kluang

Unfortunately, I have no idea who is john galt of that aryan guy

__________________

RNB

Yes, that is basically what she says. She says that giving charity and such is selfish if one is giving it to a person of value. Basically, one is not to ever sacrifice himself, meaning that one should never voluntarily take a net loss. Giving a birthday present to your son, or treating your girlfriend to a nice dinner is a selfish act.

Basically, most people do act this way. The problem is, it is commonly referred to as selfless and then people who want to be morally consistent base their morality around the term "selfless."

Those who are out to achieve selflessness such as Buddhists, humanitarians, Judeo-Christians, etc. are destroyers of the mind and ultimately anti-life because they preach that one should follow a morality that leads to the destruction of their physical self and the loss of life in the mental sense. That is really the ground-breaking thing about Ayn Rand. Her philosophy is so logically sound that most of her critiques are devoid of logic.

She was against the idea of total democracy on all issues. Like voting for people running for office is a democratic issue. The law should not be chosen by the masses though. The law should be based solely on the objective law. The law should only protect individual rights because that is the only rational reason to have government.

For the sake of the argument, I am assuming the bolded was a true statement and you weren't just saying it. Statements such as that one where one neglects to think are bad. When I mean bad, I mean that it is not proper to yourself. See, reality presents you with a choice. Reality says, "What is your stance on economics?" Instead of being human, using the tool of humans (reason), you run from this choice. What is more cowardly than running from reality? Are you better than those who run from reality in areas of religion, who believe that they do not bear the guilt for the decisions they make? One should be proud of the choice he is condemned to. It is only proper for him if he is to be the hero (human) that he can be.

Unfortunately, Ayn Rand was never hot in a physical sense. I have seen pictures of her younger and she isn't that pretty. not big into Russian chicks though. Her personality is attractive to me though. Would I talk with her if I could? Yes. Would I ever put my face to hers in the act of kissing? Hell no.

Assuming this was more than a joke of course, I would like to point out a few differences between my philosophy and Ayn Rand's. For one, Ayn Rand holds a view that women should never really take leadership roles or roles that require lots of strength because of biological reasons. I take a more existentialist view in that I believe that one can break the biological reasons and become a great leader or a strong woman. It is an animal instinct to be a slave to genetics, not a humans. To a hero (human) I hold it proper to man that he must look at himself as the potential self-made man, or woman. If genetics are to play a role, we would have to give up some self-esteem to that.

She also opposes homosexuality because she believes that a woman should look for the hero in a man, based on the reasons in the above paragraph. Most Objectivists disagree with her though, as do I. This is based on the same reason as the above paragraph.

She also believes in a more aggressive foreign policy than me. I prefer a more non-intervention foreign policy. She thinks that any true threat should be annihilated before it gets to us.

Basically, Objectivism is a skeleton philosophy for me. It is the basis of mine, but there is much more to it. I only preach it for the same reason that you would preach that a video game is good or a movie was good. I like it, and I would like to share it with other people. Plus, it starts a lot of arguments because most people don't like Rand. She is hated in academic circles because she calls a lot of highly regarded philosophers as "pretentious" and "useless." I agree with her on most of those views because philosophy is being used as a tool to benefit the collective and not the individual pursuit of happiness. Plus, the constant denial of truth and dialectics from a lot of them is plain stupid considering how it doesn't help you live in reality to believe any of that.

Yeah I know, Alan Moore sure is a genius when it comes to philosophy even though his proposed attack on Ayn Rand's beliefs backfired when everyone describes their favorite character as Rorschach.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Miburo

I agree with this, more or less. But really, it's not all that ground-breaking. It boils down to saying "To be happy, you have to do things that make you happy."

And people who 'base their morality around the term "selfless"' are just using the wrong terminology. When they say "selfless" they really mean something more along the lines of "being nice to people." If they spend their life being nice to people, because being nice to people makes them happy, then they're still being selfish heroes or what not. So it's all good, yeah?

