Why Ayn Rand?

[ProxyAmenRa]

You expect evidence of me, but provide none of your own. I'd like clear reasons based on sound logical analysis please.

For anything that I write you can easily ask for the source material. I must point out that it is you who has a limited to understanding of economics. It is you who refuses to learn economics. It is you who chooses remain ignorant.

Reading my posts would reveal that I don't actually believe Adam Smith created or inaugurated anything resembling capitalism. Our culture calls popular economic and political practices capitalism and democracy (although they're lies and increasingly the same thing), and I didn't want to deviate too greatly from comfortable lexicon.

Did you read the rest of the sentence you fondly quoted? Therein I delineate the ilk of "capitalism" that Adam Smith actually precipitated.

The comfortable lexicon is an assault on the philosophy through the process of redefining terms. The process of restricting the conveyance of ideas through the destruction of language. It is an insidious method undermining your philosophical opponents which allows for the development of perverse arguments like what you have presented. Such as free-market capitalism spawns mercantilism which is a joke that does not correspond to the progression of history. The reason why we have mercantilism today is because the Classical Liberals died off and the Laissez-faire utilitarians were consequentialists who were not apt to argue in terms of morality against the socialists. Attempting to convince the masses of your position through economics is a difficult thing to do.

In the US it was more less due to a series of government interventions in the banking sector leading to multitudes of failures of 19th century. Each failure roused public sentiment for further intervention culminating in the 4th Central Bank of the US, the US Federal Reserve. The US Federal Reserve caused a credit bubble during the 1920s which led to the market crash of 1929. The Austrian School at the time, Ludwig Von Mises, predicted this. The crash created the incentive to further intervene in the economy through tariffs, price and wage controls, increase in union powers and state capital projects. These policies created the Great Depression. After the fact, the interventionists concocted the fallacious narrative that free-market capitalism caused the Great Depression. The reason given to the public to justify intervention. End result today is that we live under mercantilism.

Discounting tariffs, intervention in the banking sector and the creation of the railway cartel through the ICC, capitalism in the US only lasted 100 years or so. The creation of the 4th Central Bank marked the end.

All that Adam Smith did was write a severely flawed treatise on economics which essentially retrogressed the field of economics by two-hundred years i.e. reemphasizing the cost of production theory of prices. Apart from the flaws and compete lack of referencing, what Adam Smith sort to do, like all economists, is to inquire into the nature of economics. Ergo, he set out to explain what occurs in reality such as unhampered markets leading to wealth creation. Many other schools of economic thought pre-classical economics sort to explain this phenomena as well such as the French Physiocrats.

Allow me to refresh your evidently dodgy memory on what I said earlier (see spoiler). I could conceive of democracy and completely fail at aptly characterizing or comprehending true democracy, spreading democracy, and implementing democracy. I still conceived of democracy, thanks for playing.

I agree, the US was never intended to be a "true" democracy. It is not hard to read the constitution or the federalist papers to deduce this.

The US Federal Government was meant to be the most limited in power government to ever exist but the interstate commerce and the general welfare clauses with some activist judges allowed for the expansion of government intervention.

 

[snafupants]

For anything that I write you can easily ask for the source material. I must point out that it is you who has a limited to understanding of economics. It is you who refuses to learn economics. It is you who chooses remain ignorant.





The comfortable lexicon is an assault on the philosophy through the process of redefining terms. The process of restricting the conveyance of ideas through the destruction of language. It is an insidious method undermining your philosophical opponents which allows for the development of perverse arguments like what you have presented. Such as free-market capitalism spawns mercantilism which is a joke that does not correspond to the progression of history. The reason why we have mercantilism today is because the Classical Liberals died off and the Laissez-faire utilitarians were consequentialists who were not apt to argue in terms of morality against the socialists. Attempting to convince the masses of your position through economics is a difficult thing to do.

In the US it was more less due to a series of government interventions in the banking sector leading to multitudes of failures of 19th century. Each failure roused public sentiment for further intervention culminating in the 4th Central Bank of the US, the US Federal Reserve. The US Federal Reserve caused a credit bubble during the 1920s which led to the market crash of 1929. The Austrian School at the time, Ludwig Von Mises, predicted this. The crash created the incentive to further intervene in the economy through tariffs, price and wage controls, increase in union powers and state capital projects. These policies created the Great Depression. After the fact, the interventionists concocted the fallacious narrative that free-market capitalism caused the Great Depression. The reason given to the public to justify intervention. End result today is that we live under mercantilism.

Discounting tariffs, intervention in the banking sector and the creation of the railway cartel through the ICC, capitalism in the US only lasted 100 years or so. The creation of the 4th Central Bank marked the end.

All that Adam Smith did was write a severely flawed treatise on economics which essentially retrogressed the field of economics by two-hundred years i.e. reemphasizing the cost of production theory of prices. Apart from the flaws and compete lack of referencing, what Adam Smith sort to do, like all economists, is to inquire into the nature of economics. Ergo, he set out to explain what occurs in reality such as unhampered markets leading to wealth creation. Many other schools of economic thought pre-classical economics sort to explain this phenomena as well such as the French Physiocrats.



I agree, the US was never intended to be a "true" democracy. It is not hard to read the constitution or the federalist papers to deduce this.

The US Federal Government was meant to be the most limited in power government to ever exist but the interstate commerce and the general welfare clauses with some activist judges allowed for the expansion of government intervention.

That seemed affectedly hostile. I stopped reading after your pathetic gambit.

 

[gilliatt]

On the attacks on Ayn Rand's person. "Argument from Intimidation". Anyhow, there is a certain type of argument which is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate & extorting an opponent's agreement which one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure. e.i. you impeach an opponent's character, thus impeaching the argument without debating the main ideas etc. They have no argument, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand, they are simply hiding in a vacuum, their confession of intellectual impotence. Here is an example they might asks: "Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?" I am. "Oh, you couldn't be! Not really. Really! "But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!" I don't. Oh, come now. "Since I don't know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated." Oh, don't be ridiculous! "Will you tell me the reasons?" "Well, really, if you don't know , I couldn't possibly tell you." But the whole thing expresses a kind of 'disapproval'. They attempt to win by raised eyebrows, snickers, grunts, another form of communication. So with Ayn Rand, Von Mises etc, they mostly call them dirty, unclean human beings & never mention Objectivism or Praxeology etc. In passing Praxeology is the science or general theory of conscious or purposeful human action. Von Mises defines action as "the manifestation of man's will."

 

[Pilot the Cannibal]

Everyone here that is attacking Ayn Rand seems to have not actually read any of her books (or they have just read Anthem, which doesn't count.) I'm not saying her philosophy wasn't controversial. It was. I'm not saying it was the most popular philosophy at the time. It wasn't. It was, however, one of the most influential, because it was so different from what many others were saying, and because it has still survived and is practiced today by many of the world's most successful business owners and entrepeneurs. But whether or not you agree with her philosophy, it is rather hard to argue the fact that her writing skill was incredibly impressive; especially considering the fact that English wasn't even her first language. She wrote a book that was over 1000 pages; and it became a bestseller, and it is still a bestseller today. Clearly, it was captivating enough to conquer people's poor attention spans (hell, I have ADD and I was able to read the thing in under a month.) So, even if you don't agree with her philosophy, you have to admit that she was a good writer. To all of the people here who haven't read her books but instead consider themselves experts on objectivism because they've read about her personal life on wikipedia...well, fuck off.

