These guys completely missed her point with regards to rational self-interest. When she says men must necessarily act on their rational self-interest, she is stating an axiom that is necessarily true, not a subjective preference that she wishes to enforce somehow.
All preferences are a consequence of the reasoning mind, aka the self, and therefore there can not be a truly unselfish preference. Individuals MUST act on their own rational self-interest.
@sparta1236 Well, this is anecdotal, but I personaly am an atheist , and I did consider it and rejected it as simplistic, selfish and not workable in practice. In fact, I came to a similar view of communism as well, except that communism was only simplistic and not workable in practice ( ie: neither system works and communism is marginaly better ).
Hm... you know, I adore this show and the superb thinking minds that run it.
But I think they are wrong about Ayn Rands Objectivism. Matt seems to know far too less about it to judge - and still he's clearly talking it down. Russel is only ridiculing Ayn Rand's Novels without making Points or clearly saying WHY he does not like it. I wish they'd hit the books on that subject again.
There's a lot of truth in Objectivism. Maybe uncomfortable to some, but nevertheless Truth.
You dont understand that acting in your own self interest can mean acting in the interest of those that you love. Because that is your rational own self interest.
Also, Christians are in direct conflict with objectivism. Simply because Christians rely on faith and faith is not backed up by logic and reasoning of the mind.
Objectivism was more or less an "Only in America" phenomenon. Go to any Asian country and talk about the glory of the individual or self-interest and you will probably be laughed out of the continent.
@plaidchuck Asian cultures are way more collective then western cultures to begin with. Hell, if you ever talk to a Japanese guy he will even put down his girlfriend. By example, last year I went to Japan to meet with an old college friend and he totally put down his girlfriend, calling her ugly, smelly, and dirty. Later that day I meet her and well... she was the complete opposite of what he had said.
Nothing that Ayn Rand wrote or said was based on objective reality. The "Axiom of Existence" for example, characterized as "differentiating something from nothing" necessarily requires an "objective" agent. The fact that Rand was blind to this blatant circularity indicates an inability or refusal to see herself as anything other than a separate, self created, individual.
Ayn Rand said you are not obligated to sacriface yourself for others, but if others are of value to you, then it is in your rational self-interest to make sacriface of yourself. You can give presents at Christmas but it is immoral to do it if you do not value the people you give to, and you are not obliged to give by default.
@Freethinker12341 Not so much. Most of their objections consist of a strawman argument in that they are not actually against anything Ayn Rand actually said or wrote. They are arguing against misconceptions about Rand's philosophy, not against her actual philosophy. If you knew anything about it you would have seen this. So either a) you have studied and misunderstood Rand, or b) you have not studied and are ignorant. Note I used the word studied. Casual reading isn't sufficient.
I agree with many of the points objectivism proposes and value it as a counterpoint to a lot of the post modern mushy headed philosophy floating around out there. I like the idea of the pursuit of rational self interest. I part with her harsh opinions on altruism.I feel it may be a rational self interest to engage in altruism as there are social evolutionary benefits to be had,but given her experiences with forced altruism at the hands of the communists, I understand where she was coming from.
These two have no clue what objectivism is. They do everyone a disservice by negatively analyzing something they didn't even bother to research, and to speak about it with such assertion -- Smug, lazy and ignorant.
Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
First- if you really wanted to sacrifice yourself wouldn't you still be acting out of self-interest? As soon as "I want" enters the mind it eliminates altruism. Second- why would you want to sacrifice yourself?
I love the bit about "reason" and the commentary "again I can't really complain." Apparently the rationalism/empiricism dispute simply did not exist and is easily glossed over as obvious fact. Our hosts here are obviously masters of subtle philosophical insight to have no problem with Rand's pithiness.
"what if someone wants to sacrifice himself to others?" I don't know if it's actually possible to do that. It's basically like saying: I want to achieve something that I don't want to achieve.
@hank1972 But it's not really sacrifice. The parent values the child, so doing what you call "sacrifice" is simply achieving a value. Which makes it selfish. I love my mom, so of course I'd do anything for her, but that doesn't make it a sacrifice or altruism. Altruism is "the selfless concern for others". Sacrifice would be something like: helping someone you hate, or saving the neighbours child at the cost of your own child
@Chaaarge Or helping some one at the cost of your self. Which is some thing that people do all the time. We have all to some extant give to a loved more than we can afford, or can provide. That is part of human nature as we do this for many people. Many poor families have sacrificed for their children over their own needs and desires. While yes this sort of sacrifice is accepted it is still a sacrifice non the less.
@hank1972 but that implies that you can love someone above yourself, which is impossible. you love someone because you value them. It means that they, have a value to you. But if you don't hold your own happiness as the moral standard, then that love becomes meaningless. In the end, a parent helps the kid because they want the kid to succeed in life. sacrifice would be "I don't want my child to succeed, but I will give him money anyway"
@Chaaarge Then acts a bravery to save loved one in harm are meaningless? Soldiers running into gun fired to save friends, Parents running into burning building to save kids, are all meaningless? Self worth and for that love will be meaningless to some thing that they care for, and yes this does happen all the time, may be not to those levels but people daily make sacrifices on thing they would normally want to do. Narcissism (which is a flaw) not self love would prevent this behavior.
@hank1972 saying that the soldiers who take a bullet for a friend aren't acting in their rational self interest, implies that they are indifferent to what would have happened if their fellow soldiers died. They didn't want their fellow soldiers to die, that's why they took a bullet for them. It's both brave, and motivated by self interested. Acting in self interest doesn't mean "be a narcissist".
@Chaaarge "implies that they are indifferent to what would have happened if their fellow soldiers died." And this never happens? Besides that tho volunteer firemen, and emts routinely sacrifice their time and possibly well being for others.
Really? You are attacking Ayn Rand's philosophy word by word 50+ years after the fact?...If she were here today she would put your dumb ass in place and I would pay to see it. Irony?
The free market is composed of people making decisions (just like government). The market reflects prejudices and ignorance just as government does. Christian groups threatened to boycott the Tampa Bay Devil Rays unless they dropped "Devil" from their name. The team did it. Objectivists complain that the media ignores them. The media is privately owned so it can censor ideas it doesn't like. Ted Turner, according to capitalist theory, has the right to censor views from CNN because he owns CNN.
Here is a question for Objectivists. Why is it that in the most capitalist nation in the western world (the USA) is also the most religious nation in the western world? Ayn Rand was an atheist who felt that the development of capitalism would lessen the growth of collectivist religion yet more people today know who Billy Graham is than Penn Jillette. The Atlas Shrugged movie flopped while The Passion of the Christ was an unqualified success. When it comes to free market success atheism sucks.
Well, to start with USA is NOT the most capitalist nation in the world. Its just that lots of principles of Capitalism(free-market, encouragement to trade, individual rights) has been practiced for the longest in USA, and hence the tremendous growth. Most freest country as per the latest report is Hong Kong and Singapore.
Mixing of state and church is a continued hindrance for the past 50 years, esp in the worst era of the Bush administration.
@perdondaris I'm just a libertarian, not an Objectivists, but I'll bite; I don't see how prevanlence of religion refutes Objectivism, libertarianism, or capitalism. Let's realize that for a long time, the Catholic Church was the most powerful institution in the world. The effects of that are felt for a long time. However, I believe atheism is growing faster than ever, is it not? I do have faith that truth wins out in the marketplace of ideas, and I'm not sure how it could be any other way. :)
@Guncriminal My quote is also from her private journal, douche. This is what she wrote of hickman.
“Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,”
She also said that he had
“no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”
She DID backpedal. She wanted to try and rationalize her clearly obscene obsession with a serial killer.
@Guncriminal "So if a system has been tried and failed, it's more sucessful that one that hasn't been tried?"
Yes. A failure is better than nothing learned.
"Anyone who thinks the world is less than perfect is a crybaby? "
You don't have the balls to put your theories to the test. Instead, you whine about it, claiming to know a better way, yet you never do anything but cry. This is because you are all cowards. Putting your theories to the test comes with a high price that you don't want.
