While I respect Ayn Rand’s willingness to think individualistically, her moral argument is ultimately based on an assumption, that human survival is good in and of itself. Objectively, to say that human survival is good in and of itself and the basis for all ethical principles is an assumption. To use some philosophical terminology, the assertion is nothing more than a hypothetical imperative: If I want humanity to persist I ought to do such and such. Practical reason has its limitations.
Ayn fully addressed the Hume "is/ought" problem imagined here. Life being a system of actions, there are surely real ideals perceived by its participants, be they an ameoba or a nihilist.
To say that someone should wet a towel and attempt to save the baby in a building which is burning down and does NOT assume that the baby is worth saving, but assumes that the towel will suffice for both th baby and the person attempting the rescue. Perhaps two towels will be necessary.
@Johannes999999999 You've just committed the crime to which Ayn speaks. Reread what you wrote. Acquire the capacity to find errors & contradictions in your reasoning and fix them? Thanks for posting.
@sasatwood I have re-watched the video and I still do not see the error in my logic which you believe exists. I understand her point that man's nature is individualistic, but is it a categorical imperative to allow man to act as he must to survive? Is reason morally good? I believe (through my own logic which may or may not reflect the true nature of reality) that neither can be confirmed for the reasons I stated in my last post. You may "correct" me if you wish but I do not ask for it.
pointless philosophy!!!! whats the point of of bellowing thinking and doing for oneself in a society where all for one exists, as well the ever increasing authoritarian nanny state
Though I use to agree that with her that reason is man's essential characteristic is his ability to reason, Adam Smith changed my mind. He argued that it was imagination. Reason requires imagination. Perhaps she included imagination as part of reason, which it is, but imagination is also part of empathy which others argue to be the essential characteristic of man, which I disagree with btw.
@EvilDandy Do a youtube search to see dogs dreaming, sleepwalking, barking in their sleep. In what way is that not imagination! And given they do it in their sleep, it's not a far stretch to concede that they do it awake. To say they don't is not proveable & suspect. I'd leave Smith's contributions at the invisible hand.
@dmg46664 By the same token we see chimps reason and even engage in problem solving with tools. No, I think we are talking about higher level concepts here. A chimp figuring out how to use a twig to get grubs and a dog dreaming are not on the same level as human reasoning and imagination. The products of reason described by Rand require imagination to see the possibilities and bring them to fruition. As I mentioned, I suspect she presumes imagination as part of the reasoning process.
@dmg46664 PS: Don't discount Smith, to avoid too much reading, I recommend PJ O'Rourke's book "On the Wealth of Nations". As the subtitle says, "he read it so you don't have to".
@EvilDandy Are you so sure of your position? Chess is merely Tic-Tac-Toe with a greater search space. Prove that the microchip isn't simply a grub&twig routine with more parts. Your position is religious, not scientific. And I don't discount Smith. He was a great Scotsman. However, his lack of insight and omission of Marginal Utility in his work when Daniel Bernoulli was his peer (St Petersburg paradox) will always be a stein.
@dmg46664 I'll stick with bullet points in answer, 1. Imagination allows for high abstract thought, in fact one might define it as "higher abstract thought". Those "more parts" require greater imagination, 2. Don't bring God into this. 3. I live in Scotland, most Scots these days aren't great. 4. Bernoulli never expanded his theory and it fell into obscurity and Smith does touch on Marginal Utility in his paradox of water and diamonds.
@EvilDandy 1. "Imagination allows for high abstract thought".. That's suspect. Maybe it's simply more memory that does that. A computer today can do tons more than an early IBM machine, but you won't find a computer scientist who will tell you that they are FUNDAMENTALLY different. I used 'religion' in the sense of dogma, not god. Your belief system might be correct, but you believe it without sufficient evidence. Regarding Smith, I'm just crediting him for things he DID, rather than didnt do.
@dmg46664 The thing about evidence is that, I presume you'd agree, the limited space provided on Youtube is hardly enough to give a proper argument. In fact, I'm not even sure what we are arguing if we are arguing at all. So your accusation about me not giving "proper" evidence and being dogmatic might be a bit premature. If I was making a point it would be this: imagination, defined here as the ability to conceive concepts in the mind, is a requirement of reason. I see this as self-evident.
@EvilDandy "imagination is a requirement of reason"... I might agree with you here. Although I'm not completely sure it's self evident. Is it possible to reason without a hypothetical? Not sure. But...That's a very different remark from your original one: "[imagination defines] man's essential (and distinguishing) characteristic" from all other life.
@EvilDandy 2. Maybe a 'stein' was too harsh a verdict... but he managed to ask the question about water and diamonds, and the answer about valuation was sitting there on the shelf.... I wasn't expecting him to come up with the complete theory of opportunity cost... nor the mathematics... just the realization that context was important. In defense of Bernoulli, he was only interested in the math, not the economics... no need to expand. & I doubt modern Scots are less great than anyone else. ;)
@dmg46664 PS: I wasn't being sarky when I wrote "Don't bring God into this". I just love that line from the film Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and saw the opportunity to use it.
Every individual has a right to his own body; therefore, he has the right to what emanates from his body; therefore, he has the right to the fruit of his own labor, which is his property.
My reasoning lead me to capitalism. But I've seen many people who love socialism. I think it's because of our initial assumptions and because of our desires and wants that lead us to each one. In the end I don't think it really reasoning either way, but instead it is actually just a preference for what kind of society we want to live in. Ideally no one would force each other, and everyone could just choose to live in the society they prefer most.
@manor1730 trouble is, socialism requires force. it requires the taking of someone's rightful property and giving it to someone else under penalty of imprisonment.
@fzqlcs it doesn't require force if only people who want to join join, like the commune they have in Tennessee or somewhere. I'm saying that people shouldn't be forced but instead should be able to choose
Ayn Rand had too much faith in reason. Reason is good, but human nature is not grounded in reason. Human nature is grounded in emotion. Reason is not an independent entity. Reason is a system of relations between various desires and passions.
Mans attachment to irrationality does nothing to discredit the faculty of Reason itself. It is something that must be cultivated and championed by our culture and society in general. She is defending an ideal that has not been truly appreciated by the public.
@zentonil Yes. She had too much faith in reason. Rousseau, Karl Marx and Lenin also had too much faith in reason. I'm not saying that we shouldn't champion reason. I'm saying that when we put too much value in reason, we forget and forsake the emotional underpinnings of the faculty of reason. Logical reasoning is a tool to reach an end that gratifies our emotional motivations.
