Well, I think this is it for 'merica. v. Ayn Rand discussion on pg. 3

[gmillerdrake]

That was unfair man. And in fact this was what began this entire exchange. Exactly the 'feeling' I encountered when reading you and emindead's exchange. Felt belittled a bit but hey, interpretation over the internet is tricky and I should have just overlooked it anyway.

See, if you'd been around longer, you would have known I was taking a pot-shot at Em's idol.

Well it may take a few PHD's to get to the bottom of America's downfall...but you don't need CSI to figure out I most definately caused this mess. 
 I actually just wanted attention, and a way to raise my post count so someone would talk to me

[j]

Welcome, G-Mill.

-J

[yeshaberto]

Welcome, G-Mill.

-J

+1

[Perpetual Change]

That was unfair man. And in fact this was what began this entire exchange. Exactly the 'feeling' I encountered when reading you and emindead's exchange. Felt belittled a bit but hey, interpretation over the internet is tricky and I should have just overlooked it anyway.

See, if you'd been around longer, you would have known I was taking a pot-shot at Em's idol.

Well it may take a few PHD's to get to the bottom of America's downfall...but you don't need CSI to figure out I most definately caused this mess.  
 I actually just wanted attention, and a way to raise my post count so someone would talk to me

I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but people here really don't care about post count so don't worry, regardless of what you heard.

[William Wallace]

Greed is bad. Rational self-interest is good. I can't believe people still adhere to that arrogant hypocrite's absolutely fumbled defining of those two terms.

I thought that was one of her best rhetorical skills, especially because it irritated the hell out of the progressive types.

[Perpetual Change]

Eh, maybe it would have worked for her better if she weren't busy calling all of her supporters "plagiarists of her philosophy."

[emindead]

Greed is bad. Rational self-interest is good. I can't believe people still adhere to Ayn Rand's absolutely fumbled attempt at defining and equating those two terms.

Oh you and your chit-chat.

[emindead]

Eh, maybe it would have worked for her better if she weren't busy calling all of her supporters "plagiarists of her philosophy."

But that's another issue.

[William Wallace]

Eh, maybe it would have worked for her better if she weren't busy calling all of her supporters "plagiarists of her philosophy."

You should love that. She was a staunch defender of intellectual property.

[Tanatra]

Yeah, the problem with PR newbs is they always come in with a know-it-all attitude, like they're gods gift to us PR folk.

I've been lurking ever since the DT.net days, so I've been a newb for half a decade. When I do get around to posting, members seldom respond, which is understandable since I'm just not that well known here at all. But in the few instances that someone did comment on something I said, it was never disrespectful in any way.

I don't mind my perpetual newbness though; if I ever post in a topic, I always form a borderline obsessive-compulsive interest in it, and I waste too much time online already.

However, if all goes as planned, I'll be starting graduate studies in economics next fall. I look forward to debating the resident economics student (Emindead) once I have firm grasp of the field.

[j]

Maybe people don't respond to you because of your scary avatar.

-J

[Tanatra]

Yeah, the only reason I still have that image is because of how rarely I post here. I tried using this avatar when I joined another forum, but immediately after my first post, someone made a topic with a poll asking me to change it. 

[Perpetual Change]

Greed is bad. Rational self-interest is good. I can't believe people still adhere to Ayn Rand's absolutely fumbled attempt at defining and equating those two terms.

Oh you and your chit-chat.

So there's no difference?

[Perpetual Change]

Eh, maybe it would have worked for her better if she weren't busy calling all of her supporters "plagiarists of her philosophy."

You should love that. She was a staunch defender of intellectual property.

You mean intellectual property covers who and what you're allowed to agree with? 

Honestly, I think Rand was just shocked and appalled to get the closest 'mirror image' of herself.

[emindead]

Greed is bad. Rational self-interest is good. I can't believe people still adhere to Ayn Rand's absolutely fumbled attempt at defining and equating those two terms.

Oh you and your chit-chat.

So there's no difference?

What's the difference? You only said Greed=Bad and "Rational" Self-interest = good. Is there really a difference?

[Perpetual Change]

Yes, because "rational self-interest" tells us that we ought to not be greedy because helping others (by our own volition rather than being forced into it) is for our own good. Greed is a base behavior that's complete separate from rationality. "rational greed" is a complete paradox. That's why I think Rand was either being her typical shock-jock self, or simply confusing the terms thanks to her language barrier, as was the case many times when she decided to "define" things.

[Super Dude]

On that note, why is it wrong to help others for its own sake? I see the logic in rational self-interest, but does that not seem like an empty, unfulfilling moral standard to follow through life?

[Perpetual Change]

On that note, why is it wrong to help others for its own sake? I see the logic in rational self-interest, but does that not seem like an empty, unfulfilling moral standard to follow through life?

While I agree with this statement, it's unfortunately a tough sell to others. What I find most bizarre is the amount of people who call themselves "Christians" on the right but go around saying they should have no obligation to help others. 