Objectivism has some good ideas, but there is one problem. Yes, rational egoism would work, but not everyone is rational. Put the word rational in front of any idea and it will magically work. If everyone involoved in communism was rational, then it would work. If everyone was rational then anarchy would work too. If everyone was good, then objectivism would be great, but so would almost every other philophy. Rational is also a subjective term. One man's rational ego will differ from another's.
existence exists means that there is facts that you cannot change even if you don't look at them... i'm atheist and i found this video stupid, even if i follow them usually (i'm from Spain). Objectivism means, i can do whatever i want but i must follow reason and logic (apart logic civil rights/laws), so why critize it?
He knows very little about objectivism and then rambles on about it. Most Atheists are huge socialists. They get rid of one mystical belief and cling on to another.
@Esoparagon Ayn Rand was atheist. I'm atheis and objectivist, the problem with this man is that HE IS ATHEIST AS AYN RAND WAS, but he has understood nothing on objectivism and scientific realism. Sadly.
@Esoparagon im sorry but "capitalist" tend to cling to mystical thinking. things like the "invisible hand" discribed by Adam Smith are distorted into a function of the Judeo-christian gods means of displaying approval or disapproval. i cannot think of a socialist position which has the same amount of magical thinking behind it.
@TheEvolver311 The invisible hand these days is just a metaphor. It was Adam Smiths primitive way of describing it back when practically everyone was religious. Capitalism is by no means mystical.
@Esoparagon actually Smith was very specific that it wasn't a mystical thing, it has been a modern trend in capitalist societies to associate the "invisivle hand" with the will of god. it is done every day on rightwing christian radio/TV. capitalism is about as mystical as socialism in its ideological groundings.
@TheEvolver311 Thus why I said his primitive way of describing the phenomena. He meant it in a mystical way but capitalists nowadays will only use the term as a metaphor not literally. Socialism is a fantasy. Capitalism is confronting reality for what it is.
@TheEvolver311 Newton spoke of god too and believed in god. We are talking about a time prior to evolutionary theory. We are talking about a time when reason and learning was crawling out of the dark ages into the light. Practically everyone had to justify things in the context of god. Capitalism and economic theory has come far since that time. Put down the Adam Smith. Pick up some Rothbard..
@Esoparagon Smith actually didn't equate it to god, it is now in the modern era that conservatives have taken to this trend, tho historically it has been falsely indentified in such a way by individuals more inclined to magical thinking than those inclined to materialism . i've read Rothbard's writtings, im not a fan of any kind of anarchy not even anarcho-capitalism. funny that you would refer me to a critic of Rands on a video critizing her while seemingly defending her.
Ayn Rand is not even alive. Objectivism is totally different now. It is the best philosophy and its sick and would scare the shit out of most people if they understood it.
Of course, there's no law among the animal kingdom. No lion's a criminal for chowing on christian flesh & blood. Merely conceit among the elite who often are assoiled for the same thing the poor are rape, murder etc. They own the gov. Life's a pissing contest, and you loose.
I like the atheist experience people, their rationality without ideology (diferent from many objetivist and others) I would like them to discuss also phillosophy, like here, instead of being all the time with religion
@sc0pl355 Wow, you really are clueless. According to nihilism, life has no purpose. Morality does not exist. You couldn't even know what morality is. According to Objectivism, the purpose of life is to pursue you own happiness. The knowledge of morality is possible.
They couldn't be any more different.
Actually read some of Ayn Rand before arguing against it.
I suggest "We the Living," "The Fountainhead," "Atlas Shrugged," "Anthem," "The Virtue of Selfishness." Among others.
Morals work within a particular framework - selfishness is a virtue within the framework of rational egoism. Those out of their depth (i.e. you), however, claim that theirs is not merely the only valid framework, but the only extant framework. The effect is akin to describing a particular action as "irreligious" because their particular religion forbids it; "I don't agree with this idea, therefore it doesn't exist."
Perhaps my post was over your head, as you've just repeated the same error again: "My society doesn't agree with this idea, therefore it doesn't exist." You'll find that different societies have different virtues.
"We are, by nature, social animals."
Acting in one's rational self interest doesn't contradict this fact.
@Guncriminal "You'll find that different societies have different virtues."
None of which accept your definition of 'virtue'. You see, objectivism is not part of a single society on the face of the planet... Well, possibly aside from Somalia, that is.
"Acting in one's rational self interest doesn't contradict this fact."
Look, the second a group get a sense that you're out for your own self interests and nothing else, the members of that group will ostracize you from participating.
@Guncriminal "You'll find that different societies have different virtues."
None of which accept your definition of 'virtue'. You see, objectivism is not part of a single society on the face of the planet... Well, possibly aside from Somalia, that is.
"Acting in one's rational self interest doesn't contradict this fact."
Actually, it does. Nobody likes a self-centered snake.
"None of which accept your definition of 'virtue'"
And you'll find that most don't accept yours either. So they must be false too. Do you seriously think that if a particular society doesn't like something then it must be false?
"Actually, it does. Nobody likes a self-centered snake."
So you've as good as admitted that your virtues are right because they're popular. This is a fallacy. Oh and another thing - no one actually follows your supposed virtues with any consistency.
@mrmotchmaster Ayn Rand's philosophy is a ripoff of nihilism, the only difference is that she CLAIMS that acting like a sociopath is moral, which is just stupid. So yeah, Objectivisim is basically the retarded version of nihilism.
“Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,”
"no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people."
@sc0pl355 Wow, throwing out a big, serious illness like ASPD to describe Objectivism. Do you even fully understand what it is? Or is using scary words supposed to prove that a person's end goal is to be a slave to other people?
According to Objectivism, other people have value, but their value cannot be greater than your own. Sociopaths deny that others have value.
@sc0pl355 That is a very layman way to put it. You can't just go to any random online/electronic dictionary, copy and past the definition, and expect to know what ASPD is!
Read an actual medical paper or website if you want to know what ASPD is!
Sociopaths don't care for feelings! Objectivists understand there are feelings, but you shouldn't use feelings to make decisions. Sociopaths lie. Sociopaths DO violate another's rights. Sociopaths are violent. They're impulsive. Can't keep a job.
@mrmotchmaster "You can't just go to any random online/electronic dictionary, copy and past the definition, and expect to know what ASPD is!"
Well, I actually have a buddy that's in prison right now that has ASPD. Considering that we rented and apartment for a year, I have first hand knowledge of what it is. On top of that, I majored in human psychology when I went to school.
"Sociopaths don't care for feelings!"
Incorrect. YOU should read a paper on the subject as you suggested.
@sc0pl355 Yes, anyone is capable of lying. I'm talking about compulsive lying.
You keep on saying that the heroes of Ayn Rand's novels commit genocide, yet I can't figure out how you got this idea.
"There is no principle by which genocide—a crime against a group of men—can be regarded as morally different from (or worse than) a crime against an individual: the difference is only quantitative, not moral."
@mrmotchmaster "You keep on saying that the heroes of Ayn Rand's novels commit genocide"
The people that went to Gault's Gulch sabotaged the roads and bridges so that food and supplies can not go back and forth between farms, cities and factories. The goal was to create a worldwide famine to kill off the people that were not in Gaults Gulch. That's mass genocide. They were not content with leaving because they would simply be replaced in a week in the real world.
"The goal was to create a worldwide famine to kill off the people"
Where was this mentioned in the book? You'll having difficulty finding it, because it isn't there; the world was alread in a state of collapse. I don't know what "Gault's Gulch" is either. Presumably something like "Galt's Gulch". And don't bother trying to pretend that you've actually read the book in question or telling me how you "used to be an objectivist and grew up" because I've heard it before.
So you've learned how to use a search engine. Try reading the book instead.
"Jesus, ever heard of a typo?"
It's not a typo when it appears twice in the same post, accompanied by scant knowledge of the source material, it's called "criticising something you've little knowledge of".
"I wouldn't ever be part of your cult to begin with"
A cult is an organisation. Objectivism is not an organisation.
Stick with video games; we'll both be better for it.
1) What I just said about John Galt is what i alwas said about him and his willing act of genocide in Rand's book.
2) It is a typo if you bother to look at all the times BEFORE I made that typo where I spelled the guy's name correctly. But no, that would require actual intelligence on your part...
1) A cult doesn't necessarily have to. It is something that you bestow religious veneration onto.
