Video tribute to Ayn Rand

[Fluiddude]

YouTube - Quotes form Atlas Shrugged

 

[Vessol]

Eh, I've never been much of an objectivist. IMO much of it is a bit too arrogant.

 

[Odin]

Ayn Rand hated libertarians and she was a big time interventionist.

She has it right on economic policy, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to hitch our wagons to her philosophy.

The fact is that we always act selfishly, in the sense that everything we do comes from our own motivations. That does not mean we ought to take the most basic and primitive of these motivations and call it morality. The fact is that a libertarian society work not work unless people cared about each other for empathetic reasons, removed from their own personal benefit. In other words, our ideology depends on cultivating people's humanity. Many libertarians like Ayn Rand because she is sooo anarcho-capitalist, but if you look deeply into her beliefs they contradict what many of us believe most deeply.

 

[sofia]

Ayn was a ZioNazi......liberty does not apply to Palestinians in her view..

lots of good stuff she wrote....but i never understood the cultishness of her followers...

like any other thinker...she had some serious flaws

 

[Old Ducker]

Ayn was a ZioNazi......liberty does not apply to Palestinians in her view..

lots of good stuff she wrote....but i never understood the cultishness of her followers...

like any other thinker...she had some serious flaws

Probably a stupid question but can you make a single post that doesn't have to do with israel/zionism?

I'm not in general a fan of objectivism and I fully recognize her flaws but geez, it's a nice tribute video and like it or not, Rand is an important figure in the history of libertarianism.

 

[sofia]

Probably a stupid question but can you make a single post that doesn't have to do with israel/zionism?

I'm not in general a fan of objectivism and I fully recognize her flaws but geez, it's a nice tribute video and like it or not, Rand is an important figure in the history of libertarianism.

there is no more important issue in the world today than the hijacking of America by the Zionist Mafia...Henry Ford said the same thing many years ago...


so pardon me for dwelling on it.....but it's real.

As for Ayn Rand, some of her statements against Arabs were vicious and dehumanizing....

Albert Einstein was a Zionist...but at least he condemned jewish terrorism

 

[freshjiva]

I disagree with most sentiments here. Ayn Rand is one of the most powerful voices of libertarian philosophy, and could be the most important thinker of the 20th century. Her ideas are not only applicable to political philosphy and a pure laissez-faire economy, but also of virtue and existentialism. In this way, she advocated through her writings a libertarian society in both economic and civil issues.

We give Ron Paul major props for foretelling a lot of things we're experiencing today, but Ayn Rand saw this gradual move towards socialistic progressivism over 60 years ago. God help us all if the world she describes in Atlas Shrugged becomes reality.

 

[Odin]

I disagree with most sentiments here. Ayn Rand is one of the most powerful voices of libertarian philosophy, and could be the most important thinker of the 20th century. Her ideas are not only applicable to political philosphy and a pure laissez-faire economy, but also of virtue and existentialism. In this way, she advocated through her writings a libertarian society in both economic and civil issues.

We give Ron Paul major props for foretelling a lot of things we're experiencing today, but Ayn Rand saw this gradual move towards socialistic progressivism over 60 years ago. God help us all if the world she describes in Atlas Shrugged becomes reality.

In Ayn Rand's world the Good Samaritan is a dork, and "charity" is injustice.

I honestly cannot stand Ayn Rand's philosophy. Where do obligations towards our children come from? Ayn Rand conveniently omits children and a parent's duties toward them in Atlas Shrugged.

Besides Ayn Rand never seemed to figure out that morality doesn't exist if we only have the material world, as she insists upon. No philosopher has shown how to abridge the "is/ought" divide without appealing to some supernatural authority. There is nothing in the physical world that tells us how it ought to be or what we ought to do. It only tells us that it is a certain way and that we do certain things. There is no 'morality,' 'justice,' or 'good and evil.' These things would simply be a projection of our own minds, subjectively, and in that case the feelings we have in our conscience, from which even we derive our thoughts about the role of government and what freedom means, would be illusions, and there would be no reason why freedom even ought to be fought for and maintained.

 

[Promontorium]

libertarianism was inspired by Ayn Rand, the political party formed from followers of her philosophy.

She is not a sect or wing of libertarians, Libertarianism is a watered down form of her.


I have and will always be an Objectivist. She gave me a term for it. But the philosophy is one I have understood.

I have difficulty discussing it with anyone online, especially other people who call themselves Objectivist, or people who are "almost" objectivists. It's too personal for me.

These ideas require a lot of words, and a lot of understanding. When you try to sum it up in a sentence or a paragraph, you destroy it.

 

[Promontorium]

In Ayn Rand's world the Good Samaritan is a dork, and "charity" is injustice.

I honestly cannot stand Ayn Rand's philosophy.

