RE: Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism
July 17, 2016 at 5:39 pm
(This post was last modified: July 17, 2016 at 5:53 pm by bennyboy.)
(July 17, 2016 at 2:11 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: 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?