2) Like I said, you don't have to be religious to be a part of a cult. The Nazi Movement was a Cult, so is the LarRouche political movement and a variety of strange and sinister groups.
3) Says you, but you're taking offense to me calling Rand a sociopath or pointing out that the heroes of her novels were also sociopaths that are based on a real life serial killer.
1) A cult doesn't necessarily have to. It is something that you bestow religious veneration onto.
2) Like I said, you don't have to be religious to be a part of a cult. The Nazi Movement was a Cult, so is the LarRouche political movement and a variety of strange and sinister groups.
3) Says you, but you're taking offense to me calling Rand a sociopath or pointing out that the heroes of her novels were also sociopaths that are based on a real life serial killer.
1/2)The cult charge always was a lame attempt to evade a serious debate. Every political party or NGO can be regarded as a cult.
3)You're ignorant of the source material and the topic in general. The only arguments you've managed to summon are those cooked up by quote-miners (complete with the same errors: killing one person makes you a serial killer? Herp derp). So whereabouts in these book do the heroes go around murdering people?
@Guncriminal 1) I'm not trying to evade anything by calling your cult a cult.
2) You keep saying that I don't know about the source material, yet you haven't raised an actual counterpoint to anything that I said other than to accuse me of not reading the shit because I'm not an Ayn Rand mind-slave like you are.
1) Yes you are. No arguments have been presented - only ad hominem.
2) Because you haven't said anything. It's no good calling anyone a mind slave while forning on the "wisdom" of your society; most likely you believe whatever society orders you to believe.
@Guncriminal 1) I have raised arguments. The FACT of Ayn Rand's character is lacking or the objectivist movement's FAILURE to even test its theories are valid to whether or not her philosophies are correct or not.
2) You are a mind slave. Forning is not a word. My society has been around for 235 years. How long has your objectivism been around? What has it accomplished aside from bleating over the drudgery of living amongst people that are actually grown-ups instead of crying babies?
@Guncriminal "A theory isn't popular, therefore the theory is wrong?"
A PHILOSOPHY hasn't been adopted and shows that it logically does not work so it is wrong until it is put to the test.
"Sorry, your opinions have been around as long than mine, therefore yours are right and mine wrong?"
My opinions are a product of my society and experiences. Considering that I'm in the majority that supports tested and PROVEN social theory, I have the high ground.
"it logically does not work so it is wrong until it is put to the test."
The dominant philosophy today is rife with logical flaws, inconsistencies and special pleading, and has been tested to destruction, so that argument fails, too.
"Considering that I'm in the majority that supports tested and PROVEN social theory"
Today's empires are tomorrow's ruins and no, you're not "right until proven wrong". No one gets that privilege.
@Guncriminal "A theory isn't popular, therefore the theory is wrong?"
A PHILOSOPHY hasn't been adopted and shows that it logically does not work so it is wrong until it is put to the test.
"Sorry, your opinions have been around as long than mine, therefore yours are right and mine wrong?"
My opinions are a product of my society and experiences. Considering that I'm in the majority that supports tested and PROVEN social theory, I have the high ground.
@Guncriminal "Drones incapable of any thought beyond the conventional. "
Hey, there's the established, proven way of doing things that has existed for hundreds of years and is backed by hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution. Then there's your way. prove that your way has some merit by putting it into practice. If you're too weak to do that, then you might as well shut up because you're books on the subject are about as valid as a Star Trek episode when arguing for communism.
Withdrawing from society is not an act of genocide. If that's the case, then so is any labour strike. If you set up a slave state and are not able to survive when the slaves run away, then that's too bad. You don't have the right to other people's labour.
"blah blah bollocks about realism"
It's a fiction novel, stupid. Yeah, and the law is always right without question, isn't it?
@Guncriminal "The Church of Scientology is a cult - is it also an organisation."
So is the Ayn Rand Institute. In fact, thanks for bringing up Scientology.
There is very little difference between Ayn Rand cultists and Scientologists.
Both are based off of the philosophies of fiction writers that are short on talent and long on being creepy and shitting on other's lives while living as an attention whore. Both profess to have the answer to it all while providing nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Lame. Where are the real arguments? All you've provided so far is what can only be classed as "gossip" and moral outrage. As if all that was necessary to refute Marxism was to point out Marx's parasitic lifestyle. What sort of a person would be impressed by that sort of argument? Answer: One that should be ignored.
Where are YOUR real arguments? All you've done so far is try and deny, deflect and disconnect what I've said without raising a single counterpoint.
You say that my arguments consist of gossip? Nope. Ayn Rand really did worship a serial killer. That's a fact. The *heroes* of her books all exhibit sociopathic tendencies. Hell, her long-winded speeches in her books consist of the *heroes* saying it is their right to commit crimes with no consequences.
"Implying that Ayn Rand didn't idolize a serial killer won't get you anywhere"
Repeating the same mantra over and over again as if it somehow invalidates her arguments won't get you anywhere. Plato was a pedophile, therefore his arguments are wrong. Pathetic.
"Genocide, vadalism, rape, etc."
Where does it say "It's okay to rape, vandalism and commit genocide"? In what speech and what book and in what context? Post the actual quotes.
@Guncriminal "Repeating the same mantra over and over again as if it somehow invalidates her arguments won't get you anywhere."
Once she is shown to view a sociopathic murderer as the ideal superman, her philosophy is proven worthless. She views Hickman as almost ideal with his only fault being that he didn't get away with his crime.
"Plato was a pedophile"
Plato wasn't giving anyone advice on how to raise a child. Rand was trying to tell people the ideal way to live.
"Once she is shown to view a sociopathic murderer as the ideal superman."
Actual quote:
“[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."
@Guncriminal "Repeating the same mantra over and over again as if it somehow invalidates her arguments won't get you anywhere."
Once she is shown to view a sociopathic murderer as the ideal superman, her philosophy is proven worthless. She views Hickman as almost ideal with his only fault being that he didn't get away with his crime.
"Plato was a pedophile"
Plato wasn't giving anyone advice on how to raise a child. Rand was trying to tell people the ideal way to live.
@Guncriminal "As if all that was necessary to refute Marxism was to point out Marx's parasitic lifestyle."
To me, Objectivism is even worse than Marxism. At least the marxist put their political theories to the test and got a lot farther than any objectivist political movement would. Objectivists are just crybabies that sit around and stew in their own failure while blaming society for all their problems.
Both systems will never work because they are not in line with human nature.
@Guncriminal "Most likely because it questions fewer of your sacred cows."
Incorrect. Marxist at least tried their little experiment. It failed, but they tried. no one is willing to try Objectivism because it has enough failure written all over it that it doesn't even warrant an attempt.
"You mean they didn't take over places by means of a violent revolution, therefore their arguments are less valid?"
Our nation was founded by way of a violent revolution.
100% correct. There's plenty of people willing to try it. Attempting to do so would not be legal.
"it has enough failure written all over it"
Your nation is $14 trillion in debt and series of democratically elected governments made it that way. Pardon me for not holding your perceptions of failure in high regard.
"Our nation was founded by way of a violent revolution."
*Your* nation. They were criminals anyway, therefore evil by your standards.
@Guncriminal "There's plenty of people willing to try it. Attempting to do so would not be legal."
So? That's the risk that you take. Our founding fathers were breaking the law and so did countless others that put their philosophies to the test. If your philosophy is not worht dying for, then it is not worth anything other than making you fool yourself into thinking you are better than somebody.
@Guncriminal "Nothing is better than minus $14 trillion."
Is that so?
Well, you can leave at anytime you want and go have nothing then.
"they were fighting against an established authority"
Yeah, because they had a philosophy that they wanted to put to the test, which they did.
"So was Rand was advocating too."
yeah, except Rand and all of her followers are too cowardly to put their beliefs to the test. Want to be taken seriously? Fight for it. If you're strong, then you can talk.
@Guncriminal "So then you have no right to complain when someone commits genocide"
in real life, I don't. The problem here is that fiction is not real. In reality, Galt would have failed in his plan and Roark would have gotten 10 years in prison. By buying into Ayn's bullshit, you're professing that any insane act that occurs is just fine even though they will not work.
