Hatrack River Forum: Reading Ayn Rand...

This is topic Reading Ayn Rand... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=037542

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :

...has turned me into a roaring capitalist individualist.

Nothing new, actually. Just a re-inforcement and materialization of thoughts I've had for as long as I can remember.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Well, I'll be sure to remember that if I ever see you on the street, asking for some spare change.

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :

Give it a few weeks. If the feeling persists, play Monopoly against someone who already owns 3/4 of the board.

Ayn Rand is a good philosopher in the sense that her treatment of issues is internally consistent. If you buy her major premise, it all hangs together quite nicely.

For me, after reading Atlas Shrugged, it took a few months to realize that her defense of selfishness worked only in a contrived set of circumstances that really never has and never will exist.

And, in the end, brilliant selfish people that she idolizes ALSO use the government to get their way, just like the mediocre selfish people she abhorred.

And the "common man" is just fodder.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Not having read comrade Rand, can I ask what the contrived circumstances are?

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :

Why should that disturb me? I've already seen someone win a real-life game of monopoly against someone who owned the entire board. They just did the job better than the existing monopoly, and have succeeded.

I'm reading Atlas Shrugged now. I am finding that The Fountainhead offered a much better defense of selfishness -- it seemed that she changed her personal definition between writing the books.

Where did Roark -- the epitome of Ayn Rand's individual -- use the common man as fodder?

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :

quote:
Not having read comrade Rand, can I ask what the contrived circumstances are?

Hold on. What? You made a derisive comment directly regarding Ayn Rand's works and philosophy without being familiar with them?

I could accept and understand it if you had read any of it and disagreed, but...

Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :

Atlas Shrugged - I'll pass some advice on that Amanecer gave me when I first started reading the book: Skip the super-long speech at the end. It just restates the same principles Rand tries to hammer into your head throughout the whole book.

Personally I found the book to be OK, I wouldn't dare say it's my favorite work of fiction or that I found the characters interesting. In fact if there's one critique I should make about the book is that the characters are caricatures of real people. They have no depth, they act irrationally and never did I once believe these people could be real.

This is part of the reason why I don't subscribe to her school of thought, her ideas are interesting and almost seem like it's the *right* thing to do, but once you realize that these people are just puppets for her ideology and that almost nobody would act that way (and at some points in the book, that's a good thing) in the real world the charm is gone and you're left with something that sounds good on paper, but is definitely not applicable in it's entirety (read: Some ideas could be taken, but not all) on today's society.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HRE:
Hold on. What? You made a derisive comment directly regarding Ayn Rand's works and philosophy without being familiar with them?

No, I made a derisive remark concerning your post, which I certainly had read and understood.

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :

Contrived circumstances . . . where to start . . . every character who is "a roaring capitalist individualist" is also brilliant and has great integrity, whereas everyone who disagrees with her philosophy also happens to be incompetent and/or morally deficient.

Oh, except the hero of The Fountainhead, who is a rapist, but that's okay because the woman was frigid until she found a man who could dominate her. It's what she really wanted all along. So the rapist still counts as a man of great integrity and an example of what all men should be.

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

dkw, if we weren't already married to other people, I would propose... [Wink]

I like The Fountainhead, because it shows what a contrived arrogant philosophy she espouced. I liked the fact that it made me think about some large issues, but it also showed me the flaws in her arguments clear as day.

Not even withstanding the rape....every rapist uses the "it's what she really wanted" argument at some point, and it never rings true, or justifies their actions. It is nothing more than an amoral, selfish, digusting rationalization of a despicable act...

Not the reasonable justfication of a noble man as she tries to portray it.

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :

quote:
Where did Roark -- the epitome of Ayn Rand's individual -- use the common man as fodder?

I think that Dagny represents the female epitome of Rand's individual. And Dagny didn't invite her loyal, hardworking, capitalist friend Eddie Willard to come with them to their new society. He, apparently, was too common.

While I think her philosophy has plenty of flaws, especially the way she depicts personal relationships, I also think it has great wisdom. While she never endorsed the libertarian party, I think her work summarizes the core of their beliefs. And I like to call myself a libertarian. [Smile]

quote:
I'll be sure to remember that if I ever see you on the street, asking for some spare change.

So long as giving him the money was a personal, not government, decision and you believed it would actually aid HRE in the long run, I don't see a clash with Rand's philosophy.

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :

While I agree that her philosophy is impossible (for me) to follow, I would in a perfect world. I 'd like to focus on her fiction in my post though. For many people, The Fountainhead was a great romance, with a hero that never bent to the will of others...much like Ender- or more accurately maybe, Bean. Atlas Shrugged to me was much more a podium for her philosophical ideas but I still loved the story. It was epic. Anthem reminded me of Animal Farm, not very wordy but it still there was a very precise point to be made. We the Living-my favourite. Such a dark and depressing tale, it still manages to show the hero in man (woman, in this case). She does not "win" in the conventional sense but she becomes free in her heart. She never gives up and she is stronger than the lead male of the story.
You can read Ayn Rand's fiction without delving too deep into her philosopy. She has philosophy books for that. I love her fiction books for the stories of these amazing heroes-and villans.( I'm sure it does help that I agree with her views.)

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :

I found her fiction to be solely a vehicle for her philosophy. They did that very well, but taken alone they lack the most important element of good fiction- believable characters.

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

Now, why would you read Ayn Rand? Are you a masochist or something?

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :

Ayn Rand's hero, if such a person existed, would treat hard workers as valued hirelings. They would have respect and in return, their production would benefit the man and his company. A truly great worker would, of course, go off and start his own company unless his enlightened self-interest showed him that he could not outcompete the boss. All workers would want to work for the best man.

It's in the real world where Ayn Rand's philosophy clashes with reality and, in effect, turns the common man into fodder. Not in her books, where life is idyllic and the truly great shoe shine guy is a valuable commodity, just as the truly great train engineer, and the truly great entrepreneur is simply valued more because he DOES more, or contributes more.

No...this is the real world. And in the real world, cheaters abound and there is no enclave in the mountains where like-minded heros can go and leave the rest of society to stew in its own juices. If they want to make money, they have to work within the regulations and abide by the laws. Or finagle the laws to their own liking.

It's pretty easy to start seeing the world through Rand-colored glasses after your read her books. The problem is that it's just as much a distortion as seeing the world through party-loyalist glasses, or philosophical glasses.

Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :

I read it in college. It's readable, but it's just such claptrap. It's nothing but a novelised poltical tract. Terry Goodkind's book with that Nazi statue on the front cover is even worse though. That was the worst book I ever finished. I absolutely HATED that one!!

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :

I have to say, I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged (and still re-read it on occasion), but I disagree almost entirely with her philosophy for most of the reasons listed here. I just like the way she writes.

And Amanecer, I was always bothered by the fact that Dagny didn't make sure Eddie got to the valley. It seemed so the opposite of integrity.

Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :

I went through my Rand phase too, but I got better. Atlas Shrugged is the one I finally threw across the room in disgust, after reading Anthem and then The Fountainhead.

I think the appeal is that most of us--I don't know if I mean most people in general or just the intelligent, well-read people who aren't scared off by a large book of philosophical fiction--feel that we're among the "better" ones, on some inner selfish level. And most of us have had somebody try to tear us down at some point in our lives--at least, we see it this way. That teacher who hated you irrationally. That boss who gave you that bad review. And Rand's books give them a motive that we like: It's not that we truly did a bad job or were insubordinate or deserved a rebuke. It's that they were jealous. Jealous of our talents, or of our rugged individualism. Yeah, that's it. They were takers instead of makers, and they were trying to take from you. Rand's books give fodder to every victim story we tell ourselves, which is deeply ironic given how much she claims to despise people who play the victim.

Of course her situations are contrived. Nobody ever dislikes Roark's buildings unless that person is a moral parasite. Come on, since when is architecture that momentous? Haven't you ever seen a building or a painting or movie or novel or something that you loved but a friend or loved one hated? Did you take an immediate step back from your relationship, as this hatred could only be indicative of a deep moral failing? Clearly it's allegory, and allegory, fun as it may be when you get it, is ever shallow as far as story goes.

What is the appeal? The appeal is that it suggests to us that we are inside this enclave of individualist intellectuals. It feeds our fantasies about why people can disagree with us or criticize us. It also eases us of the moral burden of having to give a damn about anybody else. If anybody is less fortunate than you are, it's because they're less worthy.

I believe in hard work. Call me naÃ¯ve, but I believe in the "American Dream," too. I think that anyone who has adequate ability and an outstanding work ethic and not too many dependents can work their way up to middle class. But there were a few caveats there, if you didn't see them. And that only goes as far as middle class. I live in a pretty wealthy neighborhood. It would be extremely self-satisfying to tell myself that it's because I'm so smart and work so hard. That I'm a superior, more deserving person. But the reality is that I've been lucky. I bought a house at the right time, I sold a house at the right time, and I was saved from a crunch by falling interest rates. The Rand fantasy may be an attractive one, but it is a deceptive one.

Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :

quote:
You can read Ayn Rand's fiction without delving too deep into her philosopy.

I don't agree. Her fiction serves her philosophy. Her style may be readable, but as fiction, it's paper-thin and repetitive, and her characters--even her heroes!--are undeveloped and flat. (Interestingly enough, I would say the most interesting character she ever wrote was Ellsworth Toohey (sp?), in a Darth Vader sort of way.)

-o-

Megan, Atlas Shrugged is the longest and most repetitive of her novels! At least reread something shorter so that you can get past this compulsion and on with your life sooner!

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :

But...I like the story! And, I skip a lot when I re-read it (the entire radio speech, for example). [Big Grin]

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :

One thing that I think is different from real life and Rand's fictional reality, is that not all the people who cheat their way to the top are incompetent. Simply their main focus is their own personal gain. Instead of a country run by greedy boobs, shooting themselves in the foot and looking for someone to fix it, you have hard edge political monsters, able to manipulate the system for their own profits.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
So long as giving him the money was a personal, not government, decision and you believed it would actually aid HRE in the long run, I don't see a clash with Rand's philosophy.

Why, under the terms of enlightened self-interest, should I aid HRE? If he becomes a producer, he competes with me. And consumers who buy my goods are thirteen to the dozen; I would get a lot more good out of keeping that dollar for myself than investing it in the off-chance of getting an extra customer.

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :

quote:
For many people, The Fountainhead was a great romance

Those people need to think long and hard about their definition of romance. Rape != sexy. The idea that Rand considers being unable to fall in love except with a man who rapes her a sign of the STRENGTH of Dominique's character is grotesque.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:

The idea that Rand considers being unable to fall in love except with a man who rapes her a sign of the STRENGTH of Dominique's character is grotesque.

Although it says a lot about Ayn Rand, really.

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :

Goo Boy-

quote:
And Rand's books give them a motive that we like: It's not that we truly did a bad job or were insubordinate or deserved a rebuke. It's that they were jealous. Jealous of our talents, or of our rugged individualism. Yeah, that's it. They were takers instead of makers, and they were trying to take from you. Rand's books give fodder to every victim story we tell ourselves, which is deeply ironic given how much she claims to despise people who play the victim.

I think you were reading some other book.

dkw-

quote:
Those people need to think long and hard about their definition of romance. Rape != sexy. The idea that Rand considers being unable to fall in love except with a man who rapes her a sign of the STRENGTH of Dominique's character is grotesque.

I thought it was sexy.

Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :

I don't see how you could say that, Treason. That is precisely why people keep trying to undermine her heroes! I'm not sure where specifically you disagree with my summation.

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :

Rand's philosophy collapses under its own weight when you realize that it's all based on two false definitions of her own choosing. In order for Rand's philosophy to work, you have to accept her definitions of Altruism and Selfishness.

To her, altruism means having an ulterior motive and doing seemingly nice things for humanity, when in fact you're trying to manipulate humanity for your own ends - to gain power.

Selfishness means ignoring the political forces that ultimately cause all human endeavors to turn out as compromises, and just plain doing it your own way, because that's the way you know it should be done.

Neither of these are the actual definitions of the words, but Rand relies on these definitions to convince her audience that her philosophy works, yet at the same time, her character's works are driven by the opposite of the motivation she claims for them.

Roark builds buildings that serve the people effectively, while Toohey feeds the public meaningless pablum and rides it to power. So which one is actually selfish? And which one is altruistic?

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :

Treason. In the real world, rape is not sexy. Nor is abuse of power.

I understand that some fiction uses it as a device and that some people engage in role play involving rape fantasies to heighten something in their sex lives.

But...actual rape, not sexy.

And I think there's good reason to at least examine closely the motivation of any author who gets into the gray areas, let alone actually portrays characters as using rape to "win" a potential mate, or "enjoying it" once they get a chance to "really experience it."

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :

You think that the desire to be raped is a sign of a strong woman. And you find this sexy.

I keep trying to write a response to this, and I can't think of anything to say more damning than what you've said on your own.

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :

quote:
Why, under the terms of enlightened self-interest, should I aid HRE? If he becomes a producer, he competes with me. And consumers who buy my goods are thirteen to the dozen; I would get a lot more good out of keeping that dollar for myself than investing it in the off-chance of getting an extra customer.

If you believe HRE would become more able to take care of himself long term by giving him short term aid, then you're not encouraging the leechiness that Rand so detests. And if for any reason, you get something out of being helpful to HRE, then the pursuit becomes selfish and thus good according to Rand. Admittedly I don't know if Rand would agree with this summation, but this is how I've applied her books to my understanding of the world.

quote:
Rand's books give fodder to every victim story we tell ourselves, which is deeply ironic given how much she claims to despise people who play the victim.

I never thought about this before, but I think you are correct. The books set up a very false dichotomy of them versus us. But I think you're wrong in assuming that this is the main appeal of the books. What I found so appealing, was the worshipful way that she described human ingenuity and will. She makes you believe that you are noble and capable of anything. That is an inspiring message that is not dependent on a comparison to others.

Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :

Well, I think the dichotomy exists to emphasize how noble we Individualist Intellectuals are. So I think it's part and parcel of it. You individually might not need to portray other people as supid and evil to feel better about yourself, but I think this is her reason for portraying the Others as stupid and evil.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Now, I yield to none in my admiration for human spirit and courage; and certainly we are a moderately intelligent species. But nobility? Would we value it, if it were really so common as all that? And 'capable of anything' - well, that's just silly. Many people are capable of many things. But no people are capable of all things, and some people are not capable at all. I seem to recall an OSC column on the subject of encouraging children to believe that they can do anything. It was well worth reading.

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :

quote:
You individually might not need to portray other people as supid and evil to feel better about yourself, but I think this is her reason for portraying the Others as stupid and evil.

Perhaps. Regardless, that doesn't undermine the good things that I did get out of her books.

quote:
And 'capable of anything' - well, that's just silly.

I see your point. I'll rephrase that to "capable of truly great things."

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :

I disagree with her philosophy for all the reasons stated above.

However, I find her writing to be utter drek. It's like a soap opera. And what the hell is up with her and rape? Didn't John Gault also rape some woman, and then she wound up loving it? What is this, High Plains Drifter?

Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :

Who is John Galt?

Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :

Atlas Shrugged 2: One Hour Later

Unrelated, but while we're at it: The Old Man and the Sea 2.

--Enigmatic

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :

I've never read Ayn Rand, and I have seen nothing in this thread to convince me that I should.

I've had to deal with enough selfish, greedy...dare I say sociopathic, in some cases...people who will do nothing unless it is for their own gain, to ever find such characters attractive, sexy, or interesting.

These are the sort of people who, in my experience, only act out of self-interest and then turn around and make fun of those who do things for reasons other than self-interest. Interesting experience I had once. I was organizing a rummage sale to benefit a friend of mine who was critically injured when someone broke into his home. When an acquaintance found out that I was doing this, her first question was, "What are you getting out of it?" When I told her I was getting nothing out of it except the good feeling of helping someone who needed help, her reply was something on the order of, "Well, why do it then? That's stupid."

I prefer to avoid that kind of person in real life, and in the fiction I read, especially when people like that are made out to be the heroes of the work.

Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :

Dagny's decision to leave Eddie Willers behind is one of the things that really sickened me once I finished the book.

That and the fact that everyone else *but* the heroes were painted to be complete scum to the point of sillyness. They were made into some evil entity that contained all the bad things and none of the humanity which keeps their ideals going strong in the world today.

But really, one of the things that kept me from really going deep into her ideals was what she passed as "morals". That, and the feeling that with every page I turned she was trying to brainwash me instead of convincing me.

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :

But it was for your own good.

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :

B...I love Bob the Angry Flower!!! Excellent!

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :

I have tro wonder at Ayn Rand's novels: always, her ubermenschen are so far above the common man as to not need them (except as, perhaps, consumers), but always (at least in Fountainhead and Atlas), her H.R. (Howard Roarke, Hank Reardon) characters spend an awfully long time appealing to them. In FOuntainhead, Roark appelas to the courts for at leat 40 pages (I didn't count), and in Atlas, Reardon puts out an 80 page radio diatribe (I did count!).

How many of Rand's great unwashed comon man would really have sat through 2-1/2 hours of radio blather?

But, you have to love her for using the best engineering joke in the world in Atlas Shrugged. When the torture machine breaks down as some great, high voltage is being applied to Reardon's nipples, he proclaims, "...I can fix that..." Genius!

--Steve

Also, "Atlas Shrugged" helped me study for the PE exam. I was reading the section on "Reardon Metal" right as I was going through the metallurgy part of the study guide... And when I finished the first half of the test early, I just kicked back and finished off "Atlas Shrugged" right there in the test room. Priceless!

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :

We keep throwing around the word "rape", but in the scene in question, it was clearly consentual rape...in other words not rape at all.

In fact, I've read the book a number of times--it's one of my favorites--and I didn't even know which scene you were talking about until I went back and looked.

And I can't figure out why a bunch of scifi nerds like us have such a problem with superhuman, black and white characters.

Anyway, I'm still a Rand fan...screw you all. [Razz]

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :

quote:
Treason. In the real world, rape is not sexy. Nor is abuse of power.

I understand that some fiction uses it as a device and that some people engage in role play involving rape fantasies to heighten something in their sex lives.

But...actual rape, not sexy.

And I think there's good reason to at least examine closely the motivation of any author who gets into the gray areas, let alone actually portrays characters as using rape to "win" a potential mate, or "enjoying it" once they get a chance to "really experience it."

She wanted him from the first. She would never said it, but she did. It wasn't rape. It was simulated rape. That's my opinion. And it was hot. They were sexy together. I know real rape is not sexy. Trust me.

quote:
And Rand's books give them a motive that we like: It's not that we truly did a bad job or were insubordinate or deserved a rebuke. It's that they were jealous. Jealous of our talents, or of our rugged individualism. Yeah, that's it. They were takers instead of makers, and they were trying to take from you. Rand's books give fodder to every victim story we tell ourselves, which is deeply ironic given how much she claims to despise people who play the victim.]

Her whole philosopy is against being a victim. I just don't understand where you got the idea above. Her books are all about personal responsibility. They are about doing a superb job, about never compromising yourself and believing A is A. When you know the truth, trust yourself. Don't look to others to tell you how to live your life.
(my roomate is watching a very loud movie next to me so I can't be as thorough as I would like)

quote:
To her, altruism means having an ulterior motive and doing seemingly nice things for humanity, when in fact you're trying to manipulate humanity for your own ends - to gain power.

Altruism to her (as I see it) is more like this: There is no true altruism. When you do good for other people, does it make you feel good? Are you happy when you help someone? It is selfish to do these things. And that's fine! If that's what makes you happy, that's great. If you do "altruistic" things because you only want your neighbours to look at you with admiration, you'll never be happy. Don't concern yourself with how others see you or think of you, only be concerned with how you judge yourself.
Since yours is the only life you can live you shouldn't try to live it for others.

"I swear - by my life and love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." John Galt in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged

quote:
Selfishness means ignoring the political forces that ultimately cause all human endeavors to turn out as compromises, and just plain doing it your own way, because that's the way you know it should be done.

Yeahhh...that's why I said perfect world. I don't expect anyone to be totally Ayn Rand. It's to difficult in this world. I can always try though. I know I won't be perfect but I can try to be as close to my perfect ideal as I can. (My boyfriend is closer than I've ever seen anyone be.)

Ok, the movie is very distractiong so I'll go now. Maybe I'll post again later.
Thanks

PS. "Frisco" [Smile]

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :

By the way---"When I told her I was getting nothing out of it except the good feeling of helping someone who needed help, "

Now to quote myself : "When you do good for other people, does it make you feel good? Are you happy when you help someone? It is selfish to do these things."

Case in point.

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :

I read Rand in high school, and thought she was excellent. I re-read later, after college, and much of the attraction faded. I just wanted to slap Roark when he blew up his building because someone took the doors off his closets and put some decorative trim on the outside of his building. I wanted to tell just about all of her characters to stop making speeches and to just get over themselves.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:

Anyway, I'm still a Rand fan...screw you all.

This, I think, nicely encapsulates the Ayn Rand Experience (tm).

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :

Beautifully stated, Tom.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:
So long as giving him the money was a personal, not government, decision and you believed it would actually aid HRE in the long run, I don't see a clash with Rand's philosophy.
Why, under the terms of enlightened self-interest, should I aid HRE? If he becomes a producer, he competes with me. And consumers who buy my goods are thirteen to the dozen; I would get a lot more good out of keeping that dollar for myself than investing it in the off-chance of getting an extra customer.

