Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Why do CEOs (still) Love Ayn Rand?

2»

Comments

  • Jimmy_ScytheJimmy_Scythe Member CommonPosts: 3,586
    Originally posted by Sargoth

    Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

    Originally posted by Sargoth

    Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

    Originally posted by Wickersham

    Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

    Originally posted by protoroc

    What exactly are the ravages?  I'm not seeing any kind of real argument against Objectivism from anyone, only attacks on Rand.  From what I can tell from the book, she followed what she believed in by developing the philosophy and putting it out there.  To get justification from anyone else is defeating the point of what Objectivism is all about from what I can tell. 

    It also seems funny to expect to develop a philosophy and have other people give it justification when thinking for yourself and using logic and reasoning are what its all about.  Also giving her take on the philosophy majors of the time, based on Atlas Shrugged, she didn't care to much for the bias that most seemed to have especially with socialism as a crutch for most university philosophers. 

    Also, if your doing something for yourself, who needs the nod from anyone else? 

     

    The Rights (and Wrong) of Ayn Rand

    Critique of The "Objectivst Ethics"

    Is Benevolent Egoism Coherent?

    Those should be a good start. I didn't know if you'd have access to Wilson's Web or any of the other academic databases, so I didn't link to any documents from those sources. If you do have access to such databases, you should run a search for objectivism. the results are very enlightening.

     As far as needing outside approval, that's all fine and good if it's just her personal philosophy and she believes that it only applies to her. Rand is advocating this world view and therefore it needs to be rigorously inspected for coherence and validity.

    So once again I go through this argument,

    Do you need someone else to show you the way or can you with your own intellect decide for yourself?

    If you support the idea that her views need to be reviewed by some other source, then I say, with all disrespect, you sir, cannot think for yourself and deserve all that happens to you. 

     

    I read Atlus Shrugged after I had already acquired some background in ethics so I had knowlege and experience to piece together my own objections to it. What I linked are people that not only shared many of my conclusions on the subject but also expanded on them.

    You seem very taken with Rand's ideas and defend them very viciously, almost as if those ideas were your own...

    Who is thinking for whom?

  • SargothSargoth Member Posts: 558
    Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

    Originally posted by Sargoth

    Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

    Originally posted by Sargoth

    Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

    Originally posted by Wickersham

    Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

    Originally posted by protoroc

    What exactly are the ravages?  I'm not seeing any kind of real argument against Objectivism from anyone, only attacks on Rand.  From what I can tell from the book, she followed what she believed in by developing the philosophy and putting it out there.  To get justification from anyone else is defeating the point of what Objectivism is all about from what I can tell. 

    It also seems funny to expect to develop a philosophy and have other people give it justification when thinking for yourself and using logic and reasoning are what its all about.  Also giving her take on the philosophy majors of the time, based on Atlas Shrugged, she didn't care to much for the bias that most seemed to have especially with socialism as a crutch for most university philosophers. 

    Also, if your doing something for yourself, who needs the nod from anyone else? 

     

    The Rights (and Wrong) of Ayn Rand

    Critique of The "Objectivst Ethics"

    Is Benevolent Egoism Coherent?

    Those should be a good start. I didn't know if you'd have access to Wilson's Web or any of the other academic databases, so I didn't link to any documents from those sources. If you do have access to such databases, you should run a search for objectivism. the results are very enlightening.

     As far as needing outside approval, that's all fine and good if it's just her personal philosophy and she believes that it only applies to her. Rand is advocating this world view and therefore it needs to be rigorously inspected for coherence and validity.

    So once again I go through this argument,

    Do you need someone else to show you the way or can you with your own intellect decide for yourself?

    If you support the idea that her views need to be reviewed by some other source, then I say, with all disrespect, you sir, cannot think for yourself and deserve all that happens to you. 

     

    I read Atlus Shrugged after I had already acquired some background in ethics so I had knowlege and experience to piece together my own objections to it. What I linked are people that not only shared many of my conclusions on the subject but also expanded on them.

    You seem very taken with Rand's ideas and defend them very viciously, almost as if those ideas were your own...

    Who is thinking for whom?

    2nd paragraph of your first link,  4 factors to discourage drawing serious attention to Rand.

    1. Unworthy because she used novels to express ideas

    2.  Her positions are opposite main stream thought (duh)

    3.  Thoughts are presented in novel, leaves the reader to have to draw conclusions instead of having it laid out in front of them.

    4.  She despised the current philosophers, considered them evil, contempt, corrupt. 

     

    So in the introduction, this guy has attacked Rand, and yet has nothing of substance against her ideas.  It's like saying that a pig farmer came up with the cure for cancer, but he's just a pig farmer so who cares it probably doesn't work anyways. 

    Your second link does not work.

    Your third one if funny.  In one section, because the government politicians are seen to have a happy life, engaging in acts of wealth redistribution and socialist agendas,  because they are happy there must not be any problem and therefor Rands arguments are invalid.  (Page 7) 

    Also, in his conclusion "An argument for rights-respecting behavior based on the claim that rights-violations can never benefit the agent would conflict with well-known empirical facts, including, for example, the

    modern history of government"  is just laughable.  But of course, I ride the other side of the fence so it's only natural that I would find that statement amusing.

    I just expect/hope that people can think for themselves and not rely on others to give them their thoughts. What  you have given me, is one person that attacks the character in hopes of destroying the message, and another that believes since our government exists and works, with a massive f'ing debt and politicians are happy and content, that one of rands arguments does not work.   This one,

    Central to Rand’s ideal of benevolent egoism are the following two principles:

    P1: I should never sacrifice myself for the benefit of others.