To everyone else; please continue with your intelligent discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas and beliefs. It is enjoyable to read your insights.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@snafupants

That seemed affectedly hostile. I stopped reading after your pathetic gambit.

You know it's true.

 

[snafupants]

@snafupants



You know it's true.

@ProxyAmenRa

That the opening was pigheadedly hostile, yes I do.

I would like to officially declare that Proxy is always and omnipotently correct.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@snafupants

@ProxyAmenRa

That the opening was pigheadedly hostile, yes I do.

I would like to officially declare that Proxy is always and omnipotently correct.

I hate to burst your bubble but me being an asshole does not change the fact that you refuse to educate yourself.

 

[snafupants]

@snafupants



I hate to burst your bubble but me being an asshole does not change the fact that you refuse to educate yourself.

@ProxyAmenRa

That's so right.

 

[gilliatt]

More on Ayn Rand. Talk a little on the subject of Metaphysics & Philosophy. The educated man has a knowledge more universals, the things that are more difficult for the average man to know. They are the things furtherest from his senses. The most accurate sciences are those that are most concerned with first principles, since those that are derived from fewer principles are more accurate than those that have more: arithmetic, for instance, is more accurate than geometry. Sciences that study causes are more informative. The people that give us information about anything are those who tell us causes. Philosophy is not productive, it is more of people in early times wondering about things. They first wondered about strange things that they saw at hand, then, they went forward, little by little into larger issues like the moon, sun, stars, the origin of the universe. So, in a way, we are all philosophers, even the ones that are fond of myths. Ayn Rand inquired into the nature of things, first principles, their causes, purposes etc. She wondered about the universe, everything being made of the same elements, the universe just 'is'.

 

[snafupants]

More on Ayn Rand. Talk a little on the subject of Metaphysics & Philosophy. The educated man has a knowledge more universals, the things that are more difficult for the average man to know. They are the things furtherest from his senses. The most accurate sciences are those that are most concerned with first principles, since those that are derived from fewer principles are more accurate than those that have more: arithmetic, for instance, is more accurate than geometry. Sciences that study causes are more informative. The people that give us information about anything are those who tell us causes. Philosophy is not productive, it is more of people in early times wondering about things. They first wondered about strange things that they saw at hand, then, they went forward, little by little into larger issues like the moon, sun, stars, the origin of the universe. So, in a way, we are all philosophers, even the ones that are fond of myths. Ayn Rand inquired into the nature of things, first principles, their causes, purposes etc. She wondered about the universe, everything being made of the same elements, the universe just 'is'.

The last four words are quite poignant. So many people confuse scientism/maps with reality/territory, meanwhile these culturally festooned scientists are beholden to shared/fallible sensory modalities, instruments, creativity, contemporaneous knowledge, cultural interest, intelligence, and funding. A glance backwards one hundred years is an appalling remedy for the fallacious belief that sciences' paradigms and findings are always the most innovative, comprehensive, and apposite. Perhaps philosophy's role in culture is to inform reality as lived by humans, which would of course demand conformity to vindicated scientific findings apropos reality; by informing reality as lived by humans, I do not mean crafting and subscribing to a pragmatic philosophy (a la Aristotle), rather I mean adumbrating the underlying structures of reality and dispassionately demonstrating how those structures affect peoples' lives. In other words, philosophy shouldn't receive any special treatment or ontologically declarative privileges as compared to science. In hindsight, some aspects of Schopenhauer's brilliant The World as Will and Representation were erroneous. Ole Romer, Isaac Newton, et al. demonstrated, about two centuries before the publication of Schopenhauer's magnum opus, that the speed of light is indeed finite (670 million mph), whereas the universe is incessantly expanding; Schopenhauer seemed to misunderstand both of these points. In either case, per the dictum that philosophy should mostly jibe with science, modern philosophers would be wise to incorporate Romer's findings, as well as later quantum mechanics and perhaps even the theoretically tenuous M-Theory, into their philosophical works because that alone would inclusively assimilate the choice cuts of empiricism and philosophy. As an aside, it's remarkable that Plato and the Vedas and Schopenhauer identified the multiverse as such well before scientism's gadgets and mathematics had any intimations of its existence.

 

[gilliatt]

Ayn Rand states that, "nature is the metaphysical given- i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition." We conclude the universe just 'is', capitalism just 'is', gravity just 'is'. But why? "Why" anything, for instance, tell us why fire is hot, only that it is hot. We have no knowledge of why gravity, but we know it is there.

Anyway, the law of causality. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused & determined by the nature of the entities that act, a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature. But these 'universe, capitalism, gravity etc., they have no conscious or a will, but act on the law of identity. The point is every element within the universe, every speck of dust is determined by its identities of the elements involved. "The same thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time and in the same respect". The theory of truth.

 

[snafupants]

Ayn Rand states that, "nature is the metaphysical given- i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition." We conclude the universe just 'is', capitalism just 'is', gravity just 'is'. But why? "Why" anything, for instance, tell us why fire is hot, only that it is hot. We have no knowledge of why gravity, but we know it is there.

Anyway, the law of causality. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused & determined by the nature of the entities that act, a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature. But these 'universe, capitalism, gravity etc., they have no conscious or a will, but act on the law of identity. The point is every element within the universe, every speck of dust is determined by its identities of the elements involved. "The same thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time and in the same respect". The theory of truth.

I wouldn't necessarily concur with Ms. Rand on that one. Suppose the universe is broken down into two subcategories. One class of items are materials, and subject to the prying eye of empiricism. Within this class is to be found topics like physics and geography. The other, more diffuse class is comprised of intangible human abstractions and enterprises, such as politics and economics. Let's deal with the second class for now. Atomism, namely the sociophilosophical denotation, does a succinct yet trenchant job of explaining these abstract endeavors. In other words, primarily through understanding human motives and culture and history can human systems best be comprehended.

 

[gilliatt]

"The comprachicos, or comprapequenos, were a strange & hideous nomadic association, famous in the seventeenth century, forgotten in the eighteen, unknown today.........................................................Comprachicos, a Spanish word that means 'child buyers."
"They traded in children.
They bought them and sold them.
They did not steal them. The kidnapping of children is a different industry.
And what did they make of these children?
Monsters.
Why monsters?
To laugh.
The people need laughter; so do the kings. Cities require side-show freaks or clowns;palaces require jesters.
To succeed in producing a freak, one must get hold of him early. A dwarf must be started when he is small...
Hence, a art. There were educators. They took a man and turned him into a miscarriage; they took a face and made a muzzle. They stunted growth; they mangled features. This artificial production of teratological cases had its own rules. A whole new science. Imagine an inverted orthopedics. Where God had put a straight glance, this art put a squint. Where God had put harmony, they put deformity. Where God had put perfection, they brought back a botched attempt."
"The practice of degrading man leads one to the practice of deforming him. Deformity completes the task of political suppression."
"The comprachios had a talent, to disfigure, that made them valuable in politics. To disfigure is better than to kill. There was the iron masks, but that is awkward. And the iron masks can be torn off. To mask you forever by means of your own face, nothing can be more ingenious......"
"The comprachicos did not merely remove a child's face, they removed his memory. At least as much as they could. The child was not aware of the mutilation he had suffered. This horrible surgery left traces on his face, not in his mind. He was asleep.
This was also performed in China, say a two year old children, put him in a porcelain vase so the head & feet protrude. And once the monster is made, break the vase........"