@bxjam85 Ok. I think I understand what you are saying.
Sigmund Freud and his nephew Edward Bernays have made it abundantly clear that our human nature is inherently irrational. I do find it strange that economics measures man as a rational individual maximizing his position while business actively manipulates and exploits our emotional impulses and desires.
Free associations of rational and compassionate persons can achieve beautiful and amazing ends. :)
@bxjam85 Hmm, I see reasoning as a tool too. One that is extremely important to get right. But what should you use it for? Can you think of a logical act that would serve your human impulses? Would it then not be irrational?
@theredraven Very true. The first economic system based on reason was barter -- value for value. Barter was the foundation from which capitalism naturally developed.
@ImAznnn Quite the contrary. Socialism requires force. Otherwise, it would be a voluntary activity disassociated from government. All redistribution of wealth schemes require force, whether they are perpetrated by street thugs or politicians.
@fzqlcs That's why I said REAL socialism. Real socialism doesn't mean centralization but decentralization. Socialism also doesn't have to mean tyranny of the majority.
@ImAznnn Sorry, but where I come from, words mean things. Dictionary definition of socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. In your mind, that is decentralization? And, who says tyranny of the majority? It is simply an economic tyranny which can also be imposed by any type of political system.
@darkr0astedblend I believe as with so many idiotic code words on the left, anarchism to them means a thuggish live that parasites on the producers. Still this kind of "anarchism" can only survive while and as long as the majority of society consist of producers who tolerate this. So it's not a coherent philosophy, imho.
@fzqlcs Ownership doesn't always mean control. E.g Landlords own land but can lease the land to others who can do whatever they wish on that land. So yes the government would own everything but they don't have to control what they own.
Tyranny of the majority is typically how many capitalists I've met describe socialism since they think people must sacrifice themselves for the majority of the population in a socialist society.
@ImAznnn "REAL" socialism never works like the idiotic minds of Marx and Engels envisioned it. It cannot work, because it is a phony theory. Look at the original socialists and their philosophy. They wanted a totally democratic structure, that means rule of a majority. However, any kind of organization will lead to elites and some form of centralization. Every society that totally decentralizes will be conquered by an enemy that does organize and vanish. This is a romantic dream of know-nothings
@scepticsteve You who think man needs a monopoly on force in a given area (gov.) are the dreamer. This is the only critique I have of Ayn. Especially Intellectual Property
@fzqlcs Very well said. It's amazing to me how people don't recognize the co-operative business model as a socialist alternative that can co-exist with the free market.
@ImAznnn I think I understand what your trying to say... A group of people organize voluntarily to distribute work and responsibilities between them and if they wish to exit the commune they may at their own will? If this is what you mean than it is only possible in a country with limited government and a free enterprise system.
@adulby Exactly, but a government would still exist just to act as a safety barrier so that corporations can't destroy the economy like they did in 2008. They would not at all limit or try to control the market.
@ImAznnn: The economic crash of 2008 was primarily caused by the housing bubble, and who caused the housing bubble? Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jimmy Carter, Maxine Waters, Bill Clinton. All of them pushed for every American to own a house, whether they could afford it or not, forcing banks through regulation and threat of pulling their creds to give loans out to people who couldn’t pay em back. CENTRAL PLANNING AND GOVERNMENT REGULATION!
@espada9 That's why I said the government should act as a safety barrier and a safety barrier alone to prevent corporations from causing destruction. They shouldn't at all control what people do.
@ImAznnn yea.. but giving a monopoly of force to the govt allows it to cause far more destruction than any corporation ever could in a truly free and competitive market.... one company messing up out of many will go out of business eventually... a corrupt government.. well.. they're "too big to fail" ... the answer is obvious.. a monopoly of force is not a safety barrier.. its shooting the public interest in the foot.
@Princetonbeats I havn't cleared up what I meant by safety barrier. Government should own everything but they shouldn't control everything. That means they pay wages to everyone to prevent economic atrocities but they stay out of people's businesses. So really there is no danger of the government being corrupt.
@ImAznnn What do you mean by "real" socialism? Reason dictates that "real" socialism is what actually occurs when socialism is attempted, not what the theories of socialism propose it should be. In theory, socialism promises a free lunch - it says the economy is a machine that can automatically crank out everything we "need" if only everyone would submit to the "common good". In practice, socialism dissipates wealth and treats human beings as servile robots, rather than sovereign beings.
@ImAznnn Defend your position with logic. Ayn Rand took the time to eloquently demonstrate why she sees Capitalism as the defender of Reason. You could at least write more than two sentences with very little substance to them....
@zentonil Through reasoning we see that each person must be free do whatever in order to satisfy his intrinsic desires. Capitalism does allow people to do w/e they want but It causes people to replace their intrinsic desires for the desire of money. So at the end of the day capitalism doesn't liberate people; it causes people to become slaves for money. This is in fact the main problem I see. (Cont.)
@ImAznnn Socialism however eliminates the money mentality. If executed correctly it can allow everyone to achieve true happiness while helping the rest of society. E.g A person want's to become a firefighter. If this person works hard and becomes a firefighter, he can satisfy his intrinsic desires while helping to save other people's lives to help society. So in this socialist society everyone wins.
@ImAznnn This is not logical though. A person does not become a slave to money by force. It is a rational decision that they make. Is money mentality any worse than power (or position) mentality, or land mentality, or widget mentality? Money is only a form of exchange. A person can want all the money in the world, and what will they do with it? Eat it? No, they consume. They consume influence, land, or so many widgets. Socialism does not eliminate the want for items, nor does it remove greed.
@goingalt Not really. People become enslaved to money because they've been influenced by the money making mentality which is produced in a capitalist society. I hardly every see any of my classmates talking about their true goals in life; they all talk about being rich in the future. I'm not saying it is impossible to fulfill intrinsic desires by prioritizing money making but I hardly doubt each one of those people will become truly happy by having a million dollar mansion.
@ImAznnn But is monetary greed worse than any other form of greed. How about the greed for power, or fame. How about the greed for land? Money is a means to an end. Having all the money in the world is useless if you don't buy anything with it. It is not logical to assume monetary greed is worse than anything else, because just having money doesn't make any sense if you don't use it.