    P2: I should never sacrifice others for the benefit of myself.

    I myself cannot find anything wrong with those two statements, could you provide me with an understanding of what the author is trying to get at here from your reading?  To me, the untrained, non-harvard/yale/columbia grad, they seem to make perfect sense. 

     

    When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.

  • snipergsniperg Member Posts: 863
    Originally posted by Sargoth



    2nd paragraph of your first link,  4 factors to discourage drawing serious attention to Rand.

    1. Unworthy because she used novels to express ideas

    2.  Her positions are opposite main stream thought (duh)

    3.  Thoughts are presented in novel, leaves the reader to have to draw conclusions instead of having it laid out in front of them.

    4.  She despised the current philosophers, considered them evil, contempt, corrupt. 

    Her writing was often rhetorical and hyperbolic, directed to the mass readership accessible to a best-selling author instead of to the rather more critical audiences of the output of university presses Finally, and least excusably, Rand invited neglect, contempt, and opposition by employing her considerable rhetorical skills to denounce anyone who disagreed with her and especially modern philosophers as evil, corrupt, and irrational which could hardly have endeared her to the profession.

     That's what I quote from there.

    First of all the paragraph that you summarise is the introduction of why so far it didn't get serious attention.

    You didn't summarise it very well imo and it gave the wrong meaning.

     

    A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by Briansho

    Originally posted by declaredemer

    Originally posted by Vemoi


    I never understand your conclusions. You seem to be well read and yet come up with the exact opposite of history.
    Rand came from a country with an altruistic government where everyone was equal, except for the few in power. I think she probably could tell which philosophy is wicked.
    I remember you posting that people should put money into an IRA or 401. The entire purpose of these is too avoid taxes so they don't eat away your retirement savings.
    You say you believe in small companies creating efficiencies and yet, call for one government monopoly on health insurance. You have seen the health care bill right? Does that look like an efficient bill?

     

    No one is advocating "socialism," Sir/Madame.  This is about providing Joe the Sixpacks/Plumbers of the country an opportunity to obtain accessible, affordable, and quality health insurance.  It is about extending the benefits that the veterans and elderly receive in a way to increase the quality of care.  If you study other health care systems, their quality and accessibility (such as last minute appointments, same day visits) are excellent.  We keep talking about hip replacements, yet most people who receive fast hip replacements in the United States are under medicare . . . gasp! . . . a government program.

     

     

    People have been taught, somewhere and somehow, that their health insurance is the "best in the world" and that our government is the "worst in the world."







    Waky policies, especially in the realm of health care, have been implemented and instituted as a result.  It is sad.

     

    Interesting. All of that sounds like a very Christian thing to do! Helping others in need? What would Jesus do?

     

    He would help people, Himself, That is what he DID. That is what His followers were instructed to do. Therefore, loving your neighbor is GOD'S, not Caesar's. Therefore, we should never give the loving of others, the helping of people, over to the state.

    If you care you will DO. If you want it as a means to gain power over others, you will use the state to force others to do it for you.

  • SargothSargoth Member Posts: 558
    Originally posted by sniperg

    Originally posted by Sargoth



    2nd paragraph of your first link,  4 factors to discourage drawing serious attention to Rand.

    1. Unworthy because she used novels to express ideas

    2.  Her positions are opposite main stream thought (duh)

    3.  Thoughts are presented in novel, leaves the reader to have to draw conclusions instead of having it laid out in front of them.

    4.  She despised the current philosophers, considered them evil, contempt, corrupt. 

    Her writing was often rhetorical and hyperbolic, directed to the mass readership accessible to a best-selling author instead of to the rather more critical audiences of the output of university presses Finally, and least excusably, Rand invited neglect, contempt, and opposition by employing her considerable rhetorical skills to denounce anyone who disagreed with her and especially modern philosophers as evil, corrupt, and irrational which could hardly have endeared her to the profession.

     That's what I quote from there.

    First of all the paragraph that you summarise is the introduction of why so far it didn't get serious attention.

    You didn't summarise it very well imo and it gave the wrong meaning.

     

     

    If you have a philosophy that you want spread, do you goto the masses or to the university?  To people that will read it open minded as a book, or people that go in with a set way of thinking and a degree to make the feel even more secure in their way of thinking?  Do you distribute to people without bias, or distribute to the people that teach the philosophy that is the exact opposite of what  you feel, and possibly the reason for the situation your in.  To people you wish to enlighten or to those that believe they are above any further enlightenment?  Mainly, do you write a book that makes you money, or write a paper that makes you nothing?  It was after all, in her best interest to make money to keep doing what she was doing. 

    If your trying to bring down a government that you believe is corrupt, do you talk with the government or talk with the people?  The people after all are the power of the government and as long as they continue to allow themselves to be ruled by the government, the government has power, once the people stop then there is no government. 

    Mainly, if you believe in something do it, you don't need anyone else to validate your actions. 

     

    I'm not sure how I gave the wrong meaning. 

    When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.

  • snipergsniperg Member Posts: 863
    Originally posted by Sargoth

    Originally posted by sniperg

    Originally posted by Sargoth



    2nd paragraph of your first link,  4 factors to discourage drawing serious attention to Rand.

    1. Unworthy because she used novels to express ideas

    2.  Her positions are opposite main stream thought (duh)

    3.  Thoughts are presented in novel, leaves the reader to have to draw conclusions instead of having it laid out in front of them.