A rational person doesn't fear competition.

But to answer your question, what I get out of helping someone is the same thing that I get out of not hurting someone. If I can punch you in the nose, you can punch me in the nose. That's not the kind of world I want to live in. If would want help in a tight situation, then it stands to reason that I want a world in which people -- voluntarily -- help others.

I won't give money to someone who is smoking. It's ridiculous. If they have money for cigarettes, they don't need any from me. I won't give money to a wino or junkie (based on my perception, which may be right or wrong), because that's not something I want to contribute to.

But I was homeless once for a short time, and it scared the hell out of me. I managed to pull out of it, but it was a very close thing. When I see someone who seems to be in a similar situation, I do what I can.

And sometimes, I give the benefit of the doubt. Once, I was walking from the train station to work, and I saw a guy saying, "Help a homeless man." I gave him a dollar, and he thanked me and asked if I'd take a resume. Honest to God. He'd been living at the Y and taking training courses in computers and paralegal so that he could get some real work. Not only did I take his resume, but I fixed it up for him and made it look nicer, and I hope he has a job by now.

And that was all to my benefit, because I think I improved the world I live in. Had I been forced to do it, it would have been bad, but I wasn't.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dkw:

quote:
For many people, The Fountainhead was a great romance
Those people need to think long and hard about their definition of romance. Rape != sexy. The idea that Rand considers being unable to fall in love except with a man who rapes her a sign of the STRENGTH of Dominique's character is grotesque.

That was one scene, and as distasteful as it was, I wasn't going to allow it to ruin the whole book for me.

That kind of thing had nothing to do with the ideas in the book. It was Rand's own personal messed up sexuality. She actually wrote an essay about why she'd never vote for a woman for president. She claimed that a woman's nature is to hero-worship a man, and not to lead. <shudder>

I don't know if she really felt this way or if it was just her way of coping with her disempowerment as a woman.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rico:
Atlas Shrugged - I'll pass some advice on that Amanecer gave me when I first started reading the book: Skip the super-long speech at the end. It just restates the same principles Rand tries to hammer into your head throughout the whole book.

So, did you take that advice? If so, you're not really in any position to pass it on.

I was given that same advice the first time I read it. I'm glad that I didn't listen. It's true that the principles are the same as those throughout the book, but they are developed very well in the speech. It's definitely worth reading.

quote:
Originally posted by Rico:
Personally I found the book to be OK, I wouldn't dare say it's my favorite work of fiction or that I found the characters interesting. In fact if there's one critique I should make about the book is that the characters are caricatures of real people. They have no depth, they act irrationally and never did I once believe these people could be real.

My criticism is a bit different. Rand gives lip service in her non-fiction to benevolance as a virtue (as opposed to altruism), but she certainly doesn't show it. There's a callousness in her development of Objectivism that you can still see in many of her supporters.

HRE -- when I first read Rand's work, I was completely blown away. I actually started with the non-fiction, which is probably unusual. But I soaked it up like a sponge, and at first, I shared many of Rand's attitudes.

And it's true that most of the nonsense you'll hear from anti-Objectivists is truly irrational. But things aren't quite as all-or-nothing as Rand felt they were. Just... be careful not to let the callousness be a part of what you get out of her works.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
A rational person doesn't fear competition.

Why the devil not? The goal and endpoint of a good capitalist is a monopoly. That's what maximises your profit.

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :

I read the Fountainhead my Senior Year of High School, because I was looking for scholarships, and found one (from the Rand Society) that basically said read this book, and write an essay about it, and we'll give you money.

So I read the whole damn book, and then decided not to write anything, because I knew I wouldn't say anything that the Rand Society would want to hear.

My initial thought when closing the book was,

"Wow. I would think it would be nearly impossible to write a book more pretentious than this."

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:

If would want help in a tight situation, then it stands to reason that I want a world in which people -- voluntarily -- help others.

I can't recall a moment in her books when this occurs, though.

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Treason:
By the way---"When I told her I was getting nothing out of it except the good feeling of helping someone who needed help, "

Now to quote myself : "When you do good for other people, does it make you feel good? Are you happy when you help someone? It is selfish to do these things."

Case in point.

No. Not a case in point. The person I was speaking to meant to ask what I was getting from it in a material sense, and clearly did not accept "good feelings" as selfish. Anyway, I wasn't doing what I did go get those good feelings, but because it needed to be done. The good feelings were merely an unintended side effect, well after the fact, because the actual doing cost me a lot of time, effort, and frustration - not to mention a bit of money.

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :

To those that are fans of Rand, I recommend My Years with Ayn Rand by Nathaniel Branden. Branden was her good friend and leading Objectivist up until their split. I found his insight into Rand very useful in understanding her philosophy. He also explores what works and what doesn't about Rand's Objectivism. While the current Objectivist group denies his claim, that he had an affair with Rand, it seems incredibly obvious to me that he's telling the truth. His story creates too clear of a parallel to the incredibly odd relationships in Atlas Shrugged. In my opinion, Branden strips away the callousness of Rand's philosophy and replaces it with a more tempered understanding.

[Edited for spelling.]

[ August 29, 2005, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Amanecer ]

Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :

quote:

quote:
which is deeply ironic given how much she claims to despise people who play the victim.
Her whole philosopy is against being a victim.

Hence my acknowledgment that it is ironic. She can state that her philosophy is whatever she wants to believe that it is--as OSC notes, there are our true beliefs, and then there is what we believe that we believe. Each one of her heroes is victimized at length by the evil, anti-objectivist, anti-individualist machine. And the only people who ever dislike her heroes for long are the takers who want to crush them. Therefore, her heroes are victims. We are more tempted to like them because we sympathize with them; we feel outrage at how shabbily they are treated for the simple crime of wanting to be self-made. Hello?? They are victims!

(Seriously now, can you find anybody who does not claim to oppose playing the victim? Come on. Give me an example. Just one. Everybody is opposed to playing the victim, they say, but look around and you'll see lots and lots of people doing it. So just because somebody says that's not what they're about is no reason to believe them. Look at what they do--or what happens in the stories they tell--not at what they say they believe.)

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :

Goo Boy - "Therefore, her heroes are victims"

They are heroes because they REFUSE to be victims. They never see themselves as victims and I don't see them that way either.

littlemissattitude - "No. Not a case in point. The person I was speaking to meant to ask what I was getting from it in a material sense, and clearly did not accept "good feelings" as selfish. Anyway, I wasn't doing what I did go get those good feelings, but because it needed to be done. The good feelings were merely an unintended side effect, well after the fact, because the actual doing cost me a lot of time, effort, and frustration - not to mention a bit of money."

I didn't care what the person you were speaking to felt. I cared about the situation. I insist: You would not have done what you did if you didn't get satisfaction out of it. The time, effort and frustration were worth it to you, to feel like you were helping. You wanted to do it. Maybe it fit with how you want to see yourself, as a nice helpful person and it made you feel satisfied to know that you were. Maybe you cared about that person and wanted to make sure they were going to be OK. Either way, you got satisfaction out of helping. All I'm trying to say is that it was not a selfless act. We do what we want to do. There can be kind acts, and hateful acts, but no selfless ones. The only truly selfless act as I see it is doing things just so others see you a certain way, living your life for other people to judge you...and that's just disgusting. I try as hard as I can not to do that.

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

Saying that people are only altruistic because it makes them feel good is pretty much like saying that people only eat because it makes them feel good. It's absurdly reductionistic.

Altruistic behavior is not solely motivated by a desire for visceral pleasure. It's far more complex than that. The only way to fit reality of alturistic behavior to the "only do it because it makes you feel good" description is to reduce everything anyone ever does to the behaviorist model of "seek pleasure and avoid pain." Which destroys the very self-motivation that Randians so praise.

Like so many other philosophies, Objectivism works as a criticism, but fails as a positive foundation. Combing some basic game theory with social dynamics, you can show that you can't treat an individual's behavior in isolation and instead must consider it as part of a gestalt whole. Compromise and altruism are essential parts of the stable, productive society that Rand's ubermenches need in order to achieve much of anything.

It is much like how unrestricted capitalism leads not to a super-efficient, hyper-competitive wonderland, but rather monopolistic tyranny and slavery.

Also, and this is just my personal experience, the people who espouse Objectivism aren't generally the best and brighest and most productive. These people, if they are very selfish, don't need a second-rate philosophy to justify it to themselves. The Objectivists I've known are kinda whiny. They excel at playing the victim of a society that isn't organized on Objectivist or Libetarian principles. From what I understand, a true Objectivist would be doing crap, not complaining about how society should eschew collectivism and embrace unregulated capitalism because then their true greatness would be free to shine.

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Treason:
I insist: You would not have done what you did if you didn't get satisfaction out of it a selfless act....We do what we want to do.

A couple of things, Treason.

First of all, you might be lucky enough not to ever have to do anything you don't want to do. I have to do a lot of things I don't want to do. I have obligations- primarily to my family - that I did not ask for but must satisfy anyway, merely from the fact that I was born into a family.

And the other thing...I'm really, really tired of people telling me that they know my motivations better than I do. You don't know me, don't know anything about me, and therefore have no idea why I do the things I do. And you have no right to "insist" that you do.

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :

Squick -"From what I understand, a true Objectivist would be doing crap, not complaining about how society should eschew collectivism and embrace unregulated capitalism because then their true greatness would be free to shine."

I've actually not complained about anything, I thought I was in a fun discussion about Ayn Rand.

"Also, and this is just my personal experience, the people who espouse Objectivism aren't generally the best and brighest and most productive."

I didn't call anyone stupid or lazy. I was putting my opinions out there without resorting to "subtle" name calling. I still don't think people are understanding the true definition of the word selfish. You don't have to be a jerk if you are selfish.

little - "First of all, you might be lucky enough not to ever have to do anything you don't want to do. I have to do a lot of things I don't want to do."

I am very lucky. I hate working at my particular job but I still "want" to go there because the gains outweigh the losses. If I didn't want to go I would do something else. I despise living with other people but I just got a roomate because I want one for the extra income he will provide. Doing what you want all the time does not mean everything will be sunshine and flowers. It means you know your priorities and want to accomplish something so you do things you may not like, but still want to do. I think you also are not seeing what selfish really means.

And now, I want to go to work to make money for this computer which I love. [Smile]

Edited for PS: hey! That was my 300th post. Horray!

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :

I was a big fan of Ayn Rand back in high school and read all her books. I basically lost interest in her later, though, when I realized that I totally disagree with her philosophy.

Reading this thread makes me want to dip back into the books and remind myself what I liked and didn't like about them. Also, I wonder how I would react to the books from the perspective of an adult, as opposed to the perspective of the teen I was when I first read them.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:
A rational person doesn't fear competition.
Why the devil not? The goal and endpoint of a good capitalist is a monopoly. That's what maximises your profit.

And that's the result of a society in which individual achievement is not only dismissed, but actively scorned.

A capitalist can't have a monopoly unless he's delivering the best product. And if he is, let him have the monopoly. He'll lose it when he stops giving good value.

The only way you get coercive monopolies are when the government declares something a state-protected monopoly. Those are truly scary.

I care about my work. It represents me. You'll find very few creative people who are willing to deliver schlock for a paycheck, unless the system is stacked against them to the point that setting out on their own is next to impossible.

Or are you talking about modern corporations? Why aren't you out campaigning for the repeal of such insane ideas as corporations being legal individuals that somehow spare their owners from responsibility? That's the cause of corporate mischief; not the profit motive.

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

quote:
A capitalist can't have a monopoly unless he's delivering the best product.

That's not even remotely true in any system that approaches reality.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

If would want help in a tight situation, then it stands to reason that I want a world in which people -- voluntarily -- help others.
I can't recall a moment in her books when this occurs, though.

Well, Howard does help Peter. Not for Peter's sake, of course, but because Howard can't stand to see Peter butchering another building. Dagny reaches out to her sister-in-law. Francisco reaches out to Dagny. Reardon reaches out to the kid who was sent to spy on him. Roark tried like hell to save Gail Wynand, but failed in the end.

But I agree that it's not the main thing that comes across. Though that does make some sense. Rand was fighting against an ethos that was the polar opposite of what she was saying. So she took an extreme stance against it. It was a lot more effective in its time than it is today.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by littlemissattitude:

quote:
Originally posted by Treason:
I insist: You would not have done what you did if you didn't get satisfaction out of it a selfless act....We do what we want to do.
A couple of things, Treason.

First of all, you might be lucky enough not to ever have to do anything you don't want to do. I have to do a lot of things I don't want to do. I have obligations- primarily to my family - that I did not ask for but must satisfy anyway, merely from the fact that I was born into a family.

And the other thing...I'm really, really tired of people telling me that they know my motivations better than I do. You don't know me, don't know anything about me, and therefore have no idea why I do the things I do. And you have no right to "insist" that you do.

I think you're missing the point, though. Everyone makes choices. But you choose what is the highest value for you.

If I have to forgo a meal so that my daughter can eat, that is not a sacrifice. It is a choice between values. Rand once said that she'd take a bullet for her husband Frank (though apparently not stay faithful). That wasn't a willingness to sacrifice either. She felt that taking a bullet for him was more in her interest than his being killed. That was her choice.

No one is claiming that you don't do things that you wish you didn't have to do. That you don't want to do. But you want the result of not doing them less, or you wouldn't be doing them.

That's not talking about your motives, it's just a simple fact. If a person chooses to do A over B, then either A is more important to that person, or the person is utterly irrational.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ela:
I was a big fan of Ayn Rand back in high school and read all her books. I basically lost interest in her later, though, when I realized that I totally disagree with her philosophy.

Reading this thread makes me want to dip back into the books and remind myself what I liked and didn't like about them. Also, I wonder how I would react to the books from the perspective of an adult, as opposed to the perspective of the teen I was when I first read them.

You probably won't like them.

I've noticed a very common occurrance. When someone reads Rand at an early age (particularly if they're an adolescent), they're likely to glom onto what they misunderstand as her philosophy and use it to strengthen their sense of independence. Then, when they grow out of adolescence, as most people do, they throw Objectivism out with the rest of the "You're not the boss of me!" stuff.

When someone comes across Rand's work later on (I was 31), they're more likely to be able to understand her work from an adult point of view, since they haven't poisoned it for themselves by stapling it to their adolescent rebellion.

That's why you so often hear people talk about how they were really into Objectivism in high school (or early college), but that they grew out of it.

That may be an overgeneralization, and I'm sure there are people who don't fit either of those. But I think it's pretty common for it to happen as I've described.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:
A capitalist can't have a monopoly unless he's delivering the best product.
That's not even remotely true in any system that approaches reality.

If you want to assert that, do you think you could give a counterexample? Or should we just accept what you're saying?

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

starL,
You seem to have a very simplistic view of economics. I'd counter-challenge you to show how just about any monopoly fits what you were saying. What, for example, is your view of the monopolies of the late 19th century? Are you seriously going to say that they acheived what they did based on the superiority of their product? Because I really doubt you could get anyone who knows about them to agree to that.

Success in a capitalistic economy is determined by who is best at utilizing their capital. Personal effort and ability and quality of product are components in this capital but are hardly the full story and very often have a relatively minor role.

In the question of monopolies, a quick look at pre-anti-trust America shows that the capital that people and businesses used to establish and maintain their monopolies had little to do with the quality of their product or service. Rather, they established strangle holds on competitive (and transportation) channels, employed physical force to sabotage or even kill their competition, used their superior position in the market to engage in anti-competitive activities, such as selling their products at below cost to drive their competitors who couldn't handle the loss of below cost pricing. They made use of captive consumers in one market to gain advantages in other markets against business that operated on a smaller scale.

And that's leaving aside the other facts of economics that enter into why one product dominates over another besides higher quality. Economies of scale, differential labor costs, markets that have different requirements, advertising, branding of consumers, etc. all tie into why one product may be more sucessful than another.

As I'm sure you'll ask for a concrete example, here you go. Company A owns both a plant manufacturing product X and all of the transportation systems that lead to a given market. Company B has developed a product Y which is superior to product X in all aspects. However, in order to sell it in the market, they have to pay for transporting there. Since Company A controls the transportation, Y will never supplant X and Company A will maintain their monopoly.

---

Monopolies are bad. They lead to higher prices and lower quality. However, they are also the natural result of an unregulated capitalistic economy.

If you want, we can also go into why saying that capitalism puts premium value on individual effort is a silly thing to do too.

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
[You probably won't like them.

I've noticed a very common occurrance. When someone reads Rand at an early age (particularly if they're an adolescent), they're likely to glom onto what they misunderstand as her philosophy and use it to strengthen their sense of independence. Then, when they grow out of adolescence, as most people do, they throw Objectivism out with the rest of the "You're not the boss of me!" stuff.

When someone comes across Rand's work later on (I was 31), they're more likely to be able to understand her work from an adult point of view, since they haven't poisoned it for themselves by stapling it to their adolescent rebellion.

That's why you so often hear people talk about how they were really into Objectivism in high school (or early college), but that they grew out of it.

That may be an overgeneralization, and I'm sure there are people who don't fit either of those. But I think it's pretty common for it to happen as I've described.

That is definitely a misgeneralization. I think that at the time I read Ayn Rand I enjoyed the stories and liked some (but not all) aspects of the philosophy. I don't recall throwing out Objectivism as part of any of the "you're not the boss of me" experience that you are describing. I just plain disagreed with the base from which she builds all her other beliefs.

I am not really sure what you mean by that "poisoned it for themselves" remark either. If you mean you think I would have agreed with Ayn Rand if I had read her for the first time as an adult, I'd have to say I disagree. My values are just different from the ones she espouses and idealizes. That's all there is to it.

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Treason:
I think you also are not seeing what selfish really means.

And I think you are trying to control the argument by imposing your definitions. That isn't a power I'm willing to concede to you.

And starLisa, no, I'm not missing the point. I'm only missing the point that you want me to get, and I'll continue to miss the point, in your estimation, until I say that I agree with you.

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :

Oddly enough, both of you (economics debating ones) are right.

Many areas lend themselves towards natural monopolies -- ones involving limited markets, ones involving huge capital expenditures, et cetera. In these areas local monopolies will tend to appear in a purely competitive market. Excellent examples include landline phones, highways, certain sorts of complex and specialized manufacturing, et cetera. Occasionally the monopolist will change, but not the monopoly.

Many other things do not lend themselves to natural monopolies. The soft drink market, for instance, is fairly competitive.

Oh, and the notion that the company making the best product is the only one which can obtain a monopoly or even succeed in a market is pseudo-economic poppycock. Companies don't have advantages because of making the best product, but because of doing the best job at making a product, which is a very different thing, albeit with the quality of the product often being a significant factor in consideration. Its not the quality of the product that drives success in markets, its the quality of the process. In many areas, for instance, businesses which come to the market earlier with shoddier product succeed far beyond those which take their time. In others, skilled craftsmen make meager wages where mass produced inferior products sell billions.

Furthermore, what seems to be bantied about here as "pure capitalism", isn't. Pure capitalism exists only in a regulated state. As Adam Smith repeatedly drove home, people will take uncompetitive actions for personal gain, typically by using negative externalities. That is, they'll lie, cheat, steal, intimidate, threaten, et cetera. This has been abundantly born out by history.

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :

starLisa said :

quote:
I think you're missing the point, though. Everyone makes choices. But you choose what is the highest value for you.

If I have to forgo a meal so that my daughter can eat, that is not a sacrifice. It is a choice between values. Rand once said that she'd take a bullet for her husband Frank (though apparently not stay faithful). That wasn't a willingness to sacrifice either. She felt that taking a bullet for him was more in her interest than his being killed. That was her choice.

No one is claiming that you don't do things that you wish you didn't have to do. That you don't want to do. But you want the result of not doing them less, or you wouldn't be doing them.

That's not talking about your motives, it's just a simple fact. If a person chooses to do A over B, then either A is more important to that person, or the person is utterly irrational.

Thank you! I was waiting for you to come in and say what I've been struggling to get out. I'm not an eloquent debator and can't say things with as much clarity as you can.

littlemiss :

quote:
And I think you are trying to control the argument by imposing your definitions. That isn't a power I'm willing to concede to you.

Ok.
Ps. On a side note, I find it highly amusing you sound quite a bit like an Ayn Rand character here. [Smile]

Also, everyone..I was the one at the beginning of this saying I just wanted to talk about how much I like her fiction! [Big Grin]

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

quote:
Saying that people are only altruistic because it makes them feel good is pretty much like saying that people only eat because it makes them feel good. It's absurdly reductionistic.

Squick, I was trying to find the best way to say that, but then I saw you had found it, and used it, already.

I find these types of discussions are usually a statement of opposing views, and both sides take an expreme voiewpoint to make a point. Not that the original ideas are wrong, but ANYTHING in excess is not a good thing.

I found Rands works to be thought provoking when I was younger, but even then I could see they ewre pretentious, and that her ideas of "good" were not the same as mine. I think that the idea that not all selfisness is a bad thing was a very positive idea for me, but if you take it to the extreme, as she did, it doesn't work...and is in it's own way every bit as corrupt as what she claimed to be fighting against.

The rape scene was eweird, I could see where she was going with it right away, but that was a weak excuse for what she wrote against. While she MAY have wanted it deep down inside (and I am NOT sure of that at all) the fact remains that she WAS raped, in that she fought against him and his advances. That was inexcusable, in my mind.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
starL,
You seem to have a very simplistic view of economics. I'd counter-challenge you to show how just about any monopoly fits what you were saying. What, for example, is your view of the monopolies of the late 19th century?