@ImAznnn That is an emotionalism argument, not a logical one. Whether or not they want money doesn't matter. The one of game theory, "what other people value is no less rational than what you value." You cannot look into that person's heart to see if it will make them happy or not. A person that wants a mansion is not enslaved by money, but by the mansion. Just as much as a person who wants to be a lawyer or a CEO is enslaved by a degree. Money is a means to an end, and the mansion is the end.
@goingalt I think i should clarify. By money, I meant materials. There is a possibility that materials can satisfy one's intrinsic desires but the problem is materials can't always satisfy one's intrinsic desires. Capitalism promotes the mentality that money can ALWAYS buy happiness and that is what's so wrong about it. A person who gets true satisfaction from being a fireman will think that a mansion will make him happy. That mentality completely cloud's people's thoughts.
@ImAznnn Once again this is an argument of emotion. How do we know that a person who is a fireman is any more satisfied than a person who has obtained a mansion. We cannot know. A person may want to be a fireman but when reality hits, they may no longer be happy. It is illogical to state that one person is more happy than another because their desires are different. Their desires are different because people want different things. (Cont.)
@goingalt The NY Times had an article today showing that following your professional goals may not make you happy, using anecdotal evidence though. "Maybe It’s Time for Plan C" is the title. This woman wasn't looking for money or fame, but yet is not happy with the choices she made. This is why your argument is illogical, because it is based on emotion and satisfaction, not on logic or game theory.
@goingalt This isnt about comparing satisfaction.Its about achieving satisfaction.Some people achieve satisfaction through gaining materials while some achieve it by fulfilling their ideas.The problem in a capitalist society is that majority of the thoughts are clouded by material influences which distracts people from their true goals.E.g I thought an ipod could make me happy when it didnt. We need to promote the idea that one must follow their TRUE goals not socially influenced ones
@ImAznnn Would not promoting their TRUE goals not be true goals at all but rather socially influenced ones as well? You make the mistake that these are not the person's intended goals. Your assertion is not logical bc you cannot know with any certainty about whether or not a person will be happy with their goal. There is also no certainty that their professional goal is their "true" goal. Until you come up with an actual logical argument instead on an emotional one, were just going in circles.
@goingalt Each individual has their own set of unique and intrinsic goals/desires. By fulfilling these goals/desires people will acquire an indefinite amount of happiness. Look at athletes when they play sports. Look at chefs when they put their passion into cooking food. Etc
Socially influenced goals are not your true goals because they do not make you happy. If they did how come right now I feel like I could really care less if I threw my ipod out the window?
@ImAznnn If what you say is true about materialism and society then the universities would be flooded with CS and Business majors because those tend to pay the most. However, there is actually a shortage of CS majors and business majors have shrunk. Where did they go? Liberal arts majors and other non-science majors grew even when they tend to pay less by comparison. About your ipod, don't blame society because u picked a bad phone. That is your fault. Only kids blame others for their mistakes.
@goingalt Ha! first I just need to clear up the ipod shit.The reason I bought an ipod was because it was a socially influenced goal.By trying to achieve a socially influenced goal look what happened.I achieved no happiness at all
I guess I was just making an assumption off of what was going on in high schools in my area and the amount of propaganda thats found in the media.Sry.Nonetheless,the promotion of material goals is present and it is clouding people's minds.It must be eliminated
@ImAznnn So because YOU bought an IPOD out of peer pressure, EVERYONE does? I bought my MP3 player, because I enjoy a variety of music and it allows me to easily access that variety at a moment's notice. I did not buy an MP3 player for the sake of owning an MP3 player. I bought an MP3 player, because I enjoy music. I bought something materialistic, so that I could enjoy something transcendent. I own a laptop and have an internet subscription so that I may better acquire knowledge.
You see, your problem is that you assume that because people acquire and own material goods, it is necessarily to satisfy some material desire. In reality, most material goods are bought and owned because they are a means to some nonmaterial desire. I rent an apartment that has a dishwasher and laundry facilities, because cleanliness that affords me good health is important to me. Even the most primitive man used tools and wore clothes.
@TracyII77 Well most people (like me) buy ipods b/c Apple just promotes the hell out of their products.
An idea causes you to buy materials so you can fulfill that idea.E.g You wash your clothes to get the shit off it. Why?Your ideas tell you that you need to be clean so you can feel comfortable. You are using that material to satisfy an idea. When you eat, you keep yourself alive thus satisfying your idea of living. At the end of the day they are idealistic desires not materialistic.
@ImAznnn Are "food, water, shelter" always worth having at any cost? Do you think that people that sacrificed those things for the sake of freedom/loved ones made a stupid decision? You are on the dangerous road of advocating a universality of value. St Petersburg paradox is just one counter example. Further, if u state that all wants r simply representations of ideas, then you aren't offering any concrete means of dictating that people shouldn't buy the ipod. Whos to say which idea is valuable
@dmg46664 I'm only saying the truth and the truth is we all want to survive and live our lives to the fullest extent. Deep down inside no one wants to feel pain, only happiness. That is why I say the idea of survival is universal.
I understand that we currently do not live in a utopia; we live in a fucked up world where our freedoms are constantly being taken away. So for now it is acceptable that one sacrifices their survival because in order to gain some we must first lose some.
@ImAznnn To say that we must first lose something in order to gain, is very Christian ideology, and in no way universal truth. What I was trying to convey before is the concept of UNCERTAINTY. You FEEL you are saying the truth, but a proper understanding of science dictates that you CANT KNOW! Read Karl Popper on Falsifiability. Better to let person A buy the ipod and person B decide not to buy it. Freedom to experiment allows for the greatest opportunity to stumble on both truth and falsehoods.
@dmg46664 I have no scientific proof to entirely back up that aspect of dialectical materialism but what I do have are examples. E.g When immigrants from places like China move to the U.S, they sacrifice themselves in order for their children to live better lives. Also, to replace a political system with a better one, a revolution must take place in order to first destroy all remnants of the system in place.
@ImAznnn And I can cite examples of poor people in Africa that have many children simply to expect them to work for them. Examples are merely that. Revolutions are overrated. The champion civilizations are those that took the best elements of what came before. Greece->Rome->Britain->USA->(China). Revolution tends to be the romance of idealists tinyurl(.)com/3vl8wo6
@dmg46664 (con.t) The rest of the values are completely subjective. The ipod that I bought may not satisfy my own intrinsic desires but definitely it could satisfy the intrinsic desires of others as each person is unique. Therefore, people have the freedom to buy w/e they want so they could satisfy their own unique and intrinsic set of ideas.