    4.  She despised the current philosophers, considered them evil, contempt, corrupt. 

    Her writing was often rhetorical and hyperbolic, directed to the mass readership accessible to a best-selling author instead of to the rather more critical audiences of the output of university presses Finally, and least excusably, Rand invited neglect, contempt, and opposition by employing her considerable rhetorical skills to denounce anyone who disagreed with her and especially modern philosophers as evil, corrupt, and irrational which could hardly have endeared her to the profession.

     That's what I quote from there.

    First of all the paragraph that you summarise is the introduction of why so far it didn't get serious attention.

    You didn't summarise it very well imo and it gave the wrong meaning.

     

     

    If you have a philosophy that you want spread, do you goto the masses or to the university?  To people that will read it open minded as a book, or people that go in with a set way of thinking and a degree to make the feel even more secure in their way of thinking?  Do you distribute to people without bias, or distribute to the people that teach the philosophy that is the exact opposite of what  you feel, and possibly the reason for the situation your in.  To people you wish to enlighten or to those that believe they are above any further enlightenment?  Mainly, do you write a book that makes you money, or write a paper that makes you nothing?  It was after all, in her best interest to make money to keep doing what she was doing. 

    If your trying to bring down a government that you believe is corrupt, do you talk with the government or talk with the people?  The people after all are the power of the government and as long as they continue to allow themselves to be ruled by the government, the government has power, once the people stop then there is no government. 

    Mainly, if you believe in something do it, you don't need anyone else to validate your actions. 

     

    I'm not sure how I gave the wrong meaning. 

    There is a line crossing between philosophy and demagogue.

    People, especially people not in the field of rhetorics and academics are easily influenced by nice speeches or things that seem logical. Because simply put they don't know the tricks of the trade so to speak.

    If you write a book to make money I am sorry, you don't give a fuck about educating or the people themselves. Chances are that you will cut corners and make the book a nice sensational speech with a bit philosophy so the common person will feel smart hence continue to buy it. That's why novels aren't considered philosophical among other things. Philosophy is not sensationalism.

    It doesn't work this way. It's not a "If you believe you can do it, do it" thing. It's a "If it's not meat from a cow, it's not beef" thing. Sure you can sell a book as a novel but you can't say it's a philosophy piece just because the "People" say so. Yes there are certain rules that you have to follow to be considered philophical and not demagogue for example, instead of just another top 100 book of the month. You may choose to ignore these rules but they apply all the same.

    You gave the wrong meaning in your summary of the first link because you summarised the introduction in a way that missed all the explanations.

    A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.

  • WickershamWickersham Member UncommonPosts: 2,379
    Originally posted by sniperg

    Originally posted by Sargoth

    Originally posted by sniperg

    Originally posted by Sargoth



    2nd paragraph of your first link,  4 factors to discourage drawing serious attention to Rand.

    1. Unworthy because she used novels to express ideas

    2.  Her positions are opposite main stream thought (duh)

    3.  Thoughts are presented in novel, leaves the reader to have to draw conclusions instead of having it laid out in front of them.

    4.  She despised the current philosophers, considered them evil, contempt, corrupt. 

    Her writing was often rhetorical and hyperbolic, directed to the mass readership accessible to a best-selling author instead of to the rather more critical audiences of the output of university presses Finally, and least excusably, Rand invited neglect, contempt, and opposition by employing her considerable rhetorical skills to denounce anyone who disagreed with her and especially modern philosophers as evil, corrupt, and irrational which could hardly have endeared her to the profession.

     That's what I quote from there.

    First of all the paragraph that you summarise is the introduction of why so far it didn't get serious attention.

    You didn't summarise it very well imo and it gave the wrong meaning.

     

     

    If you have a philosophy that you want spread, do you goto the masses or to the university?  To people that will read it open minded as a book, or people that go in with a set way of thinking and a degree to make the feel even more secure in their way of thinking?  Do you distribute to people without bias, or distribute to the people that teach the philosophy that is the exact opposite of what  you feel, and possibly the reason for the situation your in.  To people you wish to enlighten or to those that believe they are above any further enlightenment?  Mainly, do you write a book that makes you money, or write a paper that makes you nothing?  It was after all, in her best interest to make money to keep doing what she was doing. 

    If your trying to bring down a government that you believe is corrupt, do you talk with the government or talk with the people?  The people after all are the power of the government and as long as they continue to allow themselves to be ruled by the government, the government has power, once the people stop then there is no government. 

    Mainly, if you believe in something do it, you don't need anyone else to validate your actions. 

     

    I'm not sure how I gave the wrong meaning. 

    There is a line crossing between philosophy and demagogue.

    People, especially people not in the field of rhetorics and academics are easily influenced by nice speeches or things that seem logical. Because simply put they don't know the tricks of the trade so to speak.

    If you write a book to make money I am sorry, you don't give a fuck about educating or the people themselves. Chances are that you will cut corners and make the book a nice sensational speech with a bit philosophy so the common person will feel smart hence continue to buy it. That's why novels aren't considered philosophical among other things. Philosophy is not sensationalism.

    It doesn't work this way. It's not a "If you believe you can do it, do it" thing. It's a "If it's not meat from a cow, it's not beef" thing. Sure you can sell a book as a novel but you can't say it's a philosophy piece just because the "People" say so. Yes there are certain rules that you have to follow to be considered philophical and not demagogue for example, instead of just another top 100 book of the month. You may choose to ignore these rules but they apply all the same.