What if one desires to follow such a morality? If they're doing what they want to do, then are they not being selfish? And therefore, being a human hero and shit? I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just don't get that part of her philosophy.


I don't get this either. It's morally wrong to not form an opinion on a subject you have no real interest in and lack sufficient knowledge about? I only have a basic understanding of capitalism, and have even less knowledge of alternative economic systems. I'm really not in any position to form an educated, logical opinion on economics in general.

It's like if I asked your opinion on wrestling techniques in general. Would you form and express an opinion based on limited knowledge? Or would you research different wrestling philosophies, the knowledge of physics and human anatomy required to wrestle effectively, the advantages and disadvantages of various different techniques, actually go out and wrestle to achieve first hand knowledge, etc. so that you can form an educated opinion, despite not having any real interest in the art?

I mean, seriously. I don't give a shit about tennis rackets. I have no opinions on tennis rackets, I don't even know any tennis racket brands. I would never even touch a tennis racket in my entire life unless one happens to be within grabbing distance of me while I'm being attacked by bees or some shit. So if someone asks me what my favorite tennis racket brand is then I'm a pussy who runs from reality that isn't proper to himself and is no better than religious people who destroy their physical bodies and lose their lives in a mental sense unless I be all the human hero I can be by seriously reflecting on the question reality has presented me with and bear the guilt of the decision I am condemned to? WUT?

WUT?!?

RNB

It isn't groundbreaking. What is groundbreaking is how logically consistent her whole philosophy is. What people don't understand is how we tend to do a lot that does not in fact make us happy even though we think it does. You have your short term pleasures that can ruin the possibility of future happiness, which are done all the time these days. Mainly, Ayn Rand attacks the inconsistency in everyone's beliefs.

Some people say that they feel bad when they see a beggar on the street and refuse to do anything about it. Therefore, in order to make themselves happy, they should give him some money. So you give him the money, but later feel hungry. You scramble for some money to go to Mcdonald's to pick up their dollar double cheeseburger, but you remember that you gave it to the beggar who did no good to you. Of course, the analogy is sort of stupid, but the point is illustrated. It isn't doing what just makes you feel good, it is doing what you know will make you happy in the long run.

Heck, based on half the philosophy that comes out these days, Ayn Rand is Einstein when it comes to philosophy. You have people out there saying A doesn't equal A anymore.

It isn't just terminology. It is the fact that then they tell other people to stop being so selfish, which is chastising someone for their virtue. That is what is wrong. The thing is, you act as if everyone is given different things to be happy about from birth. We are all humans, and we all face the human condition. A healthy self-esteem while never fail to bring joy to any human. Being self-sacrificial, in other words a low self-esteem, is the exact opposite of this. That is why no one really can be happy from just "being nice to people." Being nice to people can have benefits such as friendship, but being self sacrificial is the problem. It is totally selfish to have a good demeanor around everyone because you will benefit in the end from being on the good side of people without crossing any moral boundaries.

It isn't what they actually want to do. That is my point. You could say, "Well, how do you know what people want?" The answer is that people want the rational. The rational is what people truly want because it is what they will truly benefit from. The can say that they want the self sacrificial life, but it is because they deny the fact that A=A. They would rather be tortured to death than experience the best possible existence for themselves.

Tennis and wrestling is a much different matter than economics and politics. Politics is something that should be on everyone's mind since it affects everyone. Tennis and wrestling are hobbies that certain people have. It isn't like if one doesn't know how the scoring goes in tennis they will go to jail. The reality is, if one doesn't stay updated in politics and stay knowledgeable, you may end up having a hard time.

The fact is, there is an infinite amount of knowledge out there. We must use our rational mind to choose what is best for us. There are some things which are obviously best for everyone such as knowing how to speak, knowing how to write, knowing that seasons, knowing politics.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redneckboy That is why no one really can be happy from "being nice to people." Being nice to people cane have benefits such as friendship, but being self sacrificial is the problem. It is totally selfish to have a good demeanor around everyone because you will benefit in the end from being ont he good side of people without crossing any moral boundaries.