@ImAznnn I don't consider the act of eating a means to an idea :/. Eating is a means to myself, simply because I exists and it's enjoyable to me, period. Also, your definition of materialism is incorrect. It isn't just the act of buying 100% useless items because of peer pressure -that you can easily avoid btw- it includes enjoying materials stuff for the purpose of practical use. I wear shoes, because it will be unpleasant to walk bear footed. I also find tremendous practical value in my iphone
@GeminiK In order you exist you must want to exist. In order to satisfy this idea you must eat food. Therefore eating food is a means of satisfying an idealistic desire. (Cont.)
@ImAznnn Of course all materials arent useless. You must use certain materials to satisfy your idealistic desires. Like you said shoes and iphones are very useful to you. But usefulness is completely subjective and the problem is there is always constant manipulation going on that cloud your true ideas. The idea that materials will ALWAYS bring you happiness is the corrupted mentality that is being taught. Not many people realize that they must listen to their true idealistic desires.
@ImAznnn I would be one of the few that listens to his idealistic desires, although I consider wanting to exist natural. I suppose others don't.
Anyways, in my case, it's very difficult to influence me subversively and cause me to act against my own interests. So, I NEVER buy items that aren't practical to me. This is possible because I think entirely (as far as I know ;-) ) objectively. You can train and weed out subjective processes in your mind.
@ImAznnn How do you know that most people buy ipods for the same reason as you to be true? Are you most people? Are people mere carbon copies of you? Are you a mind reader? Are you God? And yes, ideas cause people to acquire material goods. You just repeated my entire reasoning above. The problem you now face is an egotistical one. Instead of discovering the desires of others and respecting their decisions, you discover your own desires and force them on others.
You discovered in high school that an ipod does not fulfill YOUR desire for happiness. Either because it did not obtain the social acceptance you were seeking (because you didn't bother to find out from those whose acceptance you sought what would gain their acceptance) or because you discovered that social acceptance does not make YOU happy. These are mere SELF discoveries. Example: Social Acceptance DOES make my extroverted sister happy, but not me as an introvert.
Nothing in this self discovery of yours was a discovery over what makes others happy. The only way to know what makes others happy is to ask them. If they state that owning an ipod makes them happy, who are you to object? If social acceptance makes them happy, who are you to object? And removing money and choice does not fix the problem of self discovery. I do not assume that I will like all foods that I try, but unless I try them I will never know. What is wrong with trying?
@TracyII77 I'm going to keep reiterating myself. I DO NOT THINK OF EVERYONE BEING THE SAME. (that's why I couldn't achieve happiness when I bought my Ipod). Btw I love how you automatically assume that I bought an Ipod so I could "fit in". If anything your the one thinking that everyone is the same.
I didn't say to remove money. I said to remove monetary influences.
There's nothing wrong with trying. There is something wrong with influencing people to do something they dont want to do
@ImAznnn I didn't assume anything. You are the who stated, "The reason I bought an ipod was because it was a socially influenced goal." And quite frankly, how do you influence people to do things they don't want to do? Did you or did you not want to buy an ipod? And how is anyone else supposed to know what it is you want? And what is monetary influences? I work to get paid so that I can acquire all things I do want. Money is merely the tool to get those things.
@TracyII77 Just b/c I said it was socially influenced doesn't mean I was peer pressured. It could mean advertisements and popularity of the product have clouded my judgement.
Any way to impose ideas not based on truth upon people is a way of influencing people to do something they don't want.
At that time I did want to buy an Ipod but I never contemplated about where my idea was coming from.
Monetary influences meaning ads that manipulate people to buy things that they don't need.
@ImAznnn Socially influenced = peer pressure. Advertisements are not the problem. Fraud is. If something is advertised using fraud, then yes, it is a problem. Advertisements that are not fraudulent are not a problem. Quite frankly, I would not have known my brother was getting married, when or where, except that he advertised it to me. And so what if I buy something I don't need? Are wants bad? Forget music, sports, entertainment... All just evil according to you.
This has been flagged as spam show
Michael Prescott: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
michaelprescottDOTnet/hickmanDOThtm
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
While I respect Ayn Rand’s willingness to think individualistically, her moral argument is ultimately based on an assumption, that human survival is good in and of itself. Objectively, to say that human survival is good in and of itself and the basis for all ethical principles is an assumption. To use some philosophical terminology, the assertion is nothing more than a hypothetical imperative: If I want humanity to persist I ought to do such and such. Practical reason has its limitations.
Johannes999999999 2 months ago
Ayn fully addressed the Hume "is/ought" problem imagined here. Life being a system of actions, there are surely real ideals perceived by its participants, be they an ameoba or a nihilist.
To say that someone should wet a towel and attempt to save the baby in a building which is burning down and does NOT assume that the baby is worth saving, but assumes that the towel will suffice for both th baby and the person attempting the rescue. Perhaps two towels will be necessary.
geekonomist 1 month ago
@Johannes999999999 You've just committed the crime to which Ayn speaks. Reread what you wrote. Acquire the capacity to find errors & contradictions in your reasoning and fix them? Thanks for posting.
sasatwood 1 week ago
@sasatwood I have re-watched the video and I still do not see the error in my logic which you believe exists. I understand her point that man's nature is individualistic, but is it a categorical imperative to allow man to act as he must to survive? Is reason morally good? I believe (through my own logic which may or may not reflect the true nature of reality) that neither can be confirmed for the reasons I stated in my last post. You may "correct" me if you wish but I do not ask for it.
Johannes999999999 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
@Barry, completely irrelevant.
Cinnamonbuns13 5 months ago
Capitalism does requires reason, and that means not believing in a higher power, a god or something.
Barry62152 5 months ago
The most brilliant mind of the 20th century
jtizz711 6 months ago
pointless philosophy!!!! whats the point of of bellowing thinking and doing for oneself in a society where all for one exists, as well the ever increasing authoritarian nanny state
trufiend138 6 months ago
@trufiend138 The point is to live. You can still do something if you look for it. And, the alternative isn't worth it.