I don't think you've read Ayn Rand. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

"There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." -Ayn Rand


Essentially she's saying, trying to make people "donate" is morally wrong. This is either through taxation, or through pressure. Simultaneously she argues that it isn't virtuous to donate to charity because it is a willful elimination of what you value, for the benefit of those who don't value it. If they do value your generosity, make it an investment, rather than a money pit. Put some expectation of actual improvement as a pretext for handing over your hard earned money. Instead of handing a bum a fiver to buy a 40, give a struggling worker or thinking something to help them achieve a goal. Make your money work, rather than using your money to perpetuate a system of laziness.

Besides Ayn Rand never seemed to figure out that morality doesn't exist if we only have the material world, as she insists upon. No philosopher has shown how to abridge the "is/ought" divide without appealing to some supernatural authority.

AH HA HA HA!!! The "there is no morality without religion" arugment!

She very clearly defined her morality based on reality, not fanatasy.

I can briefly summarize "how" this philosopher (me) can show you morality "exists" without a god.



I was born, I progressively learn as I grow. I figure out some things hurt me, and some things help me. The things that hurt me are to be avoided. The things that help me are "valuable".

Done.

Everything in life that has a moral question stems from an ever more complex system of determining values.

For example, why not kill people to take their resources? Well this is one that is so high order mentally, you'd have to be a human, and a rather conscious one at that to figure it out. There are many factors involved, as there should be, considering the nature of killing.

1. You value your own life. If you don't, you'll probably lose it quickly and foolishly, it is morally right to value your own life.

2. Other people know more than you about anything and everything. And you rely on other people to develop and grow, and social interaction benefits you physically and psychologically, so that other people's lives are also valuable.

3. When you realize that community is more beneficial than being alone, you realize that behavior needs to have limits. You can't take from others because harming them harms your position as well. This alone could take a whole book to explain but the basic idea is, to successfully live in a community, there needs to be an expectation that what enables you to succeed is respected as well as respected what others need. It is balance. It is only logical. Killing someone to take from them doesn't fit this paradigm.



That's it. Once again, to put something so complex into so many words may destroy the original intent, but I hope I didn't.

One idea I will say very simply is, I'm tired of reading so much criticism about someone that so few ever read. It is ignorant of you to even begin a sentence about Ayn Rand's philosophy if you haven't read one of her books about philosophy.

Defining morality through natural (not artificial) means is the only way to define morality. For if it can not be seen or understood, nor has any measurable affect on life at all, then how can its existence matter? Or more succinctly, even if it did matter, how can it be weighed into decisions if the pattern is random. If god's love or wrath is just as rational and predictable as a slot machine, what's the point? It is actually morally wrong to base your life on such ignorance.

All the philosophers whom you allude to (though I doubt you've read either) who base their morality on magical beings are irrelevant to reality. Religion is irrelevant. Morality without natural observable reasoning is irrelevant to human existence. It is a waste of time, and it is the cause of most of humanities suffering upon each other.

 

[Odin]

I don't think you've read Ayn Rand. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Finally a philosophical argument on a politics forum! I relish it.

"There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." -Ayn Rand


Essentially she's saying, trying to make people "donate" is morally wrong. This is either through taxation, or through pressure. Simultaneously she argues that it isn't virtuous to donate to charity because it is a willful elimination of what you value, for the benefit of those who don't value it. If they do value your generosity, make it an investment, rather than a money pit. Put some expectation of actual improvement as a pretext for handing over your hard earned money. Instead of handing a bum a fiver to buy a 40, give a struggling worker or thinking something to help them achieve a goal. Make your money work, rather than using your money to perpetuate a system of laziness.

What makes someone worthy in Ayn Rand's society is their productivity! Those who are rich, deserve it. Those who are poor deserve it. Hence justice! I remember quite clearly reading Atlas Shrugged (to contradict your claim that I haven't read it) when Dagny Taggart explains to Jim Taggart's wife (Cheryl I think?) that the opposite of charity is justice.

Our humanity is not just about how much we produce. Humans are not machines, valued by how many units we pump out. I would argue that our material progress has not been met by the progress of our spirits. THAT is why people are homeless and suffering.

AH HA HA HA!!! The "there is no morality without religion" arugment!

She very clearly defined her morality based on reality, not fanatasy.

I can briefly summarize "how" this philosopher (me) can show you morality "exists" without a god.

I'm listening, but you cannot show it! I'll show you why indeed you cannot based on your points below. You should read Hume, who can explain to you the is/ought problem much better than I can. In essence, there is nothing in nature that can tell you how you OUGHT to behave. There are, indeed, only facts. There is nothing objective about how nature (including the actions we humans make) ought to be or how it ought to progress. Since we're assuming a purely material world, the only things that decide how the world OUGHT to be is we humans, as a SUBJECTIVE projection of our own attitudes and preferences. What we do is we (subjectively) assign purpose to things. The purpose of thing determines in our mind how it ought to be. For instance, a calculator ought to provide me correct sums, because that is the purpose of it. But it's purpose is not a fact about the external world, it is a fact about the projection of my own attitudes onto the matter I deal with and how I identify parts of it that are relevant to me.

