Total Posts:146|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ayn Rand

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 3:50:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd like to see some discussion on Rand. I periodically refresh myself with her political and philosophical observations, and it seems that either as I get older I find greater merit in what she says, or the times seem to validate her writings as time progresses, or probably both.

I know that Ragnar is probably better equipped to defend her beliefs regarding altruism and individualism, so I will defer to him as the resident expert.

I am also interested in hearing an opposing expression that refutes her vision of the future.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 3:59:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Roy Childs wrote an open letter to her showing why he thought Objecivism presupposed anarchism as opposed to minarchism.

"It is my contention that limited government is a floating abstraction which has never been concretized by anyone; that a limited government must either initiate force or cease being a government; that the very concept of limited government is an unsuccessful attempt to integrate two mutually contradictory elements: statism and voluntarism. Hence, if this can be shown, epistemological clarity and moral consistency demands the rejection of the institution of government totally, resulting in free market anarchism, or a purely voluntary society."

http://www.lewrockwell.com...

The reputation of near religious orthodoxy which Objectivists are known for has some truth so I doubt too many Objectivists would stray from Rand's condemnation of anarchism. It's an interesting point nonetheless.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 4:06:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 3:59:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Roy Childs wrote an open letter to her showing why he thought Objecivism presupposed anarchism as opposed to minarchism.

"It is my contention that limited government is a floating abstraction which has never been concretized by anyone; that a limited government must either initiate force or cease being a government; that the very concept of limited government is an unsuccessful attempt to integrate two mutually contradictory elements: statism and voluntarism. Hence, if this can be shown, epistemological clarity and moral consistency demands the rejection of the institution of government totally, resulting in free market anarchism, or a purely voluntary society."

http://www.lewrockwell.com...

The reputation of near religious orthodoxy which Objectivists are known for has some truth so I doubt too many Objectivists would stray from Rand's condemnation of anarchism. It's an interesting point nonetheless.

And history has supported this. I struggle with Objectivism, as being almost an incomplete philosophy, but that's probably more my own desire for greater implications.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 4:14:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I honestly see next to no merit in the philosophy. It interested me as a teenager but I now I just can't take it seriously. Just look at her heroes - do you honestly want to model yourself after Howard Roark? Her heroes are cold, miserable, anti-social human beings. I don't know where to start. Does any rational person honestly believe that excessive self-focus and the single minded pursuit of self-interest lead to some higher state of being? I could never for the life of me take that seriously.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 4:18:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 4:14:42 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I honestly see next to no merit in the philosophy. It interested me as a teenager but I now I just can't take it seriously. Just look at her heroes - do you honestly want to model yourself after Howard Roark? Her heroes are cold, miserable, anti-social human beings. I don't know where to start. Does any rational person honestly believe that excessive self-focus and the single minded pursuit of self-interest lead to some higher state of being? I could never for the life of me take that seriously.

That the individual is capable of great things if unimpeded, that there are makers and takers, and that dependence on another is bad for the individual is really quite true. To understand that self interest lies in an imbalance of greed and self indulgence is not really understanding what self interest means.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 4:25:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 4:18:15 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/12/2012 4:14:42 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I honestly see next to no merit in the philosophy. It interested me as a teenager but I now I just can't take it seriously. Just look at her heroes - do you honestly want to model yourself after Howard Roark? Her heroes are cold, miserable, anti-social human beings. I don't know where to start. Does any rational person honestly believe that excessive self-focus and the single minded pursuit of self-interest lead to some higher state of being? I could never for the life of me take that seriously.

That the individual is capable of great things if unimpeded

Agreed.

that there are makers and takers

I would be careful of dividing the world up into a black and white picture.

and that dependence on another is bad for the individual is really quite true.

This is the only one I really disagree with. If you want NO dependency then you really need no friends (which is a bit like Roark, frankly.) Who isn't dependent on their lover or family? To have that special someone is be incredibly dependent on that person, otherwise they could just pack up and leave and it would mean nothing to you.