GeminiK 6 months ago
LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
ecnerwal999 6 months ago
Though I use to agree that with her that reason is man's essential characteristic is his ability to reason, Adam Smith changed my mind. He argued that it was imagination. Reason requires imagination. Perhaps she included imagination as part of reason, which it is, but imagination is also part of empathy which others argue to be the essential characteristic of man, which I disagree with btw.
EvilDandy 6 months ago
@EvilDandy Do a youtube search to see dogs dreaming, sleepwalking, barking in their sleep. In what way is that not imagination! And given they do it in their sleep, it's not a far stretch to concede that they do it awake. To say they don't is not proveable & suspect. I'd leave Smith's contributions at the invisible hand.
dmg46664 6 months ago
@dmg46664 By the same token we see chimps reason and even engage in problem solving with tools. No, I think we are talking about higher level concepts here. A chimp figuring out how to use a twig to get grubs and a dog dreaming are not on the same level as human reasoning and imagination. The products of reason described by Rand require imagination to see the possibilities and bring them to fruition. As I mentioned, I suspect she presumes imagination as part of the reasoning process.
EvilDandy 6 months ago
@dmg46664 PS: Don't discount Smith, to avoid too much reading, I recommend PJ O'Rourke's book "On the Wealth of Nations". As the subtitle says, "he read it so you don't have to".
EvilDandy 6 months ago
@EvilDandy Are you so sure of your position? Chess is merely Tic-Tac-Toe with a greater search space. Prove that the microchip isn't simply a grub&twig routine with more parts. Your position is religious, not scientific. And I don't discount Smith. He was a great Scotsman. However, his lack of insight and omission of Marginal Utility in his work when Daniel Bernoulli was his peer (St Petersburg paradox) will always be a stein.
dmg46664 6 months ago
@dmg46664 I'll stick with bullet points in answer, 1. Imagination allows for high abstract thought, in fact one might define it as "higher abstract thought". Those "more parts" require greater imagination, 2. Don't bring God into this. 3. I live in Scotland, most Scots these days aren't great. 4. Bernoulli never expanded his theory and it fell into obscurity and Smith does touch on Marginal Utility in his paradox of water and diamonds.
EvilDandy 6 months ago
@EvilDandy 1. "Imagination allows for high abstract thought".. That's suspect. Maybe it's simply more memory that does that. A computer today can do tons more than an early IBM machine, but you won't find a computer scientist who will tell you that they are FUNDAMENTALLY different. I used 'religion' in the sense of dogma, not god. Your belief system might be correct, but you believe it without sufficient evidence. Regarding Smith, I'm just crediting him for things he DID, rather than didnt do.
dmg46664 6 months ago
@dmg46664 The thing about evidence is that, I presume you'd agree, the limited space provided on Youtube is hardly enough to give a proper argument. In fact, I'm not even sure what we are arguing if we are arguing at all. So your accusation about me not giving "proper" evidence and being dogmatic might be a bit premature. If I was making a point it would be this: imagination, defined here as the ability to conceive concepts in the mind, is a requirement of reason. I see this as self-evident.
EvilDandy 6 months ago
@EvilDandy "imagination is a requirement of reason"... I might agree with you here. Although I'm not completely sure it's self evident. Is it possible to reason without a hypothetical? Not sure. But...That's a very different remark from your original one: "[imagination defines] man's essential (and distinguishing) characteristic" from all other life.
dmg46664 6 months ago
@EvilDandy 2. Maybe a 'stein' was too harsh a verdict... but he managed to ask the question about water and diamonds, and the answer about valuation was sitting there on the shelf.... I wasn't expecting him to come up with the complete theory of opportunity cost... nor the mathematics... just the realization that context was important. In defense of Bernoulli, he was only interested in the math, not the economics... no need to expand. & I doubt modern Scots are less great than anyone else. ;)
dmg46664 6 months ago
@dmg46664 PS: I wasn't being sarky when I wrote "Don't bring God into this". I just love that line from the film Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and saw the opportunity to use it.
EvilDandy 6 months ago
"A gun is not an argument".
I love Ayn Rand!
papeluso 6 months ago 5
Every individual has a right to his own body; therefore, he has the right to what emanates from his body; therefore, he has the right to the fruit of his own labor, which is his property.
Capitalism logically explained.
BlameTheFirst 6 months ago 3
amazing
hlimkb 6 months ago 2
My reasoning lead me to capitalism. But I've seen many people who love socialism. I think it's because of our initial assumptions and because of our desires and wants that lead us to each one. In the end I don't think it really reasoning either way, but instead it is actually just a preference for what kind of society we want to live in. Ideally no one would force each other, and everyone could just choose to live in the society they prefer most.
manor1730 6 months ago
@manor1730 trouble is, socialism requires force. it requires the taking of someone's rightful property and giving it to someone else under penalty of imprisonment.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
@fzqlcs it doesn't require force if only people who want to join join, like the commune they have in Tennessee or somewhere. I'm saying that people shouldn't be forced but instead should be able to choose
manor1730 6 months ago
“The goal of socialism is communism.” Vladimir Lenin .
shaqdaddy11 6 months ago 3
Damn... Ayn Rand just gave me another mind-gasm...
AlexNOSAM 6 months ago 9
Ayn Rand had too much faith in reason. Reason is good, but human nature is not grounded in reason. Human nature is grounded in emotion. Reason is not an independent entity. Reason is a system of relations between various desires and passions.
bxjam85 6 months ago
@bxjam85 Nailed it.
tangledweb79 6 months ago
@bxjam85 Too much faith in Reason? LOL
Mans attachment to irrationality does nothing to discredit the faculty of Reason itself. It is something that must be cultivated and championed by our culture and society in general. She is defending an ideal that has not been truly appreciated by the public.
zentonil 6 months ago
@zentonil Yes. She had too much faith in reason. Rousseau, Karl Marx and Lenin also had too much faith in reason. I'm not saying that we shouldn't champion reason. I'm saying that when we put too much value in reason, we forget and forsake the emotional underpinnings of the faculty of reason. Logical reasoning is a tool to reach an end that gratifies our emotional motivations.
bxjam85 6 months ago
@bxjam85 Ok. I think I understand what you are saying.
Sigmund Freud and his nephew Edward Bernays have made it abundantly clear that our human nature is inherently irrational. I do find it strange that economics measures man as a rational individual maximizing his position while business actively manipulates and exploits our emotional impulses and desires.