@Guncriminal Also, putting words into my mouth is not 'owning' me or anyone else. That's what we call a strawman attack.
Societies are built from the ashes of past civilizations. If it wasn't for genocidal acts, none of the greatest societies in the world would exist. However, No society ever became great by committing genocide against its own cultural roots or people.
Galt did in Ayn Rand's book. That's why he is a sociopath. He killed his own people and the culture that produced him.
Well, its been some time since I read the novels and if what you said is indeed true, then I guess I kind of have to agree with you(at least partly regarding the use of force). But since I do not clearly remember the novel and had earlier liked most of the stuff written by AR, at least for the time being it seems to me unlikely. But let me take a look again at the novel and check for myself the context in which this is written(if written at all).
@sc0pl355 No they did not. Some of them sabotaged their owe businesses because they were being taken over by gov force but they didn't of things that weren't their own. The exeption was one character that most of the others disagreed with. He became a pirate and would sabotage things and steal from the gov. But his targets were only ones he felt had used force against others first. They didn't kill anyone they just left the moochers of the world to take care of themseves,which they couldn't do.
Uh huh, by that alone the novels are unrealistic. In reality, they would be instantly replaced. Their society created them to begin with and the MAJORITY of the people are the producers. Guys like Galt and his bunch are the moochers. They expected everyone to kiss their asses even more than they have already been kissed and when they decide that their enormous wealth and prosperity weren't enough, they took their ball, blew shit up and went home.
These guys completely missed her point with regards to rational self-interest. When she says men must necessarily act on their rational self-interest, she is stating an axiom that is necessarily true, not a subjective preference that she wishes to enforce somehow.
All preferences are a consequence of the reasoning mind, aka the self, and therefore there can not be a truly unselfish preference. Individuals MUST act on their own rational self-interest.
TheCapitalistdog 1 week ago
Don't these poor souls know that rock and or roll is the devil's music??
utubepunk 2 weeks ago
@heathsawyer I'm an atheist and I'm a Libertarian- but i agree, atheists should really consider libertaraianism.
sparta1236 2 weeks ago
@sparta1236 Well, this is anecdotal, but I personaly am an atheist , and I did consider it and rejected it as simplistic, selfish and not workable in practice. In fact, I came to a similar view of communism as well, except that communism was only simplistic and not workable in practice ( ie: neither system works and communism is marginaly better ).
daverowbotham 1 week ago
Neil Peart is the greatest rock drummer who ever lived.. Buddy Rich is the greatest overall drummer of all time. No question.
But regardless, there still are no gods.
aegisgfx 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from FFreeThinker
As an atheists myself, I wonder why there aren't more atheist libertarians
heathsawyer 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hm... you know, I adore this show and the superb thinking minds that run it.
But I think they are wrong about Ayn Rands Objectivism. Matt seems to know far too less about it to judge - and still he's clearly talking it down. Russel is only ridiculing Ayn Rand's Novels without making Points or clearly saying WHY he does not like it. I wish they'd hit the books on that subject again.
There's a lot of truth in Objectivism. Maybe uncomfortable to some, but nevertheless Truth.
DasHinchen 1 month ago
You dont understand that acting in your own self interest can mean acting in the interest of those that you love. Because that is your rational own self interest.
Also, Christians are in direct conflict with objectivism. Simply because Christians rely on faith and faith is not backed up by logic and reasoning of the mind.
GamblingCritic 1 month ago 5
Sounds like Russel didnt really understand what Objectivism was about. Or Libertarianism.
DasHinchen 1 month ago 3
Objectivism was more or less an "Only in America" phenomenon. Go to any Asian country and talk about the glory of the individual or self-interest and you will probably be laughed out of the continent.
plaidchuck 1 month ago
@plaidchuck Asian cultures are way more collective then western cultures to begin with. Hell, if you ever talk to a Japanese guy he will even put down his girlfriend. By example, last year I went to Japan to meet with an old college friend and he totally put down his girlfriend, calling her ugly, smelly, and dirty. Later that day I meet her and well... she was the complete opposite of what he had said.
Uebagi 1 month ago
Ayn Rand would destroy these guys.
MeansofSurvival 2 months ago
@MeansofSurvival No s#!t!!!
Mike82ARP 2 months ago
@MeansofSurvival
I like to think she would've "corrected" these guys, not "destroy" them. :-)
TheCapitalistdog 1 week ago
These guys didn't even understand Objectivism. When Ayn Rand sais that you make something for your selfinterest, she also ment for those you love!
marketanarchist2011 2 months ago
Nothing that Ayn Rand wrote or said was based on objective reality. The "Axiom of Existence" for example, characterized as "differentiating something from nothing" necessarily requires an "objective" agent. The fact that Rand was blind to this blatant circularity indicates an inability or refusal to see herself as anything other than a separate, self created, individual.
kokopelli314 2 months ago
Ayn Rand said you are not obligated to sacriface yourself for others, but if others are of value to you, then it is in your rational self-interest to make sacriface of yourself. You can give presents at Christmas but it is immoral to do it if you do not value the people you give to, and you are not obliged to give by default.
Adeikov 2 months ago
this is garbage
mrhnm 2 months ago
lol bravo russell
Freethinker12341 2 months ago
hahahaha atheist experience kicking the crap out of ayn rand's dumb, poorly thought, pseudo intellectual philosophy
Freethinker12341 2 months ago
@Freethinker12341 Not so much. Most of their objections consist of a strawman argument in that they are not actually against anything Ayn Rand actually said or wrote. They are arguing against misconceptions about Rand's philosophy, not against her actual philosophy. If you knew anything about it you would have seen this. So either a) you have studied and misunderstood Rand, or b) you have not studied and are ignorant. Note I used the word studied. Casual reading isn't sufficient.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
I fucking love Ayn Rand's Philosophy.
DasHinchen 3 months ago
I agree with many of the points objectivism proposes and value it as a counterpoint to a lot of the post modern mushy headed philosophy floating around out there. I like the idea of the pursuit of rational self interest. I part with her harsh opinions on altruism.I feel it may be a rational self interest to engage in altruism as there are social evolutionary benefits to be had,but given her experiences with forced altruism at the hands of the communists, I understand where she was coming from.
AdUtrumquePeratus76 3 months ago
In what universe is the Rush guy a good lyricist? Because in this one he is 100% puerile.
hatemorethanyou999 3 months ago
These two have no clue what objectivism is. They do everyone a disservice by negatively analyzing something they didn't even bother to research, and to speak about it with such assertion -- Smug, lazy and ignorant.
Creo006 3 months ago
why believe in objective morality==
daddyleon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
logtype47 3 months ago
Are any of the people commenting on this vid actually Objectivists? Because his "analysis"of Objectivism is based on a Wikipedia article......
Bhajancobansignh 3 months ago
First- if you really wanted to sacrifice yourself wouldn't you still be acting out of self-interest? As soon as "I want" enters the mind it eliminates altruism. Second- why would you want to sacrifice yourself?
marce11o 3 months ago
I am using this argument to refute the idea that the market is a judge of value.
perdondaris 4 months ago
I love the bit about "reason" and the commentary "again I can't really complain." Apparently the rationalism/empiricism dispute simply did not exist and is easily glossed over as obvious fact. Our hosts here are obviously masters of subtle philosophical insight to have no problem with Rand's pithiness.
DarthNaver1 4 months ago
"what if someone wants to sacrifice himself to others?" I don't know if it's actually possible to do that. It's basically like saying: I want to achieve something that I don't want to achieve.
Chaaarge 5 months ago
@Chaaarge Ask a parent if he does not sacrifice him self for his children every day.
hank1972 4 months ago
@hank1972 But it's not really sacrifice. The parent values the child, so doing what you call "sacrifice" is simply achieving a value. Which makes it selfish. I love my mom, so of course I'd do anything for her, but that doesn't make it a sacrifice or altruism. Altruism is "the selfless concern for others". Sacrifice would be something like: helping someone you hate, or saving the neighbours child at the cost of your own child
Chaaarge 4 months ago
@Chaaarge Or helping some one at the cost of your self. Which is some thing that people do all the time. We have all to some extant give to a loved more than we can afford, or can provide. That is part of human nature as we do this for many people. Many poor families have sacrificed for their children over their own needs and desires. While yes this sort of sacrifice is accepted it is still a sacrifice non the less.
hank1972 4 months ago
@hank1972 but that implies that you can love someone above yourself, which is impossible. you love someone because you value them. It means that they, have a value to you. But if you don't hold your own happiness as the moral standard, then that love becomes meaningless. In the end, a parent helps the kid because they want the kid to succeed in life. sacrifice would be "I don't want my child to succeed, but I will give him money anyway"
Chaaarge 4 months ago
@Chaaarge Then acts a bravery to save loved one in harm are meaningless? Soldiers running into gun fired to save friends, Parents running into burning building to save kids, are all meaningless? Self worth and for that love will be meaningless to some thing that they care for, and yes this does happen all the time, may be not to those levels but people daily make sacrifices on thing they would normally want to do. Narcissism (which is a flaw) not self love would prevent this behavior.
hank1972 4 months ago
@hank1972 saying that the soldiers who take a bullet for a friend aren't acting in their rational self interest, implies that they are indifferent to what would have happened if their fellow soldiers died. They didn't want their fellow soldiers to die, that's why they took a bullet for them. It's both brave, and motivated by self interested. Acting in self interest doesn't mean "be a narcissist".
Chaaarge 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chaaarge "implies that they are indifferent to what would have happened if their fellow soldiers died." And this never happens? Besides that tho volunteer firemen, and emts routinely sacrifice their time and possibly well being for others.
hank1972 4 months ago
Really? You are attacking Ayn Rand's philosophy word by word 50+ years after the fact?...If she were here today she would put your dumb ass in place and I would pay to see it. Irony?
keriyak1 5 months ago
The free market is composed of people making decisions (just like government). The market reflects prejudices and ignorance just as government does. Christian groups threatened to boycott the Tampa Bay Devil Rays unless they dropped "Devil" from their name. The team did it. Objectivists complain that the media ignores them. The media is privately owned so it can censor ideas it doesn't like. Ted Turner, according to capitalist theory, has the right to censor views from CNN because he owns CNN.
perdondaris 5 months ago
Here is a question for Objectivists. Why is it that in the most capitalist nation in the western world (the USA) is also the most religious nation in the western world? Ayn Rand was an atheist who felt that the development of capitalism would lessen the growth of collectivist religion yet more people today know who Billy Graham is than Penn Jillette. The Atlas Shrugged movie flopped while The Passion of the Christ was an unqualified success. When it comes to free market success atheism sucks.
perdondaris 5 months ago
@perdondaris
Well, to start with USA is NOT the most capitalist nation in the world. Its just that lots of principles of Capitalism(free-market, encouragement to trade, individual rights) has been practiced for the longest in USA, and hence the tremendous growth. Most freest country as per the latest report is Hong Kong and Singapore.
Mixing of state and church is a continued hindrance for the past 50 years, esp in the worst era of the Bush administration.
jayeshchoudhari 5 months ago
@perdondaris I'm just a libertarian, not an Objectivists, but I'll bite; I don't see how prevanlence of religion refutes Objectivism, libertarianism, or capitalism. Let's realize that for a long time, the Catholic Church was the most powerful institution in the world. The effects of that are felt for a long time. However, I believe atheism is growing faster than ever, is it not? I do have faith that truth wins out in the marketplace of ideas, and I'm not sure how it could be any other way. :)
Madfoot713 4 months ago
Comment removed
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@Guncriminal My quote is also from her private journal, douche. This is what she wrote of hickman.
“Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,”
She also said that he had
“no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”
She DID backpedal. She wanted to try and rationalize her clearly obscene obsession with a serial killer.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
Minute 8:34 ; You probably didn't remember or never read "atlas shrugged" .
In the end, one John Galt was willing to give his live if needed. Out of his own self interest, that is.
Perhaps you may misunderstand what "rational self interest" means. It is no "sacrifice" to die for something you love.
It is a sacrifice however to die if its against ones own values.
bestpokercoach 5 months ago
@bestpokercoach sry for typos, its late ;)
bestpokercoach 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "So if a system has been tried and failed, it's more sucessful that one that hasn't been tried?"
Yes. A failure is better than nothing learned.
"Anyone who thinks the world is less than perfect is a crybaby? "
You don't have the balls to put your theories to the test. Instead, you whine about it, claiming to know a better way, yet you never do anything but cry. This is because you are all cowards. Putting your theories to the test comes with a high price that you don't want.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
Comment removed
sc0pl355 5 months ago
Comment removed
sc0pl355 5 months ago
Comment removed
sc0pl355 5 months ago
Most justifications for selfishness pretend there's some 'greater good' served, though they have to be vague on what that is.
Rand tried to justify selfishness using...medieval syllogism theory.
9/10 for originality, 0/10 for competence.
KapStuf 5 months ago
This was kind of dissappointing, hope the second half is better.
Nenayahe 6 months ago
You should read some of her books.
AnarchoAssassin 6 months ago
It sounds like they end up agreeing more with objectivism than disagreeing.
casparus52 6 months ago
Objectivism has some good ideas, but there is one problem. Yes, rational egoism would work, but not everyone is rational. Put the word rational in front of any idea and it will magically work. If everyone involoved in communism was rational, then it would work. If everyone was rational then anarchy would work too. If everyone was good, then objectivism would be great, but so would almost every other philophy. Rational is also a subjective term. One man's rational ego will differ from another's.
farc300 7 months ago
Was the use of a Rush song (whose drummer is a notorious libertarian) for this episode intentionally relevant to the topic at hand?
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 7 months ago
it is very sad to see atheist against a obvious philosphy as objectivism is.
notengonickcojones 7 months ago
existence exists means that there is facts that you cannot change even if you don't look at them... i'm atheist and i found this video stupid, even if i follow them usually (i'm from Spain). Objectivism means, i can do whatever i want but i must follow reason and logic (apart logic civil rights/laws), so why critize it?
notengonickcojones 7 months ago
He knows very little about objectivism and then rambles on about it. Most Atheists are huge socialists. They get rid of one mystical belief and cling on to another.
Esoparagon 7 months ago
@Esoparagon Ayn Rand was atheist. I'm atheis and objectivist, the problem with this man is that HE IS ATHEIST AS AYN RAND WAS, but he has understood nothing on objectivism and scientific realism. Sadly.
notengonickcojones 7 months ago
@notengonickcojones Looks like he read a wikipedia article or something giving the basic ideas without looking into any of her justification.
Esoparagon 7 months ago
@Esoparagon im sorry but "capitalist" tend to cling to mystical thinking. things like the "invisible hand" discribed by Adam Smith are distorted into a function of the Judeo-christian gods means of displaying approval or disapproval. i cannot think of a socialist position which has the same amount of magical thinking behind it.
TheEvolver311 7 months ago
@TheEvolver311 The invisible hand these days is just a metaphor. It was Adam Smiths primitive way of describing it back when practically everyone was religious. Capitalism is by no means mystical.
Esoparagon 7 months ago
@Esoparagon actually Smith was very specific that it wasn't a mystical thing, it has been a modern trend in capitalist societies to associate the "invisivle hand" with the will of god. it is done every day on rightwing christian radio/TV. capitalism is about as mystical as socialism in its ideological groundings.
TheEvolver311 7 months ago
@TheEvolver311 Thus why I said his primitive way of describing the phenomena. He meant it in a mystical way but capitalists nowadays will only use the term as a metaphor not literally. Socialism is a fantasy. Capitalism is confronting reality for what it is.
Esoparagon 7 months ago
@TheEvolver311 Newton spoke of god too and believed in god. We are talking about a time prior to evolutionary theory. We are talking about a time when reason and learning was crawling out of the dark ages into the light. Practically everyone had to justify things in the context of god. Capitalism and economic theory has come far since that time. Put down the Adam Smith. Pick up some Rothbard..
Esoparagon 7 months ago
@Esoparagon Smith actually didn't equate it to god, it is now in the modern era that conservatives have taken to this trend, tho historically it has been falsely indentified in such a way by individuals more inclined to magical thinking than those inclined to materialism . i've read Rothbard's writtings, im not a fan of any kind of anarchy not even anarcho-capitalism. funny that you would refer me to a critic of Rands on a video critizing her while seemingly defending her.