To understand that self interest lies in an imbalance of greed and self indulgence is not really understanding what self interest means.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 4:47:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Does any rational person honestly believe that excessive self-focus and the single minded pursuit of self-interest lead to some higher state of being?
What's a "higher state of being?" And higher than what? Pursuit of self-interest will lead to improvement of one's being, assuming you're good at pursuing things. But I dunno if you're implying some kind of well-defined tiers to existence or why.

This is the only one I really disagree with. If you want NO dependency then you really need no friends (which is a bit like Roark, frankly.)
There's a difference between interaction and dependence. If you are dependent, you cannot get along if all your friends turned false tomorrow. This does not necessitate that the independent person not care whether all their friends turn false tomorrow-- it is a philosophy of trade, not of autarky.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 4:49:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And as usual Pinko, my answer is jurisdictional property.

As for never been concretized by anyone, that hardly distinguishes minarchism from anarchism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 4:51:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 4:25:12 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/12/2012 4:18:15 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/12/2012 4:14:42 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I honestly see next to no merit in the philosophy. It interested me as a teenager but I now I just can't take it seriously. Just look at her heroes - do you honestly want to model yourself after Howard Roark? Her heroes are cold, miserable, anti-social human beings. I don't know where to start. Does any rational person honestly believe that excessive self-focus and the single minded pursuit of self-interest lead to some higher state of being? I could never for the life of me take that seriously.

That the individual is capable of great things if unimpeded

Agreed.

that there are makers and takers

I would be careful of dividing the world up into a black and white picture.

and that dependence on another is bad for the individual is really quite true.

This is the only one I really disagree with. If you want NO dependency then you really need no friends (which is a bit like Roark, frankly.) Who isn't dependent on their lover or family? To have that special someone is be incredibly dependent on that person, otherwise they could just pack up and leave and it would mean nothing to you.


I think we refer to an unhealthy dependence, where your happiness is dependent and contingent upon someone else. When you lose control of your happiness, and it is upon another to provide it, you have an unhealthy dependence. Different than a voluntary arrangement where mutual self interest is in sync.

To understand that self interest lies in an imbalance of greed and self indulgence is not really understanding what self interest means.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:08:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 4:49:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And as usual Pinko, my answer is jurisdictional property.

I'm not sure I understand the concept. You've explained it before but I can never get my head around the logic. To homestead this "jurisdictional property" is to go against the property rights of anyone within said jurisdiction who might not agree or who never consented. I just don't see the coherency behind both forms of property legitimately co-existing.

As for never been concretized by anyone, that hardly distinguishes minarchism from anarchism.

Agreed.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:45:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 3:50:01 PM, innomen wrote:
I'd like to see some discussion on Rand. I periodically refresh myself with her political and philosophical observations, and it seems that either as I get older I find greater merit in what she says, or the times seem to validate her writings as time progresses, or probably both.
And how!

******************************************************
At 9/12/2012 3:59:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Roy Childs wrote an open letter to her showing why he thought Objecivism presupposed anarchism as opposed to minarchism.

"It is my contention that limited government is a floating abstraction which has never been concretized by anyone; that a limited government must either initiate force or cease being a government; that the very concept of limited government is an unsuccessful attempt to integrate two mutually contradictory elements: statism and voluntarism. Hence, if this can be shown, epistemological clarity and moral consistency demands the rejection of the institution of government totally, resulting in free market anarchism, or a purely voluntary society.""
Ah yes, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy...But then minarchism vs anarchism suffers from the same problem...

The reputation of near religious orthodoxy which Objectivists are known for has some truth so I doubt too many Objectivists would stray from Rand's condemnation of anarchism. It's an interesting point nonetheless.
Yes; where I disagree is that the state must NECESSARILY initiate force in order to exist within Objectivism. If the people decide to voluntarily do away with the State (ie placing itself outside of Objectivism), then the people are no longer expressing Objectivism. It's like a democracy voting to do away with a democracy: the end result is not democracy.

**************************************************

At 9/12/2012 4:14:42 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I honestly see next to no merit in the philosophy. It interested me as a teenager but I now I just can't take it seriously. Just look at her heroes - do you honestly want to model yourself after Howard Roark? Her heroes are cold, miserable, anti-social human beings.
I disagree on all three!