Free associations of rational and compassionate persons can achieve beautiful and amazing ends. :)
zentonil 6 months ago
@bxjam85 Hmm, I see reasoning as a tool too. One that is extremely important to get right. But what should you use it for? Can you think of a logical act that would serve your human impulses? Would it then not be irrational?
GeminiK 6 months ago
Hasn't "Reason" been around for thousands of years and hence before Capitalism even existed?
theredraven 6 months ago
@theredraven Very true. The first economic system based on reason was barter -- value for value. Barter was the foundation from which capitalism naturally developed.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
@theredraven "Ayn Rand shows how the path of reason leads to capitalism."
By necessity Reason would come before Capitalism.
zentonil 6 months ago
Wealth is the product of man's capacity of think. Without his mind, he is nothing
Sonnedude 6 months ago 3
Reason requires socialism not capitalism. By socialism I mean real socialism not the shit you hear in the media.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn not quite
Sonnedude 6 months ago
@ImAznnn Quite the contrary. Socialism requires force. Otherwise, it would be a voluntary activity disassociated from government. All redistribution of wealth schemes require force, whether they are perpetrated by street thugs or politicians.
fzqlcs 6 months ago 67
@fzqlcs That's why I said REAL socialism. Real socialism doesn't mean centralization but decentralization. Socialism also doesn't have to mean tyranny of the majority.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn Sorry, but where I come from, words mean things. Dictionary definition of socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. In your mind, that is decentralization? And, who says tyranny of the majority? It is simply an economic tyranny which can also be imposed by any type of political system.
fzqlcs 6 months ago 2
@fzqlcs There is Left Anarchism... Although it doesn't solve the economic calculation problem statist Socialism creates.
darkr0astedblend 6 months ago
@darkr0astedblend I believe as with so many idiotic code words on the left, anarchism to them means a thuggish live that parasites on the producers. Still this kind of "anarchism" can only survive while and as long as the majority of society consist of producers who tolerate this. So it's not a coherent philosophy, imho.
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@fzqlcs Ownership doesn't always mean control. E.g Landlords own land but can lease the land to others who can do whatever they wish on that land. So yes the government would own everything but they don't have to control what they own.
Tyranny of the majority is typically how many capitalists I've met describe socialism since they think people must sacrifice themselves for the majority of the population in a socialist society.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn "REAL" socialism never works like the idiotic minds of Marx and Engels envisioned it. It cannot work, because it is a phony theory. Look at the original socialists and their philosophy. They wanted a totally democratic structure, that means rule of a majority. However, any kind of organization will lead to elites and some form of centralization. Every society that totally decentralizes will be conquered by an enemy that does organize and vanish. This is a romantic dream of know-nothings
scepticsteve 6 months ago 20
@scepticsteve You who think man needs a monopoly on force in a given area (gov.) are the dreamer. This is the only critique I have of Ayn. Especially Intellectual Property
natritious1 6 months ago
@fzqlcs Very well said. It's amazing to me how people don't recognize the co-operative business model as a socialist alternative that can co-exist with the free market.
zentonil 6 months ago
@fzqlcs ...or corporations.
francisnblake 6 months ago
@ImAznnn Socialism is the reason of the elite and the rest has to cope with it wheter they like it or not "it's for the common good".
granec 6 months ago
@ImAznnn I think I understand what your trying to say... A group of people organize voluntarily to distribute work and responsibilities between them and if they wish to exit the commune they may at their own will? If this is what you mean than it is only possible in a country with limited government and a free enterprise system.
adulby 6 months ago
@adulby
or no government
RPFS2008 6 months ago
@adulby Exactly, but a government would still exist just to act as a safety barrier so that corporations can't destroy the economy like they did in 2008. They would not at all limit or try to control the market.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn: The economic crash of 2008 was primarily caused by the housing bubble, and who caused the housing bubble? Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jimmy Carter, Maxine Waters, Bill Clinton. All of them pushed for every American to own a house, whether they could afford it or not, forcing banks through regulation and threat of pulling their creds to give loans out to people who couldn’t pay em back. CENTRAL PLANNING AND GOVERNMENT REGULATION!
espada9 6 months ago 4
Comment removed
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@espada9 That's why I said the government should act as a safety barrier and a safety barrier alone to prevent corporations from causing destruction. They shouldn't at all control what people do.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn yea.. but giving a monopoly of force to the govt allows it to cause far more destruction than any corporation ever could in a truly free and competitive market.... one company messing up out of many will go out of business eventually... a corrupt government.. well.. they're "too big to fail" ... the answer is obvious.. a monopoly of force is not a safety barrier.. its shooting the public interest in the foot.
Princetonbeats 6 months ago
@Princetonbeats I havn't cleared up what I meant by safety barrier. Government should own everything but they shouldn't control everything. That means they pay wages to everyone to prevent economic atrocities but they stay out of people's businesses. So really there is no danger of the government being corrupt.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn the only justifiable reason for a government is to protect individual rights. So I guess Ayn might agree with you?
natritious1 6 months ago
@ImAznnn What do you mean by "real" socialism? Reason dictates that "real" socialism is what actually occurs when socialism is attempted, not what the theories of socialism propose it should be. In theory, socialism promises a free lunch - it says the economy is a machine that can automatically crank out everything we "need" if only everyone would submit to the "common good". In practice, socialism dissipates wealth and treats human beings as servile robots, rather than sovereign beings.
gergenheimer 6 months ago 4
@ImAznnn Defend your position with logic. Ayn Rand took the time to eloquently demonstrate why she sees Capitalism as the defender of Reason. You could at least write more than two sentences with very little substance to them....
zentonil 6 months ago
@zentonil Through reasoning we see that each person must be free do whatever in order to satisfy his intrinsic desires. Capitalism does allow people to do w/e they want but It causes people to replace their intrinsic desires for the desire of money. So at the end of the day capitalism doesn't liberate people; it causes people to become slaves for money. This is in fact the main problem I see. (Cont.)
