is proof of such.

These statements are axioms because because you have to accept them and use them in order to attempt to refute them. They're inescapable.

Begging the question. You're using an objectivist view of the validity of a philosophical view to justify objectivism.

Try again.

Okay, so Nazism doesn't derive from a Kantian worldview. Why did you say it did?

deleuze wrote:

Begging the question. You're using an objectivist view of the validity of a philosophical view to justify objectivism.

Try again.

No, you just used Objectivist metaphysics to deny Objectivism.