Case in point: At work, I take any extra shifts they throw at me. Not because I'm a nice guy who's willing to help them out at the cost of my own free time, but because it gets me:
a) money, which I need to finish school and (hopefully) ensure my long-term happiness.
b) on their good side, making my entire job significantly easier because I have become the "hard-working, dependable, trustworthy" guy.

RNB

I edited my last post for some spelling errors and the bold. Without the bold, it would be saying the exact opposite of what I am trying to say.

Here is a different scenario. Let's say your friend is hurt at work and handicapped for life. He can no longer preform his job so he asks to stay with you for awhile. It is perfectly rational to allow him since you value his friendship. A week later you realize he has eaten all your food, ran up your cable bill, and jacked-off on your couch. He is a looter. He is no good and is riding on your back. The rational and selfish thing to do is kick him out. I don't care how much moral support he provides, the man is making you work hours so that he can only consume.

Most people would say such a thing is mean. I believe that it is the right and just thing to do.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

balmung5000

WAIT WAIT
DO THAT MEAN WHEN THE CASHIER AT A STORE
SAYS HAVE A NICE DAY
AND I SAY YOU TOO
AND GENERALLY ACT NICE TO THEM
IT MEANS I WANT SOMETHIGN IN RETURN

I SURE AS HELL
AM NOT READIGN THE WALLA OF TEXT
POSTED UP THERE
SO SOMEONE SUM THIS UP

cpas

RNB

You should always want something in return. It should be a trade. Friendships are trades. Sexual relationships are trades. A marriage is a trade, as well as a commitment which is forgotten nowadays.

Every social interaction should be a trade. It may be subconscious, but the idea is to try not to receive a net loss. In a trade between rational beings both people gain, but one gains more than the other. The one who gains more is proud. The one who gains less is happy with what he got, but can learn from how to get more.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redneckboy Here is a different scenario. Let's say your friend is hurt at work and handicapped for life. He can no longer preform his job so he asks to stay with you for awhile. It is perfectly rational to allow him since you value his friendship. A week later you realize he has eaten all your food, ran up your cable bill, and jacked-off on your couch. He is a looter. He is no good and is riding on your back. The rational selfish thing to do is kick him out. I don't care how much moral support he provides, the man is making your work hours so that he can only consume. Most people would say such a thing is mean. I believe that it is the right and just thing to do.

Yeah, most people are dumb. I mean, my couch? FUCK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by balmung5000 WAIT WAIT DO THAT MEAN WHEN THE CASHIER AT A STORE SAYS HAVE A NICE DAY AND I SAY YOU TOO AND GENERALLY ACT NICE TO THEM IT MEANS I WANT SOMETHIGN IN RETURN I SURE AS HELL AM NOT READIGN THE WALLA OF TEXT POSTED UP THERE SO SOMEONE SUM THIS UP

I'm generally nice to people so that I am perceived as a nice person. Other times, I don't care or realize their opinion of me is irrelevant, and am an asshole.

balmung5000

IM NICE TO CASHIERS AND
WHAT NOT BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT
ITS LIKE TO HAVE A JERK CUSTOMER
BUT IT DOESNT MEAN I WANT SOMETHIGN IN RETURN

OLD MANS FAIL LOGIC IS FAIL

cpas

Mal

You already have something in "return". Being nice to cashiers makes you happy in and of itself for the reason you just stated.

balmung5000

BEING NICE TO THE CASHIERS
DOESNT MAKE ME ANY HAPPIER THEN WHEN
I WALKED INTO THE STORE
SO I HAVE NOTHING IN RETURN


cpas

Mal

Then why be nice to them? You said you do it because you know what it's like to have asshole customers, but if it didn't make you happy to be a good customer then why would you bother with it?

balmung5000

SO THEY DONT HAVE TO
DEAL WITH ANOTHER JERK
CAUSE I KNOW IF I WAS ON THIER END
I WOULD HATE TO DEAL WITH NOTHING
BUT JERK CUSTOMERS

cpas

Mal

And it makes you feel good to make their day better.