    You gave the wrong meaning in your summary of the first link because you summarised the introduction in a way that missed all the explanations.



     

    Are teachers aware that it's not possible to educate and make money at the same time? 

     "That's why novels aren't considered philosophical among other things."  I guess Thus Spoke Zarathustra is absent of philosophy?  Have you read Plato?  I'm sure you have, and I'm sure it's been awile, because his work is told in stories.  Infact, pretty much any philosopher before modern times related to his pupil thru story telling.  It seems absurd to me to argue that a thought is not valid unless it is in essay form.

    But if an essay is your mark of a true philosophy then have you read: The Virtue Of Selfishness?

    "The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"

  • snipergsniperg Member Posts: 863
    Originally posted by Wickersham





     

    Are teachers aware that it's not possible to educate and make money at the same time? 

     "That's why novels aren't considered philosophical among other things."  I guess Thus Spoke Zarathustra is absent of philosophy?  Have you read Plato?  I'm sure you have, and I'm sure it's been awile, because his work is told in stories.  Infact, pretty much any philosopher before modern times related to his pupil thru story telling.  It seems absurd to me to argue that a thought is not valid unless it is in essay form.

    But if an essay is your mark of a true philosophy then have you read: The Virtue Of Selfishness?

    I am not saying that :P But yes a teacher that only wants to make money,will skip some important parts of the education process:)

    Philosophy and academic philosophy are two entirely different things though. Philosophy means that you love knowledge, academic philosophy means that you go through some standards, good or bad it's not up to me to comment since my major is in Tourism business:)

    Sorry for not defining that from the start that I was talking about academic philosophy. Modern academic philosophy for better or for worse yes it requires an essay:) I was trying to be objective and not involve my personal preferences:)

    As one friend of mine that is in the field of academic philosophy commented, "If Socrates and Plato, tried to apply today to the university as professors they would be rejected almost immediately":P

    I don't think there is "true" philosophy though. You have a philosophy if you are a thinking person. But the purpose of academic philosophy in the modern days, was supposed to promote philosophical work, what it has achieved it's a different discussion altogether. It seems absurd yes, it has its purpose though.

    And yes I have read the book, though reading essays I was never good at since I had to stop to analyze them very often, hence reading was tiring at the best of times.

    A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.

  • frodusfrodus Member Posts: 2,396

    I like reading my own thoughts...

    Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.

  • SargothSargoth Member Posts: 558
    Originally posted by sniperg

    Originally posted by Wickersham





     

    Are teachers aware that it's not possible to educate and make money at the same time? 

     "That's why novels aren't considered philosophical among other things."  I guess Thus Spoke Zarathustra is absent of philosophy?  Have you read Plato?  I'm sure you have, and I'm sure it's been awile, because his work is told in stories.  Infact, pretty much any philosopher before modern times related to his pupil thru story telling.  It seems absurd to me to argue that a thought is not valid unless it is in essay form.

    But if an essay is your mark of a true philosophy then have you read: The Virtue Of Selfishness?

    I am not saying that :P But yes a teacher that only wants to make money,will skip some important parts of the education process:)

    Philosophy and academic philosophy are two entirely different things though. Philosophy means that you love knowledge, academic philosophy means that you go through some standards, good or bad it's not up to me to comment since my major is in Tourism business:)

    Sorry for not defining that from the start that I was talking about academic philosophy. Modern academic philosophy for better or for worse yes it requires an essay:) I was trying to be objective and not involve my personal preferences:)

    As one friend of mine that is in the field of academic philosophy commented, "If Socrates and Plato, tried to apply today to the university as professors they would be rejected almost immediately":P

    I don't think there is "true" philosophy though. You have a philosophy if you are a thinking person. But the purpose of academic philosophy in the modern days, was supposed to promote philosophical work, what it has achieved it's a different discussion altogether. It seems absurd yes, it has its purpose though.

    And yes I have read the book, though reading essays I was never good at since I had to stop to analyze them very often, hence reading was tiring at the best of times.

    So two of the biggest influences that we have, would not be allowed to be professors?  Does that not strike you as the current system being a little borked? 

    It's also completely flawed to just assume that anyone writing a novel is going to through away standards to just make a buck.  Her whole philosophy was to practically stay true to ones self, so why would she ever feel the need to stoop to lower levels? 

    I think you have the idea that all these institutions are just so perfect which simply cannot be true. 

    It is also completely juvenile to make the statement that "If you write a book to make money I am sorry, you don't give a fuck about educating or the people themselves."  Your projecting your views of what you would do since you cannot possibly know the motivations of others. 

    Exactly how hard is it to see that it's possible to educate and make a buck at the same time?  Your stuck in the thought that people are inherently bad, instead of people being good and making mistakes. 

    It's not a "if you believe, do it thing"?  O, well then.  I suggest that you give up and stop trying.  I'm not sure what you live for then.  For me, I'll ignore your statements since I'm not sure where you could have ever developed that attitude and still wake up every day, and I'll go on and do what I believe in and damn all the rest. 

    Rules, hah.  Be a man and make your own. 

     

    When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.

  • snipergsniperg Member Posts: 863
    Originally posted by Sargoth



    So two of the biggest influences that we have, would not be allowed to be professors?  Does that not strike you as the current system being a little borked? 

    It's also completely flawed to just assume that anyone writing a novel is going to through away standards to just make a buck.  Her whole philosophy was to practically stay true to ones self, so why would she ever feel the need to stoop to lower levels? 