That was the story of 'the Comprachicos', to make you unconscious for life by means of your own brain, ingenious.
This is the ingenuity practiced by most of today's educators. They are the comprachicos of the mind. Today, they put the child in a 'Progressive', nursery school to adjust him to society.
The Progressive nursery school start a child's education at age 3. Their view of a child's needs is militantly anti-cognitive & anti-conceptual. Anyway, it is the same concept in todays compulsive schools, the Montessori Method is the exception. The point is the powers that be want to 'rule' these children when they become adults'. {You have created a world of monsters, what next?}
Ayn Rand discussed this concept & what is wrong in todays world.

 

[snafupants]

@snafupants



I hate to burst your bubble but me being an asshole does not change the fact that you refuse to educate yourself.

@ProxyAmenRa

What particularly upset you? I addressed veritable problems inborn in capitalism and humanity's propensity towards avarice. These problems are essentially indisputable in the United States. Social mobility has plummeted stateside, within an international control group, and a minuscule sliver of the population owns an inordinate amount of the wealth. (These shortcomings are not unique to the United States' economic landscape. The inherent capitalistic assumption of inexhaustible growth is flawed and the resources capitalism is steeped in (e.g., petrol) are finite.) Is that fair? If so, is this truly the most harmonious economic system for a nation to subscribe to in the long-term? Given enough time and with lax enough economic relegations, deleterious outcomes like intense wealth disparity, unemployment, etc. have a knack of manifesting within the ambit of capitalism. I really can't see the justification for your quibbling. At least in theory, capitalism tends to be largely opposed to humanism. You can slur me all you like but that's basically a truism. You may be confused...just because I highlight manifest social problems doesn't mean I subscribe to liberal tactics to combat those problems. In other posts, I have railed against welfare and affirmative action as being well-meaning but ultimately feckless or harmful.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@ProxyAmenRa
@snafupants

@ProxyAmenRa

What particularly upset you? I addressed veritable problems inborn in capitalism and humanity's propensity towards avarice. These problems are essentially indisputable in the United States. Social mobility has plummeted stateside, within an international control group, and a minuscule sliver of the population owns an inordinate amount of the wealth. (These shortcomings are not unique to the United States' economic landscape. The inherent capitalistic assumption of inexhaustible growth is flawed and the resources capitalism is steeped in (e.g., petrol) are finite.) Is that fair? If so, is this truly the most harmonious economic system for a nation to subscribe to in the long-term? Given enough time and with lax enough economic relegations, deleterious outcomes like intense wealth disparity, unemployment, etc. have a knack of manifesting within the ambit of capitalism. I really can't see the justification for your quibbling. At least in theory, capitalism tends to be largely opposed to humanism. You can slur me all you like but that's basically a truism. You may be confused...just because I highlight manifest social problems doesn't mean I subscribe to liberal tactics to combat those problems. In other posts, I have railed against welfare and affirmative action as being well-meaning but ultimately feckless or harmful.

I was not slurring you, I was stating the truth. A statement of fact. You are grossly unknowledgeable in the field of inquiry that is of paramount importance to develop a sound understanding and analysis of the subject you wish to discuss. It is laughable. You wish to analyse complexities without first knowing the basics.

You need to devote years of your free-time to study the problem. In hindsight, I would much rather have gone to more parties and fucked more women than study to the extent at which I had done so...But I am doing that now so I can't complain much.

If you want me to teach you economics, finance and business it would be easier for me to conduct lectures over skype than to write posts on the subject. I would be willing to teach you for free.

What you have presented in the quoted paragraph amounted no more than a strawman construction and an appeal to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You would not even win a grade 8 debate with this method.

I am going to attempt to help you present a proper thesis:

1) When constructing an thesis you first need to define the terms that you are planning to use so your audience can understand you. There is no point in using terms such as capitalism, inequality, equality, social justice, liberal etc. if you have not defined because your audience will not understand you.

I am from Australia. The term 'liberal' means something entirely different here than North America.

2) In your introduction you need to define the problem and subsets of the problem you wish to discuss.

3) The body of your thesis is to contain your arguments. When constructing your argument based on the problem or the various subsets, you need to define the problem again, elaborate, present applicable evidence, provide an explanation of the evidence and use classical logic to construct your arguments. You will most likely need to refer back to previous inquiries on the subject help develop your points. If you do so, please reference. If you state that Adam Smith said or did something, by god you'd better reference. I suggest stating the author, date of publication, title, page and paragraph that the reference appears.

4) If you decide to appeal to norms, you need to state the norm and justify it using the the same process as in point (3).

5) Provide a conclusion which summaries your arguments.

I am sure that there are more points but my mind has gone blank. I am sure we can organise a conversation on skype or something if you wish to know more.

Kind regards,

Proxy

Edit:

But hey! I may be suffering from this:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes

 

[Chronomar]

I was wondering why so many Americans seem to really highly rate Ayn Rand. I'm English and she's pretty much unheard of here. She's universally derided in the literary and academic circles I've moved in, yet she definitely retains a popular following at least in the States:

[...]

From what I've heard her 'philosophy' sounds callous and not particularly logical or realistic - I think extreme individualism is perhaps worse than extreme collectivism in the long run, and no society can be realistically based on it. The literary people I've known who've read her books say they're not particularly well-written. I've not read anything by her, however, so I may be being unfair, which is why I figured I should open the question to the floor, and find out what is so appealing about Ayn Rand?

YES. THANK YOU. Short answer: most of the conservatives, some of the "libertarians", and a few college liberals who got a bit too wrapped up in the theoretical of it all like her. And so quite the buzz was created here in the US.

I'm visiting from September to January (to the UK, Wales specifically) and am much relieved that it's not a "thing" there.

TO ALL who defend/contemplate defending Rand: I have taken the time to read her works, which I also dislike on artistic grounds (can we say flat characters), and if you would like to discuss with me on these general subjects, I only ask you read ONE book first, so I don't have to repeat shit from it that I cannot say nearly as well too often.

The book is "Moral Clarity" by Susan Neiman.
EDIT: I've changed my mind. Something by Ursula LeGuin, like "The Dispossessed" would be better and way more fun to read. Sorter too! Includes science fiction! Whooo! It's like a book beach party, INTPs.

If anyone who likes Rand actually reads this, and wants to discuss, PM me or start a new thread. Or just if anybody reads this, and has thoughts on its compare / contrast with the philosophy of the Rand-people.

I'll be moving on out of this discussion now.

 

[snafupants]

@ProxyAmenRa
@snafupants



I was not slurring you, I was stating the truth. A statement of fact. You are grossly unknowledgeable in the field of inquiry that is of paramount importance to develop a sound understanding and analysis of the subject you wish to discuss. It is laughable. You wish to analyse complexities without first knowing the basics.

You need to devote years of your free-time to study the problem. In hindsight, I would much rather have gone to more parties and fucked more women than study to the extent at which I had done so...But I am doing that now so I can't complain much.

If you want me to teach you economics, finance and business it would be easier for me to conduct lectures over skype than to write posts on the subject. I would be willing to teach you for free.