I assume you're talking aobut the robber barons and their railroad monopolies? If so, I suggest you study up on the subject. They were given unearned government grants of property and would never have managed to "succeed" as they did without government patronage.

If you're talking about some other "monopoly", I hope you'll share some details with us.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Are you seriously going to say that they acheived what they did based on the superiority of their product? Because I really doubt you could get anyone who knows about them to agree to that.

I said, and I'll repeat, that only government monopolies are coercive.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Success in a capitalistic economy is determined by who is best at utilizing their capital. Personal effort and ability and quality of product are components in this capital but are hardly the full story and very often have a relatively minor role.

Only in an economy that's been distorted by governmnet meddling.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
In the question of monopolies, a quick look at pre-anti-trust America shows that the capital that people and businesses used to establish and maintain their monopolies had little to do with the quality of their product or service.

That must be a wicked quick look, because I've taken a pretty long look, and don't see anything of the sort. Would you mind giving an example? Nothing exhaustive, mind you. I'm not asking for a dissertation or anything (unless you want to); I'd just like a single example of what you're claiming. If it was indeed a monopoly, and achieved that status without government patronage behind it and without providing the best service available, I'll concede the point.

Just one.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Rather, they established strangle holds on competitive (and transportation) channels, employed physical force to sabotage or even kill their competition,

Okay, now you're getting into things that you must know I find utterly immoral and unacceptable. Squick, it's not honest to argue against an idea by finding someone associated with that idea who did bad things. It's like condemning vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
used their superior position in the market to engage in anti-competitive activities, such as selling their products at below cost to drive their competitors who couldn't handle the loss of below cost pricing.

You say that it drove out their competitors. I say it gave the consumers a helluva deal. Since there's no coercion involved, what's the problem?

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
They made use of captive consumers in one market to gain advantages in other markets against business that operated on a smaller scale.

You speak in generalizations, and refuse to give a single detail. That being the case, all I need to say is "I disagree". You can hardly fault me for not giving my reasons.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
And that's leaving aside the other facts of economics that enter into why one product dominates over another besides higher quality. Economies of scale, differential labor costs, markets that have different requirements, advertising, branding of consumers, etc. all tie into why one product may be more sucessful than another.

Gee. Maybe I should have majored in Economics. Oh, wait. I did.

What you're ignoring is that pragmatism is never a valid excuse for coercing people. Of course it's more efficient in the short run to force people to operate the way you want. But it's not moral. You don't have any right to tell someone what they may or may not do economically.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
As I'm sure you'll ask for a concrete example, here you go.

How about that.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Company A

Do they trade on the NYSE? I asked for a real example. Not some theoretical mishmash you've invented.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
owns both a plant manufacturing product X and all of the transportation systems that lead to a given market. Company B has developed a product Y which is superior to product X in all aspects.

According to whom? And what's stopping Company C from transporting Company B's product to that market and competing? Maybe it's that the government decided there's no need for competing transport, because the CEO of Company A is the brother-in-law of a powerful congress critter. Or maybe there's nothing preventing it at all.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
However, in order to sell it in the market, they have to pay for transporting there. Since Company A controls the transportation, Y will never supplant X and Company A will maintain their monopoly.

You're very silly. I see why you declined to post a real example. Only your completely implausable and unexplained scenarios will fit your preconceived notions.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Monopolies are bad.

Government monopolies are bad. Private monopolies are inherently temporary, and only exist to the benefit of us all.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
They lead to higher prices and lower quality. However, they are also the natural result of an unregulated capitalistic economy.

Nope. Monopolies in real life are almost always the result of government meddling in the economic process.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
If you want, we can also go into why saying that capitalism puts premium value on individual effort is a silly thing to do too.

Oh, do explain that to us, Squicky. Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :

starLisa: a monopoly in economics is not where one company controls a market continuously, a monopoly is where a market, in periods of stability, is controlled by only one company. That company may change, perhaps even with moderate regularity, the key element is that only one company can reasonable survive in the market.

Monopolies are mostly local, too.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:

Only in an economy that's been distorted by governmnet meddling.

Can you demonstrate an example of a monopoly in a country completely free of government meddling, as proof of your claim?

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Monopolies in real life are almost always the result of government meddling in the economic process.

The times in American history with the least government control over business (Gilded age, et al) and the most business autonomy .. happen to have the largest numbers and most egregious examples of monopoly, don't they?

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Furthermore, what seems to be bantied about here as "pure capitalism", isn't. Pure capitalism exists only in a regulated state.

By "regulated state", do you mean a state that has laws? Because I hope you don't think I'm an anarchist.

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
As Adam Smith repeatedly drove home, people will take uncompetitive actions for personal gain, typically by using negative externalities. That is, they'll lie, cheat, steal, intimidate, threaten, et cetera. This has been abundantly born out by history.

I don't understand your point. Of course there need to be laws against such criminal actions. What does that have to do with economic regulation? You're talking about fraud and assault. Obviously the government needs to prevent those. But what other kind of regulation do you think that a free market must have?

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Treason:
Thank you! I was waiting for you to come in and say what I've been struggling to get out. I'm not an eloquent debator and can't say things with as much clarity as you can.

Your humble servant, m'lady.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
starLisa: a monopoly in economics is not where one company controls a market continuously, a monopoly is where a market, in periods of stability, is controlled by only one company. That company may change, perhaps even with moderate regularity, the key element is that only one company can reasonable survive in the market.

Monopolies are mostly local, too.

Okay, I can accept that. In that case, what on earth is wrong with that kind of monopoly?

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

Only in an economy that's been distorted by governmnet meddling.
Can you demonstrate an example of a monopoly in a country completely free of government meddling, as proof of your claim?

Cute. But unnecessary. Can you give an example of a monopoly that achieved that state:

Without offering a better product or deal to customers than anyone else
Without governmental patronage or protection

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:
Monopolies in real life are almost always the result of government meddling in the economic process.
The times in American history with the least government control over business (Gilded age, et al) and the most business autonomy .. happen to have the largest numbers and most egregious examples of monopoly, don't they?

You really need to learn more about that period of history. It was absolutely replete with cronyism and government giveaways to businesses.

You say there was less government control, and that's probably true. But there wasn't any less government meddling.

The irony is that it was government meddling that created the monopolies that so outraged people and led to the government meddling of anti-trust laws. Laws which outlaw non-coercive, temporary monopolies, but permit the really damaging, government sponsored monopolies, to go right on operating.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

I'm sure there was plenty of cronyism, but the most egregious examples (Rockefeller and the like) really didn't need the kickbacks and the giveaways, and could have operated in the manner they did solely so long as the government was kept from impeding them. Even without the giveaways and the involvement, predatory capatalism (Gould, etc) and price bombing (Rockefeller, etc) are easily valid strategies, and even in an environment conceptually devoid of meddling, corporate hegemony can still devalue labor and create exploitation. It's not too terribly hard to imagine monopoly being a powerful and inherently abuseable reality in a conceptual objectivist state.

I'd love for the world to have an objectivist counterproof, a 'Libertopia' where the government operates only in the manner desired by objectivist axiom. I mean, then I would bet it's quite possible that you'd have the same problems begin emerging, even in an environment completely devoid of the typical sources of issue and blame.

Similar to what happened to political Anarchism: attempts at anarchist communes effectively acted as proof against their own idealistic notions.

Just ideas I'm throwing out, not trying to be too partisan.

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

starLisa, Squick used an example that applies to AMNY companies in the past, rather than one example that could be easily refuted. The stratigies were used over and over again by many different companies, and nothing you have said to "refute" him has answered those problems.

Calling him silly isn't really a useful debate tactic, it just makes you you look silly as well. [Wink]

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

Also, if you think a lack of regulation DECREASES cornyism, I would like to hear how.

Let propose a RL possibility. If Bill Gates took his
money and invested it in a new tech, rather than giving it away to vcharities, and there was no regulation of this tech, what would stop him from creating a monopoly? I am not talking about land grants, or a government subsidy here, I am talking about the gigantic competitive advantage he would have right off the bat because of his wealth. If another company decided to try and compete against him, but he already owned the rights to the property, the macines, and the distrabution network, how would any of that work against him?

If a company owns the entire monopoly, how is it possible to compete? If a company wanted to start up a competeling company, say for distrabution for instance, all Gates would have to do is ship each item at a loss, making competition impossible. Gates would still be making huge profits from the rest of the monopoly so the loss from the shipping aspect of it would not matter in the least.

That is only one of the most SIMPLE examples of why monopolies are a bad thing, and how a company can defend their monopoly regardless of teh quality of their porduct. Once they own all avenues of production, the intellectual rights to a product, and control all methods of distrabution, prices usually rise and quality decline.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
starLisa, Squick used an example that applies to AMNY companies in the past, rather than one example that could be easily refuted. The stratigies were used over and over again by many different companies, and nothing you have said to "refute" him has answered those problems.

<sigh> Name one. That's all I'm asking. All you're doing is repeating the same assertion without giving a single example.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Also, if you think a lack of regulation DECREASES cornyism, I would like to hear how.

Actually, bad comedy is usually the source of cornyism.

What I'm saying, Kwea, is that government involvement in the economy is a bad idea. Always. If Rand got anything right in her books, it's that there should be a separation between government and trade exactly as there is separation between government and religion. And for the same reasons.

If you set up a regulatory commission, you make it more possible, and not less, for companies to get their friends in the government to give them protection and special status. Surely that's obvious.

The moment you have a government that's allowed to do anything involving economics, you turn elections into legalized bribery. "Vote for me, and I'll build a factory in your town." It's wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Let propose a RL possibility.

Another theoretical one? Can't you come up with one -- just one single example -- that actually happened?

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
If Bill Gates took his money and invested it in a new tech, rather than giving it away to vcharities, and there was no regulation of this tech, what would stop him from creating a monopoly?

Um... the fact that anyone else could invest in that tech as well. The fact that anyone else could come up with a competing tech.

What on earth could enable him to create a monopoly? We vote with our wallets, Kwea. I'm sick and tired of the viruses that keep hitting Windows. So I downloaded Xandros (a Windows-like Linux distribution). I still have Windows, though, because some software I like doesn't have equivalents that work in Linux.

I make my choices based on what's important to me. So does everyone else. If that results in Bill Gates making umpteen billion dollars, then good for him.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
I am not talking about land grants, or a government subsidy here, I am talking about the gigantic competitive advantage he would have right off the bat because of his wealth.

Sort of like the gigantic competitive advantage Lance Armstrong has over me in a bicycle race. Or the gigantic competitive advantage a virtuoso pianist has over me when it comes to playing piano.

Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron? If not, you should.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
If another company decided to try and compete against him, but he already owned the rights to the property, the macines, and the distrabution network, how would any of that work against him?

Why should things work against him? Why is someone else entitled to some sort of handicap? Let someone else buy property, build machines, and develop a distribution network. Or buy those things. No one is stopping them.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
If a company owns the entire monopoly, how is it possible to compete?

I don't even understand the words you just used. How can someone own an entire monopoly? What does that even mean?

I wrote a story that's going to be published in an anthology at the end of November. Other than the publisher and myself, no one has a legal right to publish that story. How unfair! What if someone else wants to publish that story?

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
If a company wanted to start up a competeling company, say for distrabution for instance, all Gates would have to do is ship each item at a loss, making competition impossible.

How long could he do that? And as a consumer, why would I object? So I get a good value for less. I'll live.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Gates would still be making huge profits from the rest of the monopoly so the loss from the shipping aspect of it would not matter in the least.

So Gates would benefit. Buyers would benefit. Anyone making anything that works with the new tech would benefit. What's the problem? If someone comes up with something that's really better, I guarantee you that someone will find a way to bring it to market.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
That is only one of the most SIMPLE examples of why monopolies are a bad thing,

It's not an example. Don't you understand what an example is? It's not some theoretical story that you've made up in your mind. It's not something that you could could happen. An example is something that has happened. It's a piece of reality that isn't subject to debate. Doesn't it bother you that no one here has managed to produce one yet?

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
and how a company can defend their monopoly regardless of teh quality of their porduct. Once they own all avenues of production, the intellectual rights to a product, and control all methods of distrabution, prices usually rise and quality decline.

Give me an example. I don't think you can.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:

What I'm saying, Kwea, is that government involvement in the economy is a bad idea. Always.

This sounds more like a statement of faith than an actual economic observation.

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

Andrew Carnegie made this practice almost a hallmark of U.S. Steel. The only way to move goods in bulk efficiently was by rail and he either bought or colluded with the railways so that his goods were shipped for much less than other companies.

---

On the predatory pricing thing, you've apparantly changed your criteria. I showed how people can get a monopoly that is not based on the quality of their product, which you didn't dispute. Your objection was "But the consumers get a great deal." which wasn't actually the question at hand. Do you disagree that predatory pricing can net someone a monopoly?

Also, there are aspects of this strategy that your characterization misses. First is that as son as the other company is driven out of the market, the monopoly holder drives up their prices to much, much higher than they would be in a competitive marketplace. So, it's a good deal for consumers for a short period, but then they get the short, pointy end of the monopoly shaft. Second, this strategy works almost better as a threat than it does in practice. People aren't generally willing to destroy their company in order to mount doomed challenges against a monopoly. They're out for profit. Knowing that a company has the resources and inclination towards doing this is often enough to keep people out of monopolized markets.

---

Capitalism is a great system for the slogans not only not agreeing with the theory, but many times being the opposite of it. A case in point is the idea that capitalism is set up to reward individual effort. None of the economic theorists I ever read thought this.

The way to accumulate wealth is to effectively exploit capital. Theoretically as well as practically, the capital yielded by wealth, control of strategic resources or positions, and the labor of others far outstrips that of individual effort. Only in very rare cases is an individual's own effort able to compete with this and that is generally when he creates something new, which is utilitzation of the strategic position capital.

People are not paid according to how hard they work. The foundres of capitalism spoke out directly against that idea. People are paid what owners of capital feel they need to pay them in order to get them to work. Labor is mostly another commodity and as such is determined by market price. People don't earn money for their work. It's only when an owner of capital agrees to exchange money for their work that a laborer gets anything.

In real life, the people who make large amounts of moeny don't do it by their own labor, but through say owning oil and making investments and paying other people to do or produce things and then taking in the lion's share of the profits. That's how you get rich. Not by working hard at your job, unless what you can do makes you a sufficiently rare reasource that supply-demand forces make you very valuable.

---

Out of curiosity starL, where did you get your degree in economics from?

Posted by His Savageness (Member # 7428) on :

Wow, it took me a while to read all of this. There's a lot of content on these pages. Here's a couple of observations:

quote:
And I can't figure out why a bunch of scifi nerds like us have such a problem with superhuman, black and white characters.

This is ironic coming from you, Frisco, because as far as I can see you're the biggest SOIAF fan out there, and the reason we all seem to like those books so much is because the characters aren't black and white.

On that point, my favorite character from either of the two "big" Rand books was Gail Wynand for the simple fact that he acted like an actual human being. He was confused, conflicted and waffled. He wasn't some robot spouting off Aristotelian theorems like "A=A" (sigh).

quote:
StarLisa said: It's not an example. Don't you understand what an example is? It's not some theoretical story that you've made up in your mind. It's not something that you could could happen. An example is something that has happened. It's a piece of reality that isn't subject to debate. Doesn't it bother you that no one here has managed to produce one yet?

Doesn't it bother you, StarLisa, that you haven't come up with an example of a monopoly that came about completely free of government meddling, as per TomDavidson's request? The challenged was issued to you first and then you neatly sidestepped it by issuing one of your own. I, for one, am still waiting.

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

quote:
If someone comes up with something that's really better, I guarantee you that someone will find a way to bring it to market.

That's not actually true. You're neglecting all the various costs that are involved in bringing something to market. Your statement should read, if someone comes up with something that's really better and the costs of bringing to market are not prohibitive, they will find a way to bring it to market.

You also neglect the very real costs involved in development of new products and technologies. New products don't just pop up out of no where. They have start up costs, in many cases very large ones. They also can have resource requirements. A market domination or monopoly situation can make it so that no one is willing to bear these costs or that these resources are unavailable to new players.

Also, one of the main ways for new companies to raise capital is to offer stock. In tons of instances with regards to Microsoft alone, the larger company will buy up that stock to gain ownership of the potential competition and often dismantle it and bury it's product.

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :

I mean laws which restrict how a company can conduct business -- the things it can tell employees to do, the ways it can treat employees, the things the company can do to the environment (and operate under other externalities which there is little to no incentive for the company to otherwise pay attention to), the sorts of deals the company can make with other companies, et cetera. Several of these were mentioned by Smith, as good ways for government to create an environment where competition can flourish.

A good reason is simple to produce. Say we're the soft drink manufacturers, and say that three of us control the market. While businesses will want to deal with all three of us, most businesses would agree to a deal whereby they can only sell from the big three if one threatened to drop the supply contract otherwise, and perhaps offered a decent discount. If all three agreed to pursue this shut-out strategy, then even if a competitive cola came along, it would never find a significant foothold. Note that no government intervention has been part of this at all, I have merely assumed the power of contracts.

Then of course there is the example of pollution. Much as I've heard libertarians say that polluters would bow to social pressure, there's hardly a lack of social pressure nowadays, and polluters for the most part fail to bow to it. In fact, they usually only bow to the law insofar as the government is able to monitor their outputs. A few companies have enough social conscience to keep low pollution, but that does not a healthy environment make.

Furthermore, you seem to have made the common mistake of equating economics with morality. Yes, government intervention in many markets increases inefficiency. So? Efficiency is not the end-goal of government, or of society. Government and society have many other goals, to achieve which an increase in economic inefficiency may well be an acceptable tradeoff.

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :

beta vs. VHS is the classic example of two competing products introduced nearly simultaneously, into a completely new market, and yet the technically inferior product (VHS) won... Beta ended up being used only in TV stations, not on the mass market, despite having better image quality.

-Bok

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Andrew Carnegie made this practice almost a hallmark of U.S. Steel. The only way to move goods in bulk efficiently was by rail and he either bought or colluded with the railways so that his goods were shipped for much less than other companies.

---

On the predatory pricing thing, you've apparantly changed your criteria. I showed how people can get a monopoly that is not based on the quality of their product, which you didn't dispute. Your objection was "But the consumers get a great deal." which wasn't actually the question at hand. Do you disagree that predatory pricing can net someone a monopoly?

Only temporarily. And I don't see the harm in it. You seem to be operating from the assumption that monopolizing an area of commerce is inherently bad. I don't accept that. Nor did Carnegie have a monopoly on steel, so I'm not sure what your point was there. And his collection of the various elements of bringing steel to market resulted in great benefits for the entire country (not that he requires this justification). It reduced the price of steel for rails, and made transportation that much cheaper, both for people and for goods.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Also, there are aspects of this strategy that your characterization misses. First is that as son as the other company is driven out of the market, the monopoly holder drives up their prices to much, much higher than they would be in a competitive marketplace.

When has that every happened? You mean that they could, if they wanted to.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
So, it's a good deal for consumers for a short period, but then they get the short, pointy end of the monopoly shaft.

It's not as though a manufacturer owes anything to anyone. Take Windows, for example. If Bill Gates hadn't developed Windows, we wouldn't have it. But all of a sudden, the government determined that people have some inalienable right to own Windows on terms other than those chosen by Microsoft.

Had Andrew Carnegie not combined so much of the steel industry, we wouldn't have had as much steel. Who has the right to tell him what he may or may not charge for it? If you don't want the product, don't buy it.

You act like people who produce are owned by people who consume, which is exactly the thing Rand was arguing was evil in her books.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Second, this strategy works almost better as a threat than it does in practice. People aren't generally willing to destroy their company in order to mount doomed challenges against a monopoly. They're out for profit. Knowing that a company has the resources and inclination towards doing this is often enough to keep people out of monopolized markets.

So you claim. I dispute your claim, but it doesn't even matter. Who cares? If someone wants to jockey for position that badly, let them. Who is harmed?

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Capitalism is a great system for the slogans not only not agreeing with the theory, but many times being the opposite of it. A case in point is the idea that capitalism is set up to reward individual effort. None of the economic theorists I ever read thought this.

Strawman. Capitalism is a moral system. If you want to use another name for it, fine, but if I set up a company and make widgets, I'm damned if I can figure out why it's anyone's business how much I charge for widgets. If someone else comes along and wants to make widgets, fine. If I cut prices so that he can't compete, again, whose business is it? Since when do people have some sort of entitlement to engage in any particular form of business. It's my money, my property, I have no power to force anyone to buy my widgets.

Hell, if you want to boycott me, go right ahead. Convince people that my business practices are mean and nasty and that they should stop buying from me until I stop trying to block competition. That's your right and that's their right. And then I can make choices correspondingly. But they're my choices.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
The way to accumulate wealth is to effectively exploit capital.

A way. And "exploit" has negative connotations, which is, I'm sure, why you used it.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Theoretically as well as practically, the capital yielded by wealth, control of strategic resources or positions, and the labor of others far outstrips that of individual effort. Only in very rare cases is an individual's own effort able to compete with this and that is generally when he creates something new, which is utilitzation of the strategic position capital.

Again... so what? Labor is all over the place. So are other resources. The person who can bring them together to produce something is the motive force.