I don't know where to start. Does any rational person honestly believe that excessive self-focus and the single minded pursuit of self-interest lead to some higher state of being?
Yes; just look at America!

I could never for the life of me take that seriously.
I don't know why? Are there any logical inconsistencies that you find within the philosophy?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:02:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 5:08:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/12/2012 4:49:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And as usual Pinko, my answer is jurisdictional property.

I'm not sure I understand the concept. You've explained it before but I can never get my head around the logic. To homestead this "jurisdictional property" is to go against the property rights of anyone within said jurisdiction who might not agree or who never consented.
No more than broadcast spectrum property is. What were they already doing that I am interfering with? Broadcast spectrum property: Your thoughts? If Bob Malachite is broadcasting on 103.3 throughout the lower Texas area and was the first to do it, is it okay or not okay for me to also broadcast on 103.3, rendering his message unintelligible? Does this change if I was a farmer in the lower Texas area before Bob Malachite started, or if I'm a carpetbagger who came years later?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 9:30:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Firstly, I'd like to say that it is wonderful to see you more active on DD0, inno! Welcome back, comrade.

I personally find Rand's grasp of laissez-faire to be really distasteful.

The values of organized Objectivists are truly admirable, but it in an of itself perturbs me. I mean, human beings and our thought process truly are much fallible than we think. It doesn't seem to flow that an objective reality serves as framework to justify our perception of it (hence fallibility.) All of this with practicality set aside, by the wa
turn down for h'what
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:07:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I disagree on all three!

Ah yes, because Roark is actually a warm and caring individual who Rand just portrayed in a certain light, but if you read between the lines...

Yes; just look at America!

I actually think you're being pessimistic. If we polled Americans and asked them if a life of strict self-interest and little regard for others was a "good life" I think the vast majority would say no.

I don't know why? Are there any logical inconsistencies that you find within the philosophy?

There are other ways a philosophy can be mistaken. I think Rand is fundamentally wrong about the human condition. Her philosophy is also utterly incompatible with Christianity.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:18:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 4:18:15 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/12/2012 4:14:42 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I honestly see next to no merit in the philosophy. It interested me as a teenager but I now I just can't take it seriously. Just look at her heroes - do you honestly want to model yourself after Howard Roark? Her heroes are cold, miserable, anti-social human beings. I don't know where to start. Does any rational person honestly believe that excessive self-focus and the single minded pursuit of self-interest lead to some higher state of being? I could never for the life of me take that seriously.

That the individual is capable of great things if unimpeded

some individual can be successful if unimpeded, other individuals will become drug addicts if left unimpeded.

that there are makers and takers,

We are both. We take valuable resources that will be more difficult to obtain in the future. We make valuable resources and technology as well. Some occupations provide very little value to society, some occupations provide much value to society, regardless of pay. Pay =/= value.

and that dependence on another is bad for the individual is really quite true.

Permeant dependence is often bad for self-esteem, but sometimes someone has to be temporary dependent.

To understand that self interest lies in an imbalance of greed and self indulgence is not really understanding what self interest means.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:25:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've always had big problems with her meta-ethics and epistemology.

Namely, she claims to skirt Hume (who she claims is one of the philosophers to ruin philosophy) by arguing that choosing whether or not to survive constitutes a moral choices, and therefore anyone who chooses to survive must derive their morality from this single proposition.

She then claims to have bypassed Kant and the whole "thing in itself" by denying that that our perception of reality is indirect (i.e. a representation of the world created through imperfect sensory input and prediction). Instead, we can claim that whatever knowledge we have at time x, we can make statements of "certainty" and "truth" even though later knowledge may show a statement known with "certainty" to be false.

http://www.atlassociety.org...

It's an all around clusterf*ck.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:29:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, Rand becomes a LOT less impressive when you realize that her philosophy is in fact a mirror image of Communism in the same way Levayan Satanism is a mirror image of Christianity.

Namely, Rand's moral philosophy can be reduced to "proletariats versus capitalists, but root for the capitalists not the proles." Her entire historical perspective is dialectical materialism couched in anti-communist egoism.