There is no objective purpose to human life. As individuals, we simply decide what our own lives mean to us, and act accordingly. But since there is no purpose to human life (there can't be in a purely material world, as I said matter is purposeless), there is no authority that may tell a human what to do. That is what follows from "existence precedes essense," in other words, Atheism.

I was born, I progressively learn as I grow. I figure out some things hurt me, and some things help me. The things that hurt me are to be avoided. The things that help me are "valuable".

That is a very simplistic account of values. It may be the case that I pursue something which hurts me, and have not betrayed my 'values.' But lets move on.

Everything in life that has a moral question stems from an ever more complex system of determining values.

As you already admitted, such values are the subjective result of your mind experience things that it considers good and bad. So 1, you are begging the question, and 2, it doesn't establish anything objective.

For example, why not kill people to take their resources? Well this is one that is so high order mentally, you'd have to be a human, and a rather conscious one at that to figure it out. There are many factors involved, as there should be, considering the nature of killing.

1. You value your own life. If you don't, you'll probably lose it quickly and foolishly, it is morally right to value your own life.

2. Other people know more than you about anything and everything. And you rely on other people to develop and grow, and social interaction benefits you physically and psychologically, so that other people's lives are also valuable.

3. When you realize that community is more beneficial than being alone, you realize that behavior needs to have limits. You can't take from others because harming them harms your position as well. This alone could take a whole book to explain but the basic idea is, to successfully live in a community, there needs to be an expectation that what enables you to succeed is respected as well as respected what others need. It is balance. It is only logical. Killing someone to take from them doesn't fit this paradigm.

And what if killing people to take their resources had nothing but positive consequences for you? Stalin did this to millions of people, but POWER meant he never had to suffer any consequences for his actions. So looking at it more closely, your premise here breaks down. We are only talking about varying degrees of risk. A rational person may decide it IS in his best interest to loot his neighbor's property in many circumstances.

Dealing in probabilities does not provide a basis for morality. Objective morality is interested in what we ought to do categorically, regardless of circumstances which alter our own benefit. That is what we do anyway, we rationally evaluate situations and determine the course of action that will best accomplish our goals or motivations. That is why Kant tried desperately to remove morality from all our motivations, and instead say that we are moral only when we are motivated by duty to abide by the moral law. So I'm afraid you haven't quite solved the problem that philosophers have been struggling to solve for thousands of years.

The biggest problem for Rand is that nearly any parent would sacrifice their own life for the life of their child in an instant. Ayn Rand said that your own existence is the purpose of morality. Let me provide you two quotes to back up this claim. "A being who does not hold his own life as the motive and goal of his actions, is acting on the motive and standard of death." "Man's life is the standard of morality, but your life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man--for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life."

But looking into evolutionary science a little bit further, we realize that we value our own life for the reason of maintaining it to reproduce, and care for our offspring. Evolution has simply determined the best course of preserving human life on Earth, and as a result we have all our faculties, our will to live, our will to power (which often compels us to destroy other forms of life, particularly human life), and our strongest will, which is reproduction and everything that follows from it, including putting our own child's life and well-being above our own. I'm not surprised that Ayn Rand never considered this, since she never experienced having children. But the answer was there all along, in my opinion. The answer that confirms that human life has purpose, right in the beginning of the Bible:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

That's it. Once again, to put something so complex into so many words may destroy the original intent, but I hope I didn't.

One idea I will say very simply is, I'm tired of reading so much criticism about someone that so few ever read. It is ignorant of you to even begin a sentence about Ayn Rand's philosophy if you haven't read one of her books about philosophy.

Defining morality through natural (not artificial) means is the only way to define morality. For if it can not be seen or understood, nor has any measurable affect on life at all, then how can its existence matter? Or more succinctly, even if it did matter, how can it be weighed into decisions if the pattern is random. If god's love or wrath is just as rational and predictable as a slot machine, what's the point? It is actually morally wrong to base your life on such ignorance.

All the philosophers whom you allude to (though I doubt you've read either) who base their morality on magical beings are irrelevant to reality. Religion is irrelevant. Morality without natural observable reasoning is irrelevant to human existence. It is a waste of time, and it is the cause of most of humanities suffering upon each other.

I think you are not understanding. First, though it would be nice to define morality through natural means, you would first have to posit that nature has some purpose. Of course nature can have a purpose if it was created. Once you admit that God may exist and may have created the world and mankind with purpose, it becomes obvious that we can examine the creation to find the purpose and thus morality. Just as we can examine a watch to determine the intention of the watchmaker.

But "it all just happened" can not be a premise that logically leads to "it ought to be this way." A purposeless world is without morality. That should be quite obvious. No matter how much pontificating we do, we cannot get around that fact. We may even try to assign 'subjective' or 'culturally relative' moralities, but such attempts are pure vanity, and meaningless anyway. If morality is culturally or individually subjective, who cares? It still means nothing without the validation of the individual anyway.

 

[Fluiddude]

YouTube - Quotes form Atlas Shrugged

bump