Suppose I invent a new way to make integrated circuits. A way that's far cheaper and far better. I still don't have the cash to make them. So I'll go and find someone to invest.

But suppose I can't find anyone who will invest in my invention? Do I have some basic human right to get my invention out there? Is someone obligated to help me? Hardly. And if someone does invest, they are a major part of the motive force behind the appearance of the new technology. Every bit as much as I am. They couldn't do it without me, but I couldn't do it without them, either.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
People are not paid according to how hard they work.

So what? You keep bringing up irrelevancies. When you take a job, you're offering your services in return for pay. If you don't like it, don't take it. No third party has a right to decide what's appropriate pay. If I don't like what I'm making at McDonalds, I don't have to work there. They don't owe me a job.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
The foundres of capitalism spoke out directly against that idea.

Maybe you think this is a cult of personality, or something. Why on earth should I care what Adam Smith says about this? When he's right, he's right. When he's wrong, he's wrong. Nothing changes either way. If you want, don't call what I'm talking about capitalism. Call it freedom of commerce. You or Smith or anyone else can say that it's better if I pay someone according to how hard they work. That's an opinion. I can accept it or reject it. Ultimately, the only one who has a right to decide how much I pay is me.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
People are paid what owners of capital feel they need to pay them in order to get them to work. Labor is mostly another commodity and as such is determined by market price. People don't earn money for their work. It's only when an owner of capital agrees to exchange money for their work that a laborer gets anything.

That's called earning money for their work. Why do you suppose a laborer is entitled to get anything without it being voluntary on the part of the giver?

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
In real life, the people who make large amounts of moeny don't do it by their own labor, but through say owning oil and making investments and paying other people to do or produce things and then taking in the lion's share of the profits.

That is labor. If they didn't do that, your manual laborers wouldn't have any jobs at all, and they'd starve.

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
That's how you get rich. Not by working hard at your job, unless what you can do makes you a sufficiently rare reasource that supply-demand forces make you very valuable.

Who died and made you the arbiter of what counts as hard work?

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Out of curiosity starL, where did you get your degree in economics from?

Washington University in St. Louis, 1985. Why?

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by His Savageness:

quote:
StarLisa said: It's not an example. Don't you understand what an example is? It's not some theoretical story that you've made up in your mind. It's not something that you could could happen. An example is something that has happened. It's a piece of reality that isn't subject to debate. Doesn't it bother you that no one here has managed to produce one yet?
Doesn't it bother you, StarLisa, that you haven't come up with an example of a monopoly that came about completely free of government meddling, as per TomDavidson's request? The challenged was issued to you first and then you neatly sidestepped it by issuing one of your own. I, for one, am still waiting.

Nobody asked me to come up with an example of a monopoly that came about completely free of government meddling. What Tom asked me was:

quote:
Can you demonstrate an example of a monopoly in a country completely free of government meddling, as proof of your claim?

Since I don't know of a country completely free of government meddling, the answer is that I obviously can't. But as I answered him, I don't need to. Asking someone to prove a negative is common among people who hold indefensible positions.

I'm asking for a single example of a so-called monopoly that didn't get that way either through offering a better deal to customers or through government support. You can't give one, because there are none.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:

But all of a sudden, the government determined that people have some inalienable right to own Windows on terms other than those chosen by Microsoft.

...

If someone wants to jockey for position that badly, let them. Who is harmed?

I these two snippets actually answer each other quite nicely.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
A good reason is simple to produce. Say we're the soft drink manufacturers, and say that three of us control the market.

Gawd! Does anyone here care that not a single real example can be found? You come up with these fictional situations as if they're a justification for telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own property.

I don't want to say that we're soft drink manufacturers, and I don't want to say that three of us control the market. I see off-brands in stores all the time. Somehow, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Schwepps haven't managed to keep them from churning out their products.

Damn... it is incredibly frustrating to have people spouting theories that have no real life examples, and that are, in fact, contradicted by realy life examples.

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Then of course there is the example of pollution. Much as I've heard libertarians say that polluters would bow to social pressure, there's hardly a lack of social pressure nowadays, and polluters for the most part fail to bow to it.

I have no problem at all with someone polluting their own stretch of land. The moment a single molecule goes onto someone else's property, they should be shut down until they can stop it from happening.

That's actually a lot stricter a position on the environment than the EPA has, but it's an obviously moral one.

Automobiles are another case in point. The idea that even the emissions that are currently permitted should be permitted is appalling.

That has nothing to do with economics. It has to do with harming others. My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose starts. Other than that, it's pretty much absolute.

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Furthermore, you seem to have made the common mistake of equating economics with morality.

Actually, you're making the far more common mistake of separating them. Acts are moral or immoral. The idea that there's some domain called economics that's detached from this is bizarre. It is immoral for me to force the guy in the cubicle next to me to invest in my idea. It is immoral for me to force anyone to invest in my idea. It is immoral for me to force anyone to do business with me. If someone has entered into a contract with me, it is not immoral for me to force them to adhere to their contractual obligations. No contractual obligations can ever exist except by the free choice of those entering into them.

What's so hard to understand about this?

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Yes, government intervention in many markets increases inefficiency. So? Efficiency is not the end-goal of government, or of society. Government and society have many other goals, to achieve which an increase in economic inefficiency may well be an acceptable tradeoff.

There's no such thing as "society". Society is just people, and no one has a right to decide what to do with me and my life.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:

Does anyone here care that not a single real example can be found?

I'm still waiting for yours. Monopolies without meddling, please.

quote:

There's no such thing as "society". Society is just people...

And yet you insist that there IS morality? By the same logic, morality is just things people do.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bokonon:
beta vs. VHS is the classic example of two competing products introduced nearly simultaneously, into a completely new market, and yet the technically inferior product (VHS) won... Beta ended up being used only in TV stations, not on the mass market, despite having better image quality.

-Bok

Famous case. Very good. On what basis do you claim that Betamax is the better product? I have a VHS machine, and I don't have a Betamax machine. Seems to me that VHS is a better medium for me.

Or did you mean that the quality of the picture was better? Maybe, but that's only one aspect of the product.

Sony screwed up big time with Betamax. It's true. It probably is a better technology, and if it didn't win, it's because Sony screwed up.

Not that I think Macintosh is a better system than Windows (I don't), but had Apple been as smart as Microsoft and allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to make Mac clones from the get-go, the market would look very different now. But they were dumb, and as a result, it's actually surprising how well they've managed.

You make marketing decisions. Sometimes they're good, and sometimes they're bad.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

Does anyone here care that not a single real example can be found?
I'm still waiting for yours. Monopolies without meddling, please.

You asked for monopolies in a country that doesn't have government meddling in the economy. You know that there are no such countries. So you're really just engaging in lame debating tricks.

Asking someone to prove a negative is virtually a concession that you can't make your own point.

Find me a country that doesn't have government meddling in the economy, and I'll look into it.

In the meantime, we're stuck with the real world, and you've been making claims about things without being able to give a single example of those claims being true.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:
There's no such thing as "society". Society is just people...
And yet you insist that there IS morality? By the same logic, morality is just things people do.

Not at all. Morality is not how people act; it's how people should act.

I guess that's hard to understand if you think that there's no objective right and wrong, and that all standards of right and wrong are determined by whoever has the biggest mob.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

I believe that it is the government's responsability to provide for the destitute and needy.

It is also each citizen's duty to provide for the destitute and needy.

Bite me, Rand!

[Big Grin]

Posted by His Savageness (Member # 7428) on :

quote:
Bite me, Rand!

Posted by His Savageness (Member # 7428) on :

quote:
StarLisa said: I have no problem at all with someone polluting their own stretch of land. The moment a single molecule goes onto someone else's property, they should be shut down until they can stop it from happening.

Wow. And who, pray tell, would be doing this "shutting down". Oh, yes, the government. Thank you for proving everyone else's point. One of the major weaknesses of laizes-faire capitalism is negative externalities such as pollution. History has shown (and don't patronize us by asking for examples) that corporations are less than proactive about reducing their own pollutants; hence, the government must step in and provide regulations. Of course, like you said, it wouldn't matter if the company was polluting its own land. The problem is that things like airborn molecules, radiation, sewage, etc. have a tendency to to dissapate into surrounding areas; thus, government regulations are necessary to check these forces.

quote:
StarLisa said: That's actually a lot stricter a position on the environment than the EPA has, but it's an obviously moral one.

Automobiles are another case in point. The idea that even the emissions that are currently permitted should be permitted is appalling.

Once again you're using the language of the opposing side in your arguement. Permitted? Permitted by whom? It's the government that regulates things like automobile emissions.

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :

Would you like me to bring up MS and the deals it made with computer manufacturers instead [Smile]

?

And there have been times when three soft drink companies have controlled the market; I merely provided an example of what they could have done absent anti-trust laws. Note that last qualifier.

As for better product, you've created a degenerate, circular definition of better, where better is always the one that has succeeded so the one that succeeded is better. VHS/betamax is a bad example for other reasons, but you might take a look at my skilled craftsman making chairs vs mass produced similar wood chairs example for a good one.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:

You asked for monopolies in a country that doesn't have government meddling in the economy. You know that there are no such countries. So you're really just engaging in lame debating tricks.

It's not a lame trick. I'm pointing out -- effectively, I hope -- that you're speaking in as broad and unapplied a hypothetical voice as you accuse your critics of using. Your theoretical "ideal" monopoly has never existed -- there have never even been conditions on this planet in which it could have existed -- and so by making sweeping generalizations about its performance, you're ultimately making claims as baseless as, say, "Yeah, Soviet Russia failed, but real communism is bound to work."

quote:

I guess that's hard to understand if you think that there's no objective right and wrong, and that all standards of right and wrong are determined by whoever has the biggest mob.

If you substitute the word "strongest" for "biggest," I think you've just defined Objectivism.

Posted by His Savageness (Member # 7428) on :

quote:
It's not a lame trick. I'm pointing out -- effectively, I hope -- that you're speaking in as broad and unapplied a hypothetical voice as you accuse your critics of using. Your theoretical "ideal" monopoly has never existed -- there have never even been conditions on this planet in which it could have existed -- and so by making sweeping generalizations about its performance, you're ultimately making claims as baseless as, say, "Yeah, Soviet Russia failed, but real communism is bound to work."

Thank you Tom. I've been trying to determine how to word this exact point (complete with your example of a baseless claim) but you beat me to the punch. Nicely put.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by His Savageness:

quote:
StarLisa said: I have no problem at all with someone polluting their own stretch of land. The moment a single molecule goes onto someone else's property, they should be shut down until they can stop it from happening.
Wow. And who, pray tell, would be doing this "shutting down". Oh, yes, the government. Thank you for proving everyone else's point.

Um... and how long have you been suffering from this reading comprehension problem?

I am not an anarchist. Of course the government must prevent one person (or group or company) from harming others. As I posted before, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose starts. And the government must enforce that.

What does that have to do with regulating businesses? That's police work, plain and simple. If you want to limit "regulatory" bodies to those that ensure that companies don't violate the rights of individuals, fine. I'm all for that. No one has the right to violate the rights of anyone else. That's not what we're talking about, here.

And let me make this really clear: helping and not harming are not the same thing.

You are entitled to insist -- with the government backing you up -- that I not punch you in the nose, steal your car, enslave your children, or break a contract we made together. You are not entitled to insist that I pay for your health care, employ you, do business with you, rent to you, play cards with you or shake hands with you.

Get it?

quote:
Originally posted by His Savageness:
One of the major weaknesses of laizes-faire capitalism is negative externalities such as pollution.

That's wacked. There's nothing about a free market that has anything to do with pollution. Do you think that factories in the old Soviet Union didn't pollute?

If there's a problem of people littering, you stop them from littering. If there's a problem with people leaking hexa-whatever into the groundwater, shut them down until they take care of it. What does either of those have to do with a free market?

quote:
Originally posted by His Savageness:
History has shown (and don't patronize us by asking for examples)

It's hardly patronizing. When claims have been made here that I think are false, and that cannot be substantiated, I have asked for examples to the contrary. What exactly is patronizing about that? Or do you have a unique definition for that word, as well?

quote:
Originally posted by His Savageness:
that corporations are less than proactive about reducing their own pollutants; hence, the government must step in and provide regulations.

No. Used to be that people would toss candy wrappers out their car windows on the highway. The answer wasn't regulating how people open things in their cars. It was fining the hell out of them for doing it.

Do a bad thing, get punished. Even my five year old daughter can grasp that one.

You're talking about punishing people in advance. You're talking about guilty until proven innocent. You're talking about saying, "Well, we know that capitalists are a bunch of polluting jerks, so we're going to tell you how to do everything in your factory, even though you've never polluted at all."

quote:
Originally posted by His Savageness:
Of course, like you said, it wouldn't matter if the company was polluting its own land. The problem is that things like airborn molecules, radiation, sewage, etc. have a tendency to to dissapate into surrounding areas; thus, government regulations are necessary to check these forces.

Like police, patrolling a neighborhood. That's fine. I have no problem with that. But that's not regulating. That's patrolling and, where necessary, punishing. That's plain old law enforcement. Regulation is determining what tools may be used and what prices may be charged.

My father is a doctor. He's an ear, nose and throat doc, and a surgeon. People love him. He does everything he can to make his practice great.

About 15 years ago, or so, a device came on the market. See, I grew up having strep throat a lot, so I know how long it used to take to get the results of a throat culture. My Dad used to bring a culturette home, swab the back of my throat, and bring it into the hospital the next morning. Sometimes, he'd even have an answer by the end of that day. Sometimes he'd have to wait until the next day.

Well, this device that was being sold would give you results in 15 minutes. It was expensive. Something like $6,000, if I recall correctly. But my Dad figured that a 15 minute throat culture result was worth it.

So he bought it.

And then the government came by. They told him that he'd have to pay a hefty tax penalty if he kept the machine. Why? Because it wasn't fair to doctors and clinics that couldn't afford the machine.

Well, he'd been stretching just to get the machine. There was no way he was going to be able to pay the tax penalty as well. So he had to get rid of the machine.

That's regulation.

quote:
Originally posted by His Savageness:

quote:
StarLisa said: That's actually a lot stricter a position on the environment than the EPA has, but it's an obviously moral one.

Automobiles are another case in point. The idea that even the emissions that are currently permitted should be permitted is appalling.
Once again you're using the language of the opposing side in your arguement.

You only think that because you persist in misunderstanding my position. I am not against the government protecting rights. Police, army and courts, dude. That's it.

quote:
Originally posted by His Savageness:
Permitted? Permitted by whom? It's the government that regulates things like automobile emissions.

Hey, just let me know if any of this has managed to penetrate. Should I use smaller words?

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Would you like me to bring up MS and the deals it made with computer manufacturers instead ?

Were they voluntary?

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
And there have been times when three soft drink companies have controlled the market; I merely provided an example of what they could have done absent anti-trust laws. Note that last qualifier.

No, there have not been times when three soft drink companies have controlled the market.

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
As for better product, you've created a degenerate, circular definition of better, where better is always the one that has succeeded so the one that succeeded is better.

Not at all. I'm merely saying that VHS media succeeded over Beta because VHS machines were a better product. You're all focused on picture quality, but if I have to use a crappy machine to get that quality, it's not worth as much to me.

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
VHS/betamax is a bad example for other reasons, but you might take a look at my skilled craftsman making chairs vs mass produced similar wood chairs example for a good one.

What about chairs? What point are you trying to make?

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

You asked for monopolies in a country that doesn't have government meddling in the economy. You know that there are no such countries. So you're really just engaging in lame debating tricks.
It's not a lame trick. I'm pointing out -- effectively, I hope -- that you're speaking in as broad and unapplied a hypothetical voice as you accuse your critics of using. Your theoretical "ideal" monopoly has never existed -- there have never even been conditions on this planet in which it could have existed -- and so by making sweeping generalizations about its performance, you're ultimately making claims as baseless as, say, "Yeah, Soviet Russia failed, but real communism is bound to work."

I've never said anything about an "ideal monopoly". In fact, I claim that (with very few exceptions) there is no such thing as a monopoly that is not held in place by government power. And those very few exceptions, if they actually exist, are both good deals for the consumer and invariably ephemeral.

Give me an example of a monopoly that came into being without government sponsorship/patronage and that is bad for anyone. That's the big boogeyman you keep waving around. Surely you should be able to point to one.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:
I guess that's hard to understand if you think that there's no objective right and wrong, and that all standards of right and wrong are determined by whoever has the biggest mob.
If you substitute the word "strongest" for "biggest," I think you've just defined Objectivism.

Not at all. You, on the other hand, certainly have just defined your knowledge of Objectivism.

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :

The beta machines had no better or worse quality than VHS. At least, I have never heard of quality issues with the player being a concern.

-Bok

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:

Give me an example of a monopoly that came into being without government sponsorship/patronage and that is bad for anyone. That's the big boogeyman you keep waving around.

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not I have been waving around this boogeyman, I feel the need to point out that monopolies which arise without government sponsorship and monopolies which prolong their existence through government sponsorship obtained following their monopoly status are two different things. [Smile]

quote:
You, on the other hand, certainly have just defined your knowledge of Objectivism.

Nope. I'm pretty familiar with Objectivism, actually. And I submit that in a truly Objectivist society, there is absolutely no practical difference between these two scenarios; the idea that Force is some absolute sin that somehow won't get applied by "moral" people who just happen to form a majority is no more likely to have any basis in reality than communism's famous call for the dictatorship to surrender power to the people early in its development. The ethical distinction that is drawn in Objectivism between relying on the "Force" of a government or armed mob and between literally inflicting economic ruin on rivals -- one of these is "empirically bad," and the other one is "not empirically bad" -- is a distinction I believe to be a bit too fine for actual use; creating, for example, a software platform good enough to become the dominant player in the market is fine, but why then is it ethical for you to decide to not permit a competitor's calculator widget to run on your platform? And why is that more ethical than working hard to become bigger and stronger than everybody else, and then beating the crap out of people who don't do what you say? Rand's answers to these questions are, IMO, remarkably disingenuous.

Seriously, you seem to be attempting to incorporate some concept of absolute morality into a concept of subjective wealth, and the two go together like peanut butter and fish.

[ August 30, 2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :

I'm going to avoid trying to comment on everything you say, as much of it has been handily addressed, your protestations to the contrary.

quote:
Actually, you're making the far more common mistake of separating them. Acts are moral or immoral. The idea that there's some domain called economics that's detached from this is bizarre. It is immoral for me to force the guy in the cubicle next to me to invest in my idea. It is immoral for me to force anyone to invest in my idea. It is immoral for me to force anyone to do business with me. If someone has entered into a contract with me, it is not immoral for me to force them to adhere to their contractual obligations. No contractual obligations can ever exist except by the free choice of those entering into them.

This, though, is worthy of commentary. There are plenty of acts which are not morally relevant -- what I choose to drink with lunch is almost never a moral choice, for instance, but it is always an economic choice.

Also, an interesting notion, here. There are plenty of people who enter knowingly into absurd contracts under our current legal system. For instance, scientology contracts typically involve incredible sums of money at unheard-of interest rates. The church of scientology doesn't try to enforce them in courts of law because they would be struck down. They are, however, entered into willingly by both parties. Would you uphold such contracts?

Your notion of no particle of pollution being allowed on someone else's land is amusingly absurd due to being impossible, particularly as pollution is, to a certain extent, subjective. Also, I would love to see what your moral justification for ownership of land is.

Your rejection of society by analogy is quaint. "There are no such things as people, there are only atoms which we like to talk about in groups."

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :

Oh, though I do think many of your criticisms of Mr. Squicky are quite valid (as I noted in my first post on this issue, and as has continued), I just find his position to have less negative affect surrounding its advocacy in public affairs.

Posted by His Savageness (Member # 7428) on :

quote:
StarLisa said: That's wacked. There's nothing about a free market that has anything to do with pollution. Do you think that factories in the old Soviet Union didn't pollute?

If there's a problem of people littering, you stop them from littering. If there's a problem with people leaking hexa-whatever into the groundwater, shut them down until they take care of it. What does either of those have to do with a free market?

Pollution is considered a negative externality and negative externalities are considered a failure of a free market. Here's a nice little summary of this principle: Linky

Just because pollution also existed in Communist Russia does not prove anything. The two systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A weakness of one could be shared by the other.

quote:
It's hardly patronizing. When claims have been made here that I think are false, and that cannot be substantiated, I have asked for examples to the contrary. What exactly is patronizing about that? Or do you have a unique definition for that word, as well?

It wasn't my intention to imply that you had been patronizing in the past. However, you have been pretty example hungry, to the point that us would seem you're using your insistence for examples to avoid addressing other peoples' contentions. I felt that you would be patronizing us by asking for an example in this instance.

quote:
Like police, patrolling a neighborhood. That's fine. I have no problem with that. But that's not regulating. That's patrolling and, where necessary, punishing. That's plain old law enforcement. Regulation is determining what tools may be used and what prices may be charged.

Regulation is also stipulating and enforcing what amount of emissions of a certain chemical into the air, water, etc. are considered to be safe. You missed my point here. You said that as long as a company pollutes its own land that's fine, but once it pollutes one molecule of another's property, the company should be shut down. I was attempting to illustrate that it is practically impossible for any company to go about its daily activities without polluting someone else's property, be it personal, corporate, or public. By saying that a company should be shut down for polluting one molecule of another's property you were endorsing a form of government interventionism (and you're right, in this case the government would be going well beyond regulation) that is extreme to 95% of the opposing view, and certainly foreign to your own.