    Plato was actually berated by Socrates. The Cynics berated Socrates at that time.  They cynics that also influenced western thinking, actually weren't allowed in many cases to teach. Was the system at that time borked?

    Did I say "anyone that writes a novel wants to make a buck by throwing standards"? No I simply explained to you that academic philosophy has specific standards when you try to prove a personal philosophy. It was simple and objective with no personal opinion in there.

     

    I think you have the idea that all these institutions are just so perfect which simply cannot be true. 

    I think you, as alot of people usually do ,assume too much in your hurry to make a point. Nothing is perfect but that doesn't mean that just because I read a few philosophy books that I am able to judge the quality of not of academic institutions. What I told you is that I simply accept my ignorance in their quality hence I can't judge them positevely or negatively but simply state to you how they operate.

    If you do have an idea how these institutions work and what their flaws are please do share it with us instead of making assumptions and personal attacks.

    It is also completely juvenile to make the statement that "If you write a book to make money I am sorry, you don't give a fuck about educating or the people themselves."  Your projecting your views of what you would do since you cannot possibly know the motivations of others. 

    Exactly how hard is it to see that it's possible to educate and make a buck at the same time?  Your stuck in the thought that people are inherently bad, instead of people being good and making mistakes. 

    It is called "personal opinion", what's juvenile is that right now you project your own views upon me, because by isolating one line out of what I wrote, you assume that you figure my motivations.

     

    And still you assume what I am thinking and posing it as a definite and actually using it as stepstone for a personal attack.

    When you write a book to make as much money as possible you write aiming for a specific public. A philosophy novel that aims to do that usually aims to make the reader feel smart but not actually make him think which is the opposite of what philosophy is about. My general statement referred to these books and why many institutions don't accept them or judge them even more harsly that usual. What's more I simply pointed out what's the OFFICIAL version of something to be considered a philosophical. It's not a personal opinion and yes I disagree with it but that's how something is accepted among the academic circles. Yes she didn't want that anyway and I respect her for that since at the time that she wrote it, it needed guts to do that, but you can't complain why the academic circles view it as such.

    It's not a "if you believe, do it thing"?  O, well then.  I suggest that you give up and stop trying.  I'm not sure what you live for then.  For me, I'll ignore your statements since I'm not sure where you could have ever developed that attitude and still wake up every day, and I'll go on and do what I believe in and damn all the rest. 

    Ok do you do that on purpose when you discuss something? Does it make it easier for you to present your opinion by characterising the other party based on your assumptions? "It's not a "If you believe you can do it, do it" thing. It's a "If it's not meat from a cow, it's not beef" thing." Where I simply emphasise again the reason why her books are judged like that, plus the fact that you misinterpeted what the essay of that person was about.

     

    Rules, hah.  Be a man and make your own. 

    Half knowledge is dangerous  and makes a man arrogant and blind.

    It's really sad that you make this discussion a personal attack, so I will just give it a rest here because my rules prefer to keep it civil.

    Thank you for the time you took to reply.

     

     

     

    A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.

  • GazenthiaGazenthia Member Posts: 1,186
    Originally posted by Teala

    Selfishness should be a virtue, because if I cannot take care of myself, how am I ever going to take care of anyone else.   One thing my father always told us kids.  Take care of yourself first and foremost - once you are capable of doing that then and only then should you ever consider raising a family. 

     

    Selfishness/greed is not a virtue. It is taking more than you need so that others may not have it and is generally a bad idea for the welfare of the species. Ever notice how animals in the wild don't get fat, they reproduce more?

    ___________________
    Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/

  • SargothSargoth Member Posts: 558
    Originally posted by sniperg

    Originally posted by Sargoth



    So two of the biggest influences that we have, would not be allowed to be professors?  Does that not strike you as the current system being a little borked? 

    It's also completely flawed to just assume that anyone writing a novel is going to through away standards to just make a buck.  Her whole philosophy was to practically stay true to ones self, so why would she ever feel the need to stoop to lower levels? 

    Plato was actually berated by Socrates. The Cynics berated Socrates at that time.  They cynics that also influenced western thinking, actually weren't allowed in many cases to teach. Was the system at that time borked?

    Did I say "anyone that writes a novel wants to make a buck by throwing standards"? No I simply explained to you that academic philosophy has specific standards when you try to prove a personal philosophy. It was simple and objective with no personal opinion in there.

     

    I think you have the idea that all these institutions are just so perfect which simply cannot be true. 

    I think you, as alot of people usually do ,assume too much in your hurry to make a point. Nothing is perfect but that doesn't mean that just because I read a few philosophy books that I am able to judge the quality of not of academic institutions. What I told you is that I simply accept my ignorance in their quality hence I can't judge them positevely or negatively but simply state to you how they operate.

    If you do have an idea how these institutions work and what their flaws are please do share it with us instead of making assumptions and personal attacks.

    It is also completely juvenile to make the statement that "If you write a book to make money I am sorry, you don't give a fuck about educating or the people themselves."  Your projecting your views of what you would do since you cannot possibly know the motivations of others. 

    Exactly how hard is it to see that it's possible to educate and make a buck at the same time?  Your stuck in the thought that people are inherently bad, instead of people being good and making mistakes. 

    It is called "personal opinion", what's juvenile is that right now you project your own views upon me, because by isolating one line out of what I wrote, you assume that you figure my motivations.

