by Terry 93 Replies latest jw friends
Individuals have the right to own the property they can AFFORD and if they can't afford it, guess what, they don't have the right to their own property.
And if the individual wants to lie in a given society with certain rules and regulations, he must follow them ( pay taxes to get services) or he is free to go elsewhere.
Those are great "rights" to have, but they are not given, they are earned.
That "objectivistparty", are they an off shoot of Rand's legacy?
Yes.
Some interesting views on that website:
I agree with every single point you post from there.
BTS
What I learned from Ayn Rand:
She could not apply her philosophy to herself. Her philosophy didn't save her from being sexist and homophobic, and she can be seen as promoting sexism and homophobia which, in a strict sense, Objectivism should eliminate.
Her philosophy mandates economic peons. It is predicated on the theory that men are inequal, and it is foolish to promote the advancement of others. Without peon consumers, there is no market for the Objectivist business owner (not everyone can nor should be Objectivists - you need a caste system for the philosophy to work on a large scale).
An extension of her philosophy: inheritance is ill-gotten gains that an individual did nothing for, and should be outlawed.
An interesting, if flawed, promulgation of Objectivisim can be found in Terry Goodkind's works. Like the original philosophy itself, it breaks down around the issue of "greater good": on the one hand, Objectivisim purports to recognize no "greater good" beyond the individual; on the other hand, when establishing rights of conquest and acceptable targets of violence, the "greater good" banner comes into possession of the state or nation that proclaims itself "right".
The true Objectivist can be viewed as little more than an amoral anarchist when you really look at it.
There's a bit of loose playing with terms in this thread: subjectivity, objectivity (lower case), perception...indeed, I have met few people that are capable of pure perception, they can only access their interpretation.
There are some good things to take from Rand. It's dangerous to adopt her ideas whole-hog.
Void Eater: I have met few people that are capable of pure perception, they can only access their interpretation.
Which you've ably demonstrated by your warped and erroneous descriptions of both Rand personally and your characterizations of her philosophy.
You see, you actually have to read the text of what the Philosophy is and not go by what others say it is.
An interesting, if flawed, promulgation of Objectivisim can be found in Terry Goodkind's works.
Why not just read Ayn Rand for a non-flawed original statement?
Her philosophy mandates economic peons.
Do you know what a "mandate" is? It is a command from an authority to do something. Philosophers don't give mandates. Rand's philosphy is about taking charge of your own life, not following commands.
It is predicated on the theory that men are inequal, and it is foolish to promote the advancement of others.
You don't know what you are talking about. But, that doesn't seem to stop you, does it?
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal.
I've discovered it's dangerous and stupid to apply any one philosophy to every situation....that's what Witnesses do with the Bible. It's like the all purpose fix it snake oil for everything from social injustice to depression to marital discord, to proper diet.
Feh...no panaceas, no utopias, no all purpose, all encompassing philosophies. One size does not fit all...I learned that the hard way wearing pantyhose.
I've discovered it's dangerous and stupid to apply any one philosophy to every situation
How many philosophies are the right number? Which ones do you reccomend?
Philosophy asks the question "What do we know and how do we know it."
We base our actions on what appears to be "good." Philosophy gives us the tools to ask and answer: "What is the good.?"
Ayn Rand stated her view:
For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors—between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.
Terry, I appreciate your zeal for Rand's philosophy, but I am sure that you don't view it 100% infalliable, do you?
Terry, I appreciate your zeal for Rand's philosophy, but I am sure that you don't view it 100% infalliable, do you?
Philosophy isn't religion. It isn't belief. It isn't Faith in the unseen.
Philosophy is a tool for thinking, sifting, weighing our actions by some measurable standard.
Rand does an accurate and intelligent job of explaining how we humans go about it.
What I like about Rand's philosophy is it makes man the one who is responsible for his own life.
Infallible? Nothing is infallible.
People need tools, especially for applying their intelligence--but, nobody can claim infallibility unless they are in an asylum!
I'm a defender of Rand's philosophy because it JUMP STARTED my attention and directed in a positive way.
I took charge of my thinking and cleaned house.
Mortimer J.Adler and Ayn Rand's (Arisotelian) philosophy gave me a map out of religious captivity so that I could pilot my own ship.
I'd compare it to working on your own car. You can go on instinct and trial and error---but, it is a whole lot easier if you have the Chilton's manual!
Ah, understood, thanks.
I read Capitalism the unknown ideal by her which is actually not bad.