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :

Regulation is making it so people can't make other people work in areas filled with asbestos dust absent appropriate protection, even if they can get people to agree to it (which they would be able to, there are plenty of poor people out of tune with risk).

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bokonon:
The beta machines had no better or worse quality than VHS. At least, I have never heard of quality issues with the player being a concern.

-Bok

VHS machines could get more onto a tape. Not to mention that the tapes were a reasonable size to begin with.
Why VHS was better than Betamax

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

I'm getting tired of repeating the same things over and over, so I'm going to take off. But I do want to answer a couple of things here. After which, anyone who wants the last word is welcome to it.

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:

quote:
Actually, you're making the far more common mistake of separating them. Acts are moral or immoral. The idea that there's some domain called economics that's detached from this is bizarre. It is immoral for me to force the guy in the cubicle next to me to invest in my idea. It is immoral for me to force anyone to invest in my idea. It is immoral for me to force anyone to do business with me. If someone has entered into a contract with me, it is not immoral for me to force them to adhere to their contractual obligations. No contractual obligations can ever exist except by the free choice of those entering into them.
This, though, is worthy of commentary. There are plenty of acts which are not morally relevant -- what I choose to drink with lunch is almost never a moral choice, for instance, but it is always an economic choice.

Actually, it's not always an economic choice. Choosing to drink or not is, but in most cases, once you've decided to get a drink, it's likely to cost around the same whatever you decide to get.

And it's often a moral choice. I'd give you examples, but I'm sure you can think of some yourself.

quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Also, an interesting notion, here. There are plenty of people who enter knowingly into absurd contracts under our current legal system. For instance, scientology contracts typically involve incredible sums of money at unheard-of interest rates. The church of scientology doesn't try to enforce them in courts of law because they would be struck down. They are, however, entered into willingly by both parties. Would you uphold such contracts?

If the contract is in violation of law, such as a contract to kill someone for a sum of money, then it was never a legal contract to begin with. But short of actual violations of law, I sure would uphold them.

See, this is the whole problem. The government has stepped in, bit by bit, to take responsibility for things that we should be taking responsibility for ourselves. The infantilization of western culture is a direct result. People can't be trusted not to make a PB&J sandwich with KY Jelly, and they can't be trusted not to put a paper cup full of hot coffee between their thighs while they're driving.

People are idiots. They weren't always. But they've been trained to know that they don't have to look out for themselves anymore.

You can call it civilization, if you want, but I call it decadence. It's no different than the dole was in ancient Rome.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

Has pure capitalism, on any scale, ever worked?

Has pure communism, on a national scale, ever worked?

Anywhere in history.

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :

*snort*

Would you care to cite an instance in history when many people weren't idiots (edit: by your definition of idiot)?

As for your juice remark, of course its an economic choice. Which supplier ends up with the money is very much economics.

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :

Completely off topic, since this has gone way over my head now.

starLisa, I feel like I am the sister in law and you are Dagny. I'm sure you get what I mean.

Also -"Not that I think Macintosh is a better system than Windows (I don't)"

[Cry]

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

Hmm.

I suppose the only question left for me to ask is whether it is better to term Objectivism as being reliant on axiom, or outright dogma.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Treason:
Completely off topic, since this has gone way over my head now.

starLisa, I feel like I am the sister in law and you are Dagny. I'm sure you get what I mean.

Cherryl Brooks is the sister-in-law's name. And you flatter me. The point that Rand missed is that there are other traits of value. You're probably a much nicer person than I am, for one thing.

quote:
Originally posted by Treason:
Also -"Not that I think Macintosh is a better system than Windows (I don't)"

<grin> I've been working in all Microsoft environments for years. "Bill Gates is God; Bill Gates is the Devil". I suspect the Internet would still be being used only in colleges and R&D firms if it hadn't been for his lunatic idea to put a PC on every desk.

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

starL,
As far as I can tell, your criteria keep changing. Initially, it's that monopolies only come from people having a superior product. I've given both the theoretical reasons why this isn't true and provided a concrete example. So then, it's that monopolies are good things for the economy and for consumers. And then it's that it doesn't matter whether monopolies are good things, because it's people's right to create them.

Also, I don't understand why you thing about half of what you said makes any sense in this conversation. I read stuff like

quote:
You act like people who produce are owned by people who consume

and I wonder what you're talking about. I read things

quote:
And "exploit" has negative connotations, which is, I'm sure, why you used it.

and it makes me wonder what you actually know about the theory or even teminology of economics. For the record, I chose exploit because it's the proper economics term for what I was describing.

Monopolies did exist in America and in other places and they led to raised prices and lowered quality. Many of them were temporary specifically because anti-monopolistic steps were taken against them, in most cases by the government. The monopolies of the late 19th century didn't last because of the progressive reforms like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, not because competitors entered the markets.

We don't get them so much today because of these things, but we do get dominating companies (like Miicrosoft) forcing anti-competitive practices such as computer companies agreeing not to include Microsoft competing programs on their machines and we get cartels like the RIAA using widespread collusion to keep prices at an artificially inflated rate. These are again not instances of companies outcompeting by supplying a superior product, but rather of companies using their positional capital to deny competitors access to the markets.

Capitlaism was not intended, by its originators or those who adopted it, to be a moral system. The early theorists like Malthus and Ricardo specifically warned against allowing morality to enter into the system, as the conerns about "fairness" would break it and lead to a great deal more suffering. In order to dress it up like a moral system and make people feel securse in their moral superiority, people have introduced Horatio Algers slogans like "Hard work is the way to get rich." or "People earn what they get paid." which are in direct conflict with both the theory and practice of a market capitalistic system.

edited to avoid an Ela based bad grammar beating.

[ August 31, 2005, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
starK,
As far as I can tell, you're criteria keep changing.

It's your, not you're (=you are).

Sorry, but the error was driving me crazy. [Razz]

Edit: Haha, thanks, Squicky. [Smile]

[ August 31, 2005, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Rand's philosophy collapses under its own weight when you realize that it's all based on two false definitions of her own choosing. In order for Rand's philosophy to work, you have to accept her definitions of Altruism and Selfishness.

To her, altruism means having an ulterior motive and doing seemingly nice things for humanity, when in fact you're trying to manipulate humanity for your own ends - to gain power.

Selfishness means ignoring the political forces that ultimately cause all human endeavors to turn out as compromises, and just plain doing it your own way, because that's the way you know it should be done.

Neither of these are the actual definitions of the words, but Rand relies on these definitions to convince her audience that her philosophy works, yet at the same time, her character's works are driven by the opposite of the motivation she claims for them.

Roark builds buildings that serve the people effectively, while Toohey feeds the public meaningless pablum and rides it to power. So which one is actually selfish? And which one is altruistic?

I guess you got those "definitions" from reading her fiction & intuiting.

Her actual definitions are quite different:
(available in her non-fiction work)

(roughly:)

altruism: The moral thing is to sacrifice your values to those of others; the needs & desires of others are claims on your life.
(This is actually the classical philosophical definition (by Auguste Comte), although today it has been corrupted by the religious into caring about others.)
selfishness: acting on the realization that one's own life is what one needs to attend to (not the lives of others)
(Rational selfishness is that plus the realization that trying to achieve values by preying on others not only is immoral, but also won't work.)

OTOH, your ~definition~ of altruism does do a good job of seeing into the souls of characters like Peter Keating -- but then I'd say he's not really an altruist.
OT O H, It's not possible to be a thoroughgoing altruist - for long: One would quickly expire.

Having almost finished the Ender Quartet, I'd say that is an amazing, exemplary example of today's meaning of altruist: He's very deeply benevolent.
(OTOH, that comes from the archaic, invalid moral code of Christianity. A major win would be to see him do that from the base of the valid philosophy of Objectivism.)

Re your ~definition~ of selfishness: The thing is that one should be true to his understand of what are the right kinds of choices & the way that things ought to be done..
(intimately integrated with figuring out what those are, & continually making sure that one is right about that)

..and relegating the realities of all the roadblocks that may be set up in one's way to a way lower level of importance.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

Welcome to Hatrack, you thread necromancer.

Standard greeting,

You're wrong!

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Welcome to Hatrack, you thread necromancer.

Standard greeting,

You're wrong!

Had to look up necromancer, & then think a bit!

I initially felt you were dissing me, but I now take it you were just being cute-friendly.

I wish this system supported replying to a post more inline, with some way of notifying interesteds that a new post has been made.
(but I haven't seen one)

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

PMH: I was indeed being cute-friendly. Feel free to introduce yourself and let us know just who we are dealing with. [Smile]

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :

quote:
I guess you got those "definitions" from reading her fiction & intuiting.

Well, after having read "The Virtue of Selfishness" (which is still on my shelf. Haven't taken time to burn it yet) and wretching, I did read "The Fountainhead," and yes, the definitions I gave here are more derived from the fictional work, but they're completely compatible with Rand's views as I understood them from TVOS. But, I'm reasonably certain that Rand was explicit about both definitions, no "intuiting" necessary.

quote:

* altruism: The moral thing is to sacrifice your values to those of others; the needs & desires of others are claims on your life.
[quote] (This is actually the classical philosophical definition (by Auguste Comte), although today it has been corrupted by the religious into caring about others.)
* selfishness: acting on the realization that one's own life is what one needs to attend to (not the lives of others)
(Rational selfishness is that plus the realization that trying to achieve values by preying on others not only is immoral, but also won't work.)

I can't seem to find your definition of altruism, especially with reference to Comte, although looking up Comte I found the definitions: "Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others," and a direct translation: "Living for Others." These is not the same as your definition, but they are basically equivalent to the definition that I use. Your use of the word "values" as it resides in your definition seems almost meaningless, other than to create a sense of spin.

quote:

OTOH, your ~definition~ of altruism does do a good job of seeing into the souls of characters like Peter Keating -- but then I'd say he's not really an altruist.

I said specifically that Rand called Ellsworth Toohey an Altruist. Keating definitely doesn't fit either definition of altruist. He's clearly just selfish, although Rand avoided using that term to describe him, because it didn't fit her heroic version of selfishness. And again, Rand claimed (as omniscient narrator) that Toohey was an Altruist, AND that he did altruistic things to gain power for himself, which doesn't fit your definition of altruist either.

Roark, however, does fit your definition of altruist, but Rand claims he is selfish.

quote:

OT O H, It's not possible to be a thoroughgoing altruist - for long: One would quickly expire.

Who says you must? But once your physiological and safety needs have been met (see Maslow) , acting altruistically helps fulfill your belongingness and esteem needs, in addition to helping the people you are being altruistic towards. Rand creates a false dichotomy between the two. One does not need to suffer in order to be altruistic.

Rand just loves to blur the distinction between ethical enlightened self interest and plain old spoiled-brat selfishness. The point of my original post is that she intentionally misused the words, so she could justify her own greed. You've done nothing to undermine that argument.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

Maslowe's Commie Bureaucracy of Needs

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :

?

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Haven't taken time to burn it yet

Gosh, and it's been such a cold winter.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
PMH: I was indeed being cute-friendly. Feel free to introduce yourself and let us know just who we are dealing with.

Thank you, BB.

Looks like I jumped headlong into a wasp's nest! Who'd'a thought that (presumed) admirers of infinitely benevolent OSC would be so ... er, prickly? But of course I asked for it.

I'm a way more ancient than I wish I were person who recently decided he just had to take a leave of absence from his software engineering job of 38 years -- and, after writing a piece on the geologic history of the O&G mines in Ct., my proof of the nonexistence of "god", etc., decided to see if I could find a bunch of sff books that I'd like. I was hoping find some sort of pandora.com thing for sff (ie: where one can list books he's liked & get recommendations)..
(You all know good ways?)

..I found only various lists.
Since Ender was at the top of most of them, I got it (actually, my wife got me the whole Quartet), and dove in. I really loved Ender! (I like books with a positive sense of life, people striving and succeeding, & imaginative stuff.)
(Just finished Children of the Mind; loved the whole series; got the next 2 from the library today.)

I ran across Ayn Rand in 11th grade, I guess, when we had to write a paper, & I had no clue what to write about, & the class nerd said "Why not Ayn Rand; she's weird?". Either I read Anthem or just thumbed through all her books on the bookstore shelf, & then bought them all & read them in the order written. Then I subscribed to The Objectivist Newsletter, got all the back issues, & read them all. I was shocked by some of her opinions, but I had seen how good a thinker (and communicator) she is, & so just made notes of the things that seemed weird, & read on, betting I'd understand better as I did.
(a practice I'd recommend to almost all of the commenters on her & her philosophy I've read here in OSC-land)
I did.
I continued reading everything she wrote -- except for during my 6 years at MIT..
(having escaped to there from Western North Carolina)
..where I was kinda otherwise occupied.
(Oh: except I did take a couple of the NBI lecture-series courses)

After I had recovered from that enough to be able to walk straight, I took some more courses on Objectivism & related. I couldn't get enough. I could tell that although I was getting more & more understanding on each "spiral" through the material, I still hadn't gotten to where I felt like I ~had it~ all understood. I guess I never will, actually, judging by how well the professionals like Harry Binswanger understand it -- but I've certainly got enough to ... what? If I say "guide my life well", I'll sound like a religiot -- but then I'll get dissed in any case.

Maybe it'd be better to put it "to have a solid sense that I understand the world I live in & the people in it; I like understanding things more than anything, I guess.

Back in high school I was desperate to find something in ~the humanities~ that was intelligible like math & science were (unlike what I found when I got dragged to church). I was thrilled to discover Ayn Rand - as just exactly that.

I also like growing plants, math (still), geology, mineralogy, astronomy, ...

I loved Macroscope; read almost all of Piers Anthony because of it.
loved Heinlein, except for his last stuff
Niven & Pournelle
Foundation
Vernor Vinge
& who knows how many I can't recall right now.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

I'm BlackBlade, but when you say rude things to other posters I transform into JanitorBlade and moderate the heck out of people.

Not that you've been doing that. [Smile]

We like smart people in this community, but you will have to stick around long enough for people to realize you mean business. But for now, I'm glad you're here and look forward to future conversations.

Have you tried any of Mr. Card's other literary contributions? I greatly enjoyed the Ender's Saga, but I also liked Pastwatch quite a bit. There's also his collection of short stories, many which I find quite engaging. I wish the art of the short story didn't feel so lost sometimes.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

quote:
I guess you got those "definitions" from reading her fiction & intuiting.
Well, after having read "The Virtue of Selfishness" (which is still on my shelf. Haven't taken time to burn it yet) and wretching, I did read "The Fountainhead," and yes, the definitions I gave here are more derived from the fictional work, but they're completely compatible with Rand's views as I understood them from TVOS.

Reading your reply helped remember that I'm not really interested in flaming back & forth re whose is longer (although I imagine that I hadn't at all given that impression ;-)

I just wanted to jump in & counter some of the worst wackiness re AR with what I know.

I'll try to continue that here, but I can't really care about convincing anyone; just telling it like I understand it.

(Re your "as I understood them from TVOS": Although one can get enough from one reading of Ayn Rand to rail against her, one cannot understand what she is saying that way; it's just too different from what anyone had heard (understood) before her. And of course that especially holds for one who is reading her poised to see BS.)

quote:
But, I'm reasonably certain that Rand was explicit about both definitions, no "intuiting" necessary.

Oh she definitely was! She was very careful to explicitly define every important concept/term she used..
..my point was that what you presented was not her definitions, but rather what you took from your reading.

W/o searching through my books looking for the verbatim, here's from The Ayn Rand Lexicon (online):

quote:
The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

That's arbitrarily close to what I said.

quote:

quote:

* altruism: The moral thing is to sacrifice your values to those of others; the needs & desires of others are claims on your life.
(This is actually the classical philosophical definition (by Auguste Comte), although today it has been corrupted by the religious into caring about others.)
* selfishness: acting on the realization that one's own life is what one needs to attend to (not the lives of others)
(Rational selfishness is that plus the realization that trying to achieve values by preying on others not only is immoral, but also won't work.)
I can't seem to find your definition of altruism, especially with reference to Comte

"Altruism (ethics)"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics))
(I tried to use the UBB Code, but the system thinks ()s aren't OK therein.)

quote:
Altruism ... is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others.

quote:

, although looking up Comte I found the definitions: "Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others," and a direct translation: "Living for Others." These is not the same as your definition

Are you really asserting that mine was different enough to warrant arguing?

quote:
, but they are basically equivalent to the definition that I use.

equivalent to

quote:
having an ulterior motive and doing seemingly nice things for humanity, when in fact you're trying to manipulate humanity for your own ends - to gain power

? Are you serious?

quote:
Your use of the word "values" as it resides in your definition seems almost meaningless, other than to create a sense of spin.

Not at all; I just forgot that the modern usage of "values" is mushified. I meant simply that which one values. How hard is that? Sacrifice is trading a greater value for a lesser.

quote:

quote:

OTOH, your ~definition~ of altruism does do a good job of seeing into the souls of characters like Peter Keating -- but then I'd say he's not really an altruist.
I said specifically that Rand called Ellsworth Toohey an Altruist. Keating definitely doesn't fit either definition of altruist.

You're probably right; I don't have that kind of memory for the characters, because what I care about is the philosophy, not the novels. I was being sloppy.

FWIW ;-), I think Keating was the "second hander".

quote:
He's clearly just selfish

At this point, I find myself beyond what to say, except "BS", given your following.

quote:
, although Rand avoided using that term to describe him, because it didn't fit her heroic version of selfishness.

Whatever it is you're doing, it's not trying to understand Ayn Rand, so what's the use?

Ayn Rand never avoided anything in her work..
(You may all laugh here.)

..One of her core attributes was a relentless honesty in her pursuit of understanding.

I'm ignoring your two following assertions, since I just don't see the point of spending my time refuting things that you just pulled out of some orifice, when all you want to do is bash AR.

quote:
And again, Rand claimed (as omniscient narrator) that Toohey was an Altruist, AND that he did altruistic things to gain power for himself, which doesn't fit your definition of altruist either.

Roark, however, does fit your definition of altruist, but Rand claims he is selfish.

quote:

OT O H, It's not possible to be a thoroughgoing altruist - for long: One would quickly expire.
Who says you must?

An ethical code that can't be followed thoroughgoingly is wrong.

quote:
But once your physiological and safety needs have been met (see Maslow), acting altruistically helps fulfill your belongingness and esteem needs

If you're satisfied with Maslow, I am surely wasting my time.

quote:
, in addition to helping the people you are being altruistic towards.

Rand creates a false dichotomy between the two.

What AR does is to identify the essences of the relevant concepts - before she proceeds to think or communicate further about them. Although that seems to me now only the obvious thing to do, she was exceptional at it -- and you don't seem to have gotten that from your reading of her.

You are using "altruism" in the modern colloquial squishy sense; she was using it in the precise philosophical sense -- because she was trying to understand the issues deeply. You're not going to the way you're going.

quote:
One does not need to suffer in order to be altruistic.

One does not need to suffer in order to have a default benevolent attitude towards others, or to help others when one judges that such is warranted; one does need to suffer if he holds that it is his duty to help others regardless of his judgements on the issue. That's the point.

quote:

Rand just loves to blur the distinction between ethical enlightened self interest and plain old spoiled-brat selfishness.

AR never blurred anything in her work; what she did was the opposite. It's people with some motive other than understanding reality who blur things.

quote:

The point of my original post is that she intentionally misused the words, so she could justify her own greed.

Yes, I got that the first time.

Your ~perception~ of that from your reading of her was warped by your allowing something (I mustn't hazard what) to dissuade you from actually trying to understand her work.

quote:

You've done nothing to undermine that argument.

Win the world possibly could, since understanding and facts obviously aren't enough?

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

Thanks; you're welcome.

quote:

I'm BlackBlade, but when you say rude things to other posters I transform into JanitorBlade and moderate the heck out of people

Not that you've been doing that. .

I fear I just have (in my just previous). It will be interesting to see whether you consider my words as ~lexical~ rudeness, as opposed to what I consider the epistemological rudeness of bashing intellectual giants (AR) w/o bothering to understand them first.

quote:

We like smart people in this community, but you will have to stick around long enough for people to realize you mean business.

I'm not sure I do, honestly - in the sense of judging it worth my time to stick around for long regardless of the above.

It might seem that I just need to let some things go -- but I take Objectivism way too seriously to do that when it's being bashed.

I would actually prefer to discuss things like OSC's amazing talent and benevolence, why such an obviously intelligent person would accept / be satisfied with religion, what errors arise from that (eg: that the survival of the human race is of value, when the sole locus of valuation is in the individual), what kind of book he could write if he understood Objectivism - as well as things one step removed from OSC (which I would have thought was about the limit of focused threads in OSC land), such as other good books & authors in his general vicinity.

quote:
But for now, I'm glad you're here and look forward to future conversations.

Thank you; I hope that persists. ;-)

quote:

Have you tried any of Mr. Card's other literary contributions? I greatly enjoyed the Ender's Saga, but I also liked Pastwatch quite a bit. There's also his collection of short stories, many which I find quite engaging. I wish the art of the short story didn't feel so lost sometimes.