TheEvolver311 7 months ago
Yeah, that is not objectivism that is Randism.
AEVautomatic 7 months ago
Ayn Rand is not even alive. Objectivism is totally different now. It is the best philosophy and its sick and would scare the shit out of most people if they understood it.
AEVautomatic 7 months ago
There should be a "condemned for" in there. Too busy rocking out to Giddy Lee.
johnnysbubbletop63 8 months ago
Of course, there's no law among the animal kingdom. No lion's a criminal for chowing on christian flesh & blood. Merely conceit among the elite who often are assoiled for the same thing the poor are rape, murder etc. They own the gov. Life's a pissing contest, and you loose.
johnnysbubbletop63 8 months ago
Rationality can NEVER be used to justify injustice. That's the fact that everyone seems to be missing.
LordXehenniar 8 months ago
@LordXehenniar Surely what is injustice is defined by rationlaity?
666or999 8 months ago
I like the atheist experience people, their rationality without ideology (diferent from many objetivist and others) I would like them to discuss also phillosophy, like here, instead of being all the time with religion
Paseosinperro 8 months ago
this is a completely unphilosophical discussion about philosophy. such crap.
kzatching2 8 months ago
@kzatching2 Objectivism isn't really a legitimate philosophy. Ayn Rand was not a philosopher. She was a parasite by her own definition.
sc0pl355 8 months ago
@sc0pl355 That's cute. The old "Ayn Rand is not a philosopher" attack.
mrmotchmaster 6 months ago
@mrmotchmaster Hey, if ripping off nihilism makes her a philosopher, my using a laptop makes me Nikola Tesla.
sc0pl355 6 months ago
@sc0pl355 Wow, you really are clueless. According to nihilism, life has no purpose. Morality does not exist. You couldn't even know what morality is. According to Objectivism, the purpose of life is to pursue you own happiness. The knowledge of morality is possible.
They couldn't be any more different.
Actually read some of Ayn Rand before arguing against it.
I suggest "We the Living," "The Fountainhead," "Atlas Shrugged," "Anthem," "The Virtue of Selfishness." Among others.
mrmotchmaster 6 months ago
@mrmotchmaster *And you have to pursue your own happiness through logic and reason.
mrmotchmaster 6 months ago
@mrmotchmaster this is comical, you recommend books that Rand wrote in which the main characters were sociopathic murderers, vandals and rapist.
There is no virtue to selfishness.
John Galt was a genocidal maniac
Howard Roark was a sociapathic rapist in the highest order
And why not? All of Ayn Rand's 'heroes' are based on William Edward Hickman, an especially gruesome serial killer that she used to masturbate over.
sc0pl355 6 months ago
@sc0pl355
"There is no virtue to selfishness"
Morals work within a particular framework - selfishness is a virtue within the framework of rational egoism. Those out of their depth (i.e. you), however, claim that theirs is not merely the only valid framework, but the only extant framework. The effect is akin to describing a particular action as "irreligious" because their particular religion forbids it; "I don't agree with this idea, therefore it doesn't exist."
Herp Derp.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal There is no virtue in selfishness because our society says so. We are, by nature, social animals.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
Perhaps my post was over your head, as you've just repeated the same error again: "My society doesn't agree with this idea, therefore it doesn't exist." You'll find that different societies have different virtues.
"We are, by nature, social animals."
Acting in one's rational self interest doesn't contradict this fact.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "You'll find that different societies have different virtues."
None of which accept your definition of 'virtue'. You see, objectivism is not part of a single society on the face of the planet... Well, possibly aside from Somalia, that is.
"Acting in one's rational self interest doesn't contradict this fact."
Look, the second a group get a sense that you're out for your own self interests and nothing else, the members of that group will ostracize you from participating.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "You'll find that different societies have different virtues."
None of which accept your definition of 'virtue'. You see, objectivism is not part of a single society on the face of the planet... Well, possibly aside from Somalia, that is.
"Acting in one's rational self interest doesn't contradict this fact."
Actually, it does. Nobody likes a self-centered snake.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
"None of which accept your definition of 'virtue'"
And you'll find that most don't accept yours either. So they must be false too. Do you seriously think that if a particular society doesn't like something then it must be false?
"Actually, it does. Nobody likes a self-centered snake."
I guess that's another book you haven't read.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "And you'll find that most don't accept yours either. "
Actually, most DO accept my definition of virtue. Those that don't are around an 80-90% match.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
So you've as good as admitted that your virtues are right because they're popular. This is a fallacy. Oh and another thing - no one actually follows your supposed virtues with any consistency.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Guncriminal "So you've as good as admitted that your virtues are right because they're popular. "
They are popular for a reason.
"no one actually follows your supposed virtues with any consistency."
Only sociopaths follow yours.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@mrmotchmaster Ayn Rand's philosophy is a ripoff of nihilism, the only difference is that she CLAIMS that acting like a sociopath is moral, which is just stupid. So yeah, Objectivisim is basically the retarded version of nihilism.
“Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,”
"no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people."
sc0pl355 6 months ago
@sc0pl355 Wow, throwing out a big, serious illness like ASPD to describe Objectivism. Do you even fully understand what it is? Or is using scary words supposed to prove that a person's end goal is to be a slave to other people?
According to Objectivism, other people have value, but their value cannot be greater than your own. Sociopaths deny that others have value.
mrmotchmaster 6 months ago
@mrmotchmaster Objectivism is an attempt to promote sociopathic behavior. After all Ayn Rand was a sociopath.
"Sociopaths deny that others have value."
No they don't.
sociopath |ˈsōsēōˌpaθ|
noun
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
sc0pl355 6 months ago
@sc0pl355 That is a very layman way to put it. You can't just go to any random online/electronic dictionary, copy and past the definition, and expect to know what ASPD is!
Read an actual medical paper or website if you want to know what ASPD is!
Sociopaths don't care for feelings! Objectivists understand there are feelings, but you shouldn't use feelings to make decisions. Sociopaths lie. Sociopaths DO violate another's rights. Sociopaths are violent. They're impulsive. Can't keep a job.
mrmotchmaster 6 months ago
@mrmotchmaster "You can't just go to any random online/electronic dictionary, copy and past the definition, and expect to know what ASPD is!"
Well, I actually have a buddy that's in prison right now that has ASPD. Considering that we rented and apartment for a year, I have first hand knowledge of what it is. On top of that, I majored in human psychology when I went to school.
"Sociopaths don't care for feelings!"
Incorrect. YOU should read a paper on the subject as you suggested.
sc0pl355 6 months ago
@mrmotchmaster "Sociopaths lie."
That's not always true. Anyone is capable of lying.
"Sociopaths DO violate another's rights."
That's what the Heroes of every one of Ayn Rand's novels has done. Genocide and rape.
"Sociopaths are violent."
And committing genocide or rape isn't? That's what the heroes of the fountainhead and atlas shrugged did.
"They're impulsive."
Once again, Ayn Rand's characters do the same.
"Can't keep a job."
Sociopaths are capable of keeping a job.
sc0pl355 6 months ago
@sc0pl355 Yes, anyone is capable of lying. I'm talking about compulsive lying.
You keep on saying that the heroes of Ayn Rand's novels commit genocide, yet I can't figure out how you got this idea.
"There is no principle by which genocide—a crime against a group of men—can be regarded as morally different from (or worse than) a crime against an individual: the difference is only quantitative, not moral."
mrmotchmaster 6 months ago
@mrmotchmaster "You keep on saying that the heroes of Ayn Rand's novels commit genocide"
The people that went to Gault's Gulch sabotaged the roads and bridges so that food and supplies can not go back and forth between farms, cities and factories. The goal was to create a worldwide famine to kill off the people that were not in Gaults Gulch. That's mass genocide. They were not content with leaving because they would simply be replaced in a week in the real world.
sc0pl355 6 months ago
@sc0pl355
"The goal was to create a worldwide famine to kill off the people"
Where was this mentioned in the book? You'll having difficulty finding it, because it isn't there; the world was alread in a state of collapse. I don't know what "Gault's Gulch" is either. Presumably something like "Galt's Gulch". And don't bother trying to pretend that you've actually read the book in question or telling me how you "used to be an objectivist and grew up" because I've heard it before.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "the world was alread in a state of collapse."