What you have presented in the quoted paragraph amounted no more than a strawman construction and an appeal to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You would not even win a grade 8 debate with this method.

I am going to attempt to help your present a proper thesis:

1) When constructing an thesis you first need to define the terms that you are planning to use so your audience can understand you. There is no point in using terms such as capitalism, inequality, equality, social justice, liberal etc. if you have not defined because your audience will not understand you.

I am from Australia. The term 'liberal' means something entirely different here than North America.

2) In your introduction you need to define the problem and subsets of the problem you wish to discuss.

3) The body of your thesis is to contain your arguments. When constructing your argument based on the problem or the various subsets, you need to define the problem again, elaborate, present applicable evidence, provide an explanation of the evidence and use classical logic to construct your arguments. You will most likely need to refer back to previous inquiries on the subject help develop your points. If you do so, please reference. If you state that Adam Smith said or did something, by god you'd better reference. I suggest stating the author, date of publication, title, page and paragraph that the reference appears.

4) If you decide to appeal to norms, you need to state the norm and justify it using the the same process as in point (3).

5) Provide a conclusion which summaries your arguments.

I am sure that there are more points but my mind has gone blank. I am sure we can organise a conversation on skype or something if you wish to know more.

Kind regards,

Proxy

Edit:

But hey! I may be suffering from this:

@ProxyAmenRa

Well that part has remained true. Your post was fully anticipated. Perhaps addressing the points might be helpful. One doesn't need an Oxford education to apply observation and common sense to a widespread system with relatively general rules and practices. You may feel good about yourself for recently claiming a spot in graduate school, but what I believe you're doing is very simple. In the same way that a lawyer, psychologist, or techie clutters up demotic understanding by creating silly verbiage and byzantine protocols, this is an economist's way of squealing boys only; rather than homogenizing the industry and profession, it cheapens it. Ultimately it's a route for the in-group to feel dandy about themselves. My questions are essentially easy to answer, you would just rather avoid doing so because it undercuts your argument. In lieu of answering the questions, you deflect by spewing ad hominem attacks or bringing up entirely different topics. How about I ask you questions later today, or whenever you respond, without reference to my previous posts? Hasn't socioeconomic mobility basically declined in the United States over the last forty years? Doesn't a smaller sliver of the population hold more of the wealth than they did during the second world war? Aren't executives payed more today, compared to the average employee, than during the Vietnam War? These aren't fuzzy, nebulous issues bro. I could show you studies and graphs neatly conveying my points.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

You may feel good about yourself for recently claiming a spot in graduate school, but what I believe you're doing is very simple.

Never did I conceive while I was studying my Bachelor's degrees that I would attend graduate school. My perception of graduate school was that it would be a complete waste of my time. A person that I look up, a rarity, offered me PhD position under him. He literally begged and pleaded for a year to get me to accept.

So far, all that I have achieved is studied an electrical engineering degree (I had already done half the subjects), studied some advanced statistical modelling techniques such as Bayesian Networks and wrote a confirmation report 6 months early. I feel absolutely terrible due to the shear lack of work to do. I should have accepted the job in data analysis. Hell, I would be earning four times as much as I am earning now. Right now, since I have obligations, I am making the best out of a bad situation.

I feel good that I completed two Bachelor's degrees in the sense that they are completed and I now have the pieces of paper to represent this. Thus! I can get well paying employment that won't bore me to tears.

In the same way that a lawyer, psychologist, or techie clutters up demotic understanding by creating silly verbiage and byzantine protocols, this is an economist's way of squealing boys only; rather than homogenizing the industry and profession, it cheapens it. Ultimately it's a route for the in-group to feel dandy about themselves. My questions are essentially easy to answer, you would just rather avoid doing so because it undercuts your argument. In lieu of answering the questions, you deflect by spewing ad hominem attacks or bringing up entirely different topics.

An ad hominem argumentative fallacy is where you state something true but unrelated about person you're debating, invoke a non-sequitur and state because of this truth, they're incorrect. An example would be stating a man can't jump because he is white. The man is white but how this has to do with jumping is unknown. I have not done this. I have stated a fact about you that is pertinent to the subject at hand. You lack knowledge to understand the subject you wish to discuss with clarity. You need to learn economics. It is free to learn economics. Just ask and I can provide you all the resources necessary.

How about I ask you questions later today, or whenever you respond, without reference to my previous posts? Hasn't socioeconomic mobility basically declined in the United States over the last forty years? Doesn't a smaller sliver of the population hold more of the wealth than they did during the second world war? Aren't executives payed more today, compared to the average employee, than during the Vietnam War? These aren't fuzzy, nebulous issues bro. I could show you studies and graphs neatly conveying my points.

I am going to assume the statistics you state are true. Stating statistics does not make an argument or convey information. If you wish to use statistics to help construct an argument you need to explain how the statistic is calculated, what the statistic means, the theory behind the statistic and how it affects your argument.

When you mention executive pay has increased, this means absolutely nothing. You have not mentioned why you bring this up and why it is important. When you mention other statistics such as social mobility you have not explained to me the theory behind it, its importance, etc. You have not explained why you're stating a smaller sliver hold a larger proportion of wealth or why looking at percentages of the population is relevant to an argument. Well, I can do the same as you have done. Water freezes at zero degrees Celcius, therefore capitalism is to blame. Why I am mentioning this is unknown. How it relates to capitalism is unknown. Need I go on?

 

[snafupants]

Never did I conceive while I was studying my Bachelor's degrees that I would attend graduate school. My perception of graduate school was that it would be a complete waste of my time. A person that I look up, a rarity, offered me PhD position under him. He literally begged and pleaded for a year to get me to accept.

So far, all that I have achieved is studied an electrical engineering degree (I had already done half the subjects), studied some advanced statistical modelling techniques such as Bayesian Networks and wrote a confirmation report 6 months early. I feel absolutely terrible due to the shear lack of work to do. I should have accepted the job in data analysis. Hell, I would be earning four times as much as I am earning now. Right now, since I have obligations, I am making the best out of a bad situation.

I feel good that I completed two Bachelor's degrees in the sense that they are completed and I now have the pieces of paper to represent this. Thus! I can get well paying employment that won't bore me to tears.



An ad hominem argumentative fallacy is where you state something true but unrelated about person you're debating, invoke a non-sequitur and state because of this truth, they're incorrect. An example would be stating a man can't jump because he is white. The man is white but how this has to do with jumping is unknown. I have not done this. I have stated a fact about you that is pertinent to the subject at hand. You lack knowledge to understand the subject you wish to discuss with clarity. You need to learn economics. It is free to learn economics. Just ask and I can provide you all the resources necessary.



I am going to assume the statistics you state are true. Stating statistics does not make an argument or convey information. If you wish to use statistics to help construct an argument you need to explain how the statistic is calculated, what the statistic means, the theory behind the statistic and how it affects your argument.

When you mention executive pay has increased, this means absolutely nothing. You have not mentioned why you bring this up and why it is important. When you mention other statistics such as social mobility you have not explained to me the theory behind it, its importance, etc. You have not explained why you're stating a smaller sliver hold a larger proportion of wealth or why looking at percentages of the population is relevant to an argument. Well, I can do the same as you have done. Water freezes at zero degrees Celcius, therefore capitalism is to blame. Why I am mentioning this is unknown. How it relates to capitalism is unknown. Need I go on?