     

    And still you assume what I am thinking and posing it as a definite and actually using it as stepstone for a personal attack.

    When you write a book to make as much money as possible you write aiming for a specific public. A philosophy novel that aims to do that usually aims to make the reader feel smart but not actually make him think which is the opposite of what philosophy is about. My general statement referred to these books and why many institutions don't accept them or judge them even more harsly that usual. What's more I simply pointed out what's the OFFICIAL version of something to be considered a philosophical. It's not a personal opinion and yes I disagree with it but that's how something is accepted among the academic circles. Yes she didn't want that anyway and I respect her for that since at the time that she wrote it, it needed guts to do that, but you can't complain why the academic circles view it as such.

    It's not a "if you believe, do it thing"?  O, well then.  I suggest that you give up and stop trying.  I'm not sure what you live for then.  For me, I'll ignore your statements since I'm not sure where you could have ever developed that attitude and still wake up every day, and I'll go on and do what I believe in and damn all the rest. 

    Ok do you do that on purpose when you discuss something? Does it make it easier for you to present your opinion by characterising the other party based on your assumptions? "It's not a "If you believe you can do it, do it" thing. It's a "If it's not meat from a cow, it's not beef" thing." Where I simply emphasise again the reason why her books are judged like that, plus the fact that you misinterpeted what the essay of that person was about.

     

    Rules, hah.  Be a man and make your own. 

    Half knowledge is dangerous  and makes a man arrogant and blind.

    It's really sad that you make this discussion a personal attack, so I will just give it a rest here because my rules prefer to keep it civil.

    Thank you for the time you took to reply.

     

     

     

    Geeze I hate inline responses.

    First off,  boo f'ing hoo. 

    "Half knowledge is dangerous and makes a man arrogant and blind."

    You can respect a man that makes a decision good or bad, not one that rides the fence. 

    You clearly state that anyone trying to make a buck will cut corners in their efforts.

    "If you write a book to make money I am sorry, you don't give a fuck about educating or the people themselves.  Chances are that you will cut corners and make the book a nice sensational speech with a bit philosophy so the common person will feel smart hence continue to buy it."

    Am I wrong, did I read this wrong?  Is there any other way to interpret this?  So when I say it's juvenile, well, it is. 

    Also,

    "It doesn't work this way. It's not a "If you believe you can do it, do it" thing. It's a "If it's not meat from a cow, it's not beef" thing. Sure you can sell a book as a novel but you can't say it's a philosophy piece just because the "People" say so."

    It does to work.  It happens all the time.  You may wish for it to be something else or work differently but it happens.  It's what Rand did.  She never had the people say it was so, she said it.  It's done, it happened, you may not like it but there you go, it happened.   And what, if someone believes in something, they should listen to you and hold back?  Ask for someone else to give them permission?  I'm sorry but no.  There may be laws about something, but I damn sure can go and do it and pay for the consequences later.  The idea that you have to present your philosophy to college professors is rubbish.  Especially if the professors that your talking about would not even let Socrates or Plato in.  You don't even like the system yet  your gonna live with it.  That to me is even worse.  Rand didn't like it so she went around and yet here you are agreeing with the camp that says  she should not be considered. 

    It's also silly to tell me that you can tell me how something operates, but you cannot tell me whether it's good or bad.  And if you cannot tell me whether it's good or bad, then why should I even listen to you when you tell me that I would have to follow it? 

    Do you have an opinion?  I ended my first post to ask people what they think.  What I got, was a few people that gave their opinion and a few that gave the opinion of others.  I care nothing about the opinions of someone else other than the people from this site since I just wanted to hear what people thought instead of being directed to places that I can just use google to find. 

    I'm still amiss as to how I missed summarizing.  I felt that if the 4 reasons that that person gave as reasons why someone should not take Rand seriously, then I would have no cause to read the rest.  I did in fact read the rest and noted nothing of value.  I'm not sure why he felt it that egoism and libiterian rights have to co-exist.  Rand layed out what I thought was a valid philosophy that did not need to be part of this, or part of that.  Perhaps, if you could be bothered you might give your opinon on the subject?  That is all that I was trying to get in the first place. 

    Finally, I don't know what part of the pond your from, but I had not even started with the personal attacks.  My part of the pond can take a ripple or two without being aggitated.  If you feel this invalidates all that I have to say, then so be it, your not worth the time.  If on the other hand, you can dish it back out, then possibly we might have some fun. 

     

     

    When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.

  • SargothSargoth Member Posts: 558
    Originally posted by Gazenthia

    Originally posted by Teala

    Selfishness should be a virtue, because if I cannot take care of myself, how am I ever going to take care of anyone else.   One thing my father always told us kids.  Take care of yourself first and foremost - once you are capable of doing that then and only then should you ever consider raising a family. 

     

    Selfishness/greed is not a virtue. It is taking more than you need so that others may not have it and is generally a bad idea for the welfare of the species. Ever notice how animals in the wild don't get fat, they reproduce more?

    Who exactly lays out what is more than you need?  What is the system that lets you know you've made enough?  If you get more than someone else is that more than your share?  If I have a jet-ski and you don't, does that mean that I have more than my share? If I do my job better than you and make more money because of it, is that more than my fair share?  Should I then continue to work harder but at your wage?  What is my motivation to try harder if I cannot be compensated for my effort?  Or is it only when it's millions and millions.  Is that the magic amount that makes it safe to say that I am making more than I need?  

    And what's this welfare of the species?  Remember how it's the strong that survive, what your suggesting is to let the weak live.

