[W:816] A Lesson from Atlas Shrugged

[Dacke]

ahh yes, the old attempt to frame the argument in binary terms. "one is either for Rand or a totalitarian/authoritarian/fascist/etc" which speaks to my "its a bunch of 12 year olds" argument

Thank you for being an example of what I am talking about.

Bro, you have still not made an argument. :lamo

 

[Slartibartfast]

What do you mean by "social being" and how does Objectivism deny that man is social?

When you go to the store to buy a Coke, do you do it to "serve humanity" or do you do it to satisfy your own cravings? When the store-owner sells it to you, does he do it for his own profit or to "serve humanity"?

True Egoism in its original Greek meaning which is the one Rand uses is a great value and sadly somehing that we have lost and no longer advocate.

Problem 1: It denies that man is social by trying to establish that man's accomplishments are what governs their primary worth. The vehicle in which it does that is the distortion of the idea of a man should keep what he earns. This ignores that any man's accomplishments are built on a foundation of society and that my or your accomplishments are mainly due to the circumstances and technology in which we are born, therefore the society which inspired and helped create that man into what he is so that he may accomplish some task or goal.

Problem 2: Even with your coke example, the reason capitalism works is because it promotes that interdependence and web of transactions in which modern society is built in a juxtaposition of satisfying primate drives (for sugar in this case) using the intrinsic motivation provided by evolution (that same evolution which turned us into a social species due to it being a workable survival strategy) and attempts to say because this man's drive to have sugar is somehow independent or should be considered independently of all of the other drives that a man has (this is where it does not look at human nature, but a distorted picture of it). For further research, see Maslow's heirarchy of needs as a simple demonstration of the point (a more complex demonstration would be Haidt's Moral Foundations theory)

Because the philsophy does not deal with the whole human, it tends to attract broken people or immature people.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Bro, you have still not made an argument. :lamo

Correction: I did not make an argument that you understood, I rephrased it in more academic terms, see post 27

 

[Slartibartfast]

I haven’t studied various philosophies in some time, so I have no comment about that.

But Rynd does celebrate selfishness as a virtue.


Just enough time to read the Cliff Notes!

I went through a several year period before I found Christianity where I studied EVERYTHING and realized that most philosophy is just conjecture and is fairly useless.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1295237072496873472

View attachment 67291849

The Fed - Distribution: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989

View attachment 67291850

View attachment 67291851

What's your solution to paper wealth?

 

[TomFitz]

ahh yes, the old attempt to frame the argument in binary terms. "one is either for Rand or a totalitarian/authoritarian/fascist/etc" which speaks to my "its a bunch of 12 year olds" argument

Thank you for being an example of what I am talking about.

I think that exchange does suggest part of Trump’s appeal and his cult of personality.

Selfishness and disregard for others are virtues to Rynd and her followers. it’s all over right wing media, and has been for decades.

 

[TomFitz]

What's your solution to paper wealth?[/QUOTE

Tax it at the same rate as work.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think that exchange does suggest part of Trump’s appeal and his cult of personality.

Selfishness and disregard for others are virtues to Rynd and her followers. it’s all over right wing media, and has been for decades.

Trump is also a broken person, he will attract broken people due to the emotional response that such people tend to feed off of. However, that has little to do with objectivism, except for broken people tend to be attracted to extreme things in general.

 

[Dacke]

Tried, and tried. Cannot finish or even get into her stilted, horrible dirges. I wanted to understand conservatives. She is pathetic. Unhappy and died alone.

Since when is Ayn Rand a Conservative? :lamo

If you want to understand Conservatives, you should read the Bible or some of the German philosophers.

But she is useful, so they have never let her die.

How exactly are Conservatives proponents of Objectivism and where in their actions do you see this Objectivism manifest itself?

This is a foolish notion.

I hope the greedy rich move away. Pay their taxes on the way out. We will figure out how to replace them. Give others opportunities.

Oooh, you do not want the rich, but you want their money? :lamo What are you going to do when new rich people emerge? Who is ever going to give anyone opportunities if there are no entrepreneurs? :lamo

And people claim Objectivists live in La La Land :lamo

 

[Paradoxical]

I am sure you think it is :lol:

I should have qualified my post. It is a great book unless you envy others for what they have been able to achieve in life.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I should have qualified my post. It is a great book unless you envy others for what they have been able to achieve in life.

:lol:

Given the number of liberals who are quite well off and successful on their own merits, your assertion is easily disproven.

 

[Paradoxical]

I’m not sure whether to compliment you on your perseverance or wonder why you wasted so much time!

I only made it about 300 pages before I couldn’t take it anymore.

In a Rynd novel, one character asks a stranger the time of day, and 35 pages later, after we’ve been lectured about the deep meaning of the question, and the deep background of the characters, you finally know what time it is!!!!!

If Ernest Hemingway has written “Atlas Shruged”, it would have been ten pages long!

Personal responsibility is not a quality of those who don't like Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Dacke]

Problem 1: It denies that man is social by trying to establish that man's accomplishments are what governs their primary worth. The vehicle in which it does that is the distortion of the idea of a man should keep what he earns. This ignores that any man's accomplishments are built on a foundation of society and that my or your accomplishments are mainly due to the circumstances and technology in which we are born, therefore the society which inspired and helped create that man into what he is so that he may accomplish some task or goal.

