Whatcha reading?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Bube

I've read almost all of the wiki some time before, I might print it out for some bedside reading.

However, I also don't agree with objectivism, mainly because of the every-man-for-himself principle. But almost all of her other views are too harsh as well. And it's based too much on morality. If everybody was a perfect objectivist, it just might work. But when people start thinking outside the lines, and try to find shortcuts through life, it all falls apart.

Remember that she believes that morality and reason go hand in hand. Morality is a set of rules that we all live by to a certain extent because they are mutually beneficial. Therefore, those that behave immorally are punished, and we follow this to a certain extent with our laws.

You make a good point about things falling apart when people paint outside the lines, but because of her belief in individualism, its the individual who falls apart and not the group, because the group is looking out for their individual best interests. The main part that attracts me is 1) The belief that self-interest is not morally wrong, and honestly its not as long as you use reason/morality and 2) the realization that altruism is a myth, because we are being altruistic we are really just doing it because it makes us feel better about ourselves, so in the end all actions are based in self-interest. That doesn't mean that we should eliminate what we consider to be altruism, but that we shoudl recognize the reward of the act and accept it for what it is. If you help someone because it makes you feel good, is it worse than if you convince yourself it was selfless. Is the person any less-off because your motivation was based on emotional reward? There is no such thing as a selfless act, and in the end, our need to believe in altruism is a reflection of our own ego and not reality.

Rational self-interest benefits the group, because the more each individual concentrates on their own success and happiness, the more everyone succeeds, because success creates wealth and wealth creates more and better jobs and employment empowers the individual and enables their pursuit of happiness. In the end, the individual is the key to the success of the group.

Besides, when push comes to shove, all you can really control is your own actions, and your life is the sum of those actions, and not the result of anyone else's in interference. People can choose to accept what the fate others build for them, or choose to rip down those scaffolds and buld your own rewarding life. It is a choice.

And when compared to the collectivism of Marx and Engels, which is Rand's antithesis, Rand's philosophies have proven to be far more beneficial to society as a whole. Collectivism strips the individual of their identity, they feel no intrinsic motivation to succeed, because they are expressly told they mean nothing without everyone else. The state crushes the very thing it was intended to serve. Collectivism doesn't support the individual, it consumes them, and when you look at the attempts to create Marxist governments they have done nothing but oppress and consume their people.

Rational Self-Interest may not be perfect and is vulnerable to abuse by immoral and unreasonable people, but it in a world of imperfect people, it has enabled us to continue to succeed as a society and not stagnate or regress as cultures based on different principles have.

Why do you say that I should read The Fountainhead first?

Long story short, its a lot less preachy. Example: Atlas Shrugged has a 30 page monologue.

[Professor S]

I also found the BioShock Objectivist Dystopia to be fascinating, but to be honest, I found very little of it to reflect Objectivism as those that created and ran the world ignored all forms of reason, and without reason, objectivism doesn't exist.

EDIT: Please do not take my comments as an accusation of communism on your part, but I believe in today's society you either lean towards a collectivist of objectivist philosophy.

[Fox 6]

I loaned The Watchmen form Swan. W00t.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Fox 6

I loaned The Watchmen form Swan. W00t.

The grammatical mistakes in that small, simple sentence are dumbfounding.

[Fox 6]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

The grammatical mistakes in that small, simple sentence are dumbfounding.

I get up at 3:30 am for work. Sue me.

[Bube]

Originally Posted by Professor S

You make a good point about things falling apart when people paint outside the lines, but because of her belief in individualism, its the individual who falls apart and not the group, because the group is looking out for their individual best interests. The main part that attracts me is 1) The belief that self-interest is not morally wrong, and honestly its not as long as you use reason/morality and 2) the realization that altruism is a myth, because we are being altruistic we are really just doing it because it makes us feel better about ourselves, so in the end all actions are based in self-interest. That doesn't mean that we should eliminate what we consider to be altruism, but that we shoudl recognize the reward of the act and accept it for what it is. If you help someone because it makes you feel good, is it worse than if you convince yourself it was selfless. Is the person any less-off because your motivation was based on emotional reward? There is no such thing as a selfless act, and in the end, our need to believe in altruism is a reflection of our own ego and not reality.

The 2 points you made are actually what most people live by. It's just that nobody ever stops to think about it.

