Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism

[CapnAwesome]

I have never read anything by Rand.

Good thing, too.

Ugh, why would you say something like that? It's a good thing to read everything you can. It's an even better thing to read stuff written by people you disagree with. Why would you limit yourself to hearing just one side of things? Much less criticize someone without reading anything written by them?

[Mister Agenda]

We seem to have gotten on to a side issue: the 'hedonic treadmill' (aka hedonic adaptation), the tendency of humans to return to the same level of happiness whether things have been going badly or well for us. As we become more prosperous and/or healthy, our expectations rise, and if we're concerned about where our next meal is coming from, our expectations fall. Individuals have their own 'natural level' of happiness to which they return over time. A worrier isn't going to stop worrying for long if they win a million dollars. What this means for society is that we are always going to complain, no matter how good things get for us. If the local government is doing everything right and meeting all reasonable expectations, we'll complain about the spacing of the elm trees on medians or argue over how many days to have fireworks on the 4th of July.

To me, a measure of how well a society is doing can be reflected in how trivial its main concerns are. Happiness is not a good gauge, because of the hedonic treadmill. I think better health and prosperity are worth pursuing for society even if people don't feel happier for having them. Happiness isn't everything.

[thesummerqueen]

I'll allow that.

[abaris]

It's a good thing to read everything you can. It's an even better thing to read stuff written by people you disagree with.

There are certain books, so utterly boring, that I never made it over the first few chapters. Rand certainly falls into that category. Not to compare the two, but Hitler's Mein Kampf falls into the same category. That I had to read for a seminar. At least for it's largest part. But you're right, reading what you don't agree with is a good thing. I did a lot of reading on objectivism, listened to the few televised interviews Rand gave and read a few pieces on her philosophy.

[abaris]

What this means for society is that we are always going to complain, no matter how good things get for us.

Yet there is no us, when it comes to society. No matter how well a society is doing, there are still people getting the ass end. Quite a large proportion, growing as it is, after the last crash. That's true for Europe and the USA. The people worrying over elm trees certainly aren't the ones hunting for their next meal or some roof over their heads.

So, in my opinion, the hype over how well a certain society is doing, is misplaced, as long as millions live in abject poverty and their offspring doesn't stand much of a chance to do better.

[CapnAwesome]

It's a good thing to read everything you can. It's an even better thing to read stuff written by people you disagree with.

There are certain books, so utterly boring, that I never made it over the first few chapters. Rand certainly falls into that category. Not to compare the two, but Hitler's Mein Kampf falls into the same category. That I had to read for a seminar. At least for it's largest part. But you're right, reading what you don't agree with is a good thing. I did a lot of reading on objectivism, listened to the few televised interviews Rand gave and read a few pieces on her philosophy.

Oh I agree, some books are just too boring to make it through. Atlas Shrugged is definitely a boring and repetitive slog. Mein Kampf is an excellent example, I've never made it that far because it's so poorly written. I've also skipped much of the old testament because of boredom and barely made it through the Qu'ran, which is tedious to the extreme. To be honest, Origin of species is also dull and long and boring and I've only skimmed it. Atlas Shrugged is by far the least important of those books, historically speaking. I mean if someone didn't read it because they weren't interested or found it boring that's one thing and I wouldn't fault someone for it.

I don't think that's what Maelstrom was saying though. He said it's a good thing that he's never read anything written by Rand. If you only read criticisms of something and not the source material (some of Rands essays are short and easy) then you just aren't qualified to say anything about it. It's really a celebration of your own ignorance, which unfortunately has become the norm.

[Esquilax]

Yet there is no us, when it comes to society. No matter how well a society is doing, there are still people getting the ass end. Quite a large proportion, growing as it is, after the last crash. That's true for Europe and the USA. The people worrying over elm trees certainly aren't the ones hunting for their next meal or some roof over their heads.

So, in my opinion, the hype over how well a certain society is doing, is misplaced, as long as millions live in abject poverty and their offspring doesn't stand much of a chance to do better.

Part of that is just a function of the fact that societal wellness is a relative term, though. Regardless of how well a culture is doing, there are always going to be people qualitatively living at the lower end of it, because there can't not be a lower end without the kind of intricate economical monitoring that is both outside our computational abilities right now, and also really, really invasive.

The fact that some people get shafted by a system isn't an argument for ignoring societal well-being, however: it's an argument for improving it further. 99 percent is not zero percent, and room for improvement doesn't mean the metric being used is irrelevant.

[thesummerqueen]

It's a good thing to read everything you can. It's an even better thing to read stuff written by people you disagree with.

There are certain books, so utterly boring, that I never made it over the first few chapters. Rand certainly falls into that category. Not to compare the two, but Hitler's Mein Kampf falls into the same category. That I had to read for a seminar. At least for it's largest part. But you're right, reading what you don't agree with is a good thing. I did a lot of reading on objectivism, listened to the few televised interviews Rand gave and read a few pieces on her philosophy.

Probably the solution was to find a well-devised summary. Reading her books made me hate reading - an activity I have voraciously pursued since before I was 5 years old.

Learning what the other side thinks is important. Torturing yourself should be reserved for activities with more rewarding outcomes.

Happily, no one has been able to explain to me why I should finish forcing myself through Anna Karenina.

[abaris]

Happily, no one has been able to explain to me why I should finish forcing myself through Anna Karenina.

You shouldn't. The narrative style of the 19th century is pretty hard to stomach for us. I find it much easier and more entertaining to read Shakespear than anything from the 19th century.

[thesummerqueen]

Happily, no one has been able to explain to me why I should finish forcing myself through Anna Karenina.

You shouldn't. The narrative style of the 19th century is pretty hard to stomach for us. I find it much easier and more entertaining to read Shakespear than anything from the 19th century.

I don't think it's even that - I'll read just about any century. It's that IDGAF what these rich Russian bastards are whining about, lol.

The first line of the novel is relevant, just like the first line of Pride & Prejudice. But while both deal with relationships and heartbreak and class structure and all that shit, somehow Austen manages to keep her characters sympathetic with a minimal amount of sniveling.