@ProxyAmenRa

In my previous posts I have definitely alluded or stated outright the rationale behind examining the recent lack of socioeconomic mobility in the United States and the inexplicably increasing pay of executives. These conditions are symptoms and not causes of a more pervasive problem. The overarching point was that capitalism is an economic system prone to manipulation and collusion, and therefore these societally detrimental outcomes almost always arise with enough time and lax governmental oversight. The issue is atomistic in nature: because capitalism is conducted by people, and because people are sometimes sinister and greedy, capitalism can sometimes appear sinister and greedy. In fact, the predicament lies with conniving, avaricious people. For the record, I would also contend that a repertory of convincing statistics actually standalone makes its point, given ethical researchers, reputable, autonomous journals, and robust research methodologies.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@snafupants

In my previous posts I have definitely alluded or stated outright the rationale behind examining the recent lack of socioeconomic mobility in the United States and the inexplicably increasing pay of executives. These conditions are symptoms and not causes of a more pervasive problem.

Sure, ok. I will accept this for the time being. I will go easy on you.

You may wish to have a read of Thomas Sowell's 'Economic Facts and Fallacies'.

The overarching point was that capitalism is an economic system prone to manipulation and collusion, and therefore these societally detrimental outcomes almost always arise with enough time and lax governmental oversight. The issue is atomistic in nature: because capitalism is conducted by people, and because people are sometimes sinister and greedy, capitalism can sometimes appear sinister and greedy.

For me to respond to this paragraph, you are going to have to define what capitalism is.

What do you mean by 'lack in governmental oversight'? Do you have evidence of this as well?

I should create a new argumentative fallacy 'reductio ad adjectives'. You loose credibility you blame problems on people being sinister and greedy. It tells me you have not a clue what you're talking about. To the same respect, the religious back in ye old days said that people invited demons into them by being greedy and hence they got sick. The boils, you see? You really do need to evolve your arguments such that they're more sophisticated than what a six year old can produce.

I fail to see anything wrong with someone being greedy.

In fact, the predicament lies with conniving, avaricious people.

People like me? I like money. It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_iQZiVD_zA

For the record, I would also contend that a repertory of convincing statistics actually standalone makes its point, given ethical researchers, reputable, autonomous journals, and robust research methodologies. [/FONT]

hahahaha!!!!! Ohh man, I have tears in my eyes. Ok, ok, pull it together. Straight face. Straight face.

---

I still up for giving you a crash course in economics.

 

[snafupants]

@snafupants



Sure, ok. I will accept this for the time being. I will go easy on you.

You may wish to have a read of Thomas Sowell's 'Economic Facts and Fallacies'.



For me to respond to this paragraph, you are going to have to define what capitalism is.

What do you mean by 'lack in governmental oversight'? Do you have evidence of this as well?

I should create a new argumentative fallacy 'reductio ad adjectives'. You loose credibility you blame problems on people being sinister and greedy. It tells me you have not a clue what you're talking about. To the same respect, the religious back in ye old days said that people invited demons into them by being greedy and hence they got sick. The boils, you see? You really do need to evolve your arguments such that they're more sophisticated than what a six year old can produce.

I fail to see anything wrong with someone being greedy.



People like me? I like money. It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_iQZiVD_zA



hahahaha!!!!! Ohh man, I have tears in my eyes. Ok, ok, pull it together. Straight face. Straight face.

---

I still up for giving you a crash course in economics.

@ProxyAmenRa

That's synopsizes the difficulty in conveying my point to you. I could crib Friedman, Krugman, Jesus, Marshall, Keynes, Nietzsche, basically anybody, and post it on the forum, and you would righteously put "me" through my paces. Proxy, you are an intellectual lightweight: get over yourself. I read your affectedly caustic post with unwavering equanimity. Ultimately I am left with little intimation that you know what you're talking about. You gave me a book to read and some exclamation points. The main thrust of your argument is lacking because current economic problems in the United States (e.g., unemployment, dearth of socioeconomic mobility, trillions of dollars in governmental debt, unhealthy balance between revenue and discretionary spending, and investments in finite resources) are exacerbated by greed and self-interest. Without these things, wealth would be more fairly distributed stateside, and fewer jobs would be in Asia right now. Your major shortcoming is a failure to survey the big picture. I bring up atomism and you discuss demons. Again, Proxy, you are an intellectual lightweight masquerading around as a bona fide theorist. You have a preternatural ability to drown out common sense with vitriol, immature antics, and academic pretension.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@snafupants

@ProxyAmenRa

That's synopsizes the difficulty in conveying my point to you. I could crib Friedman, Krugman, Jesus, Marshall, Keynes, Nietzsche, basically anybody, and post it on the forum, and you would righteously put "me" through my paces. Proxy, you are an intellectual lightweight: get over yourself. I read your affectedly caustic post with unwavering equanimity. Ultimately I am left with little intimation that you know what you're talking about. You gave me a book to read and some exclamation points. The main thrust of your argument is lacking because current economic problems in the United States (e.g., unemployment, dearth of socioeconomic mobility, trillions of dollars in governmental debt, unhealthy balance between revenue and discretionary spending, and investments in finite resources) are exacerbated by greed and self-interest. Without these things, wealth would be more fairly distributed stateside, and fewer jobs would be in Asia right now. Your major shortcoming is a failure to survey the big picture. I bring up atomism and you discuss demons. Again, Proxy, you are an intellectual lightweight masquerading around as a bona fide theorist. You have a preternatural ability to drown out common sense with vitriol, immature antics, and academic pretension.

I don't know about that one. I thought you had been quite composed throughout our discourse but the fact that you have to state that you're calm when you respond to what I have written leads me to believe that you're quite upset.

Spoiler

I believe you are having the same problem as Philosophyking87. I will say to you what I said to him.

The onus is on you to put forward your thesis. The burden of proof is on you. The onus is not on me to take what little you have put forward, the strawman infused with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and prove why it is not true. The reason being that the onus is on you to prove what you have stated is because you are the one who has stated it.

I can use the same method as you:

Because water freezes at zero degrees Celsius and greedy people exist, therefore my hair is brown with and tinge of blonde. Now prove me wrong!!

Granted the example above is a simplistic but it is literally what you have done. The onus is not on you to prove me wrong but it is on me to prove or validate the statement I have put forward.

I am going to attempt to help you present a proper thesis:

1) When constructing an thesis you first need to define the terms that you are planning to use so your audience can understand you. There is no point in using terms such as capitalism, inequality, equality, social justice, liberal etc. if you have not defined because your audience will not understand you.

I am from Australia. The term 'liberal' means something entirely different here than North America.

2) In your introduction you need to define the problem and subsets of the problem you wish to discuss.

3) The body of your thesis is to contain your arguments. When constructing your argument based on the problem or the various subsets, you need to define the problem again, elaborate, present applicable evidence, provide an explanation of the evidence and use classical logic to construct your arguments. You will most likely need to refer back to previous inquiries on the subject help develop your points. If you do so, please reference. If you state that Adam Smith said or did something, by god you'd better reference. I suggest stating the author, date of publication, title, page and paragraph that the reference appears.

4) If you decide to appeal to norms, you need to state the norm and justify it using the the same process as in point (3).

