I'm opposed to welfare, but I just may go on it just to bring about it's eventual collapse sooner and to get some value back that had been taken away by force.
Say I like this question a lot. I am feeling a bit curious and would like to know what inspired you to ask. I would also like to know if you had any particular examples in mind when you asked the question.
The problem solving strategy you asked about happens quite often in our society and it has not produced the quality of result that I would like. Sometime this strategy contributes to the problem it was meant to prevent. Using fire to prevent a forest fire can get out of hand. Peace to you.
As a sympathizer to the philosophy I will offer my take:
Rand's heroes when faced with the burdens place on them almost universally withdraw from the situation they do not fight political power with political power: they merely do not accept it when it acts in a corrupted fashion.
My guess is no they would not.
Compare the "peaceful retreat" strategy presented in Rand to Marx's working class heroes who he calls to violent revolution as their only solution.
Their is no Objectivist grounds for not reading such sources, and Ayn Rand actually encouraged admirers of her ideas to read the text of the philosphers she critiques for themselves, if they have the inclination and the interest (and recognized it as a prerequisite for any individual considering philosphy as a profession, despite the fact she thought modern philosophy was thoroughly in error).
Their is no Objectivist grounds for not reading such sources, and Ayn Rand actually encouraged admirers of her ideas to read the text of the philosphers she critiques for themselves, if they have the inclination and the interest. She also recognized such study as a prerequisite for any individual considering philosphy as a profession, despite the fact she thought modern philosophy to be thoroughly in error.
I have spoken with Dr. Garmong, the lecturer of the course Mr. Cropper referenced, on a personal level on many occasions. He is an Objectivist as well as a philosophy Phd that is well acquainted with many Kantian and post-modern primary texts.
No. Many students asked Ayn Rand if she considered the acceptance of Federal Financial aid to be immoral; she said no. If the "opposition" has made it virtually impossible to survive without obedience to the system they have created, then you have every moral right to make do under such circumstances as best you can, so long as you oppose their immoral roots in every way open to you.
I would not call myself an Objectivist, I would call myself a student of Objectivism at this point. I had to listen to your video more than once to make sure I understood what you where asking, but Im still not sure. I would ask you In what context are you talking about? could you give more examples of what you mean? To me at least, in a cenceptual terms it sounds like you are describing the fallacy of the stolen concept.
Which is when you attack an idea using the very idea you are attacking.
sorry, didn't realise I was being unclear. I mean it in a more concrete way, using the tools of a system that you oppose. Like using the tools of communication afforded to you by a capitalist society to promote communism, or making a TV show about why TV should be abolished.
Hey, denito. I'd say that trying to abolish TV and the like is immoral anyway, and the means used to do so isn't really relevant. Although it *is* pretty funny when people use what they hate to denounce what they hate. Like when people set up websites denouncing technology. I always get a kick out of that. I also second LoneWolf's response.
I'm opposed to welfare, but I just may go on it just to bring about it's eventual collapse sooner and to get some value back that had been taken away by force.
yammyspeed13 1 year ago
imagine being married to ayn rand
WonderBread006 1 year ago
Say I like this question a lot. I am feeling a bit curious and would like to know what inspired you to ask. I would also like to know if you had any particular examples in mind when you asked the question.
The problem solving strategy you asked about happens quite often in our society and it has not produced the quality of result that I would like. Sometime this strategy contributes to the problem it was meant to prevent. Using fire to prevent a forest fire can get out of hand. Peace to you.
NLPNVC 3 years ago
As a sympathizer to the philosophy I will offer my take:
Rand's heroes when faced with the burdens place on them almost universally withdraw from the situation they do not fight political power with political power: they merely do not accept it when it acts in a corrupted fashion.
My guess is no they would not.
Compare the "peaceful retreat" strategy presented in Rand to Marx's working class heroes who he calls to violent revolution as their only solution.
prometheus111235 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
aye rynd is a fucking idiot! why do fools take this WOMEN seriously?
MMaNutz8451 4 years ago
What an eloquent and well-thought out answer to denito9474's question.
I bet you haven't even read the works of this "women."
Youhavethebody 3 years ago 3
Their is no Objectivist grounds for not reading such sources, and Ayn Rand actually encouraged admirers of her ideas to read the text of the philosphers she critiques for themselves, if they have the inclination and the interest (and recognized it as a prerequisite for any individual considering philosphy as a profession, despite the fact she thought modern philosophy was thoroughly in error).
LoneWolf852 4 years ago
Their is no Objectivist grounds for not reading such sources, and Ayn Rand actually encouraged admirers of her ideas to read the text of the philosphers she critiques for themselves, if they have the inclination and the interest. She also recognized such study as a prerequisite for any individual considering philosphy as a profession, despite the fact she thought modern philosophy to be thoroughly in error.
LoneWolf852 4 years ago
I have spoken with Dr. Garmong, the lecturer of the course Mr. Cropper referenced, on a personal level on many occasions. He is an Objectivist as well as a philosophy Phd that is well acquainted with many Kantian and post-modern primary texts.
LoneWolf852 4 years ago
No. Many students asked Ayn Rand if she considered the acceptance of Federal Financial aid to be immoral; she said no. If the "opposition" has made it virtually impossible to survive without obedience to the system they have created, then you have every moral right to make do under such circumstances as best you can, so long as you oppose their immoral roots in every way open to you.
LoneWolf852 4 years ago 4
I would not call myself an Objectivist, I would call myself a student of Objectivism at this point. I had to listen to your video more than once to make sure I understood what you where asking, but Im still not sure. I would ask you In what context are you talking about? could you give more examples of what you mean? To me at least, in a cenceptual terms it sounds like you are describing the fallacy of the stolen concept.
Which is when you attack an idea using the very idea you are attacking.
WarVideo 4 years ago
sorry, didn't realise I was being unclear. I mean it in a more concrete way, using the tools of a system that you oppose. Like using the tools of communication afforded to you by a capitalist society to promote communism, or making a TV show about why TV should be abolished.
denito9474 4 years ago
Hey, denito. I'd say that trying to abolish TV and the like is immoral anyway, and the means used to do so isn't really relevant. Although it *is* pretty funny when people use what they hate to denounce what they hate. Like when people set up websites denouncing technology. I always get a kick out of that. I also second LoneWolf's response.
nine9s 4 years ago