I was going to say that I leaned towards altruistic, but after I looked up it's exact meaning, I saw that the completely-selfless community would be a utopia, probably impossible to achieve. And besides acting in ways that make you feel good, we all have to do something to live in our community. We expect something in return. I agree with what you say, but I still believe that people need to be in a community to survive.

Originally Posted by Professor S

I also found the BioShock Objectivist Dystopia to be fascinating, but to be honest, I found very little of it to reflect Objectivism as those that created and ran the world ignored all forms of reason, and without reason, objectivism doesn't exist.

Yes, maybe it wasn't an exact objectivist society, but it still had some of basic principles. But what do you mean by "reason"? Andrew Ryan's purpose of building the city was to make a morality-free environment so people could do whatever pleases them.. I think that's a good enough reason?

Originally Posted by Professor S

Please do not take my comments as an accusation of communism on your part, but I believe in today's society you either lean towards a collectivist of objectivist philosophy.

Of course not. This is a really nice discussion we're having, and I'm sure we wouldn't be accusing each other of anything

However, I'd like to say that I've always been an in-between person. I always believe that there's a healthy medium when I face two polar-opposite choices. Communism doesn't work in my opinion. What one earns is theirs. But like I said earlier, objectivism doesn't seem too right to me as well, because people need to interact with the people around them to survive, progress and be happy.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Bube

Yes, maybe it wasn't an exact objectivist society, but it still had some of basic principles. But what do you mean by "reason"? Andrew Ryan's purpose of building the city was to make a morality-free environment so people could do whatever pleases them.. I think that's a good enough reason?

That is the exact opposite of Rand's beliefs. In Rand's work, the terms reason and morality are interchangable. We have morality because we reason that to act within a set of behaviors benefits us, because if everyone simply did as they pleased with no moral code, the world would be in chaos and in the end the individual would suffer.

There a considerable section from the Wiki that covers this:

There is a difference, therefore, between rational self-interest as pursuit of one's own life and happiness in reality, and what Ayn Rand called "selfishness without a self" - a range-of-the-moment pseudo-"selfish" whim-worship or "hedonism." A whim-worshipper or "hedonist," according to Rand, is not motivated by a desire to live his own human life, but by a wish to live on a sub-human level. Instead of using "that which promotes my (human) life" as his standard of value, he mistakes "that which I (mindlessly happen to) value" for a standard of value, in contradiction of the fact that, existentially, he is a human and therefore rational organism. The "I value" in whim-worship or hedonism can be replaced with "we value," "he values," "they value," or "God values," and still it would remain dissociated from reality. Rand repudiated the equation of rational selfishness with hedonistic or whim-worshipping "selfishness-without-a-self." She held that the former is good, and the latter evil, and that there is a fundamental difference between them.

This is why I believe Rand is so misunderstood. Her beliefs in morality fall more in line with those of self-professed progressive and Trotsky-ite, Christopher Hitchens; morality is a product of reason, and not God or Religion.

Me? I think she splits hairs in this, because I find reason in religious doctrine so my beliefs on morality can fall in line with hers and his, regardless of their atheism.

[Bube]

I think Ryan's plan was to make it close to objectivity, and I don't think he meant for people to butcher each other and stuff.

It was the citizens who took the "freedom" the wrong way. Which is what I was trying to say before - it fell apart, because people aren't perfect. Give people a bit of a good thing, and they want more. And some will go to any lengths to get it. Which affects everybody around.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Bube

I think Ryan's plan was to make it close to objectivity, and I don't think he meant for people to butcher each other and stuff.

It was the citizens who took the "freedom" the wrong way. Which is what I was trying to say before - it fell apart, because people aren't perfect. Give people a bit of a good thing, and they want more. And some will go to any lengths to get it. Which affects everybody around.

I agree with your synopsis of the failure of the society in Bioshock, I just don't agree that is was an Objectivist society because of the utter absence on reason and morality. Rand wrote, self-interest without morality is hedonism, or self-interest without a self. You've mentioned perfection several times in this discussion and how it can be the downfall of Objectivism. Can you go further into this, because I'm not sure what you are referring to?

[Bube]

Well, "perfection" may not be the correct word - blame it on my rusty English

But here's what I mean - even though Rand suggests that morality be within reason and all that, and that reason, truth and self-interest should be the main focus of a man's life, there are going to be people who don't follow these rules, and take it the wrong way.

This endangers the ones who do, because this kind of a society seems to be in a very delicate balance - it relies on reason to keep everything in order.