5) Provide a conclusion which summaries your arguments.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I was supposed to read Atlas Shrugged for a scholarship essay. I couldn't even make it through chapter 1, not only did the idealism make me want to vomit, but the writing was so dry and dull I could barely stay awake reading it. I don't know why her writing and philosophy are so admired by some, I would much rather read Thoreau, Emerson, Jack London, or Einstein.

 

[gilliatt]

In Ayn Rand's 'The Objectivist Ethics' she says, "The 'moral cannibalism of all hedonist and altruist doctrines lies in the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another.
Today, most people hold this premise as an absolute not to be questioned. And when one speaks of man's right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man's self-interest--which he must selflessly renounce. The idea that man's self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept 'rational' is omitted from the context of 'values,' 'desires', 'self-interest' and ethics."
The Objectivist Ethics upholds 'rational selfishness', which means the values required for man's survival.

 

[gilliatt]

What Ayn Rand says about 'Capitalism, "the essence of capitalism's foreign policy is 'free trade'-i.e.., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges-the opening of the world's trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another."
There is a flood of misinformation, outright falsehood about capitalism & most young people have no idea & no way of discovering any idea of capitalism's true nature. Just like subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics. Collectivism chains the individual to the group, that man must be chained to collective action, collective thought for the sake of what is called 'the common good'.

 

[snafupants]

What Ayn Rand says about 'Capitalism, "the essence of capitalism's foreign policy is 'free trade'-i.e.., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges-the opening of the world's trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another."
There is a flood of misinformation, outright falsehood about capitalism & most young people have no idea & no way of discovering any idea of capitalism's true nature. Just like subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics. Collectivism chains the individual to the group, that man must be chained to collective action, collective thought for the sake of what is called 'the common good'.

Within the framework of globalization and without checks and balances, competition is eventually synonymous with slave-like exploitation and abject working conditions.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Within the framework of globalization and without checks and balances, competition is eventually synonymous with slave-like exploitation and abject working conditions.

Evil capitalist will sacrifice virgins to Lord Ktulu and drink the blood of babies.

THE END IS NEAR!

 

[snafupants]

Spoiler

 

[gilliatt]

The Los Angeles Times, "There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism-by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."
" When one observes the nightmare of the desperate efforts made by hundreds of thousands of people struggling to escape from the socialized countries of Europe, to escape over barbed-wire fences, under machine gun fire-one can no longer believe that socialism, in any of its forms, is motivated by benevolence and by the desire to achieve men's welfare.
No man of authentic benevolence could evade or ignore so great a horror on so vast a scale.
Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs." Ayn Rand

 

[Iellitiq]

Atlas Shrugged is a love-it-or-hate-it thing - it's definitely one of the more inspirational works ever written, judging simply by the number of people whom it helped change something in their lives. That said, just because it inspires some people, doesn't mean that it won't rub others in exactly the wrong way - one does not contradict the other.

For me it was inspirational - in a "get out of that armchair and make a difference" kind of way. Also Atlas Shrugged helped grow a sense of responsibility (after seeing all the angatonists saying "It's not my fault!" over and over again). Perhaps the most important thing is that it helped me initially start really analyzing my motives - because Rand very accurately described the "evasion" mechanism that concealed them.

That said, although Rand got a lot of things right, her works can do you more harm than good if you take them as gospel - particularly if you add the things she wrote later in her life (and Peikoff wrote after her). The problem is that strict Objectivism doesn't ask the person to think, only to accept the wisdom of the master (or rather it assumes that any rational intelligent being will arrive to the same conclusions, and if the person did not, it's proof that he's evil, irrational or at least terribly misguided).

So Rand's works have a lot of interesting insights, analysis and advice - that can be very helpful to an intelligent person in finding his own way. However because of the dogmatism of later objectivism, making a step from a reader to a follower requires you to forego critical thinking and the freedom to make make your own conclusions. Which ironically means that Rand's followers are very different from Rand herself - Rand in her early life would not fit into the organization she created in her later years.

 

[gilliatt]

'The Subjective-value theory.' 'Subjectivist economies'. " Economics based on the theory that the value of goods is not inherent in the goods themselves but is in the minds of acting men; that economic value is a matter of individual judgment which vary from person and for the same person from time to time. Value is said to be subjective rather than objective." Austrian school of economics. Value is not intrinsic; it is not in things. It is within the human mind; it reflects the way in which man reacts emotionally to the conditions of his environment. Value is reflected in human conduct. It is not what a man or groups of men say about value that counts, but how they act. Value is always relative, subjective & human, never absolute, objective or divine. Von Mises "Praxeology' "The science or general theory of(conscious or purposeful) human action. The manifestation of man's will. Praxeology is a manifestation of the human mind & deals with the actions open to men for the attainment of their chosen ends. Praxeology starts from the a priori category of action & then develops the full implications of such action. Praxeology aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions & inferences. Its statements & propositions are not derived from experience, but are antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts." Von Mises Where was Adam Smith wrong. Adam Smith failed to give reasons for market prices, "paradox of value" ex., why air, water & food were not as valuable as gold, silver, diamonds... They did not understand subjective theory of value.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

'The Subjective-value theory.' 'Subjectivist economies'. " Economics based on the theory that the value of goods is not inherent in the goods themselves but is in the minds of acting men; that economic value is a matter of individual judgment which vary from person and for the same person from time to time. Value is said to be subjective rather than objective." Austrian school of economics. Value is not intrinsic; it is not in things. It is within the human mind; it reflects the way in which man reacts emotionally to the conditions of his environment. Value is reflected in human conduct. It is not what a man or groups of men say about value that counts, but how they act. Value is always relative, subjective & human, never absolute, objective or divine. Von Mises "Praxeology' "The science or general theory of(conscious or purposeful) human action. The manifestation of man's will. Praxeology is a manifestation of the human mind & deals with the actions open to men for the attainment of their chosen ends. Praxeology starts from the a priori category of action & then develops the full implications of such action. Praxeology aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions & inferences. Its statements & propositions are not derived from experience, but are antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts." Von Mises Where was Adam Smith wrong. Adam Smith failed to give reasons for market prices, "paradox of value" ex., why air, water & food were not as valuable as gold, silver, diamonds... They did not understand subjective theory of value.

I love you. Hold me?

 

[PhoenixRising]

'The Subjective-value theory.' 'Subjectivist economies'. " Economics based on the theory that the value of goods is not inherent in the goods themselves but is in the minds of acting men; that economic value is a matter of individual judgment which vary from person and for the same person from time to time. Value is said to be subjective rather than objective." Austrian school of economics. Value is not intrinsic; it is not in things. It is within the human mind; it reflects the way in which man reacts emotionally to the conditions of his environment. Value is reflected in human conduct. It is not what a man or groups of men say about value that counts, but how they act. Value is always relative, subjective & human, never absolute, objective or divine. Von Mises "Praxeology' "The science or general theory of(conscious or purposeful) human action. The manifestation of man's will. Praxeology is a manifestation of the human mind & deals with the actions open to men for the attainment of their chosen ends. Praxeology starts from the a priori category of action & then develops the full implications of such action. Praxeology aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions & inferences. Its statements & propositions are not derived from experience, but are antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts." Von Mises Where was Adam Smith wrong. Adam Smith failed to give reasons for market prices, "paradox of value" ex., why air, water & food were not as valuable as gold, silver, diamonds... They did not understand subjective theory of value.

