Pathways to Objectivism

Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 5 months ago to Culture
81 comments | Share | Flag

The Ayn Rand Institute congratulates itself, but not without empirical evidence.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'll go you one better Jan. In the military we were blackmailed, coerced, strong armed and made victims of a protection racked into 'voluntarily' giving 'our fair share.' It was so much part of the system they put signs on in front of company and battalion headquarter applauding themselves for 100 percent participation. I laid two envelopes on the the Sergeant Majors desk one day and asked him about it. He explained this way. "Shit rolls down hill. You are at the bottom I'm next up slope etc etc etc. think of it this way you are not donating a fair share you are buying x dollars and y cents worth of non-harassment." "Makes sense to me.? I picked up one envelope. The other contained a signed form for $2.57 cents a month. "Sometimes though you get more just by truly making it volunteer." He laughed and asked what was in the other envelope? "another signed form for $10.00 a month." The military teaches it's officer cadets to never lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate those who do. Once the butter bar (Lieutenants rank insignia) goes on they quickly learn to lie, cheat, steal and suborn others into doing the same. The good ones stay with field units and away from places like the Pentagons. Those jobs are for REMFS and people who forgot both their oaths."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago
    overall comment.. nothing wrong with using fiction to promote some thought. Hollywood did it in Too Big To Fail, The M2F media do it every night and call it Nightly News, Politicians especially candidates do it every time they open their mouths. The objection comes when they try to promote bad fiction as good policy or bad policy as good fiction. Best reality show in the nation is every day life in Washington DC where the reality of fiction supplants the fiction of reality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If someone compels me to give something, it is not altruism. If someone tries to shame me into giving something - such as the United Way campaigns that are prevalent at some workplaces, and which try to embarrass you if you don't give to them - I just say "no" and move on.

    I think I am probably in good and ample company here with respect to reacting negatively if someone tries to force me to do something or manipulate me. Eh?

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Only a small percentage (how small depends on the overlap) took classes, attended meetings, or otherwise did something that would label them as objectivists. The rest of the group simply read Ayn Rand's (or other author's) books and self-identified.

    What that means to me is that if someone were to round up 'all objectivists', many would be overlooked.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hey you gotta start somewhere. I used it as a bible on the conduct of war initially. Know the enemy, see the battlefield....etc. War is extremely objectivist in nature save for the REMFs in the Pentagon, Congress, White House and M2F Media. In a surreal way. We used to say it was very and it was real but it wasn't very real as a way of trying to cope with those who treated it as subjective.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My mother had a good solution to that: my hand got stabbed with a fork if I tried that with her. And she stabbed hard!

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    and hatred of the good for being the good is the definition of evil.
    Rand said it first, for me. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    or they may be trying to compel you to do so,
    regardless of your will, or shaming you into altruism
    in a myriad other ways. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "visible?" . how do you get that? . of 4421, 3489 called
    themselves objectivists, and that's 79 percent...... but
    where did visible appear? -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 5 months ago
    It struck me as important that only about 10% (perhaps as high as 25% if there is small overlap) of the Objectivists surveyed are 'visible'. The only reason that the other 90% are known to exist is because they answered the survey.

    I find this heartening, actually.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    'Avoidance of help' is as logical as a 'requirement for altruism' is. These are both just ways of polarizing a rational approach to life. There will always be occasions when you need a hand from someone else; conversely, if you choose to help another person no one need give you permission to do so.

    Appropriate 'selfishness' is more clearly seen when someone else is trying to give away your stuff for a cause that you do not regard benefits you.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I will gladly eat with Liberals and Libertarians, so long as they keep their hands off my plate.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It would be nice if everyone thought before choosing their values, but I believe most people don't bother. They choose values based on gut feelings, and then think up rationalizations afterward, some of which harden into beliefs without any critical examination. Indeed, if asked to prove that I did not do this myself I'm not sure that I would pass the test -- or that anyone else would, either.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thumbs up for opening the discussion, but I do not agree with it. Human nature is broad and deep, but not what everyone seems to claim from their own perspectives.

    It is our nature to be volitional creatures who must choose their values by first choosing to think.

    But, given that, "we" (who?) are not "naturally" selfish or naturally altruistic (in either sense). People are different. Individuality - not individualism - is indeed within our natures: within your own body, it is likely that no two hemoglobin molecules are identical.

    One way to look at any social species whether humans or salmon or whatever, is to identify Alpha leaders, Beta followers, Gamma floaters, and Omega drop-outs. Many Objectivists are gammas who participate in this or that society for some time or other, but who move on to some other society. In the wilds, the gammas move from gene pool to gene pool preventing inbreeding. They often mate successfully over and above the successes of Alphas. ("Chicks like rogues." - and that goes for nice boys and rogue chicks, too.)

    But some members of every group never participate in anything, keep totally to themselves, and do not reproduce -- yet they appear in every generation.

    You can find Alpha and Beta libertarians; and you can find Gamma and Omega socialists. Perhaps this would make a good discussion as a new topic.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As you know, you are not alone. Most of us came to Atlas or Fountainhead as books of revelation. And so many of us said exactly that same phrase, "I'm not crazy."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are many who are Objectivists and don't know it, there are others who read the fiction and try to model their lives around what they read. I call these folks, Objectivists - lite. It's ok, unless you have a desire to turn others onto Objectivism. In that case it would be advisable to learn more in order to answer questions or at the very least refer to those who can if you can't.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 9 years, 5 months ago
    Humans are selfish by nature and society attempts to breed it out of us.
    Rand's books help us to achieve the proper balance.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 5 months ago
    After taking the Basic Principles of Objectivism, and reading Rands philosophy books, I was recommended to read up on other philosophers and other philosophies. In doing so, it gave me an insight into why much of society is so screwed up and the contrast between Objectivism and others. But then, I like to read and am a fast reader. I heavily recommend, however, that to fully appreciate Objectivism, one should read what others have to say, both pro and con. In my case, it only hardened my use of Objectivism as the foundation of my life's premises.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Starwagen 9 years, 5 months ago
    e thoughtsMy 'pathway'?
    A coworker handed me a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
    And all the way through the book I kept saying to myself "I'm not crazy, at least one other person in this world has had the sam and emotions that I have had all my life". And reading Rand's writings and attending several of the taped lecture series over the next several years cemented my convictions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dwlievert 9 years, 5 months ago
    Yes Mike! The purpose of philosophy is guidance in the pursuit of happiness, and its ultimate manifestation, fulfillment. I couldn't care less what a person believes, they will reap their own "rewards" for such things. I DO care about what they then might choose to do in regard to their beliefs.

    Morally, "the root of all evil" is the desire for the unearned. Politically, said evil is the actual attempt to obtain the unearned by compulsion.

    Someone acting on the former is emotionally, a miserable creature. Someone choosing to act on their behalf is a criminal.

    Though Rand was not without error, her thinking was truly profound!
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo