(July 15, 2016 at 7:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Actually, I think it's that we have such a strong instinct for adversity that we project onto non-adverse circumstances.  I've seen people rage-- I mean fucking go off the handle-- because someone cut in line at Starbuck's, or left a shopping cart in the middle of the aisle and wandered away.

-and?  Adversity, like all other human experience, is subjective.  The knife may not be as deep, but is the pain any less acute on account of that?  Because that's all that really matters if we need struggle and adversity.  Not the factual status of either.   You clearly feel a loss on account of a -lack- of adversity.  Is that more or less painful and character building than chasing your dinner?  I've chased mine....I've suffered, does that make me more developed than yourself?  It hardly seems so.

Quote:I don't think this kind of adversity will bring out the best in life, though.  The need to develop technology to fight off or conquer that next city state, or to put food on the table, might.  And interestingly, in most of history, Rand's ideas would have been largely a "no duh!" to the power class.

We still need to fight off the next city state, and we still do.  We've never actually finished the task of putting food on the table.  As for Rands ideas being a "no duh" sort of thing to a power class....maybe, IDK, but that might explain why the power class have been such useless shits all this time.  

As far as that's concerned..I have no use for her ideas. I'm not interested in rational self interest - I don't need a reason to engage in self interested pursuits nor do I feel compelled to rationalize them in order to justify them morally. Axiomatically, I am at the opposite end of that spectrum, and those ideas of hers that conflict with mine are similarly fiat accompli...and so beyond debate. My life for our lives. Others before myself. Tell me that either of these things are not virtuous, or are "wrong" by Ayn Rands standards and I'd tell you that -I- don't really care (and how could her philosophy argue against -that-...eh?). I see it as a philosophy of the perpetual do'wells.....it works fine when things aren't tight, you'd garrote a motherfucker in their sleep if they thought like that when things were difficult. Or, at least....I would....because they're clearly a liability to the rest of us..... right, wrong, rational, or otherwise.

That's not a propensity for adversity. That's a person who's not caffeinated and tired of humanity's shit.

(July 15, 2016 at 8:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -and?  Adversity, like all other human experience, is subjective.  The knife may not be as deep, but is the pain any less acute on account of that?  Because that's all that really matters if we need struggle and adversity.  Not the factual status of either.   You clearly feel a loss on account of a -lack- of adversity.  Is that more or less painful and character building than chasing your dinner?  I've chased mine....I've suffered, does that make me more developed than yourself?  It hardly seems so.

Maybe we are all different. But if we are talking about quality of life, I'd say it is necessary to really feel alive. In my own experience, those parts of life which I remember most happily aren't those in which I was most comfortable, best fed, or even healthiest. They are those in which I felt an intimate connection to my instincts-- the response to danger, the heights of young love, the excitement of conquering either others or myself in a fair match.

I'm not sure that the modern comforts really allow a person to feel fully alive; in fact, I'd say they serve much more as a kind of opiate-- a dulling of the senses, and a general lack of purpose.

Quote:As far as that's concerned..I have no use for her ideas.  I'm not interested in rational self interest - I don't need a reason to engage in self interested pursuits nor do I feel compelled to rationalize them in order to justify them morally.  Axiomatically, I am at the opposite end of that spectrum, and those ideas of hers that conflict with mine are similarly fiat accompli...and so beyond debate.

I'd say you're totally right-- from my perspective. But that's because dealing with other people, even those you consider your inferiors, is part of the trials and joys of life. I do not think a person can really separate himself from the rest of humanity, chase material needs, and then consider himself fully alive-- at least, not fully engaged in a human life.

However, what of those who by their nature lack compassion, and who by their nature revel in the material pleasures of life? Do they owe it to humanity to go against their own natures?

Let's take a Wall Street guy with billions who is repossessing homes. He has no guilt, he doesn't need to justify his action. He just takes because he can, and because he takes pleasure in doing so. In my opinion, he's acting as he should-- this is his nature. It's up to the rest of us sheep to drag him out of his tower by his heels and introduce him to the guillotine.

Great - go live without modern comforts then. But they should be an option. You don't get to decide how another person feels just because you like a certain kind of struggle. Sorta like how I like being tied down and fucked while struggling, but it ain't everyone else's cup o tea.