Isn't subjective value obvious to all intelligent people, or is all of this supposed to be some kind of revelation? I mean, ask anyone if they were born with their name, and they will say, "no, my parents gave me my name." It's the same thing as subjective value, something chosen by human beings to be related with real-world things. Am I crazy, or are the majority of people really as stupid as to think anything has intrinsic value?

 

[gilliatt]

Well first off, what I mostly read on this thread is things like, "I don't like Ayn Rand as a person." Should not the debate be about Objectivist metaphysics, ethics, objective reality, laissez faire capitalism, reason, truth, epistemology, economic systems that are really moral. Ayn Rand's method was to think in principles. To understand the world thinking in terms of fundamentals was a part of thinking in principles. She organized her ideas into a logical structure instead of a heap of mass confusion. Ex: How did Ayn Rand view the universe? She viewed as being intelligence, that man could understand the universe. She said one time, "Don't count on luck or God for success, but own your own thinking." What I think is important about her writing is her overall concept, 'is man's mind free to go by the evidence, or is some form of determinism true?' Is there proof of a code of ethics or is it all subjective? Why does man need values in the first place? Most of the persons on this thread, not all, have no ethics, code of values and that ends the debate before it ever starts. There is a big different between an intelligence debate and a bunch of vibrations where are is no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, on ground to stand on, just noise. Anyway, one should be concerned with truth, not falsehood. And approval or disapproval, that is not even the point here!!

 

[Ribald]

People who dis Ayn Rand are pure haters. Her books are great and one of a kind. Really played a big role in my development and seeing myself as an individual who didn't have to conform to society and who should value creation and expressing one's inherent talent.

Her works are still reflected to a really high degree in today's world. I would consider her one of the top 10 influences I have had from an author in my life and very high on my list of essential reading.

 

[Pyropyro]

I saw a lot of Atlas Shrugged books in various 2nd-hand bookstore but never bothered to read them. However, Ayn Rand's name came up when I was playing Bioshock (I enjoy reading game lore).

I'm not exactly a philosophy buff but if I read the comments here and have played the game right then her philosophy should be: The talented should enjoy the fruits of their labor alone.

As awesome as that sounds, I'm afraid that I have to chuck that belief to the same drawer as Communism. It's great on paper but not exactly that great IRL.

 

[Hawkeye]

Ayn Rand promoted selfishness and stated that altruism is evil.

The problem people have with her pseudo-philosophy is that they associate only the negative aspect of selfishness, when in fact true selfishness can emulate altruism.

When Ayn Rand talks about selfishness she is talking about living for yourself; every choice you make is yours to make.

Basically, no person should ever sacrifice* themselves for the values of others.

* not to be confused with taking your life to protect the one you love.

 

[Reluctantly]

Well first off, what I mostly read on this thread is things like, "I don't like Ayn Rand as a person." Should not the debate be about Objectivist metaphysics, ethics, objective reality, laissez faire capitalism, reason, truth, epistemology, economic systems that are really moral. Ayn Rand's method was to think in principles. To understand the world thinking in terms of fundamentals was a part of thinking in principles. She organized her ideas into a logical structure instead of a heap of mass confusion. Ex: How did Ayn Rand view the universe? She viewed as being intelligence, that man could understand the universe. She said one time, "Don't count on luck or God for success, but own your own thinking." What I think is important about her writing is her overall concept, 'is man's mind free to go by the evidence, or is some form of determinism true?' Is there proof of a code of ethics or is it all subjective? Why does man need values in the first place? Most of the persons on this thread, not all, have no ethics, code of values and that ends the debate before it ever starts. There is a big different between an intelligence debate and a bunch of vibrations where are is no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, on ground to stand on, just noise. Anyway, one should be concerned with truth, not falsehood. And approval or disapproval, that is not even the point here!!

The problem I have with Ayn Rand is that she pretty much wrote off all the shades of grey when it came to her ideas of ethics. You could say that that makes me unethical because I have no clear principles, but this would be false; because by being this way I instead adopt circumstantial guidelines that allow me a great freedom to do best what I think is right when dealing with other people in any given moment. I get to appreciate the circumstances behind a situation, evaluate the character of the people involved, and then freely decide what might be best to do from there. The rules don't dictate my actions, but the circumstances and character of the individual(s) instead. It's a very different way of thinking from Ayn Rand, but I am still being just as rational and just as free in making my decisions.

But if I followed Rand's ideas however, I would have to follow a rule, a principle that I apply to all circumstances, where I accept some idea of rational self-interest as the only motivation behind all rational human beings. This motivation however, is not always going to be strong in every rational individual, and ironically, the ones where it is strong end up being ignorant to other philosophies that work better for different kinds of people, making them quite irrational; and that to me is the joke of Ayn Rand's ideas, that by accepting her philosophy, that by accepting her ideas, one becomes incapable of seeing how such ideas are irrational. Her arguments end up being the equivalent of someone starting a debate by defining what is rational and what is irrational, deciding it is irrational to argue against her definitions, and then claiming victory shortly after because nothing she then deduces from her definitions can be wrong, according to her. It's just silly.

 

[JansenDowel]

I mostly identify as a libertarian, mostly on the grounds of moral consistency. I therefore mostly agree with Rands political philosophy. '

You take at all the "shes a psychopath" rhetoric, and what you are left with is simply her central belief: personal freedoms and responsibility.

 

[Reluctantly]

You take at all the "shes a psychopath" rhetoric, and what you are left with is simply her central belief: personal freedoms and responsibility.

Not so. Her philosophy believes that being rational is the best a person can be because it's (as she claims) the only way to see reality objectively. And in being rational, one seeks self-interest, helping others only as it helps oneself. Emotions are then seen as not only irrational, but also immoral because they are deemed irrational.

So she made a philosophy that doesn't believe that emotions can be rational and moral, and not only that, but she believed that altruism doesn't exist in any shape or form because rational self-interest is the prescribed basis for morality. She didn't even try to understand the role emotions play in our motivation and rational understanding of the world and others, nor did she think emotions even play a role in rationality; she simply wrote off all emotion as irrational and left it at that.

So no, personal freedoms and responsibility are not at all the central beliefs. But please, humor me and I'll humor you, why do you think they are?

 

[JansenDowel]

Not so. Her philosophy believes that being rational is the best a person can be because it's (as she claims) the only way to see reality objectively.

That's basically the same thing as "freedom and responsibility" IMO. What does freedom and responsibility mean to you?

And in being rational, one seeks self-interest, helping others only as it helps oneself.

Indeed. But again, she also believes in the freedom to choose what you do with your resources and time. Just don't force others to join you.

So she made a philosophy that doesn't believe that emotions can be rational and moral

Emotions also define needs. They are therefore rational to attend to. If you are correct, then she got this wrong. Also, she got altruism wrong. Altruism is an affective and cognitive state of mind, not an action. But this is irrelevant. In both cases, we are still talking about rational self interest. What you have said only implies she wasn't completely aware that "rational self interest" necessarily involves attended to ones emotional needs as well.

 

[Reluctantly]

That's basically the same thing as "freedom and responsibility" IMO. What does freedom and responsibility mean to you?