No, not yet - but I will; tnx for the recommendation.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

PMH,

Howdy! Welcome to Hatrack. Now I mean this nicely, but you'll probably face some skepticism that you're someone looking to actually participate community-wise `round here, since your toe-dipping in the water so to speak was to go resurrection on some really nakedly political stuff in some big ways. That's fine, but I'm just offering some friendly advice: be prepared for that perception, and it might be wise not to get too upset if you encounter it (and I'm not suggesting you have). BlackBlade has touched on this, so I guess I'm just echoing. Anyway.

quote:
Looks like I jumped headlong into a wasp's nest! Who'd'a thought that (presumed) admirers of infinitely benevolent OSC would be so ... er, prickly? But of course I asked for it.

Well, it's hard to tell online with anyone, especially someone I haven't communicated with before, but nobody is infinitely benevolent-and Card is, well, decisively less benevolent now than he was, say, a decade ago. *shrug* A great deal has happened then-I'm just pointing out that 'infinite benevolence' seems pretty excessive.

quote:
Ayn Rand never avoided anything in her work..

Are we talking about her novels here, or her other work? Because it's my understanding that in her novels, her non-selfish and therefore non-heroic people are almost uniformly straw men. I'd say that's avoiding something, wouldn't you? When your opposition is composed uniformly of incompetents or mustache-twirling villains you've created, well, your moral math is a bit off.

Furthermore whatever your admiration for Rand may be, just consider what you're saying. She's a human being, and you're saying she never avoided anything. That when it came to being self-aware and not flinching from the truth, she was infallible. Can you get your arms around just how hard a claim that is to take seriously?

quote:
I'm ignoring your two following assertions, since I just don't see the point of spending my time refuting things that you just pulled out of some orifice, when all you want to do is bash AR.

See, this is the kind of thing that's gettin' a bit nasty here, PMH, FYI-and pretty inappropriate given you've basically dragged up a half-decade old conversation now apparently to start fightin'. Bad form, man.

quote:
An ethical code that can't be followed thoroughgoingly is wrong.

An idea that is stated but not proven hasn't actually been proven at all.

Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :

Howdy, PMH! It's a pleasure having you on the board.

I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritties of the Ayn Rand discussion because, while I have my problems* with Ayn Rand, other folks on the forum seem willing to challenge her world view. This isn't on my behalf, of course, but I take what I can get. [Smile]

Instead, I'd like to comment on your introduction as well as your argumentative style in other posts. (Rather than substance)

On your introduction, I just thought I'd give a shout-out and say that I first read Ayn Rand in my junior year of high school as well. I also started with Anthem, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the book. (I dig dystopic fiction.) My issue with Ayn Rand came when I tried her other stuff and I realized that all her fiction was a tool to espouse a world-view I disagree with fundamentally.

As far as your argumentative style, it reminds me of the debates I've had with other objectivists that I find frustrating. It boils down to three things, presumption of the premises, and the use of strawman and hyperbole.

On the first point, maybe I can describe my issue in a way that you can relate. I may be reading your posts incorrectly, but it seems that you're an evangelical atheist. I'm also guessing that you've been in a religious debate or two. When someone uses doctrine to prove the existence of God, I'm sure you reject it off hand because in order for the proof to work, you need to first believe in the divinity of the doctrine. Unfortunately, you're using the same form of proselytization in your defense of Ayn Rand. You defend her definitions as best because of their "precision." Her observations on the human condition best reflect the "truth" and "reality." But in order for us to ascribe to objectivism or even just to the merit of Ayn Rand's work, we have to first agree with you that her interpretation of altruism and selfishness are correct, and we need to also believe that her observations reflect reality. If we don't believe those things--as I don't--we're stuck at step one. I can continue to reject objectivism without a second thought because you have done nothing to convince me that the premises are correct.

Instead, what you've done is imply that a failure to agree with Ayn Rand makes us narrow minded or that we have no care for reality. This allows you to create a strawman out of folks who disagree with you. "Ayn Rand talks about reality. You don't agree with Ayn Rand. .'. You don't care about reality." This isn't true, and it's frustrating to be made into a strawman.

Finally you are using some hefty hyperbole, as Rakeesh points out. You say that OSC is infinitely benevolent and that Ayn Rand never avoided anything in her work. Considering your defense of Ayn Rand and objectivism on the whole rests upon the assumption that it is precise and is a direct reflection of reality, I hope you can understand why I find your argument unconvincing. It's what we (in the competitive speech and debate community) call a performative contradiction. If we're supposed to believe that objectivism is rooted in reality, then wouldn't it make sense that the arguments defending it be firmly rooted in reality as well?

*To put it mildly.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
AR never blurred anything in her work; what she did was the opposite. It's people with some motive other than understanding reality who blur things.

Um.

It's like what Ron Lambert would say to conceptualize people who informedly disagree, except in favor of Objectivism.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

And that's not even the worst statement when we're talking hyperbolic praise of someone, either: 'Rand never avoided anything in her work' is actually quite a lot worse, because it suggests that not only did she never become too chicken, intellectually dishonest, outright dishonest, etc. and thus avoid anything in her work, she was never just accidentally but honestly mistaken in her work either and thus avoided things that way. A hero of the ages.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

I also want to mention this, tangentially to how it was mentioned in the other thread.

quote:
You are using "altruism" in the modern colloquial squishy sense; she was using it in the precise philosophical sense -- because she was trying to understand the issues deeply.

"precise philosophical sense," .... according to Rand, yes. I'm sure she would have/did describe it the exact same way, but she is doing so by inventing, arbitrarily and for herself, the definition of what consists of a 'precise philosophical sense,' much in the same way that she invents new definitions of concepts like 'rationality' and expect any nominal assumption of the term in others to have to hinge on her own, or be wrong. Outside of this, she does not have a precise philosophical sense of anything. Objectivism is seen as worthless by serious philosophy, and most serious academic philosophers can tell you exactly why.

Rand is not a philosopher and her work shouldn't be regarded as philosophy in any kind of formal sense. She refused to engage in any actual scholarly or academic discussion and refused to debate or publish her philosophy in any scholarly way. She attempted some kind of 'refutation' of the categorical imperative once and wrote a few desultory 'philosophical' pieces (not academic pieces, just not fictional stories) and cribbed heavily and haphazardly from existing philosophers she fancied (even if she didn't quite really understand them). Whenever the objectivist ethics become a topic of philosophical review, they get demolished, because the premises and implicit premises contain at least eight fatal flaws, and she bases her ethics on the agent-relative position, but she offers no argument for it, only a bald assertion.

It was also noted, at length, that rand claimed a proof for her brand of ethical egoism, and her proof drew necessarily upon a premise which was basically ethical egoism. Essentially, begging the question in a pretty observable way.

I suppose in the end an Objectivist who is insistent enough on claiming the awesomeness of Objectivism as a philosophy, and hold to the measure of Rand as a user of terms and ideas in 'precise philosophical senses' will, of course, decide that if if serious, academic philosophy finds Objectivism flawed and invalid, then serious academic philosophy and the culture of serious academic philosophers are wrong and irrational. The best catchall description of hardcore objectivists I've ever heard was "(S)he imagines her/himself to be part of some small, privileged group that has the wisdom and penetration to see past some absurd lie(s) that the rest of the doe-eyed, unaware plebs consume without thinking."

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

quote:
"(S)he imagines her/himself to be part of some small, privileged group that has the wisdom and penetration to see past some absurd lie(s) that the rest of the doe-eyed, unaware plebs consume without thinking."

Oh. They're like...theater majors, then?

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
I would actually prefer to discuss things like OSC's amazing talent and benevolence, why such an obviously intelligent person would accept / be satisfied with religion,

*choke*

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

You didn't know PBH? Christians get free Krispy-Kreme donuts every Wednesday morning. That's why I stay a Christian.

I hear Jews have a world-wide system that disburses sufganiyot every Friday, but my friend Avi won't confirm. Says he doesn't want to proselyte, or something like that.

Not sure what the Muslim or Buddhists offer their followers.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
OT O H, It's not possible to be a thoroughgoing altruist - for long: One would quickly expire.

I think it reveals a certain bias common among self named "Objectivists**" that they fail to recognize the possibility of "rational altruism". If your goal is to lead a life in service of others, that rationally implies that you must do the things necessary to lead a life. It also logically justifies developing the skills and acquiring the resources that enable you to effectively serve others. The idea that pure Altruism would rationally lead to a quick death presumes that the an Altruists continued life would be a net detriment to others.

**As I have stated before, I think the name "Objectivist" is an inaccurate descriptor of the philosophical system promulgated by Ayn Rand. This philosophy is simply not objective as evidenced by the frequent circular reasoning and numerous logical fallacies. There is no law preventing any one from naming their philosophy or religion what ever they want but if they call it "Absolute Truth", I'm not going to use it without a disclaimer.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
You didn't know PBH? Christians get free Krispy-Kreme donuts every Wednesday morning. That's why I stay a Christian.

That would be Tuesdays for us Catholics.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

Scott: You forgot the Kool-Aid they serve with said donuts.

Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:
I would actually prefer to discuss things like OSC's amazing talent and benevolence, why such an obviously intelligent person would accept / be satisfied with religion,
*choke*

Oh boy...

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

quote:
I think it reveals a certain bias common among self named "Objectivists**" that they fail to recognize the possibility of "rational altruism". If your goal is to lead a life in service of others, that rationally implies that you must do the things necessary to lead a life. It also logically justifies developing the skills and acquiring the resources that enable you to effectively serve others. The idea that pure Altruism would rationally lead to a quick death presumes that the an Altruists continued life would be a net detriment to others.

It also reveals a certain simple inability to recognize plain reality, because there are let's just call them tens of thousands in this country alone out of hundreds of millions who by any fair standard dedicate themselves to lives of altruism and live lengthy lives doing so.

The only way your Randian gets past this little reality roadblock is by building up half a dozen philosophical and rhetorical reasons why they're not really altruists at all, starting with changing the definition of altruism in the first place.

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Scott: You forgot the Kool-Aid they serve with said donuts.

We get actual wine. So do the Episcopalians. [Wink]

Ayn Rand did manage to ignore the fact that nobody is going to listen to a four hour speech on the radio. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

The most self-contradictory thing about Rand is the fact that, while believing in people's right to freely associate, she doesn't recognize as legitimate the acts of a democratically-elected government. Why is a corporation somehow more moral than a democratically-elected government? One's usually bigger than the other, but that's not absolutely always true. Corporations use violence, so that's not a legitimate difference. It's often done indirectly, through political manipulation, (like in Guatemala, with the United Fruit Company) but they are definitely behind many people's deaths. Why not? If they can make more money with a particular person dead, why not kill them? There's nothing in the profit motive about mercy, or ethics, or morality.

That's the thing about the extreme economic conservatives. They miss the fact that the profit motive is like nuclear energy. It's very powerful, and only a fool wouldn't put some safety mechanisms in place. A soon-to-be-dead-from-radiation-poisoning fool, is the exact kind of fool I'm talking about.

You can't be an Objectivist without placing an arbitrary distinction between corporations and democratically-elected governments. Further, I submit that the distinction is based on nothing factual at all.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
Why is a corporation somehow more moral than a democratically-elected government?

Actually, Rand does answer this, although not necessarily consistently, by defining "coercion" very narrowly. A government is empowered to use coercive force; a corporation is not. Rand would not, I suspect, defend a corporation's use of violence.

Rand would in fact argue that it is the job of a government to use violence to punish corporations that use violence.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Rand would in fact argue that it is the job of a government to use violence to punish corporations that use violence.

Bear in mind, Tom, that I'm not speaking to you directly with this next point.

Let's say that this sentence of yours is factual, and that Rand believes in punishing violence with violence in that way. So? Corporations don't care if you imprison or kill their henchmen. Henchmen are a dime a dozen. Hire two to replace the one, and so forth. You have to hit corporations in the pocketbook, which is where it hurts. This is where taxes and regulations, so odious to extreme conservatives, come in. They have a function. When corporations won't/can't police themselves, it is the role of a democratically-elected government to do it for them.

Anybody ever seen the movie "Erin Brokovich" or read Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle"? That's why we have regulations. That's also part of why we have taxes, so we can pay regulators to...you know, REGULATE.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

For what it's worth, I think most Objectivists would argue that this is precisely why corporations should not act as shields against personal liability. (I believe this is Lisa's position, in fact; she might even oppose the existence of corporations as legal entities in general, but I'm not sure.)

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
For what it's worth, I think most Objectivists would argue that this is precisely why corporations should not act as shields against personal liability. (

Again, not directed at you (and thanks, by the way, for being a good Rand scholar. I've read her stuff, but not nearly as thoroughly), but...what, every single stockholder should go to jail, if the corporation kills through negligence? What about people whose pensions are from pension funds that own shares in the negligent corporation? Do they go to jail?

Also, calling Lisa an Objectivist is like calling OSC a Catholic. She disagrees with Rand a lot.

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

She only disagreed with Rand about God. I think she's pretty much on board with everything else.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
She only disagreed with Rand about God. I think she's pretty much on board with everything else.

No, she disagrees with Rand about copyrights and intellectual property, as well, last I heard. She schooled me thoroughly on that point. It was quite eye-opening.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
every single stockholder should go to jail, if the corporation kills through negligence?

Killing through negligence is different from killing through violence.

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by steven:

quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
She only disagreed with Rand about God. I think she's pretty much on board with everything else.
No, she disagrees with Rand about copyrights and intellectual property, as well, last I heard. She schooled me thoroughly on that point.

I don't think differing with Rand's views on intellectual property would disqualify someone from being an Objectivist.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:
every single stockholder should go to jail, if the corporation kills through negligence?
Killing through negligence is different from killing through violence.

Involuntary manslaughter can result in prison time. I find the discussion of negligent homicide far more interesting, because it happens much more often.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
I don't think differing with Rand's views on intellectual property would disqualify someone from being an Objectivist.

OK, I think Rand herself might disagree with that. Whatever, it's kind of like arguing whether Mormons are Christians.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by steven:

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:
every single stockholder should go to jail, if the corporation kills through negligence?
Killing through negligence is different from killing through violence.
Involuntary manslaughter can result in prison time. I find the discussion of negligent homicide far more interesting, because it happens much more often.

I really wonder what Objectivists, and Rand herself, would say to that.

What if a state has mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for a particular type of involuntary manslaughter? Should all the stockholders get jail time? Is that the Objectivist belief?

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Howdy! Welcome to Hatrack. Now I mean this nicely, but you'll probably face some skepticism that you're someone looking to actually participate community-wise `round here, since your toe-dipping in the water so to speak was to go resurrection on some really nakedly political stuff in some big ways. That's fine, but I'm just offering some friendly advice: be prepared for that perception, and it might be wise not to get too upset if you encounter it (and I'm not suggesting you have). BlackBlade has touched on this, so I guess I'm just echoing. Anyway.

Thank you! very much appreciated

I'll have my valium handy.

What do you think woiuld constitute "participate community-wise"?

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

Participating in threads that weren't so completely political would be a start, or at least weren't so politically your hot-button issues.

Don't get me wrong, it's fine if a poster wants to focus on a few issues n' stuff, perception wise. I was just commenting on the idea that when you throw in a few other factors, such as multiple thread resurrection all on very limited topics in a short period, very aggressive participation in those threads, and no participation elsewhere, well, it just gets you an image. That's my perception, and I think it may be the perception of some of the rest of HR, but I could very well be mistaken. You'll find out for yourself one way or another!

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
For what it's worth, I think most Objectivists would argue that this is precisely why corporations should not act as shields against personal liability. (I believe this is Lisa's position, in fact; she might even oppose the existence of corporations as legal entities in general, but I'm not sure.)

I do.

quote:
Originally posted by steven:

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
For what it's worth, I think most Objectivists would argue that this is precisely why corporations should not act as shields against personal liability. (
Again, not directed at you (and thanks, by the way, for being a good Rand scholar. I've read her stuff, but not nearly as thoroughly), but...what, every single stockholder should go to jail, if the corporation kills through negligence?

Corporations don't kill people. People kill people.

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Also, calling Lisa an Objectivist is like calling OSC a Catholic. She disagrees with Rand a lot.

I'm an Objectivist; not a Randian or a Randroid or Randite. I disagree with Rand; not with Objectivism.

(Edited to fix attribution.)

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

Just a heads-up: that last bit was not originally posted by TomDavidson.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by steven:

quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
She only disagreed with Rand about God. I think she's pretty much on board with everything else.
No, she disagrees with Rand about copyrights and intellectual property, as well, last I heard. She schooled me thoroughly on that point. It was quite eye-opening.

The question of whether intellectual property exists, qua property, is external to Objectivism. If it's property the same as any other property, then Objectivism says one thing about it. If it isn't, Objectivism says another thing about it. Rand had one view, and she stated the Objectivist view according to that.

It seems you weren't schooled sufficiently.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

You don't even really agree with objectivism, I don't think. You agree with a grab-bag of objectivist ideals that is designed pretty much to be compatible with your orthodox judaism, ignoring or bypassing those points at which the two are completely incompatible.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Scott: You forgot the Kool-Aid they serve with said donuts.
We get actual wine. So do the Episcopalians.

Ayn Rand did manage to ignore the fact that nobody is going to listen to a four hour speech on the radio.

Kids...

Actually, back before the advent of TV ubiquity, people did just that. Nowadays, of course, that's true. People have the attention span of a squirrel with ADHD. You'd be hard pressed to get people to listen to a 15 minute speech on the radio. But Rand was lucky enough to have died before seeing that sort of thing.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I don't think.

QFT

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

Four hours. Really? Got an example?

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

I tried to Google up some but came up short. I'd be very surprised that four hour speeches were common ever. Even War of the Worlds, a pretty compelling story that freaked a lot of people out, clocked in at only 60 minutes.

Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :

The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 lasted three hours. First candidate gets 60 minutes, then the second candidate gets 90 minutes, and the first candidate gets 30 minutes more as a rejoinder.

Before the time of radio, yes, but I think it's still an interesting contrast to our current political debates where candidates are lucky to get three minutes in their answer.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I don't think.
QFT

Your surrender of maturity and exchange is duly noted.

I guess I should have figured it out sooner, but it's true! Central, vital precepts of objectivism ignored at convenience, and this is pretty much your only available response.

gg

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vadon:
The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 lasted three hours. First candidate gets 60 minutes, then the second candidate gets 90 minutes, and the first candidate gets 30 minutes more as a rejoinder.

Before the time of radio, yes, but I think it's still an interesting contrast to our current political debates where candidates are lucky to get three minutes in their answer.

And debate, dialogue, not one man making a speech.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

Once upon a time for a question mostly unrelated to this subject, I asked my father about perceptible changes in people's attention spans. He said that people's attentive capacity is largely the same, but that new media which has changed the face of the communicativeness of ideas and events has led this generation to value brevity. It is not about having a smaller attention span more than it is having an interest and availability to so much more information that the amount of time that one piece of information is tolerated depends on the time it has to share with other interests.

People sat down and listened to the radio when radio was not in time competition for other available sources of informational and interest input. It was something, where before there was nothing. A three hour speech on the radio, for the crowd it drew in at the time, was largely not competing in the same input environment. There was not a plethora of other things which we would want to run through, subjects of interest and entertainment, etc. You just had a radio, and perhaps a newspaper that had been gone through already. Today, it's different for <list millions of obvious reasons>.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
It seems you weren't schooled sufficiently.

I'm trying to come up with a poised response to the in-your-face rudeness, and I just don't have one. I'm just not even going to address it.

Would you like to expand on which intellectual property is actual property, and which isn't?

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Wiki says the famous "fireside chats" were between fifteen and forty-five minutes in length. Hitler was by all accounts a hypnotically powerful speaker at least in person, but I can't find (in twenty seconds of Google) any indication of how long his speeches went on. During the war he was notorious for boring his listeners at Berchtesgaden near to tears by going on forever about trivial topics, but this is a very different context and besides, you could presumably be shot for not showing interest. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was preceded by a two-hour speech by some other politician whose name I forget, and whose speech has faded to utter obscurity; just because people were prepared to put up with longer speeches back in the day doesn't mean they didn't appreciate pith. Churchill's speeches are actually surprisingly long-winded, formed on a model of rhetoric that now appears rather old-fashioned, if you read the whole of them and not just the famous passages. "We shall fight on the beaches" is only the closing part of a much longer address that goes into considerable detail about the war in France. But again, the context here is that he was addressing Parliament and giving them the news, not trying to get elected; the correct comparison is a PowerPoint presentation of this quarter's sales figures, not an electoral debate.

Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I don't think.
QFT

Knock that off Lisa, you know better.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I don't think.
QFT
Knock that off Lisa, you know better.

Oh, please. If Sam wants civility, he can be civil. Same with Steven. Steven has expressed his antipathy towards me in the past, and I don't expect anything better. Sam... as far as I can tell from the discussions that have gone on over in the Jewish Thing thread, he seems really not to realize that he isn't speaking in a way that demonstrates any interest in dialog. At least when I'm rude to people, I'm aware of it. I'm not sure which is worse.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
If Sam wants civility, he can be civil.

Putting the lack of incivility in my post entirely aside, isn't this a pretty hypocritical statement? Under it, you're not entitled to any civility in the first place.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

How about we all stop making excuses and just be civil?

Good gravy.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:
If Sam wants civility, he can be civil.
Putting the lack of incivility in my post entirely aside, isn't this a pretty hypocritical statement? Under it, you're not entitled to any civility in the first place.