ImAznnn 6 months ago
Comment removed
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn Socialism however eliminates the money mentality. If executed correctly it can allow everyone to achieve true happiness while helping the rest of society. E.g A person want's to become a firefighter. If this person works hard and becomes a firefighter, he can satisfy his intrinsic desires while helping to save other people's lives to help society. So in this socialist society everyone wins.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn This is not logical though. A person does not become a slave to money by force. It is a rational decision that they make. Is money mentality any worse than power (or position) mentality, or land mentality, or widget mentality? Money is only a form of exchange. A person can want all the money in the world, and what will they do with it? Eat it? No, they consume. They consume influence, land, or so many widgets. Socialism does not eliminate the want for items, nor does it remove greed.
goingalt 6 months ago
@goingalt Not really. People become enslaved to money because they've been influenced by the money making mentality which is produced in a capitalist society. I hardly every see any of my classmates talking about their true goals in life; they all talk about being rich in the future. I'm not saying it is impossible to fulfill intrinsic desires by prioritizing money making but I hardly doubt each one of those people will become truly happy by having a million dollar mansion.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn Socialism won't remove all greed. It only removes monetary greed.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn But is monetary greed worse than any other form of greed. How about the greed for power, or fame. How about the greed for land? Money is a means to an end. Having all the money in the world is useless if you don't buy anything with it. It is not logical to assume monetary greed is worse than anything else, because just having money doesn't make any sense if you don't use it.
goingalt 6 months ago
@goingalt Your comment on monetary greed was very thoughtful. I often discuss this with people in the Zeitgeist movement with little success.
zentonil 6 months ago
@zentonil I can't take the credit. It is a redux of the Milton Friedman's greed video when he was on the Phil Donahue show.
goingalt 6 months ago
@ImAznnn That is an emotionalism argument, not a logical one. Whether or not they want money doesn't matter. The one of game theory, "what other people value is no less rational than what you value." You cannot look into that person's heart to see if it will make them happy or not. A person that wants a mansion is not enslaved by money, but by the mansion. Just as much as a person who wants to be a lawyer or a CEO is enslaved by a degree. Money is a means to an end, and the mansion is the end.
goingalt 6 months ago
@goingalt CORRECTION: It is like saying a person is enslaved by a degree because they want to be a lawyer or CEO.
goingalt 6 months ago
@goingalt I think i should clarify. By money, I meant materials. There is a possibility that materials can satisfy one's intrinsic desires but the problem is materials can't always satisfy one's intrinsic desires. Capitalism promotes the mentality that money can ALWAYS buy happiness and that is what's so wrong about it. A person who gets true satisfaction from being a fireman will think that a mansion will make him happy. That mentality completely cloud's people's thoughts.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn Once again this is an argument of emotion. How do we know that a person who is a fireman is any more satisfied than a person who has obtained a mansion. We cannot know. A person may want to be a fireman but when reality hits, they may no longer be happy. It is illogical to state that one person is more happy than another because their desires are different. Their desires are different because people want different things. (Cont.)
goingalt 6 months ago
@goingalt The NY Times had an article today showing that following your professional goals may not make you happy, using anecdotal evidence though. "Maybe It’s Time for Plan C" is the title. This woman wasn't looking for money or fame, but yet is not happy with the choices she made. This is why your argument is illogical, because it is based on emotion and satisfaction, not on logic or game theory.
goingalt 6 months ago
@goingalt This isnt about comparing satisfaction.Its about achieving satisfaction.Some people achieve satisfaction through gaining materials while some achieve it by fulfilling their ideas.The problem in a capitalist society is that majority of the thoughts are clouded by material influences which distracts people from their true goals.E.g I thought an ipod could make me happy when it didnt. We need to promote the idea that one must follow their TRUE goals not socially influenced ones
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn Would not promoting their TRUE goals not be true goals at all but rather socially influenced ones as well? You make the mistake that these are not the person's intended goals. Your assertion is not logical bc you cannot know with any certainty about whether or not a person will be happy with their goal. There is also no certainty that their professional goal is their "true" goal. Until you come up with an actual logical argument instead on an emotional one, were just going in circles.
goingalt 6 months ago
@goingalt Each individual has their own set of unique and intrinsic goals/desires. By fulfilling these goals/desires people will acquire an indefinite amount of happiness. Look at athletes when they play sports. Look at chefs when they put their passion into cooking food. Etc
Socially influenced goals are not your true goals because they do not make you happy. If they did how come right now I feel like I could really care less if I threw my ipod out the window?
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn If what you say is true about materialism and society then the universities would be flooded with CS and Business majors because those tend to pay the most. However, there is actually a shortage of CS majors and business majors have shrunk. Where did they go? Liberal arts majors and other non-science majors grew even when they tend to pay less by comparison. About your ipod, don't blame society because u picked a bad phone. That is your fault. Only kids blame others for their mistakes.
goingalt 6 months ago
@goingalt Ha! first I just need to clear up the ipod shit.The reason I bought an ipod was because it was a socially influenced goal.By trying to achieve a socially influenced goal look what happened.I achieved no happiness at all
I guess I was just making an assumption off of what was going on in high schools in my area and the amount of propaganda thats found in the media.Sry.Nonetheless,the promotion of material goals is present and it is clouding people's minds.It must be eliminated
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn So because YOU bought an IPOD out of peer pressure, EVERYONE does? I bought my MP3 player, because I enjoy a variety of music and it allows me to easily access that variety at a moment's notice. I did not buy an MP3 player for the sake of owning an MP3 player. I bought an MP3 player, because I enjoy music. I bought something materialistic, so that I could enjoy something transcendent. I own a laptop and have an internet subscription so that I may better acquire knowledge.
TracyII77 6 months ago
You see, your problem is that you assume that because people acquire and own material goods, it is necessarily to satisfy some material desire. In reality, most material goods are bought and owned because they are a means to some nonmaterial desire. I rent an apartment that has a dishwasher and laundry facilities, because cleanliness that affords me good health is important to me. Even the most primitive man used tools and wore clothes.
TracyII77 6 months ago
@TracyII77 Well most people (like me) buy ipods b/c Apple just promotes the hell out of their products.
An idea causes you to buy materials so you can fulfill that idea.E.g You wash your clothes to get the shit off it. Why?Your ideas tell you that you need to be clean so you can feel comfortable. You are using that material to satisfy an idea. When you eat, you keep yourself alive thus satisfying your idea of living. At the end of the day they are idealistic desires not materialistic.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn Can you give us a definition of the items that are truely universally material desires?
dmg46664 6 months ago
@dmg46664 Universal material desires are the idealistic means of satisfying the idea of survival.