Well, I recognize that there are layers to reality, where subjectivity and objectivity both exist independently from one another and yet cross over at times. So to me, someone that aims for responsibility accepts and contends with both, rather than denying one over the other to fallaciously bolster their arguments.

Indeed. But again, she also believes in the freedom to choose what you do with your resources and time. Just don't force others to join you.

Conceptually I'm okay with that, but she contradicts herself in ways. For example, she supports the idea of having laws from which to objectively judge people because it creates order which is seen as rational because some form of order is needed and it judges people fairly, but then at the same time such laws control what people can and can't do on some level. So she kind of picks and chooses what is to be deemed rational. Plus, it ignores the fact that laws are often amended to make exceptions for subjective individual circumstances. For example, if someone is convicted of a crime, they can file for criminal insanity, which will depend on the accused's subjective state of mind. It's rational to do this because some people can have mental illnesses where they are unaware of what they did or that they did anything wrong to begin with, but it considers the subjective mind of the accused to change the punishment. It no longer becomes objective because a crime can be punished differently, depending on the individual, yet it is still a rational thing to do because the rehabilitative means will be different.

Emotions also define needs. They are therefore rational to attend to. If you are correct, then she got this wrong. Also, she got altruism wrong. Altruism is an affective and cognitive state of mind, not an action. But this is irrelevant. In both cases, we are still talking about rational self interest. What you have said only implies she wasn't completely aware that "rational self interest" necessarily involves attended to ones emotional needs as well.

Actually, and this is kind of what bugs me, she defines needs in terms of instincts that need to be fulfilled. Emotions then are separated from these instincts as something that acts without thinking, rather than as a tool that can aid or diminish thinking or that is a part of our instincts, which ... well they are. So it's really this idea that emotions are to be separated from these needs as something that is irrational that I find fault with because although some emotions can be very shallow and irrational, they aren't always. But the same could be said for thinking because in some ways any thinking that has flaws could be regarded as irrational.

 

[toosolidcuuj]

I read The Fountainhead. As a book I enjoyed it, but as a philosophy I don't think much of a system that wants everyone to be like Howard Roark. Or that if you aren't, you're either ignorant or envious, and you don't really matter.

 

[gilliatt]

Ayn Rand,"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." Atlas Shrugged. It is all about Ayn Rand's ideas, it is not a personal thing. I know almost nothing about her personal life. I hear only some primitive superficial answers, emotional fits, showing their inner chaos, conflicts.
'Why Ayn Rand', this is not an argument about her thinking, this is more like forestalling the debate about her great thoughts. You are attempting to bypass logic. What you are attempting to do is impeach a persons character like the politicians sometimes do. So you cannot prove her ideas wrong, so this is a new game plan, a second method of a irrational argument. I know all your old tricks when you have nothing. The game is up.
Yes, the world is dominated by mysticism and altruism, the tribal premise. I for one, do not believe that my assets, wealth belongs to the tribe or to society as a whole. The enemies of capitalism, they
share these 'common good', 'national interest' 'the public',in their social system.
Well, the debate should be Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, capitalism. We have to admit it, Ayn Rand was a brilliant thinker are we would not be discussing her. Ayn Rand maybe an INTP, Introvert for sure.

 

[mooncrater]

I finished reading Atlas Shrugged about a couple months ago. It took me about nine months to read, about 1150 pages. I was working 6/7 days a week, and the book is not exactly light reading. The book hit home to me, helped in part by circumstances I was dealing with at the time...

...At the time I was a couple months into a contract position at a large Japanese company with a quite traditional business culture. The other people on my team were there primarily because of their bilingual ability and how it would help the sales aspect of the position. Most of them were college students, and my superiors seemed to have very limited qualifications. I came to the job with more education and more experience in the field, so I was thinking it could have been a place where I could really apply myself.

Well, even when I joined the company, it was already losing lots of money. Whispers in the elevator about it being in the red. They were slow to adapt to the technological shift from telephone/mail order to online based tech. (really), and they found themselves with a rapidly shrinking customer base and not much for ideas, but to just try harder!

So I start working, and quickly I see some common sense things that could easily be changed to improve efficiency. I thought I was hired to help the company do well, so that's what I tried to do. But all of my ideas were quickly shot down and dismissed. My supporters were people like me who had options for work outside of the company, as well as those who were too honest to be sellouts, and my detractors were those who were very invested in a future with the company and were scrabbling for position and promotion.

The work we were doing wasn't about success and excellence, it was about engineering other people to help cover your own ass, and ride it out while the ship was sinking. It was about mandating a bunch of candy-coated speckled shit so they'd have something nice to say about their efforts during the big meetings. My superiors were afraid of me, but I was too good at my job, and I was too well liked by some for them to justify firing me.

I gave up about halfway through my year of work there. Beforehand, I'd had lots of ideas about how to improve our performance. Abruptly, I was silent as possible during meetings, seething internally...I knew it was a lost cause, and I was just waiting it out till I had enough saved for my backpacking trip around the world, which I did. Some of my coworkers outwardly disrespected me because I questioned the mandates and demanded explanations. I was surprised to see some people that I could have a pleasant conversation with take the yoke and disparage me for not following suit. Deep down, I think everyone knew that I was the only one with the brains, the balls, and little enough to lose to have a chance to turn things around....but the posse had already formed before I arrived and there wasn't any way a CONTRACT WORKER was going to shake up the racket.

It sounds like reading the book might have been part of the cause of my actions, but really...it couldn't have happened any other way, and those of you who've been in similar situations know what I mean. The work experience made it clear to me that I was radically different from others in some ways, and it eventually led me to the MBTI, which led me here.

Atlas Shrugged more or less mirrors this experience, and I think most INTPs will find themselves in several of these kinds of circumstances in their lives. The book made me proud to be individualistic and intelligent, and it helped me deal with the hatred and envy that it attracts.

The "nearly perfect" characters were pretty unbelievable, especially the love-quadrilateral, but in the book they are HEROES like nearly in the Greek sense, so a little suspension of belief is necessary to fully witness Rand's vision.

It's a passionate, damn good book, full of thought provoking pith, and parallels to today's world.

Rand was for "rational self-interest" and is therefore condemned by many, but the way I see it, considering evolutionary science mainly, the only realistic alternative is irrational self-interest...circling the drain is the best some try for.

 

[RandomGeneratedName]

Do you want to know why Ayn Rand is heralded in America as a god. Besides the insidious almost cult like behaviour of her organization (i.e free objectivist textbooks to poorer high schools, the vast over arching 'take-it-all' or leave it mentally of her philosophy) the main problem with her ideas, particularly "rational self interest" is that it defends the worst american ideals, greed and the 'American Dream'. It gives people 'a reason' to abhor charity, and venerates pure capitalistic greed. Sure, the Randian will say it is being incorrectly interpreted, but the fact remains the vast majority of people that read it and feel convicted by its philosophy are conservative, rich douchebags. It is for good reason that it is called the yuppie bible. It justifies American greed in a fairly coherent way and although I cannot stand reading her books, and I deplore her philosophy. You can easily see why Ayn Rand is so highly venerated in America. You can arguably say that Ayn Rand has affected America like a virus and is in my opinion very responsible for the rampant corporatism that goes on in the country. (that is only now started to be repaired).

Ayn Rand is a cold hearted cunt as well, just read about her life and how she ran her organization. It's sad really.

You DO know she's dead, right? lol