In any given thread, I'm happy to be civil to people until they're uncivil to me. And you can go back and check if you want. The only exception I can think of is Clive, who I'll never be civil to.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

I'd quote Gandhi, but I know how you feel about him.

So I'll quote me:

quote:
How about we all stop making excuses and just be civil?

Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I don't think.
QFT
Knock that off Lisa, you know better.
Oh, please. If Sam wants civility, he can be civil. Same with Steven. Steven has expressed his antipathy towards me in the past, and I don't expect anything better. Sam... as far as I can tell from the discussions that have gone on over in the Jewish Thing thread, he seems really not to realize that he isn't speaking in a way that demonstrates any interest in dialog. At least when I'm rude to people, I'm aware of it. I'm not sure which is worse.

It hardly matter what Samprimary, and steven want, *I* want civility on this board. It's what I have been tasked with maintaining. I have a lot of patience for people who are rude who are not trying to convey that feeling. I have far less for those who do know better, but chose to be rude anyway, so as to simply bait others into dropping the behaviors that separate us from the animals. That sort of things removes all pretext for discussion, and forces all conversations into this model.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I don't think.
QFT
Knock that off Lisa, you know better.
Oh, please. If Sam wants civility, he can be civil. Same with Steven. Steven has expressed his antipathy towards me in the past, and I don't expect anything better. Sam... as far as I can tell from the discussions that have gone on over in the Jewish Thing thread, he seems really not to realize that he isn't speaking in a way that demonstrates any interest in dialog. At least when I'm rude to people, I'm aware of it. I'm not sure which is worse.
It hardly matter what Samprimary, and steven want, *I* want civility on this board. It's what I have been tasked with maintaining. I have a lot of patience for people who are rude who are not trying to convey that feeling. I have far less for those who do know better, but chose to be rude anyway, so as to simply bait others into dropping the behaviors that separate us from the animals. That sort of things removes all pretext for discussion, and forces all conversations into this model.

Or this one. Look, I'm sorry. But there are a few people here who are always instantly hostile to me, pretty much regardless of what I post. I could post "Hello, World," and here's what would happen. Kate would say it shows what a rotten person I am. Steven would make a juvenile personal attack against me (so would Kat, if she was around). Sam would make some sort of obnoxious comment to show how smart he is. The Rabbit would say something with a sneer.

Or any of them might simply not post. But if they did, that's what they'd post. And fine, I'm used to it. But don't come down on me when I respond in kind. Take a look at what I'm responding to.

(Right now, I'm wondering which of those lovely people will be the first to give a demonstration of what I just wrote.)

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

I'm not sure where I have suggested you were rotten. My speculations about the kind of person you are would not be anything I have any right to share publicly. I did try for some time to show you some kindness.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
PMH,

quote:
Looks like I jumped headlong into a wasp's nest! Who'd'a thought that (presumed) admirers of infinitely benevolent OSC would be so ... er, prickly? But of course I asked for it.
Well, it's hard to tell online with anyone, especially someone I haven't communicated with before, but nobody is infinitely benevolent-and Card is, well, decisively less benevolent now than he was, say, a decade ago. *shrug* A great deal has happened then-I'm just pointing out that 'infinite benevolence' seems pretty excessive.

Yes, I do tend to use words kinda loosely/hyperbolically sometimes - when I'm not trying to make a super-clear point.

I was very very impressed with the sense of life of the Ender Quartet; that tells me that OSC is (was(?)) deeply benevolent.

But infinite? Of course not. In fact, as I understand it, nothing is infinite; even infinity itself/ves is actually a process term.

Would you please give me some examples of his recent less benevolence.
And if you're thinking about several ~genres~..
(ie: fiction, non-)
..in each, please.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
I was very very impressed with the sense of life of the Ender Quartet; that tells me that OSC is (was(?)) deeply benevolent.

PMH, Since you are new to the forum, you are very likely unaware that with this sentence you stuck your foot in the rotting remains of a horse that has already been beaten to death several times. If you wanted to be accepted in this community, I recommend that you spend a little bit of time getting to know us in less controversial threads before making such brazen controversial statements.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

Why is that a dead horse, Rabbit? Are you talking about OSC's benevolence, or the fact that you can't know an author's personal characteristics from the works he produces?

How is that brazenly controversial?

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:
Ayn Rand never avoided anything in her work..
Are we talking about her novels here, or her other work? Because it's my understanding that in her novels, her non-selfish and therefore non-heroic people are almost uniformly straw men. I'd say that's avoiding something, wouldn't you? When your opposition is composed uniformly of incompetents or mustache-twirling villains you've created, well, your moral math is a bit off.

Furthermore whatever your admiration for Rand may be, just consider what you're saying. She's a human being, and you're saying she never avoided anything. That when it came to being self-aware and not flinching from the truth, she was infallible. Can you get your arms around just how hard a claim that is to take seriously?

hyperbolic/sloppy (of me) again

If I'd thought it necessary to use more words so as to be more precise, I'd'a said something like:

(For some reason, vis some path, and at some time in her life (early, I'd say)) AR realized that the (proper) point of philosophy is guiding Man's choices.
(or maybe it'd be better to say that in another direction: She wanted to figure out what the ideal man was, so that she could portray that in her novels. She really wanted to; she didn't just want to come up with a pile of BS that might achieve some other end)
(and then she realized that that's what philosophy is / ought to be)

Similarly, she realized that honesty (with herself, first) was the only way to achieve that (or anything real, for that matter).

And similarly, she realized that avoiding things is a form of dishonesty.

That's how her mind worked.

She wanted to achieve her goals; she did what she needed to do to do that.

People who read only enough of her to feel like they have something to shoot at miss that kind of thing, for some reason.

Now as to her characterization, I'm not a bit of an expert on fiction writing; I don't care that her characters don't seem like real people to many..
(I'm perfectly happy w/ her characterizations as relatively simple embodiments of virtues & vices; her goal, after all (IMHO) was not to portray the complex inner dynamics of multivalent sets of virtues and vices in a person.)
(in general (ie, except where she did - eg, Roark) )

..and my primary interest is in her philosophy, not her fiction.

As to infallibility, she taught that - qua human - no one is infallible..
..and that that fact gives rise to the need for various epistemological methods, such as paying attention to those little nudges from your subconscious that something's amiss (iow, non-avoidance), not allowing (seeming) contradictions safe-haven in one's mind, checking one's premises, etc.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:
I'm ignoring your two following assertions, since I just don't see the point of spending my time refuting things that you just pulled out of some orifice, when all you want to do is bash AR.
See, this is the kind of thing that's gettin' a bit nasty here, PMH, FYI-and pretty inappropriate given you've basically dragged up a half-decade old conversation now apparently to start fightin'. Bad form, man.

Well, ouch!

At that point in my reply, I had gotten pretty tired; tired enough to have rise to my consciousness that I was spending my time trying to reply thoughtfully to what really seemed to me to be pretty shallow, not very knowledge-based assaults.
(from someone who almost certainly, as I said previously, did not approach AR w/ a desire to understand her)

Even in hindsight, outside of those feelings of the moment, I think that my comments were on point and appropriate.

Finally, my intent was not to start fightin'..
(I've had way plenty of that, I can assure you.)

..but rather to not let stand unchallenged, attacks on AR.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:
An ethical code that can't be followed thoroughgoingly is wrong.
An idea that is stated but not proven hasn't actually been proven at all.

You really think I needed to prove that?

An ethical code is a set of principles to guide one's choices..
..which, if followed, will achieve the end of The Good.

What then would be the point/status of an ethical code which, by its very nature, is to be followed only part of the time?

What part of the time?

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vadon:
Howdy, PMH! It's a pleasure having you on the board.

Thank you!

quote:

[snip]

My issue with Ayn Rand came when I tried her other stuff and I realized that all her fiction was a tool to espouse a world-view I disagree with fundamentally.

To the extent that espouse means to attempt to sway or convert, I honestly(*) don't think that that was her goal.
(*: I mean, I do realize that ~everyone~ who disagrees with her thinks that.)

Her goal was to write fiction.
(I don't actually know why.)

Fiction is art, and art is "a selective re-creation of reality according to the artist's own metaphysical value judgements".

IOW ;-) art is a concretization of the artist's view on the philosophical abstractions of reality - so valuable because the human mind responds to concretes much more readily/easily than - and in a different way from - abstractions.

quote:

As far as your argumentative style, it reminds me of the debates I've had with other objectivists that I find frustrating. It boils down to three things, presumption of the premises, and the use of strawman and hyperbole.

On the first point, maybe I can describe my issue in a way that you can relate. I may be reading your posts incorrectly, but it seems that you're an evangelical atheist.

I guess I have to cop to that.
(You think?!)

although I would, of course, say Objectivist, rather than just atheist

...and - believe it or not - I have honestly found Objectivism to be a wonderful, beautiful thing - the most such in an arbitrarily long time -- and I want to share that.

quote:

I'm also guessing that you've been in a religious debate or two. When someone uses doctrine to prove the existence of God, I'm sure you reject it off hand because in order for the proof to work, you need to first believe in the divinity of the doctrine. Unfortunately, you're using the same form of proselytization in your defense of Ayn Rand. You defend her definitions as best because of their "precision." Her observations on the human condition best reflect the "truth" and "reality." But in order for us to ascribe to objectivism or even just to the merit of Ayn Rand's work, we have to first agree with you that her interpretation of altruism and selfishness are correct, and we need to also believe that her observations reflect reality. If we don't believe those things--as I don't--we're stuck at step one. I can continue to reject objectivism without a second thought because you have done nothing to convince me that the premises are correct.

Yes -- except for the following.

In a tolerable amount of time, all I (or anyone) can do is state my opinions and understanding - and give some supporting analysis - a step or two away from the thing I'm commenting on.

To explain any single tenet of Objectivism (properly), I would have to take it all the way down to percepts - and I would have to do the same with any words/concepts that I might have to use on that journey whose fuzzy colloquial meaning aren't sufficient for the purpose.

A large part, at least, of epistemology would have to be explained on the way as well.

And even then, very few if any people would be able to get it on one - or a small number of - readings.

So I think that all one can do is to state disagreement, say a little bit as to why, and leave it to the reader to decide for himself whether that little bit is motivating for him to look into the serious works on Objectivism more deeply for himself offline.

quote:

Instead, what you've done is imply that a failure to agree with Ayn Rand makes us narrow minded or that we have no care for reality.

I don't do that with Lisa - and I don't intend to do that with anyone who seems to have something cogent & knowledge-based to say.

There are, however, many comments that just simply don't seem to me to fit that.

And to those, I think it's appropriate to react to them for what they are.

quote:

This allows you to create a strawman out of folks who disagree with you. "Ayn Rand talks about reality. You don't agree with Ayn Rand. .'. You don't care about reality." This isn't true, and it's frustrating to be made into a strawman.

Finally you are using some hefty hyperbole, as Rakeesh points out. You say that OSC is infinitely benevolent and that Ayn Rand never avoided anything in her work. Considering your defense of Ayn Rand and objectivism on the whole rests upon the assumption that it is precise and is a direct reflection of reality, I hope you can understand why I find your argument unconvincing. It's what we (in the competitive speech and debate community) call a performative contradiction. If we're supposed to believe that objectivism is rooted in reality, then wouldn't it make sense that the arguments defending it be firmly rooted in reality as well?

I think I covered this adequately in an earlier reply.

quote:

*To put it mildly.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Why is that a dead horse, Rabbit? Are you talking about OSC's benevolence, or the fact that you can't know an author's personal characteristics from the works he produces?

How is that brazenly controversial?

The particular dead horse I'm referring to is the one that starts something to the effect "OSC wrote my favorite book, How could he possibly [u]fill in the blank[/u], (examples: "believe Mormon doctrine", "be against gay marriage", "write those inflammatory political essays"). And while PMH didn't say any of those things, what he said was as a isolated statement was totally innocuous. But he said opened that door. I just thought it would be nice to warn him he was stepping into a mine field.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
I'm perfectly happy w/ her characterizations as relatively simple embodiments of virtues & vices...

As long as you realize that this is avoiding something by definition, that her characters are symbols rather than real people -- and thus poor straw men that "represent" people rather than resembling anything like real people -- I have no problem with this.

But think for a moment about why it is so much easier to write a polemic full of "embodiments" whose words and actions do not necessarily need to ring true.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
You really think I needed to prove that?

An ethical code is a set of principles to guide one's choices..
..which, if followed, will achieve the end of The Good.

What then would be the point/status of an ethical code which, by its very nature, is to be followed only part of the time?

What part of the time?

None of these statement is self evident.

Human beings are social animals. We have developed ethical and moral systems to help us regulate selfishness in order to make social interaction possible.

If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I also want to mention this, tangentially to how it was mentioned in the other thread.

quote:
You are using "altruism" in the modern colloquial squishy sense; she was using it in the precise philosophical sense -- because she was trying to understand the issues deeply.
"precise philosophical sense," .... according to Rand, yes.

Actually, I was quite surprised when I learned that her definiton of altruism was the same as Comte's original..
..because it is definitely the case that she judged that in order to (think and) speak intelligibly, she had to analyze the terms & concepts that were in currency - and decide whether they were good enough to use as-is, or had to be refactored (or whatever).

She couldn't've managed to think very well using "altruism"'s colloquial meaning of caring about others & being nice to them, nor "selfish"'s of caring only for oneself, being greedy, willing to step on whomever in order to achieve one's ends, etc.

So she analyzed them into their constituent parts.

For instance, for "selfish", there's rational self interest, which includes/raises the issue of one's relationship to others - in areas including values/wealth..
(Should one give to others who have less / need / want more than they have? Should one not? Is it optional? When it it warranted? Should one take from others? (cf. the Chinese morality, If you fall for my selling you a pig in a poke, it's your own damn fault.))

..general stance towards others..
(initial benevolence with constant judgement? hostility? bottomless forgiveness?

..etc.

quote:

I'm sure she would have/did describe it the exact same way, but she is doing so by inventing, arbitrarily and for herself

She did not invent arbitrarily nor subjectively nor solipsistically.

quote:

, the definition of what consists of a 'precise philosophical sense,' much in the same way that she invents new definitions of concepts like 'rationality' and expect any nominal assumption of the term in others to have to hinge on her own, or be wrong.

Well, one can use whatever words one wants - to mean whatever he wants -- as the postmodernists have shown, taught, exemplified. One just can't do cognition that way.

One - obviously, I would think - has to know - and tell (ie: explicitly define) what he means by the terms he uses -- and those meanings had better be good clean quality concepts if he's to be able to think effectively with them.

It's appropriate for one who has gone through such a process to consider other, differing definitions to be wrong; if he didn't, then what the hell use was it for him to go through all that work in the first place?

quote:

Outside of this, she does not have a precise philosophical sense of anything.

so you say

quote:

Objectivism is seen as worthless by serious philosophy

You know, I've heard that.

quote:

, and most serious academic philosophers can tell you exactly why.

I have seen one allegation of that; I'm working my way through it.

quote:

Rand is not a philosopher and her work shouldn't be regarded as philosophy in any kind of formal sense.

so you say

quote:

She refused to engage in any actual scholarly or academic discussion and refused to debate or publish her philosophy in any scholarly way.

I think that's true.

Of course, that had a lot to do with the fact that she judged them to be doing something other than developing a guide for actual human beings' actual choices in actual reality; she didn't value them or their opinions.

Not being a professional philosopher myself, I can barely (under)stand( to read) them myself; I don't know about you all.

quote:

She attempted some kind of 'refutation' of the categorical imperative once and wrote a few desultory 'philosophical' pieces (not academic pieces, just not fictional stories)

and cribbed heavily and haphazardly from existing philosophers she fancied

I take it you mean other than learning from them.

quote:

(even if she didn't quite really understand them).

want to support that?

quote:

Whenever the objectivist ethics become a topic of philosophical review, they get demolished, because the premises and implicit premises contain at least eight fatal flaws

I think that's the one I referred to above.

quote:

, and she bases her ethics on the agent-relative position, but she offers no argument for it, only a bald assertion.

which was objection #i in the above, right?
(which I think you basically just copied, right?)

Her analysis showed that values arise (solely) from the fact that Man is a mortal being with free will..
..who thus must act in ways that further his life if he is to maintain it.

That's support enough for me; what am I missing?

quote:

It was also noted, at length, that rand claimed a proof for her brand of ethical egoism, and her proof drew necessarily upon a premise which was basically ethical egoism. Essentially, begging the question in a pretty observable way.

Is that further down in the same ref., or do I need to ask for another?

quote:

I suppose in the end an Objectivist who is insistent enough on claiming the awesomeness of Objectivism as a philosophy, and hold to the measure of Rand as a user of terms and ideas in 'precise philosophical senses' will, of course, decide that if if serious, academic philosophy finds Objectivism flawed and invalid, then serious academic philosophy and the culture of serious academic philosophers are wrong and irrational.

I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

quote:

The best catchall description of hardcore objectivists I've ever heard was "(S)he imagines her/himself to be part of some small, privileged group that has the wisdom and penetration to see past some absurd lie(s) that the rest of the doe-eyed, unaware plebs consume without thinking."

Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

One would have to learn what she taught in order to decide for himself.
(and yes, study enough of academic philosophy to judge that as well. Question is, how to decide how much of one's time it's worth his spending on that. I myself think I've spent enough -- but, as I say, I'm open. Say to someone why can honestly say that some academic philosopher has helped him live his life better.)

quote:

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
One would have to learn what she taught in order to decide for himself.
(and yes, study enough of academic philosophy to judge that as well. Question is, how to decide how much of one's time it's worth his spending on that. I myself think I've spent enough -- but, as I say, I'm open. Say to someone why can honestly say that some academic philosopher has helped him live his life better.)

Me!!

I'm open to any one who can convince me that reading Ayn Rand has made them live their lives in ways I would agree are better. I can point to several friends of mine who, as a result largely of Ayn Rand's influence, made choices that most of us would agree were unethical.

Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I don't think.
QFT
Knock that off Lisa, you know better.
Oh, please. If Sam wants civility, he can be civil. Same with Steven. Steven has expressed his antipathy towards me in the past, and I don't expect anything better. Sam... as far as I can tell from the discussions that have gone on over in the Jewish Thing thread, he seems really not to realize that he isn't speaking in a way that demonstrates any interest in dialog. At least when I'm rude to people, I'm aware of it. I'm not sure which is worse.
It hardly matter what Samprimary, and steven want, *I* want civility on this board. It's what I have been tasked with maintaining. I have a lot of patience for people who are rude who are not trying to convey that feeling. I have far less for those who do know better, but chose to be rude anyway, so as to simply bait others into dropping the behaviors that separate us from the animals. That sort of things removes all pretext for discussion, and forces all conversations into this model.
Or this one. Look, I'm sorry. But there are a few people here who are always instantly hostile to me, pretty much regardless of what I post. I could post "Hello, World," and here's what would happen. Kate would say it shows what a rotten person I am. Steven would make a juvenile personal attack against me (so would Kat, if she was around). Sam would make some sort of obnoxious comment to show how smart he is. The Rabbit would say something with a sneer.

Or any of them might simply not post. But if they did, that's what they'd post. And fine, I'm used to it. But don't come down on me when I respond in kind. Take a look at what I'm responding to.

(Right now, I'm wondering which of those lovely people will be the first to give a demonstration of what I just wrote.)

And when I notice posters are needlessly rude or hostile, I do things about it. Are you asserting that you have been mistreated in this thread? If so, I'll go back over it, but otherwise I have to go off what others report to me, and what I myself find in my own browsing. I'm not omnipresent. I never say, "Oh there goes Lisa complaining about being mistreated AGAIN!" I take every single incident seriously. You feeling comfortable here is every bit as important as my feeling so. That's why I'm telling you to stop so as to remove yourself from the problem. If you remain a part of the problem, I have to deal with you along with every other aspect of that problem.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm coming down on egregious breaches of the TOS, while ignoring nuanced ones. It has to be that way because by its very nature a nuanced breach is harder and takes more time to identify. The only way these problems will ever be solved is with two principles.

1: You yourself show restraint and talk with me when I or another poster feels you've stepped out of line.

2: Report to me when you feel other posters are stepping out of line.

If everybody did those two things, we wouldn't have sustained periods of ill will. Posters would either check themselves or leave.

Anyway, long post short. Do you feel anybody besides yourself has breached the TOS in this thread?

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Why is that a dead horse, Rabbit? Are you talking about OSC's benevolence, or the fact that you can't know an author's personal characteristics from the works he produces?

How is that brazenly controversial?

It's kind of funny that anyone would think that controversial when we're all posting here in an environment made possible *only* by Card's benevolence.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PMH:

quote:
Originally posted by Vadon:
Instead, what you've done is imply that a failure to agree with Ayn Rand makes us narrow minded or that we have no care for reality.

I don't do that with Lisa - and I don't intend to do that with anyone who seems to have something cogent & knowledge-based to say.

That's my sense of it. There's a difference between someone disagreeing with Rand (I do, on numerous points) or even disagreeing with Objectivism, and the big wave of "crappy writer! dumb philosophy!" and a whole slew of strawman attacks on either Rand or Objectivism. It happens every time the subject comes up.

Of course, being the only Objectivist on the board (until very recently), I have to either take it, or argue and get dogpiled. The result is that people think that sort of behavior is legitimate.