Galt tries to 'stop the motor of the world' by gathering strikers with the intent of collapse of modern society.
"I don't know what "Gault's Gulch" is either"
Jesus, ever heard of a typo? I guess you have nothing intelligent to say, so you judge my spelling? I see.
"telling me how you "used to be an objectivist and grew up" because I've heard it before."
I wouldn't ever be part of your cult to begin with.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
"collapse of modern society"
So you've learned how to use a search engine. Try reading the book instead.
"Jesus, ever heard of a typo?"
It's not a typo when it appears twice in the same post, accompanied by scant knowledge of the source material, it's called "criticising something you've little knowledge of".
"I wouldn't ever be part of your cult to begin with"
A cult is an organisation. Objectivism is not an organisation.
Stick with video games; we'll both be better for it.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal
1) What I just said about John Galt is what i alwas said about him and his willing act of genocide in Rand's book.
2) It is a typo if you bother to look at all the times BEFORE I made that typo where I spelled the guy's name correctly. But no, that would require actual intelligence on your part...
sc0pl355 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sc0pl355
"willing act of genocide in Rand's book"
Removing yourself from society does not an act of genocide make.
"But no, that would require actual intelligence on your part..."
I've lost enough IQ points already reading these latest posts of yours. The point stands.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
Comment removed
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "A cult is an organisation."
cult |kəlt|
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object
• a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister
• a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing
A cult is NOT an Organization.
Your cult is the Cult of Ayn Rand and her sociopathic ideologies that tell you it is a virtue to be a worthless slug.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
This doesn't help your case.
- I don't have any religion.
- I'm an atheist.
- I don't have excessive admiration for anything.
"A cult is NOT an Organization"
Yes it is. The Church of Scientology is a cult - is it also an organisation.
"it is a virtue to be a worthless slug"
In that case, you must be the most virtuous person on Earth.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal
1) A cult doesn't necessarily have to. It is something that you bestow religious veneration onto.
2) Like I said, you don't have to be religious to be a part of a cult. The Nazi Movement was a Cult, so is the LarRouche political movement and a variety of strange and sinister groups.
3) Says you, but you're taking offense to me calling Rand a sociopath or pointing out that the heroes of her novels were also sociopaths that are based on a real life serial killer.
cont...
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@Guncriminal
1) A cult doesn't necessarily have to. It is something that you bestow religious veneration onto.
2) Like I said, you don't have to be religious to be a part of a cult. The Nazi Movement was a Cult, so is the LarRouche political movement and a variety of strange and sinister groups.
3) Says you, but you're taking offense to me calling Rand a sociopath or pointing out that the heroes of her novels were also sociopaths that are based on a real life serial killer.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
1/2)The cult charge always was a lame attempt to evade a serious debate. Every political party or NGO can be regarded as a cult.
3)You're ignorant of the source material and the topic in general. The only arguments you've managed to summon are those cooked up by quote-miners (complete with the same errors: killing one person makes you a serial killer? Herp derp). So whereabouts in these book do the heroes go around murdering people?
Oh I forgot - you've never read any of them.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal 1) I'm not trying to evade anything by calling your cult a cult.
2) You keep saying that I don't know about the source material, yet you haven't raised an actual counterpoint to anything that I said other than to accuse me of not reading the shit because I'm not an Ayn Rand mind-slave like you are.
"killing one person makes you a serial killer?"
Hickman confessed to more than one murder.
continued...
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
1) Yes you are. No arguments have been presented - only ad hominem.
2) Because you haven't said anything. It's no good calling anyone a mind slave while forning on the "wisdom" of your society; most likely you believe whatever society orders you to believe.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal 1) I have raised arguments. The FACT of Ayn Rand's character is lacking or the objectivist movement's FAILURE to even test its theories are valid to whether or not her philosophies are correct or not.
2) You are a mind slave. Forning is not a word. My society has been around for 235 years. How long has your objectivism been around? What has it accomplished aside from bleating over the drudgery of living amongst people that are actually grown-ups instead of crying babies?
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
A theory isn't popular, therefore the theory is wrong? Are you incapable of seeing what's wrong with that argument?
"My society has been around for 235 years. How long has your objectivism been around"
Sorry, your opinions have been around as long than mine, therefore yours are right and mine wrong?
"grown-ups instead of crying babies"
Grown-ups? Nope. Drones incapable of any thought beyond the conventional. Your continual appeals to popularity (or lack of) are a case in point.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "A theory isn't popular, therefore the theory is wrong?"
A PHILOSOPHY hasn't been adopted and shows that it logically does not work so it is wrong until it is put to the test.
"Sorry, your opinions have been around as long than mine, therefore yours are right and mine wrong?"
My opinions are a product of my society and experiences. Considering that I'm in the majority that supports tested and PROVEN social theory, I have the high ground.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
"it logically does not work so it is wrong until it is put to the test."
The dominant philosophy today is rife with logical flaws, inconsistencies and special pleading, and has been tested to destruction, so that argument fails, too.
"Considering that I'm in the majority that supports tested and PROVEN social theory"
Today's empires are tomorrow's ruins and no, you're not "right until proven wrong". No one gets that privilege.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "you're not "right until proven wrong". "
Then why are you suggesting that you're right and everyone else that has put their philosophies into practice SUCCESSFULLY, are wrong?
"The dominant philosophy today is rife with logical flaws, inconsistencies and special pleading, and has been tested to destruction"
Your philosophy is 100% logical flaws, inconsistencies and special pleading and is obviously doomed to failure in the eyes of even its own followers.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sc0pl355
"it logically does not work so it is wrong until it is put to the test."
The dominant philosophy today is rife with logical flaws, inconsistencies and special pleading, so that argument fails, too.
"Considering that I'm in the majority that supports tested and PROVEN social theory"
Today's empires are tomorrow's ruins and no, you're not "right until proven wrong". No one gets that privilege.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Guncriminal "A theory isn't popular, therefore the theory is wrong?"
A PHILOSOPHY hasn't been adopted and shows that it logically does not work so it is wrong until it is put to the test.
"Sorry, your opinions have been around as long than mine, therefore yours are right and mine wrong?"
My opinions are a product of my society and experiences. Considering that I'm in the majority that supports tested and PROVEN social theory, I have the high ground.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
Comment removed
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "Drones incapable of any thought beyond the conventional. "
Hey, there's the established, proven way of doing things that has existed for hundreds of years and is backed by hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution. Then there's your way. prove that your way has some merit by putting it into practice. If you're too weak to do that, then you might as well shut up because you're books on the subject are about as valid as a Star Trek episode when arguing for communism.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
Comment removed
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "So whereabouts in these book do the heroes go around murdering people?"
I never said that they went around murdering people. I called them sociopaths. There's a difference. You can be a sociopath without killing anyone.
That said, Galt actively pursued an act of genocide, which is a crime against humanity and makes him a mass-murderer.
Roark raped a woman and outright broke the law by blowing up a building and got off because he told the jury to do so, which is unrealistic.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sc0pl355
"Galt actively pursued an act of genocide"
Withdrawing from society is not an act of genocide. If that's the case, then so is any labour strike. If you set up a slave state and are not able to survive when the slaves run away, then that's too bad. You don't have the right to other people's labour.
"blah blah bollocks about realism"
It's a fiction novel, stupid. Yeah, and the law is always right without question, isn't it?
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "The Church of Scientology is a cult - is it also an organisation."
So is the Ayn Rand Institute. In fact, thanks for bringing up Scientology.
There is very little difference between Ayn Rand cultists and Scientologists.
Both are based off of the philosophies of fiction writers that are short on talent and long on being creepy and shitting on other's lives while living as an attention whore. Both profess to have the answer to it all while providing nothing but smoke and mirrors.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
Lame. Where are the real arguments? All you've provided so far is what can only be classed as "gossip" and moral outrage. As if all that was necessary to refute Marxism was to point out Marx's parasitic lifestyle. What sort of a person would be impressed by that sort of argument? Answer: One that should be ignored.
Next!
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "Where are the real arguments?"
Where are YOUR real arguments? All you've done so far is try and deny, deflect and disconnect what I've said without raising a single counterpoint.