[emindead]

On that note, why is it wrong to help others for its own sake? I see the logic in rational self-interest, but does that not seem like an empty, unfulfilling moral standard to follow through life?

While I agree with this statement, it's unfortunately a tough sell to others. What I find most bizarre is the amount of people who call themselves "Christians" on the right but go around saying they should have no obligation to help others. 

No outside obligation, i.e. not IMPOSED obligation. It's true that Christians do have that moral obligation and they should follow it, but again you are mixing problems. It is not wrong wanting to help others if that is what you want to do (Rand would say that you should just cooperate in voluntary exchange among others, but there's no obligation. Christians follow what Jesus said on the matter, which is different).

Yes, because "rational self-interest" tells us that we ought to not be greedy because helping others (by our own volition rather than being forced into it) is for our own good. Greed is a base behavior that's complete separate from rationality. "rational greed" is a complete paradox. That's why I think Rand was either being her typical shock-jock self, or simply confusing the terms thanks to her language barrier, as was the case many times when she decided to "define" things.

'Is for our own good'? According to who? That sounds like a preachy statement my mum would say: "Do it! It's for your own good!" When in reality it was a big mistake.

Her language barrier? Do you know that she did master English? Sure, her accent was heavily Russian and at first there was a transition from fully stop thinking in Russian and finally doing it completely in English, but I don't understand how you are reaching to your conclusions. "Oh, she's mistaking Rational Self-Interest with greed because she didn't know English that well." I think you are very wrong on that part.

[Perpetual Change]

Considering nearly every time she attempts to define something she completely butchers it in some way, I'm doing her a favor by suggesting the language barrier rather just an inability to think logically. I mean, seriously. "Greed" is "Rational." "Sacrifice" to Ayn Rand somehow meant "Suicide." If you watch her on her last public appearance (with Phil Donahue) it's actually very interesting when he and others point out some obvious mistakes at her usage of terms. She just kinda sits there with an "I guess you're right" kinda look and makes some concessions at the end of the show.

I flirted with Objectivism for years and, honestly, the entire philosophy seems based on a all-to-swift or all-out misdefining of terms. Sometimes these errors are attributed to her simply not being perfect. Other times, I'm sure she was just being hyperbolic. It starts at the beginning, where she talks about primitive man's need to do whatever it can to protect itself. This is the basis of her "individualism." Never once does she mention that primitive man, to protect itself, formed tribes.

[Perpetual Change]

Since I mentioned Christianity, I dug up this quote. This is Rand on Christianity. Anyone should be able to realize the obvious jumps and flaws here, so I won't point them out. But I will say the mistakes made below pretty much encompases the failures of her philosophy in other areas. Note how every time she mentions 'soul' its usage is stretched even more broadly:

   There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

    This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

[emindead]

OK, let's see what Ayn Rand says on the matter:

Just as man cannot survive by any random means, but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man's self-interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest—or of rational selfishness.

She doesn't say greed but what you call it, PC.

Carrying on with that

The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man's survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.

The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.

[Perpetual Change]

Eh. At some point, she used "Greed is good." Maybe it was eventually honed in on that statement, but it wasn't always that way. But if your agreeing with me that "greed" is different than "rational self interest," then I see no point in arguing further.

[emindead]

The Greed is good, that I know of, was said by these two fellows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muz1OcEzJOs

[rumborak]

   There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

    This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

Whoa. Yeah, that's pretty shoddy reasoning. Blaming Christianity's violent past on a "contradiction" which is innate to all humanity is just stupid.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

   There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

    This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

Whoa. Yeah, that's pretty shoddy reasoning. Blaming Christianity's violent past on a "contradiction" which is innate to all humanity is just stupid.

rumborak

Yeah, once out of the context of politics her philosophy looses a lot of its credibility. On religion I consider her little more than a angrier Richard Dawkins.

[Perpetual Change]

Yeah, once out of the context of politics her philosophy looses a lot of its credibility. On religion I consider her little more than a angrier Richard Dawkins.

If you're saying you think it's only once that she's wrong, I don't believe you 

[Super Dude]

Now this is what I call a thread derailment.

[Perpetual Change]

It's my thread, dammit, and we'll talk about Ayn Rand if I want to!

Unless someone tells me otherwise... lol

[William Wallace]

Yeah, once out of the context of politics her philosophy looses a lot of its credibility. On religion I consider her little more than a angrier Richard Dawkins.

If you're saying you think it's only once that she's wrong, I don't believe you  

She was totally wrong about IP, too. So at least twice.   But seriously, the concept of liberty is too big to belong to one person's "philosophy." And the authoritarian qualities that developed around her inner circle of followers were appalling. This play that Murray Rothbard authored was very telling in that respect.  

[Perpetual Change]

That's pretty fascinating. Her following does seem to have been pretty bizarre.