Instead of the inevitable fall of Capitalism due to Capitalists, Rand depicts Capitalism failing due to the Proles (see: Atlas Shrugged).
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:39:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are other ways a philosophy can be mistaken. I think Rand is fundamentally wrong about the human condition. Her philosophy is also utterly incompatible with Christianity.
I should hope so!

If we polled Americans and asked them if a life of strict self-interest and little regard for others was a "good life" I think the vast majority would say no.
Polling is not philosophy.

Namely, she claims to skirt Hume (who she claims is one of the philosophers to ruin philosophy) by arguing that choosing whether or not to survive constitutes a moral choices, and therefore anyone who chooses to survive must derive their morality from this single proposition.
This is one of the few philosophical differences (there are a great many differences that aren't a matter of stated philosophy) in the Peikoff/Kelley split. I side with Kelley, the first choice, the choice to live, is not itself subject to morality. It defines morality.

Instead, we can claim that whatever knowledge we have at time x, we can make statements of "certainty" and "truth" even though later knowledge may show a statement known with "certainty" to be false.
Such as?

Also, Rand becomes a LOT less impressive when you realize that her philosophy is in fact a mirror image of Communism in the same way Levayan Satanism is a mirror image of Christianity.
Being the opposite of such an evil is no black mark.

Namely, Rand's moral philosophy can be reduced to "proletariats versus capitalists, but root for the capitalists not the proles."
There's no such thing as a "proletariat" in Objectivism., or a 'capitalist" as anything other than an ideological adherent either. There are the productive (including both persons Marxists would call "Capitalists" and persons Marxists would call "proletarians") and there are the looters, again containing members of both Marx-defined classes.

Instead of the inevitable fall of Capitalism due to Capitalists, Rand depicts Capitalism failing due to the Proles
The thing Rand depicts failing is not anything Rand would call capitalism. Even Marxists are usually not so shameless as not to qualify it with some term that next to no one is an advocate for, like "state capitalism"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:53:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 10:39:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There are other ways a philosophy can be mistaken. I think Rand is fundamentally wrong about the human condition. Her philosophy is also utterly incompatible with Christianity.
I should hope so!

If we polled Americans and asked them if a life of strict self-interest and little regard for others was a "good life" I think the vast majority would say no.
Polling is not philosophy.

Namely, she claims to skirt Hume (who she claims is one of the philosophers to ruin philosophy) by arguing that choosing whether or not to survive constitutes a moral choices, and therefore anyone who chooses to survive must derive their morality from this single proposition.
This is one of the few philosophical differences (there are a great many differences that aren't a matter of stated philosophy) in the Peikoff/Kelley split. I side with Kelley, the first choice, the choice to live, is not itself subject to morality. It defines morality.

Instead, we can claim that whatever knowledge we have at time x, we can make statements of "certainty" and "truth" even though later knowledge may show a statement known with "certainty" to be false.
Such as?

Also, Rand becomes a LOT less impressive when you realize that her philosophy is in fact a mirror image of Communism in the same way Levayan Satanism is a mirror image of Christianity.
Being the opposite of such an evil is no black mark.

Namely, Rand's moral philosophy can be reduced to "proletariats versus capitalists, but root for the capitalists not the proles."
There's no such thing as a "proletariat" in Objectivism., or a 'capitalist" as anything other than an ideological adherent either. There are the productive (including both persons Marxists would call "Capitalists" and persons Marxists would call "proletarians") and there are the looters, again containing members of both Marx-defined classes.

Instead of the inevitable fall of Capitalism due to Capitalists, Rand depicts Capitalism failing due to the Proles
The thing Rand depicts failing is not anything Rand would call capitalism. Even Marxists are usually not so shameless as not to qualify it with some term that next to no one is an advocate for, like "state capitalism"

You interestingly forgot to respond to my biggest qualm with Rand- her rejection of representationalism when it comes to perceiving and processing sensory input.

By saying something "defines morality" how are you bypassing Hume's is-ought problem? A brute assertion of normative fact disqualifies a moral philosophy from claiming to be derived solely from positive/descriptive statements.