You say that my arguments consist of gossip? Nope. Ayn Rand really did worship a serial killer. That's a fact. The *heroes* of her books all exhibit sociopathic tendencies. Hell, her long-winded speeches in her books consist of the *heroes* saying it is their right to commit crimes with no consequences.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
"Ayn Rand really did worship a serial killer."
Yes, literally worshipped. She had an idol of him and worshipped it daily.Piling on the rhetoric won't get you anywhere.
"their right to commit crimes with no consequences"
What sorts of crimes? Give examples.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
Comment removed
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
"Implying that Ayn Rand didn't idolize a serial killer won't get you anywhere"
Repeating the same mantra over and over again as if it somehow invalidates her arguments won't get you anywhere. Plato was a pedophile, therefore his arguments are wrong. Pathetic.
"Genocide, vadalism, rape, etc."
Where does it say "It's okay to rape, vandalism and commit genocide"? In what speech and what book and in what context? Post the actual quotes.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "Repeating the same mantra over and over again as if it somehow invalidates her arguments won't get you anywhere."
Once she is shown to view a sociopathic murderer as the ideal superman, her philosophy is proven worthless. She views Hickman as almost ideal with his only fault being that he didn't get away with his crime.
"Plato was a pedophile"
Plato wasn't giving anyone advice on how to raise a child. Rand was trying to tell people the ideal way to live.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
"Once she is shown to view a sociopathic murderer as the ideal superman."
Actual quote:
“[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."
Quote mining is not your friend.
"her philosophy is proven worthless."
Nope. Try harder.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
Comment removed
sc0pl355 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Guncriminal "Repeating the same mantra over and over again as if it somehow invalidates her arguments won't get you anywhere."
Once she is shown to view a sociopathic murderer as the ideal superman, her philosophy is proven worthless. She views Hickman as almost ideal with his only fault being that he didn't get away with his crime.
"Plato was a pedophile"
Plato wasn't giving anyone advice on how to raise a child. Rand was trying to tell people the ideal way to live.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
Comment removed
sc0pl355 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Guncriminal "Piling on the rhetoric won't get you anywhere."
Implying that Ayn Rand didn't idolize a serial killer won't get you anywhere.
"What sorts of crimes?"
Genocide, vandalism, rape, etc.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "As if all that was necessary to refute Marxism was to point out Marx's parasitic lifestyle."
To me, Objectivism is even worse than Marxism. At least the marxist put their political theories to the test and got a lot farther than any objectivist political movement would. Objectivists are just crybabies that sit around and stew in their own failure while blaming society for all their problems.
Both systems will never work because they are not in line with human nature.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
"To me, Objectivism is even worse than Marxism"
Most likely because it questions fewer of your sacred cows.
"a lot farther than any objectivist political movement would"
You mean they didn't take over places by means of a violent revolution, therefore their arguments are less valid?
"sit around and stew in their own failure"
By what standard are we judging this supposed failure?
"while blaming society for all their problems"
Evidence/quotes?
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "Most likely because it questions fewer of your sacred cows."
Incorrect. Marxist at least tried their little experiment. It failed, but they tried. no one is willing to try Objectivism because it has enough failure written all over it that it doesn't even warrant an attempt.
"You mean they didn't take over places by means of a violent revolution, therefore their arguments are less valid?"
Our nation was founded by way of a violent revolution.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
"Incorrect."
100% correct. There's plenty of people willing to try it. Attempting to do so would not be legal.
"it has enough failure written all over it"
Your nation is $14 trillion in debt and series of democratically elected governments made it that way. Pardon me for not holding your perceptions of failure in high regard.
"Our nation was founded by way of a violent revolution."
*Your* nation. They were criminals anyway, therefore evil by your standards.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "There's plenty of people willing to try it. Attempting to do so would not be legal."
So? That's the risk that you take. Our founding fathers were breaking the law and so did countless others that put their philosophies to the test. If your philosophy is not worht dying for, then it is not worth anything other than making you fool yourself into thinking you are better than somebody.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "Your nation is $14 trillion in debt and series of democratically elected governments made it that way."
Better than the nothing that your philosophy has done.
Oh, LA-DE-DA. Like I stated, my society at least got somewhere. Where has your philosophy accomplished other than creating crybabies?
"They were criminals anyway, therefore evil by your standards."
Not so. They were fighting for their liberty, an admirable quality. They also WON. Being successful makes wrong right.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
"Better than the nothing that your philosophy has done"
Nothing is better than minus $14 trillion. "We fucked up, but at least we put our fuck up to the test!" What kind of idiot makes arguments like this?
"Not so"
No - they were fighting against an established authority; a tried and tested system, which therefore had the high ground.
"They were fighting for their liberty"
So was Rand was advocating too.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "Nothing is better than minus $14 trillion."
Is that so?
Well, you can leave at anytime you want and go have nothing then.
"they were fighting against an established authority"
Yeah, because they had a philosophy that they wanted to put to the test, which they did.
"So was Rand was advocating too."
yeah, except Rand and all of her followers are too cowardly to put their beliefs to the test. Want to be taken seriously? Fight for it. If you're strong, then you can talk.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
"They also WON. Being successful makes wrong right."
So then you have no right to complain when someone commits genocide, or forces you to do something you don't like, providing they're successful.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
@Guncriminal "So then you have no right to complain when someone commits genocide"
in real life, I don't. The problem here is that fiction is not real. In reality, Galt would have failed in his plan and Roark would have gotten 10 years in prison. By buying into Ayn's bullshit, you're professing that any insane act that occurs is just fine even though they will not work.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
"in real life, I don't [have the right to complain when someone commits genocide]"
Then you're pretty much a sociopath. Well, it's been fun, but I'm afraid this entry is going to be my last. I don't think I need to say any more.
You've pretty much owned yourself.
Guncriminal 5 months ago
Comment removed
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@Guncriminal Also, putting words into my mouth is not 'owning' me or anyone else. That's what we call a strawman attack.
Societies are built from the ashes of past civilizations. If it wasn't for genocidal acts, none of the greatest societies in the world would exist. However, No society ever became great by committing genocide against its own cultural roots or people.
Galt did in Ayn Rand's book. That's why he is a sociopath. He killed his own people and the culture that produced him.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
Comment removed
jayeshchoudhari 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
How can it be an act of 'Genocide' when John Galt and others never use force or kill anyone to be an act of genocide.
jayeshchoudhari 5 months ago
@jayeshchoudhari They sabotaged the roads so that the farmlands and cities could not exchange essential supplies.
Destroying something that belongs to someone else is an act of force.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355
Well, its been some time since I read the novels and if what you said is indeed true, then I guess I kind of have to agree with you(at least partly regarding the use of force). But since I do not clearly remember the novel and had earlier liked most of the stuff written by AR, at least for the time being it seems to me unlikely. But let me take a look again at the novel and check for myself the context in which this is written(if written at all).
jayeshchoudhari 5 months ago
@sc0pl355 No they did not. Some of them sabotaged their owe businesses because they were being taken over by gov force but they didn't of things that weren't their own. The exeption was one character that most of the others disagreed with. He became a pirate and would sabotage things and steal from the gov. But his targets were only ones he felt had used force against others first. They didn't kill anyone they just left the moochers of the world to take care of themseves,which they couldn't do.
rezcot 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@rezcot
Uh huh, by that alone the novels are unrealistic. In reality, they would be instantly replaced. Their society created them to begin with and the MAJORITY of the people are the producers. Guys like Galt and his bunch are the moochers. They expected everyone to kiss their asses even more than they have already been kissed and when they decide that their enormous wealth and prosperity weren't enough, they took their ball, blew shit up and went home.
sc0pl355 5 months ago
@sc0pl355 Try writing a coherent sentence.
theUSER101 3 months ago
@theUSER101 Try coming up with an intelligent response.
sc0pl355 3 months ago
@sc0pl355 Like I said, write a coherent sentence so that I can respond.
theUSER101 3 months ago
@theUSER101 Seriously? Go work on your woefully inadequate reading comprehension skills.
sc0pl355 3 months ago
@sc0pl355 I blame the Government for your poor education, not you personally.
theUSER101 3 months ago