    When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.

  • TrizicTrizic Member Posts: 76
    Originally posted by Sargoth



    And what's this welfare of the species?  Remember how it's the strong that survive, what your suggesting is to let the weak live.

     

    It’s not the strongest species that survive ….

    Nor the most intelligent ….

    But the ones most responsive to Change

    And we are no longer part of the basic chain of evolution so the rules no longer apply to us anyways. I also agree with you that a person who works harder should be rewarded more however you conservatives take it to far. You can not have a fair chance to even try unless you are given the necessities like education, health care, food, shelter. Yes one person can have a jet-ski and another not but that person should also at least have the requirement of a modern life. Honestly people need to understand "true liberty" can never be fully achieved and the closest you can get to it as a nation is to give everyone who is born equal opportunity and necessities.

    "A stupid idea to you is the memory of a lifetime for me"

  • SargothSargoth Member Posts: 558
    Originally posted by Trizic

    Originally posted by Sargoth



    And what's this welfare of the species?  Remember how it's the strong that survive, what your suggesting is to let the weak live.

     

    It’s not the strongest species that survive ….

    Nor the most intelligent ….

    But the ones most responsive to Change

    And we are no longer part of the basic chain of evolution so the rules no longer apply to us anyways. I also agree with you that a person who works harder should be rewarded more however you conservatives take it to far. You can not have a fair chance to even try unless you are given the necessities like education, health care, food, shelter. Yes one person can have a jet-ski and another not but that person should also at least have the requirement of a modern life. Honestly people need to understand "true liberty" can never be fully achieved and the closest you can get to it as a nation is to give everyone who is born equal opportunity and necessities.

    So I'm curious then,  how do conservatives take it too far.  What do you mean by that? 

    At what level of education do you stop providing?  In today's market, people with college degrees make more money, to be even, should a college education be provided for?  A modern life would seem to be one with heat and ac, so do we provide electricity along with shelter?  What level of shelter do you give?  A tent, an outhouse and a food line would provide the basics no?  Or must we give more to be 'modern'?  How much do you give in health care?  Blood pressure pills to the fat man?  Or do we not pay for that since being fat is only a result of a person that does not care about his health, and if he doesn't care about his health, then why should others?  Does health care include costs for having children when that is a voluntary choice?  What are the levels of health care that we should give?  Emergency services only?  Routine checkups?  Preventive prescriptions?  I take fish oil myself, will the government provide for that?  It only makes me healthier so I'm actually helping the health care system no? 

    Why exactly can true liberty never be achieved?  What is holding that back?  As far as I can tell, true liberty is held back by the government. 

    How are you going to pay for all of this?  The only way  I can see is through taxes but then your forcing  your view of life on others.  I don't believe that those are necessities.  Perhaps other people do not believe those are necessities.  Now I have to work harder to make what I want to make, and carry freeloaders on my back as well.  How is that fair for me?  And what about all the other countries that we continue to send food and money too.  Are we to provide for their 'modern life' too.  Just another tax to continue on carrying the rest of the world on the back of the US? 

    I'd love to see it layed out on how much would be given and how it would be regulated because right now, its given away and the level is different depending on where you go. 

    Also, once your giving away the basics, everything needed to just exist, why exactly would anyone try harder?  I mean I do nothing and I get a home, food, education and someone to help me when I get sick.  I imagine that there are plenty of people that would be happy with that.  And your going to ask the rest of us to provide for that?  And what's to stop people from just demanding more?  Health care was not a thought years ago, now it has become a necessity to modern life.  When the next wave comes in, will there be another demand to add that to the list. 

    What I wonder though, would we need all these handouts from the government, our own money, if the government did not play as big a role in our lives as it currently does?  Would we all have more money in our pockets if the government did not try it's best to take it all?  With more money would we be able to be in a situation where we would not need all these handouts?  What bothers me, is that in the current situation, I do not see the light at then end of the tunnel.  I see states going broke and turning to different means for more money instead of nixing the handouts they currently undergo.  What intrigues me about Rand book is that she lays this all out and so far, in today's society it seems to be playing out just as she wrote. 

    Imagine a state where private business controlled everything.  Does that thought scare you?  I like the idea myself.   

    When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.

  • TrenchgunTrenchgun Member Posts: 295

    Because in a world full of populist socialist garbage that only sees things from the perspective of the "little guy" and those who would seek to control them, Atlas Shrugged is one of the few honest depictions of things from the perspective of a self made business tycoon being tampled on by politicians and the ignorant masses they pander to in order to gain power.

    It is a timeless story that has played out countless times to various countries since the era of industrialization. It's playing out right now with Obama in a way that has never happened before in this country.

    Even right down to the part where the collective factory workers end up murdering the old woman because she was soaked up all their healthcare funds while contributing nothing. Obama's government takeover of healthcare includes provisions to have government employees visit people's houses starting at age 55, and then every 5 years, to "talk with them" about considering euthanasia. And old people will be denied many procedures because he believes the best way to cut healthcare costs is just for them to die and get out of our way. So doctor induced euthanasia, something that is right now only just legal in a handful of states, is now going to be something the federal government wants to convince the entire country do to themselves when they reach a certain age. Not only will the government be funding it and providing it, but they'll be actively pushing to make it happen.

