Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism

[CapnAwesome]

What? You can strawman any philosophy.

How do you strawman "fuck you, I've got mine", then? I'd like to know.

That IS a strawman.

[robvalue]

Would it be fair to say that her philosophy amounts to how she thinks things would actually work, regardless of the fact that they don't?

A bit like some theists tell us what atheists "would be like", ignoring the fact that they almost entirely aren't.

[CapnAwesome]

Would it be fair to say that her philosophy amounts to how she thinks things would actually work, regardless of the fact that they don't?

A bit like some theists tell us what atheists "would be like", ignoring the fact that they almost entirely aren't.

I think so. I mean, that's my objection to it for sure, or rather one of my objections. I was a libertarian (although not an objectivist) for years, mostly during college. Eventually I had to quit because libertarianism just doesn't work. It's all hypothetical, but in reality the 'free hand of the market' doesn't have any sort of positive morality to it, the hypotheticals put forth by Ayn Rand and others just don't translate into reality.  In addition the claims of Libertarians that it's an untried philosophy is just not true. Although the miniarchist society advocated by Rand hasn't been tried as a whole, you do see individual pieces of it tried in different places. Take for example a lack of regulation in the fishing market that happened in Africa. It's lead to massive environmental damage and the near extinction of countless species. Or the lack of regulation that cell phone chargers had in the US. Was that at all beneficial to the consumer? No. In fact both of them, and an enormous number of other libertarian and objectivist ideas all lead to the exact same basic principle of a prisoners dilemma, where with no market controls all parties suffer. Not just the consumers, but businesses as well. Fishing quotas made by the government mean more fish for everyone in the long term. The market fails.

That's a real critique of Ayn Rand. Saying 'She's a greedy bitch who wants to fuck over poor people' is not.

[abaris]

None of the social models, philosophies or ideologies have ever worked. They deal in theories of an ideal menkind, not with actual human beings and individuality.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I dunno, some guy online thinking he can define what makes me fulfilled seems rather condescending in itself.

[bennyboy]

I dunno, some guy online thinking he can define what makes me fulfilled seems rather condescending in itself.

That's fine. Then define it for yourself. If you think being fulfilled is a matter of external circumstances-- good health care, for example, or the quality of roads in one's nation, then there are an awful lot more fulfilled people in the world than there were say 100 years ago. I think that's a strange definition of fulfillment, though.

I think being fulfilled is a measure of one's level of engagement with one's world-- achievement, excitement, interest, etc. I think Ayn Rand is WRONG, because ignoring the needs and satisfaction of others in pursuing your goals deprives one of a lot of what makes human existence fulfilling. I'm saying that having children, for example, is an achievement, and that having friends provides interest, and even that having enemies provides some excitement in life. Can I infer, then, that you both agree with Rand? Will you say, "Who are YOU to tell Rand what it means really to be alive?"

That's the implicit argument you are making: Rand's wolves run big business, and are creators, inventors, and innovators. That they disregard the well-being of others doesn't matter, because the wolves make stuff (like health care and roads) that the sheep. Is this in fact the argument you are both making: Rand is right, because our lives are better now?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Given that I don't define it as you imputed, I feel no need to give a deeper reply than this that you're reading.

[bennyboy]

Given that I don't define it as you imputed, I feel no need to give a deeper reply than this that you're reading.

Color me confused, because you entered this thread talking about evolution and how Rand's ideas don't reconcile themselves well with reality. But summerqueen's idea about how great humanity is doing these days imply an agreement with Rand, since many of the innovators in the world are just the type of people that Rand describes positively, and most of us view negatively.

I sense a SJW. "Who are YOU to tell anyone how to live their life?" That I'm giving the exact kind of reasons that support your original post in this thread is much less satisfying than the chance to *snap* your fingers, waggle your head disapprovingly, and rush to a lady's aid, eh?

[CapnAwesome]

Given that I don't define it as you imputed, I feel no need to give a deeper reply than this that you're reading.

Color me confused, because you entered this thread talking about evolution and how Rand's ideas don't reconcile themselves well with reality.  But summerqueen's idea about how great humanity is doing these days imply an agreement with Rand, since many of the innovators in the world are just the type of people that Rand describes positively, and most of us view negatively.

I sense a SJW.  "Who are YOU to tell anyone how to live their life?"  That I'm giving the exact kind of reasons that support your original post in this thread is much less satisfying than the chance to *snap* your fingers, waggle your finger, and rush to a lady's aid, eh?

If Thumpalumpacus is an objectivist, I'll eat my own shoe.

[bennyboy]

If Thumpalumpacus is an objectivist, I'll eat my own shoe.

As will I.