Objectivism does not deny the existence of supply chains, importance of co-operation and the beauty of technological advancements. If anything, it is the collectivistic, anti-capitalist and altruistic culture of today that denies this.

Objectvisim recognises every individual is capable of achieving their own happiness and should be equally allowed to pursue their values. How anyone can call this "evil" or "pathetic" is beyond me.

Problem 2: Even with your coke example, the reason capitalism works is because it promotes that interdependence and web of transactions in which modern society is built in a juxtaposition of satisfying primate drives (for sugar in this case) using the intrinsic motivation provided by evolution (that same evolution which turned us into a social species due to it being a workable survival strategy) and attempts to say because this man's drive to have sugar is somehow independent or should be considered independently of all of the other drives that a man has (this is where it does not look at human nature, but a distorted picture of it). For further research, see Maslow's heirarchy of needs as a simple demonstration of the point (a more complex demonstration would be Haidt's Moral Foundations theory)

What the heck are you talking about? :lamo

Because the philsophy does not deal with the whole human, it tends to attract broken people or immature people.

Not an argument.

 

[Dacke]

:lol:

Given the number of liberals who are quite well off and successful on their own merits, your assertion is easily disproven.

I thought you laughed at Ayn Rand for suggesting that man can be well off and successful on their own.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I thought you laughed at Ayn Rand for suggesting that man can be well off and successful on their own.

Nope, that is not the part of objectivism I have a problem with. As far as I know, no philosophy except communism has that particular concern.

see post 27 for my concerns about the philosophy.

 

[Dacke]

I went through a several year period before I found Christianity where I studied EVERYTHING and realized that most philosophy is just conjecture and is fairly useless.

Hahahhahahahahaha. Ooooof coooourse! You are a religious mystic! This explains your hate for Rand. I should have known.

 

[Dacke]

Nope, that is not the part of objectivism I have a problem with. As far as I know, no philosophy except communism has that particular concern.

see post 27 for my concerns about the philosophy.

Oh God. I am done with you. I don't talk to people who want me dead.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Objectivism does not deny the existence of supply chains, importance of co-operation and the beauty of technological advancements. If anything, it is the collectivistic, anti-capitalist and altruistic culture of today that denies this.

Objectvisim recognises every individual is capable of achieving their own happiness and should be equally allowed to pursue their values. How anyone can call this "evil" or "pathetic" is beyond me.

Because it denies much of human nature as I pointed out. To pursue one's goal and ignore society is what a sociopath is.

What the heck are you talking about? :lamo

Please see the authors I pointed out. This does to my point about it being an incomplete argument about human nature and my argument is now compounded by your lack of basic understanding in the topic.

What books or authors beyond Rand have you studied?

Not an argument.

It is the summary of points 1 and 2.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Oh God. I am done with you. I don't talk to people who want me dead.

What you dead??

 

[Thom Paine]

Because the philsophy does not deal with the whole human, it tends to attract broken people or immature people.

Could you share the/your definition of above?

 

[Paradoxical]

:lol:

Given the number of liberals who are quite well off and successful on their own merits, your assertion is easily disproven.

I would bet you that if you were to take the liberals that make a lot of money you will find that they are in some government job, for the most part.

Many of the liberal billionaires made it in the computer industry.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Hahahhahahahahaha. Ooooof coooourse! You are a religious mystic! This explains your hate for Rand. I should have known.

A mystic? This is disproven by the fact I decided to use logic, social science, and philosophy in my criticism. I could have gone the religious route if I had chosen, but if I had done so, this discussion would have taken a very different flavor.

Given that you have shown that you don't even understand the counter arguments tells me that you need to do some study and perhaps take a philosophy and psychology 101 course at minimum.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I would bet you that if you were to take the liberals that make a lot of money you will find that they are in some government job, for the most part.

Many of the liberal billionaires made it in the computer industry.

You just contradicted yourself in one statement there buddy.

Unless you think the computer industry is somehow only finds customers or constituents in government.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Could you share the/your definition of above?

Probably the easiest way is to link this video, its a bit dense of a topic and not easily summarized. However, it is the best theory and explainer of human activity I have ever seen and explains so much of what people do and how they behave.



However, the criticism in light of the video is that objectivism ignores many of these pillars, especially the fairness and care pillars and overemphasizes the liberty pillar. Objectivism is a trap philosophy in that regard because it feels moral because it hits certain structures in our brain that make us feel good in obeying that drive, so people fall into it. What we call morality is just evolutionarily shaped behaviors to promote survival and reproduction, there really is nothing deeper than that (from a purely material point of view at least)

For extra credit, you can see where liberals tend to get it wrong from this theory as well

 

[bongsaway]

This is part 1 but there are more parts to follow.

I have never caught hell from Republicans on the values found in Atlas Shrugged but from Democrats, I catch holy hell. They prove how they think by rejecting the lessons of Atlas Shrugged. This comes close to discussing Antitrust laws were Government decides for business what business may do.

Watch part 1.

Horsecrap, business decides what business is going to do. The fed as an example. They set the interest rates. Is the federal reserve a part of our government? No, it's privately owned. Business dictates to our elected officials what will and won't pass, especially among the R's.

All republican politics really is how much can I grab for myself.