     

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by Trenchgun


    Because in a world full of populist socialist garbage that only sees things from the perspective of the "little guy" and those who would seek to control them, Atlas Shrugged is one of the few honest depictions of things from the perspective of a self made business tycoon being tampled on by politicians and the ignorant masses they pander to in order to gain power.
    It is a timeless story that has played out countless times to various countries since the era of industrialization. It's playing out right now with Obama in a way that has never happened before in this country.
    Even right down to the part where the collective factory workers end up murdering the old woman because she was soaked up all their healthcare funds while contributing nothing. Obama's government takeover of healthcare includes provisions to have government employees visit people's houses starting at age 55, and then every 5 years, to "talk with them" about considering euthanasia. And old people will be denied many procedures because he believes the best way to cut healthcare costs is just for them to die and get out of our way. So doctor induced euthanasia, something that is right now only just legal in a handful of states, is now going to be something the federal government wants to convince the entire country do to themselves when they reach a certain age. Not only will the government be funding it and providing it, but they'll be actively pushing to make it happen.
     

    Sad to say this is completely true, and we can see the truth of what you are saying every day here on this forum. The woman may not have been the best philosopher in the history of philosophy, but she certainly was a prophet. Ironically she was a hardcore atheist.

  • WickershamWickersham Member UncommonPosts: 2,379
    Originally posted by Trenchgun


    Because in a world full of populist socialist garbage that only sees things from the perspective of the "little guy" and those who would seek to control them, Atlas Shrugged is one of the few honest depictions of things from the perspective of a self made business tycoon being tampled on by politicians and the ignorant masses they pander to in order to gain power.
    It is a timeless story that has played out countless times to various countries since the era of industrialization. It's playing out right now with Obama in a way that has never happened before in this country.
    Even right down to the part where the collective factory workers end up murdering the old woman because she was soaked up all their healthcare funds while contributing nothing. Obama's government takeover of healthcare includes provisions to have government employees visit people's houses starting at age 55, and then every 5 years, to "talk with them" about considering euthanasia. And old people will be denied many procedures because he believes the best way to cut healthcare costs is just for them to die and get out of our way. So doctor induced euthanasia, something that is right now only just legal in a handful of states, is now going to be something the federal government wants to convince the entire country do to themselves when they reach a certain age. Not only will the government be funding it and providing it, but they'll be actively pushing to make it happen.
     



     

    Post an official link or retract the above statement.

    I also find it slightly ironic that you are using emotion to argue from a pro-Randroid position...

    The main problem with her novels is that she takes the best case scenario on one hand and the worst case on the other.  In Atlas Shrugged, as those captains of industry started to disappear, there would be able bodied people to take their place.  The book works only on the assumption that very few people are intelligent or competent and suggests it to a degree that anybody with half a brain should find insulting.

    "The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"

  • GazenthiaGazenthia Member Posts: 1,186
    Originally posted by Sargoth


    Who exactly lays out what is more than you need?  What is the system that lets you know you've made enough?  If you get more than someone else is that more than your share?  If I have a jet-ski and you don't, does that mean that I have more than my share? If I do my job better than you and make more money because of it, is that more than my fair share?  Should I then continue to work harder but at your wage?  What is my motivation to try harder if I cannot be compensated for my effort?  Or is it only when it's millions and millions.  Is that the magic amount that makes it safe to say that I am making more than I need?  
    And what's this welfare of the species?  Remember how it's the strong that survive, what your suggesting is to let the weak live.

     

    Sargoth, your post makes me laugh because you are talking small scale. There is no system (as in political/judiciary) or individual that can determine any of those things due to its nature. As to what I mean by welfare of the species, I mean the collective future and well-being of it. That inevitable future is not anarachy. Humanity has been on a consistent path towards a specific type of society, and elements of greed and anarchy have always been hindrances on the path to what we are obviously destined to be. For examples refer to the Vatican, what has happened with our economy and why we are still using gas-powered cars instead of colonising a distant world right now.

    By all means we are still incredibly primitive and savage, we even rely on metals and wood(!), future societies will look back on us as such.

    ___________________
    Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/

  • GazenthiaGazenthia Member Posts: 1,186
    Originally posted by Trenchgun

    Even right down to the part where the collective factory workers end up murdering the old woman because she was soaked up all their healthcare funds while contributing nothing. Obama's government takeover of healthcare includes provisions to have government employees visit people's houses starting at age 55, and then every 5 years, to "talk with them" about considering euthanasia. And old people will be denied many procedures because he believes the best way to cut healthcare costs is just for them to die and get out of our way. So doctor induced euthanasia, something that is right now only just legal in a handful of states, is now going to be something the federal government wants to convince the entire country do to themselves when they reach a certain age. Not only will the government be funding it and providing it, but they'll be actively pushing to make it happen.
     

     

    I have already addressed this elsewhere, it was a youtube comment so its brief:



    "I had a relative, who had insurance, in the hospital long-term. Another relative who took care of them was put through hell, involving having their belongings stolen and told to let the patient die and see God (no joke) because they were losing money.

    The? patient was mistreated, and eventually died. We strongly suspect that the death was due to negligence of the staff. "



    The patient was too much hassle, they could possibly lose money, and old. We were getting in the way of them seeing God ( actually told this) and should let them die instead of using taxpayers money (actually told this). What is that if not doctor-forced euthanasia? A hellish edition of it?



    Additionally older people suffer discrimination when it comes to getting the aggressive treatment and attention they need to make it. Period. What do you think that is?

     

    What you are trying to pin on Obama and his reform is BS, because that already happens and has always been the reality here is the states.

     

    ___________________
    Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/

Sign In or Register to comment.