Your perspective about whether or not humanity is truly living is about as annoying as that codswallop Thoreau tried to champion. It's self-superior.

(July 15, 2016 at 10:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Maybe we are all different.  But if we are talking about quality of life, I'd say it is necessary to really feel alive.  In my own experience, those parts of life which I remember most happily aren't those in which I was most comfortable, best fed, or even healthiest.  They are those in which I felt an intimate connection to my instincts-- the response to danger, the heights of young love, the excitement of conquering either others or myself in a fair match.

Okay, I get that...but that's pretty soft in comparison to "I felt truly alive when i was chasing the squirrel that would feed 3 of my 4 siblings for that day." which is where a person older or different to you might be coming. Your struggles, are horseshhit...to them, regardless of how meaningful they may be to you.  Their struggles are horseshit to us..though.  Who the fuck does that..order a fucking pizza for chrissakes....and stop complaining about how soft we all are, you're doughy ass had to chase squirrels......we're a bit rougher than that today. I won't be chasing any woodland creatures for my survival....I'll preside over their extinction instead. Ill put my nose to the field and produce more tomatoes for marinara than you thought possible.

I agree with you, mind you. Yes..we need struggle and sacrifice to fully express an acceptable humanity ( to us). We get that, though, whether we're chasing deer in the ravine or dollars at the counter of the barnes and noble. We're kind of simian hardasses.......it's all the same to us so long as it ends in dinner and good schtupping. How else would we have been so succesful everywhere we've went, in the face of -any- adversity? This business, is just golden age vanity. Shit used to be harder, we used to better. No, it wasn't...no...we weren't.

@Summer...tied down, sigh..what a waste....break a few of their ribs, you'll enjoy it....

(July 15, 2016 at 10:10 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Great - go live without modern comforts then. But they should be an option. You don't get to decide how another person feels just because you like a certain kind of struggle. Sorta like how I like being tied down and fucked while struggling, but it ain't everyone else's cup o tea.

Your perspective about whether or not humanity is truly living is about as annoying as that codswallop Thoreau tried to champion. It's self-superior.

That seems pretty condescending.

I didn't decide how anyone else feels.  I'm saying that we are human animals, and to fully experience that humanity, we have to live out some of the experiences that we are built for: love, anger, conquest, protection, etc. etc.  I'm defining "quality of life" as "those facilities or resources which allow us to most fully experience our humanity."  NOT as "Those facilities or resources which let us stay maximally safe and experience a maximal hedonic state."

So I'm not telling you how you feel, I'm saying that all our feelings are an important part of our existence as human beings.  And if they aren't, then Rand.

No, what you're saying is that if people don't struggle the way you think they should, then they aren't living properly in some sense, including feelings. You don't get to determine that for anyone but yourself. Don't create a false dichotomy. Everyone feels differently and enjoys differently.

(July 16, 2016 at 3:54 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: No, what you're saying is that if people don't struggle the way you think they should, then they aren't living properly in some sense, including feelings. You don't get to determine that for anyone but yourself. Don't create a false dichotomy. Everyone feels differently and enjoys differently.

Okay, then they will define quality of life differently.  Which means that our quality of life is not intrinsically better, though that's what you were arguing with your book reference-- that we are objectively better off than before.  I disagree with this, or at least with the idea that this can non-arbitrarily be called truth.

So let's get back to the OP.  If someone takes pleasure in dominating others, in hoarding resources, in following their own dreams without regard to the effect on others, shouldn't they?  Is each man his brother's keeper, or is each at liberty to follow whatever legal recourse suits his nature? Is there something intrinsic to the social contract that demands successful people serve as a stepping stone for those who are less successful?

I'd argue yes-- since the betterment of those around me should enrich my life as well.

Fuck longer lives with better health and resources, then, eh? It's all about whether or not we feel the way you think we should.

(July 16, 2016 at 4:01 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Fuck longer lives with better health and resources, then, eh? It's all about whether or not we feel the way you think we should.

Too condescending.

But yes, fuck longer lives with better health and resources-- if someone isn't actually living life fully.  Quantity is not quality.