"Objectivism holds that both truth and certainty must be defined in terms of a specific context of knowledge. In particular, it rejects the common assumption that certainty requires infallibility. The contextual theory is summarized in Peikoff's Objectivism, Chapters 4-5, where the theory is derived from the view of abstractions as objective rather than intrinsic or subjective. No Objectivist philosopher, however, has yet produced a complete formulation of the theory that deals adequately with all the traditional problems"
http://www.atlassociety.org...

The first problem here is that this means that at time x, all our inductive knowledge may point to "all crows are black." The Objectivist would say this knowledge can be qualified as "certain." However, if we find a white crow, the Objectivist would then say the proposition "all crows are black or white" is certain. Add to this the fact that they To the Objectivists, there is no epistemological difference between saying "It is true that if 'A and B, then A'" and "It is true that 'The car over there is red.'"

The second problem is that, as the bold notes, it derives from a rejection of the thing in itself and what we perceive.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 2:05:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 10:53:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
You interestingly forgot to respond to my biggest qualm with Rand- her rejection of representationalism when it comes to perceiving and processing sensory input.
My response consisted of a question, as I did not quite understand your gripe.


By saying something "defines morality" how are you bypassing Hume's is-ought problem? A brute assertion of normative fact disqualifies a moral philosophy from claiming to be derived solely from positive/descriptive statements.
Only to the extent that the brute definition of a car disqualifies your statement about cars from describing reality. The only thing "brutally asserted" is a definition. which you need to speak about anything. There's no "Is ought problem" here because there's no problem the normative statements have that other "Factual" statements don't have. You need definitions, no getting around it.

The first problem here is that this means that at time x, all our inductive knowledge may point to "all crows are black." The Objectivist would say this knowledge can be qualified as "certain." However, if we find a white crow, the Objectivist would then say the proposition "all crows are black or white" is certain. Add to this the fact that they To the Objectivists, there is no epistemological difference between saying "It is true that if 'A and B, then A'" and "It is true that 'The car over there is red.'"
I am certain of my observation that those crows were black, I know I didn't lie to myself and tell myself that when they're actually white. I'm afraid I'm a little lost on where Objectivism demands I then conclude that all crows are black, unless my concept of "crow" is something like "flying carcass eater with black feathers from scalp to ankle, black eyes, and black feet."


The second problem is that, as the bold notes, it derives from a rejection of the thing in itself and what we perceive.
I think you're missing a "dichotomy between."

I'm not seeing a problem here. The assertion that we are just observing shadows on the wall of the PlatonoKantian cave doesn't even mean anything. If we live among it, perceive it, interact with it, it is reality. There may be other aspects to reality we do not perceive, but that does not render my existence a lie, nor the existence of this desk.

Even if I were a brain in the vat, I'm still perceiving a real thing. If I go play world of warcraft, that's orc is a real goddamn thing. It's just that the real goddamn thing it is electrical, not a computer chip.

You need to tell me what your problem is before I can solve it. You can't just label something a "problem" and then it's so. There has to be something suboptimal about it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 2:06:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
electrical, not a computer chip

Should read: Electrical, not biochemical.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 9:39:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
One of the posts said that her philosophy was distasteful. I do understand that, especially coming from a society where altruism is held in very high regard, with good reason. However, her understanding of altruism coming at the expense of the individual, and to the point of self destruction is spot on. As a Christian I do have a hard time accommodating individualism, and holding altruism in check is difficult. But as I look at benevolence versus altruism, there is a more responsible, and mutual self interest in benevolence, than in altruism. As someone who understands what goes into happiness, benevolence is a component, but not at absurd levels to the point of bankruptcy.

The characters in Atlas Shrugged do help illustrate the heroic nature of the individual and removes some of the distaste, it also aptly describes the parasites who work in Washington.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 10:18:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have read 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'Fountainhead' few years ago. None of the Rand's protagonists have living parents or children. They all turn up grown up and perfect. This is not an accident. All families require sacrifices and other things which would be considered as examples of 'mediocrity'. No family would work if members treat each other in Ayn Rand's preferred way.