E.g desire for food, water, shelter
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn Are "food, water, shelter" always worth having at any cost? Do you think that people that sacrificed those things for the sake of freedom/loved ones made a stupid decision? You are on the dangerous road of advocating a universality of value. St Petersburg paradox is just one counter example. Further, if u state that all wants r simply representations of ideas, then you aren't offering any concrete means of dictating that people shouldn't buy the ipod. Whos to say which idea is valuable
dmg46664 6 months ago
Comment removed
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@dmg46664 I'm only saying the truth and the truth is we all want to survive and live our lives to the fullest extent. Deep down inside no one wants to feel pain, only happiness. That is why I say the idea of survival is universal.
I understand that we currently do not live in a utopia; we live in a fucked up world where our freedoms are constantly being taken away. So for now it is acceptable that one sacrifices their survival because in order to gain some we must first lose some.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn To say that we must first lose something in order to gain, is very Christian ideology, and in no way universal truth. What I was trying to convey before is the concept of UNCERTAINTY. You FEEL you are saying the truth, but a proper understanding of science dictates that you CANT KNOW! Read Karl Popper on Falsifiability. Better to let person A buy the ipod and person B decide not to buy it. Freedom to experiment allows for the greatest opportunity to stumble on both truth and falsehoods.
dmg46664 6 months ago
@dmg46664 I have no scientific proof to entirely back up that aspect of dialectical materialism but what I do have are examples. E.g When immigrants from places like China move to the U.S, they sacrifice themselves in order for their children to live better lives. Also, to replace a political system with a better one, a revolution must take place in order to first destroy all remnants of the system in place.
I will read up on Karl Popper. Thanks
ImAznnn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ImAznnn And I can cite examples of poor people in Africa that have many children simply to expect them to work for them. Examples are merely that. Revolutions are overrated. The champion civilizations are those that took the best elements of what came before. Greece->Rome->Britain->USA->(China). Revolution tends to be the romance of idealists tinyurl(.)com/3vl8wo6
dmg46664 6 months ago
@dmg46664 (con.t) The rest of the values are completely subjective. The ipod that I bought may not satisfy my own intrinsic desires but definitely it could satisfy the intrinsic desires of others as each person is unique. Therefore, people have the freedom to buy w/e they want so they could satisfy their own unique and intrinsic set of ideas.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn I don't consider the act of eating a means to an idea :/. Eating is a means to myself, simply because I exists and it's enjoyable to me, period. Also, your definition of materialism is incorrect. It isn't just the act of buying 100% useless items because of peer pressure -that you can easily avoid btw- it includes enjoying materials stuff for the purpose of practical use. I wear shoes, because it will be unpleasant to walk bear footed. I also find tremendous practical value in my iphone
GeminiK 6 months ago
@GeminiK In order you exist you must want to exist. In order to satisfy this idea you must eat food. Therefore eating food is a means of satisfying an idealistic desire. (Cont.)
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn Of course all materials arent useless. You must use certain materials to satisfy your idealistic desires. Like you said shoes and iphones are very useful to you. But usefulness is completely subjective and the problem is there is always constant manipulation going on that cloud your true ideas. The idea that materials will ALWAYS bring you happiness is the corrupted mentality that is being taught. Not many people realize that they must listen to their true idealistic desires.
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn I would be one of the few that listens to his idealistic desires, although I consider wanting to exist natural. I suppose others don't.
Anyways, in my case, it's very difficult to influence me subversively and cause me to act against my own interests. So, I NEVER buy items that aren't practical to me. This is possible because I think entirely (as far as I know ;-) ) objectively. You can train and weed out subjective processes in your mind.
It requires a lot of effort to do that though.
GeminiK 6 months ago
@ImAznnn How do you know that most people buy ipods for the same reason as you to be true? Are you most people? Are people mere carbon copies of you? Are you a mind reader? Are you God? And yes, ideas cause people to acquire material goods. You just repeated my entire reasoning above. The problem you now face is an egotistical one. Instead of discovering the desires of others and respecting their decisions, you discover your own desires and force them on others.
TracyII77 6 months ago
Comment removed
TracyII77 6 months ago
You discovered in high school that an ipod does not fulfill YOUR desire for happiness. Either because it did not obtain the social acceptance you were seeking (because you didn't bother to find out from those whose acceptance you sought what would gain their acceptance) or because you discovered that social acceptance does not make YOU happy. These are mere SELF discoveries. Example: Social Acceptance DOES make my extroverted sister happy, but not me as an introvert.
TracyII77 6 months ago
Nothing in this self discovery of yours was a discovery over what makes others happy. The only way to know what makes others happy is to ask them. If they state that owning an ipod makes them happy, who are you to object? If social acceptance makes them happy, who are you to object? And removing money and choice does not fix the problem of self discovery. I do not assume that I will like all foods that I try, but unless I try them I will never know. What is wrong with trying?
TracyII77 6 months ago
@TracyII77 I'm going to keep reiterating myself. I DO NOT THINK OF EVERYONE BEING THE SAME. (that's why I couldn't achieve happiness when I bought my Ipod). Btw I love how you automatically assume that I bought an Ipod so I could "fit in". If anything your the one thinking that everyone is the same.
I didn't say to remove money. I said to remove monetary influences.
There's nothing wrong with trying. There is something wrong with influencing people to do something they dont want to do
ImAznnn 6 months ago
@ImAznnn I didn't assume anything. You are the who stated, "The reason I bought an ipod was because it was a socially influenced goal." And quite frankly, how do you influence people to do things they don't want to do? Did you or did you not want to buy an ipod? And how is anyone else supposed to know what it is you want? And what is monetary influences? I work to get paid so that I can acquire all things I do want. Money is merely the tool to get those things.
TracyII77 5 months ago
@TracyII77 Just b/c I said it was socially influenced doesn't mean I was peer pressured. It could mean advertisements and popularity of the product have clouded my judgement.
Any way to impose ideas not based on truth upon people is a way of influencing people to do something they don't want.
At that time I did want to buy an Ipod but I never contemplated about where my idea was coming from.
Monetary influences meaning ads that manipulate people to buy things that they don't need.
ImAznnn 5 months ago
@ImAznnn Socially influenced = peer pressure. Advertisements are not the problem. Fraud is. If something is advertised using fraud, then yes, it is a problem. Advertisements that are not fraudulent are not a problem. Quite frankly, I would not have known my brother was getting married, when or where, except that he advertised it to me. And so what if I buy something I don't need? Are wants bad? Forget music, sports, entertainment... All just evil according to you.
TracyII77 5 months ago