Also, I think this interview is really great. This, for me, sums up Rand; everything that can be said to her credit and against it. Rand on Donahue:

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU

Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N4KbLbGYgk

Part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7cje1I3VM

Part 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfqq4VKh1xM

[emindead]

Ron Paul said in a short interview that he likes Ayn Rand except that she was very militant. And that's true and that (and her issue with religion) is where I draw the line with Objectivism. Having said that, I don't ignore her. I do admire her political, economical, rational-selfishness (on the matter of having pride on oneself) and many other ideas. Some of the things she said are just fantastic; some are "I can't believe you just said this" (e.g. her opinion on Feminism and oh my God: Humour. FUCK IF YOU CAN BE THAT VAGUE!; as well as IP).

See, based on that interview I made the thread "Expropriation Is Theft". She advocates that we [the US Government] can do something about nationalization (expropriation), especially in the oil issue, and take a hard position. Her argument is that since Government is responsible of the Judicial branch that they should intervene and do something about it. The thing is that Shell and Mobil made a contract with Arabs on their land; they were exposed to those risks. Rand expands the issue extra-territorially -and that's a fine line- saying that the US Government has a say on this. It was a private enterprise, so the only thing that Shell and Mobile should have and could have done is dynamite their whole facilities down... just like Howard Roarke did in The Fountainhead.

One must not be so blind when making fun of her. She said incredible things and that's what we should focus on.

Edit: Oh, and "Mozart Was a Red" by Rothbard is hilarious!

[Perpetual Change]

One must not be so blind when making fun of her. She said incredible things and that's what we should focus on.

She was also a huge pain in the ass. It's easier for "we the living" to give her the benefit of the doubt, since we weren't around to experience the absurdity.

My take on her is that she wasn't very original and nearly as important as she made herself out to be, but people were "woken up" by her books nonetheless. Those who read her books and later questioned certain aspects of them are infinitely better for it than the goons who ate up every word as dogma.

Rands quotes on accepting government money are extremely telling given the recent bailout. I'd say they validate the statement that "her" ideas caused the collapse. Have a look:

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

In these conditions, a scientist is morally justified in accepting government grants—so long as he opposes all forms of welfare statism. As in the case of scholarship-recipients, a scientist does not have to add self-martyrdom to the injustices he suffers.

This says, "it's OK to accept money from the government, as long as you just look at it in a different way and oppose any other attempts by the government makes to give other people money." If that kind of logic doesn't extend to "it's okay to let the government shell-out a contract (or bailout) to your private organization, as long as you pretend they're paying you back for the money they taxed you before. And as long as you oppose any further efforts the government makes to give people welfare" then I don't know what does. Opportunism was also deeply ingrained in her circle, so it makes sense that she'd outlash against people who wouldn't support such obvious equivocal statements as the one above.

 

[ack44]

Lol Objectivism. Here's some wisdom by Robert Anton Wilson who had met Ayn Rand.

Marxism is very similar to fundamentalist Protestantism: they know the truth; they don't care how many people they have to kill till they get their "truth" established. Objectivism is very similar, that's another atheistic religion. I've always believed Ayn Rand was really the Grand Duchess Anastasia. I think that one in West Virginia is a fake. Ayn Rand acted a hell of a lot more like a Romanov than that woman in West Virginia. And I think after the Bolsheviks killed her family and she escaped, she decided she would found another atheistic religion to compete with Communism, and that's how Objectivism got created.

[William Wallace]

One must not be so blind when making fun of her. She said incredible things and that's what we should focus on.

She was also a huge pain in the ass. It's easier for "we the living" to give her the benefit of the doubt, since we weren't around to experience the absurdity.

My take on her is that she wasn't very original and nearly as important as she made herself out to be, but people were "woken up" by her books nonetheless. Those who read her books and later questioned certain aspects of them are infinitely better for it than the goons who ate up every word as dogma.

Rands quotes on accepting government money are extremely telling given the recent bailout. I'd say they validate the statement that "her" ideas caused the collapse. Have a look:

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

In these conditions, a scientist is morally justified in accepting government grants—so long as he opposes all forms of welfare statism. As in the case of scholarship-recipients, a scientist does not have to add self-martyrdom to the injustices he suffers.

This says, "it's OK to accept money from the government, as long as you just look at it in a different way and oppose any other attempts by the government makes to give other people money." If that kind of logic doesn't extend to "it's okay to let the government shell-out a contract (or bailout) to your private organization, as long as you pretend they're paying you back for the money they taxed you before. And as long as you oppose any further efforts the government makes to give people welfare" then I don't know what does. Opportunism was also deeply ingrained in her circle, so it makes sense that she'd outlash against people who wouldn't support such obvious equivocal statements as the one above.

 

I'm not familiar with the context of those statements. But assuming you are correct, you have to take the good and leave the bad. Even great thinkers don't adhere to their own ideas consistently. Jefferson, for example, was responsible for all sorts of extra-constitutional actions. Does that mean all of his ideas are shit? No. And I think the same applies here. Her statements very obviously contradict her philosophy, but that doesn't refute everything she's ever said.