Since human beings don't turn up all grown up, Rand's ideas of independence don't apply to human beings.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 10:41:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 10:18:34 AM, baggins wrote:
I have read 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'Fountainhead' few years ago. None of the Rand's protagonists have living parents or children. They all turn up grown up and perfect. This is not an accident. All families require sacrifices and other things which would be considered as examples of 'mediocrity'.
There are several children in Galt's Gulch, just not among the primary characters as Rand had no experience with them nor intention of changing that.

The lack of parents to the primary protagonists is however indeed intentional. There is no particular reason to prefer one's parents qua parents over spending one's time with anyone else.

No family would work if members treat each other in Ayn Rand's preferred way.
If by "work" you mean "Be a net loss to those born into it." Sacrifice is evil, it is deliberate-net-loss, if your concept of family requires it, your concept of family is evil.

Children can be reared by Objectivists, but the child has to be free to leave from the moment they can form a coherent sentence demanding that. These children should be had only by those who will enjoy the experience of child rearing without petty tyranny. It's not impossible, but it is unquestionably very different from traditional conceptions of "Family."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 11:51:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 10:41:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/13/2012 10:18:34 AM, baggins wrote:
I have read 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'Fountainhead' few years ago. None of the Rand's protagonists have living parents or children. They all turn up grown up and perfect. This is not an accident. All families require sacrifices and other things which would be considered as examples of 'mediocrity'.
There are several children in Galt's Gulch, just not among the primary characters as Rand had no experience with them nor intention of changing that.

The lack of parents to the primary protagonists is however indeed intentional. There is no particular reason to prefer one's parents qua parents over spending one's time with anyone else.

There is a reason. Our parents sacrifice a lot for us.

The Holy Quran 46:15
We have enjoined on man kindness to his parents: In pain did his mother bear him, and in pain did she give him birth...

No family would work if members treat each other in Ayn Rand's preferred way.
If by "work" you mean "Be a net loss to those born into it." Sacrifice is evil, it is deliberate-net-loss, if your concept of family requires it, your concept of family is evil.

Everyone is a net loss to family for a really long time, once the emotional factors involved are ignored.

Children can be reared by Objectivists, but the child has to be free to leave from the moment they can form a coherent sentence demanding that.

But why should parents take care of children before that? That requires sacrifice!

...These children should be had only by those who will enjoy the experience of child rearing without petty tyranny. It's not impossible, but it is unquestionably very different from traditional conceptions of "Family."

Is discipline 'petty tyranny' according to you?

If a person thinks sacrifice is immoral, it is questionable whether (s)he would enjoy raising children.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 11:58:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 11:51:57 AM, baggins wrote:
There is a reason. Our parents sacrifice a lot for us.

The Holy Quran 46:15
We have enjoined on man kindness to his parents: In pain did his mother bear him, and in pain did she give him birth...

I don't particularly care what an insane tyrant had to say about it.

Everyone is a net loss to family for a really long time, once the emotional factors involved are ignored.
Emotional factors needn't be ignored for those who have them, and I'm not sure you know what "net" means, or understand the concept of investment.


Children can be reared by Objectivists, but the child has to be free to leave from the moment they can form a coherent sentence demanding that.

But why should parents take care of children before that? That requires sacrifice!
If it does from those particular parents, those parents shouldn't. Only those for whom it is not a sacrifice (not an expected net loss) should raise children.

Is discipline 'petty tyranny' according to you?
Yes.


If a person thinks sacrifice is immoral, it is questionable whether (s)he would enjoy raising children.
Some don't, some do. There have been Objectivists long enough that some have had children. Rather than hypothesizing, you could just, y'know, google.

http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 12:03:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Granted, objectivist parenting principles have to be modified somewhat to work within the framework of the laws. No opt out on the child's part is presently legal, for example. But you can still learn things if you care to.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 12:16:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 11:58:25 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/13/2012 11:51:57 AM, baggins wrote:
There is a reason. Our parents sacrifice a lot for us.

The Holy Quran 46:15
We have enjoined on man kindness to his parents: In pain did his mother bear him, and in pain did she give him birth...

I don't particularly care what an insane tyrant had to say about it.

I will refrain from responding.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 12:34:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm no Objectivist but yeah, she is quite brilliant.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)