[ February 11, 2011, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

This

quote:
Having almost finished the Ender Quartet, I'd say that is an amazing, exemplary example of today's meaning of altruist: He's very deeply benevolent.
(OTOH, that comes from the archaic, invalid moral code of Christianity. A major win would be to see him do that from the base of the valid philosophy of Objectivism.)

is the comment I was remembering when I said "brazenly controversial". And as I noted earlier, I was simply trying to warn a new poster that we have a rather unpleasant history discussing this general topic, least he step on any hidden land mines.

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :

I think the word "brazen" is what makes it feel more like an attack on the poster than helpful advice.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

Sorry for the poor word choice.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PMH:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Whenever the objectivist ethics become a topic of philosophical review, they get demolished, because the premises and implicit premises contain at least eight fatal flaws
I think that's the one I referred to above.

You'll find that Sam whips out Heumer's opus every time the subject comes up. I've pointed out that the "refutation" is based on clear misreading. Heumer takes Rand's definitions of terms as claims. So he'll say that Rand is claiming value to be only agent-relative, and say, "But she doesn't prove it! And here are examples where it isn't!" What he seems clueless about is that Rand, like any philosopher, requires a more rigorous terminology than a person might use in everyday speech. And she is defining the word "value" as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep."

Heumer's inability to understand the difference between defining a specialized terminology and making claims about terms as they are used on the street makes his whole article a complete non sequitur. It may be a refutation, but certainly not of anything Rand wrote.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics.

...according to your ethics.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
The only way your Randian gets past this little reality roadblock is by building up half a dozen philosophical and rhetorical reasons why they're not really altruists at all, starting with changing the definition of altruism in the first place.

You are making Heumer's mistake. Every philosophical system defines terms. However, the whole idea of "it's better to give than to receive", aside from being really insulting to those you give things to, is a recipe for guilt and feelings of inadequacy.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by PMH:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Whenever the objectivist ethics become a topic of philosophical review, they get demolished, because the premises and implicit premises contain at least eight fatal flaws
I think that's the one I referred to above.
You'll find that Sam whips out Heumer's opus every time the subject comes up. I've pointed out that the "refutation" is based on clear misreading. Heumer takes Rand's definitions of terms as claims. So he'll say that Rand is claiming value to be only agent-relative, and say, "But she doesn't prove it! And here are examples where it isn't!" What he seems clueless about is that Rand, like any philosopher, requires a more rigorous terminology than a person might use in everyday speech. And she is defining the word "value" as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep."

You misread Heumer before, you misread him now. I think you will probably always do so. His is just one convenient page which does bring up plenty of valid philosophical critiques, but you have taken note of him, so let's talk about him. By "takes Rand's definitions of terms as claims" what you're really talking about is how he is analyzing Rand's argument and critiquing the premises derived from them. Noting that Rand views value as agent-relative is correct.

The Objectivist Ethics even literally said "It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil." It goes on a whole tangent related to imagining that immortal robots that cannot be affected or acted upon serve as an example of agents which cannot have values, but humans can due to the way we are impacted. It is startlingly clear to note that rand is establishing the premise that value is agent relative, even with regard to how she 'precisely' determines the identity of value.

Here's a simpler way of pointing out what you're missing. "Value is agent-relative; things can only be valuable for particular entities." is a correct assessment to how she applies to how value is derived and clear as an analysis of her premises. Again, I give you the big immortal robot:

quote:
To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.

Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.

Now, it's also fun to note that if the meaning of "value" that Rand is inherently working with, as you point out here in your dismissal of the author, is "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" — then even the assertions about the robot are false on their face. If it moves and acts, is capable of moving and acting, it can surely act to gain and/or keep anything it's programmed to take or build. Therefore, such an entity is clearly able to have "values(rand)." What a strange, convoluted-to-reconcile issue to have in a statement in the opener of the summation of the ethics of objectivism!

Stuff like this is why Tom was basically spot-on when he commented, and could back up exhaustively, why it's practically impossible to take philosophy and objectivism seriously. You could sit down and hammer out fatal flaws in the premises of The Objectivist Ethics like that one all day. What's really going to be the case, in the case of most objectivists, is either an ignorance of objectivism's philosophical invalidity, or a rejection of the conclusions of the philosophical community using philosophical review. [Smile]

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :

In vaguely related news, the Atlas Shrugged movie has a trailer now:

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-trailer

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics.
...according to your ethics.

Yes. And also according to your religion.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
The most self-contradictory thing about Rand is the fact that, while believing in people's right to freely associate, she doesn't recognize as legitimate the acts of a democratically-elected government. Why is a corporation somehow more moral than a democratically-elected government? One's usually bigger than the other, but that's not absolutely always true. Corporations use violence, so that's not a legitimate difference. It's often done indirectly, through political manipulation, (like in Guatemala, with the United Fruit Company) but they are definitely behind many people's deaths. Why not? If they can make more money with a particular person dead, why not kill them? There's nothing in the profit motive about mercy, or ethics, or morality.

That's the thing about the extreme economic conservatives. They miss the fact that the profit motive is like nuclear energy. It's very powerful, and only a fool wouldn't put some safety mechanisms in place. A soon-to-be-dead-from-radiation-poisoning fool, is the exact kind of fool I'm talking about.

You can't be an Objectivist without placing an arbitrary distinction between corporations and democratically-elected governments. Further, I submit that the distinction is based on nothing factual at all.

Your ignorance of Objectivism is staggering, if I can say that non-rudely.

"Right to freely associate" is from somewhere else; it's definitely not a central point of Objectivism.

"Democratically elected government" ignores the criticality of a rights-guaranteeing constitution.
You've heard of Ancient Greece's experience w/ democracy, no?

The fact that corporations can behave evilly..
(no different from individuals)
..fails to get to the philosophical level.
(of, say, the essential nature of corporations)

"There's nothing in the profit motive about mercy, or ethics, or morality." is just childish. Although one could grant that there's a "profit motive" if he knew the conversation couldn't bear to think more systematically, it remains that Objectivism does (treat things systematically) - and so observes that
a) Behaving immorally in the pursuit of values is self-defeating - of happiness, if not $$.

b) One of the main proper functions of gov't is to punish people who violate the (legitimate) rights of others.

Oh: and that's the "safety mechanism" you mention next.

The distinction betw/ corporations and governments is that gov't is the sole repository of the use of force in a civilized society.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Corporations don't care if you imprison or kill their henchmen. Henchmen are a dime a dozen. Hire two to replace the one, and so forth. You have to hit corporations in the pocketbook, which is where it hurts. This is where taxes and regulations, so odious to extreme conservatives, come in.

No, that's where laws come in.

Why in the world would you think that it's not possible to craft laws to punish rights-violating corporations?

You must've not worked in one. The one I worked in for 38 years spent an incredible amount of attention to avoid lawsuits, etc.

quote:

They have a function.

Yep: to fill gov't coffers and enable short-sighted beureaucrats, ignorant of system dynamics and the historical failure of such attempts, to control the complex system of an economy.

quote:

When corporations won't/can't police themselves, it is the role of a democratically-elected government to do it for them.

Yep; via laws.

Regulation is punishment (in effect) prior to wrongdoing.

quote:

Anybody ever seen the movie "Erin Brokovich" or read Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle"? That's why we have regulations. That's also part of why we have taxes, so we can pay regulators to...you know, REGULATE.

Er, yeah: For gov't to insinutae its tentacles into every aspect of our lives does take a lot of money - which all, of course, comes from individuals who produce.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PMH:
I think that's true.

Of course, that had a lot to do with the fact that she judged them to be doing something other than developing a guide for actual human beings' actual choices in actual reality; she didn't value them or their opinions.

Not being a professional philosopher myself, I can barely (under)stand( to read) them myself; I don't know about you all.

That's pretty much you being an example of exactly what I'm talking about. In lieu of an understanding of the overall philosophical rejection of objectivism as a valid philosophy, one could either be ignorant about the fact that objectivism is essentially philosophically dismissed due to major insufficiencies and fatal flaws in its premises, or you could reject the conclusions that they have come to, finding their consensus to be wrong and possibly useless.

Anyway, to drive the point home, here's wikipedia discussing the overall philosophical rejection. From Ayn Rand's intellectual impact:

quote:
According to Rick Karlin, academic philosophers have generally dismissed Rand's ideas and have marginalized her philosophy.[113] Online U.S. News and World Report columnist Sara Dabney Tisdale states that academic philosophers dismiss Atlas Shrugged as "sophomoric", "preachy", and "unoriginal".[114] Because of Rand's criticism of contemporary intellectuals,[115] Objectivism has been called "fiercely anti-academic".[116] David Sidorsky, a professor of moral and political philosophy at Columbia University, says Rand's work is "outside the mainstream" and is more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy.[117] Rand is not found in the comprehensive academic reference texts The Oxford Companion to Philosophy or The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, but is the subject of entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[118] the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers,[119] the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[120] and the Routledge Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Political Thinkers.[121] A listing of Rand also appears in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, featuring the assessment "The influence of Rand's ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers. Her outspoken defence of capitalism in works like Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1967), and her characterization of her position as a defence of the 'virtue of selfishness' in her novel of the same title (published in 1974), also brought notoriety, but kept her out of the intellectual mainstream."[122]

quote:
That's support enough for me; what am I missing?

"That's support enough for me" is not equal to "support enough to gain philosophical validity" and/or support with academic philosophy, rather than rejection. All popular movements like these, no matter how valid or invalid their premises are, ultimately, will have people who have decided there is support enough for them. Anarchists do it, Marxists do it, Objectivists do it.

quote:
One would have to learn what she taught in order to decide for himself.
(and yes, study enough of academic philosophy to judge that as well. Question is, how to decide how much of one's time it's worth his spending on that. I myself think I've spent enough -- but, as I say, I'm open. Say to someone why can honestly say that some academic philosopher has helped him live his life better.)

Philosophy does so quite frequently. it is also difficult to go into philosophy without having it be an exercise in teasing all of one's philosophical presuppositions, or having an entry-level teacher bias the aspects of argumentative analysis and ethical review with manifestations of bias towards one particular view or another. But when one is as heavily invested in the fields of preaching, apologetics, or ethical debate about any worldview, an understanding of the importance of coherency and cogency in philosophical assertions is a boon. It also goes deep enough that any committed philosopher could effectively tear me a new one about how sloppily I'm advancing these points.

I say this as a person who has utterly no assumption that doing so will "open your eyes" and "show you Objectivism is wrong," but rather working on the idea that understanding the philosophical objections and rejections of the objectivist ethics, and understanding how to critique ANY worldview, even the mushiest most altruistic ones, under the same lens, is important in qualifying arguments, especially in such an absolutist teaching that demands adherence to so many things, without deviation from the ethics provided, in order to be a true objectivist. That, and because I think the philosophical argument against objectivism is the most valid, and leagues beyond the 'importance' of pointing out Rand's deficiencies of reason and objectivity as a person, or caring about whether in one's opinion she wrote good fiction.

quote:
I take it you mean other than learning from them.

Yes. To repeat another poster's paraphrase of a much better author's description of bad readers (guh), she proceeds through other people's ideas like a plundering army, taking whatever is useful to her and despoiling the rest. Smith & Aristotle are the two most common foils in this.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:
I'm perfectly happy w/ her characterizations as relatively simple embodiments of virtues & vices...
As long as you realize that this is avoiding something by definition,

That would be avoidance if she accepted your implicit arbitrary belief that undertaking the writing of a novel constitutes contracting to create characters that some unnamed judge thinks are sufficiently "real" - and then doesn't just reneg on that contract, but, further, ignores every reminder from her subconscious that she's doing that.

quote:

that her characters are symbols rather than real people -- and thus poor straw men that "represent" people rather than resembling anything like real people -- I have no problem with this.

But think for a moment about why it is so much easier to write a polemic full of "embodiments" whose words and actions do not necessarily need to ring true.

You mean don't sound like anyone you know?

...or are essentialised, with the attributes that are non-essential to her story left out so as not to interfere with / dilute it.

I mean, do you really care whether John Galt had acne, or Peter Keating was a good baseball coach?

quote:

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
You really think I needed to prove that?

An ethical code is a set of principles to guide one's choices..
..which, if followed, will achieve the end of The Good.

What then would be the point/status of an ethical code which, by its very nature, is to be followed only part of the time?

What part of the time?
None of these statement is self evident.

You want self-evident, I give you "Existence exists.".

You want me to teach you all of Objectivism in every post, you're not gonna get it; study it for yourself (as I said earlier today).

I strongly recommend the new book _On Ayn Rand_ for an overview of the most-important parts of her philosophy, written very readably - and relatively short.

quote:

Human beings are social animals. We have developed ethical and moral systems to help us regulate selfishness in order to make social interaction possible.

Not bad -- except that:

Some of ethics is for the individual, apart from any considerations of his participation in a society.
(Morality - Ayn Rand Lexicon)

What needs regulation is a person's lower-animal drive to acquire. That regulation is accomplish by our conceptual-level intelligence, guided by ethics.

quote:

If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does)

Sad.

She did, of course, address the issues of society, as one of the most important human issues. You could look up "Cooperation" or the "Trader Principle" in the above.
(sorry that it's mostly so polemical and -- what? poetic?)

Or go to Ayn Rand Institute and search on "society", eg.

quote:

, you have gutted ethics.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
I mean, do you really care whether John Galt had acne, or Peter Keating was a good baseball coach?

it IS important to note when her literature is basically an indulgent thought exercise where the universe is written ridiculously to support the ideology, setting Nietzschean supermen against bumbling, idiotic, sneering strawman antagonists. ANY ideology could do this, Rand just brought the core of it out to the extreme, the negative effect being that it practically trains her adherents to build and fight strawmen themselves rather than any nuanced perspective over socioeconomic and psychological reality — two fields which often come incompatibly at odds with objectivism. In the case of the latter, even nathaniel branden had to comment on this.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
One would have to learn what she taught in order to decide for himself.
(and yes, study enough of academic philosophy to judge that as well. Question is, how to decide how much of one's time it's worth his spending on that. I myself think I've spent enough -- but, as I say, I'm open. Say to someone why can honestly say that some academic philosopher has helped him live his life better.)
Me!!

I was hoping for a bit more detail.

like what academic philosopher, what he said, what diff that made

quote:

I'm open to any one who can convince me that reading Ayn Rand has made them live their lives in ways I would agree are better.

"Convince" is rather a high bar, from my experience in this forum.

I'll post some examples some day, if I can think of any that are self-evident enough to be ingested w/o chewing.

quote:

I can point to several friends of mine who, as a result largely of Ayn Rand's influence, made choices that most of us would agree were unethical.

If you produce examples of people who behaved unethically while following a complete understanding of Objectivism, I will:
a) be astounded - nay be ... What's an adjective for <be convinced that the impossible is in fact possible>?

b) respond

quote:

Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PMH:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
One would have to learn what she taught in order to decide for himself.
(and yes, study enough of academic philosophy to judge that as well. Question is, how to decide how much of one's time it's worth his spending on that. I myself think I've spent enough -- but, as I say, I'm open. Say to someone why can honestly say that some academic philosopher has helped him live his life better.)
Me!!

I was hoping for a bit more detail.

like what academic philosopher, what he said, what diff that made

Off the top of my head; Dan Dennett, Peter Singer, Michael Sandel, and Mark Bickhard. Many others in small ways. I don't have the time or inclination to detail exactly what they said and in what ways they affected my life for the better. You'll have to trust me on that one. But for instance, a philosopher who elucidates some important aspect of epistemology lets say, necessarily helps me live my life better if that argument allows me to have better justification for my beliefs. And we haven't even gotten into moral philosophy yet.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
You mean don't sound like anyone you know?

...or are essentialised, with the attributes that are non-essential to her story left out so as not to interfere with / dilute it.

This begs the question. When you are writing a polemic that asserts to speak to the nature of Man, peopling your novel with characters that do not resemble any men who have ever walked the Earth -- who are simply cartoonish exemplars of ill-formed prejudices and ideals, with none of the real complexity manifest in actual human interaction -- indicates that you have cut corners in order to make your job easier (or, I suppose, have never actually observed real men).

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

quote:
You are making Heumer's mistake. Every philosophical system defines terms. However, the whole idea of "it's better to give than to receive", aside from being really insulting to those you give things to, is a recipe for guilt and feelings of inadequacy.

Why is it insulting to those who receive? Because Objectivists say so? Unpersuasive to say the least. I say this as someone who has given and as someone who has received. But here's where you tell me that, no, I don't actually know myself at all-I am insulted, I do feel inadequate and guilty as do those who I've given things to.

Of course the funny - I might even say hypocritical - thing of it is you would (quite rightly) object in the strongest possible terms to that sort of presumption were it anything other than a system you already agreed with.

ETA: I didn't know that the term 'Randian' was problematic, Lisa. I'm sorry for using it-for me it's just as straightforward as 'Floridian' or something like that, but I can imagine where one might think it had less neutral implications.

[ February 12, 2011, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics.
...according to your ethics.
Yes. And also according to your religion.

Clearly, you know nothing about my religion.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
ETA: I didn't know that the term 'Randian' was problematic, Lisa. I'm sorry for using it-for me it's just as straightforward as 'Floridian' or something like that, but I can imagine where one might think it had less neutral implications.

Thanks, Rakeesh.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

Atlas Shrugged Trailer! It's been a while since I've been in the theater the day a movie opens, but this one I'll be at.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

ok.

like, putting completely aside anything at all about the moral theory of objectivism or the book or any of that.

The trailer looks bad and the movie looks cheap.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics.
...according to your ethics.
Yes. And also according to your religion.
Clearly, you know nothing about my religion.

Are you saying your religion does not believe that Jewish people form a nation that is real and permanent in the eyes of God and something to which you are morally obligated?

The first tenet of Objectivisim is that reality exists independent of any consciousness, how do you rationalize that with the belief that God created the Universe and sustains it continuously through an act of will?

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics.
...according to your ethics.
Yes. And also according to your religion.
Clearly, you know nothing about my religion.
Are you saying your religion does not believe that Jewish people form a nation that is real and permanent in the eyes of God and something to which you are morally obligated?

The first tenet of Objectivisim is that reality exists independent of any consciousness, how do you rationalize that with the belief that God created the Universe and sustains it continuously through an act of will?

God is Existence.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

Ergo, God is an Object.

:begins learning Object Oriented Programming:

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Ergo, God is an Object.

:begins learning Object Oriented Programming:

Existence is an object?

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :

Setting aside Rabbit's more controversial second point, Lisa, you must grant her first point that the Jewish religion implies "the reality of a social unit other than the individual."

(This is one reason I don't find Judaism too plausible, by the way. As I see it, there are two objectively important social units: the individual and humanity as a whole. Tribes and nations, on the other hand, shouldn't count as I see it.)

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

The first tenet of Objectivisim is that reality exists independent of any consciousness, how do you rationalize that with the belief that God created the Universe and sustains it continuously through an act of will?
God is Existence. [/QB]

And God dictated the Torah letter by letter, implying God has consciousness**. If God is existence and God has consciousness, Existence is not independent of consciousness.

**Based on the Torah, God has WILL, God is able to communicate that will using abstract symbols. God is self aware based on self reference and aware of creation. If this does not constitute consciousness, what does?

[ February 13, 2011, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

The first tenet of Objectivisim is that reality exists independent of any consciousness, how do you rationalize that with the belief that God created the Universe and sustains it continuously through an act of will?
God is Existence.
And God dictated the Torah letter by letter, implying God has consciousness**. If God is existence and God has consciousness, Existence is not independent of consciousness.

**Based on the Torah, God has WILL, God is able to communicate that will using abstract symbols. God is self aware based on self reference and aware of creation. If this does not constitute consciousness, what does? [/QB]

God's consciousness is different from ours, obviously. Not being timebound, it isn't what we could identify as consciousness at all. The most we can say is that what we received on this end looked like consciousness.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Setting aside Rabbit's more controversial second point, Lisa, you must grant her first point that the Jewish religion implies "the reality of a social unit other than the individual."

Certainly. I could point to Jewish sources that say the existence of the Community of Israel as a corporate body, rather than only the aggregate of the individuals making it up, is an exception to the rule. I believe the Gur Aryeh says this.

But it isn't really the issue. What Rabbit said was this: If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics. I replied that this was so only in her own ethics, and then she made the claim that it was so in Judaism. It isn't.

The Sages say that "Derekh eretz" (roughly: ethical behavior) preceded the Torah by 26 generations. The reference is to the 26 generations from Adam to Moses. So ethical behavior exists the moment there's even a single person. Dealing with individuals rather than social groups hardly "guts" ethics.

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :

Ah, I see. That makes sense.

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
ok.

like, putting completely aside anything at all about the moral theory of objectivism or the book or any of that.

The trailer looks bad and the movie looks cheap.

They certainly captured the Atlas Shrugged mood of tedium masterfully.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

This goes beyond any predictions afforded by the nature of the book, and how well or poorly the characters and antagonists can be represented and storyboarded within. There's a number of things that a film critic can warily pick out, including evidence of a shoestring budget.

Incorporating the novel, though, it looks direly like this is a movie that should have been a period piece but actually rendering period sets rather than borrowing glammy shooting locales and slapping printed out corporation logos on the walls was beyond their budgetary constraints.

The lines given also make it seem like the acting direction is amateur, flat, and uninspired. I'm literally not reading anything else about this film. This is just thin-slicing the preview.

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :

I'm kind of fascinated by the whole Rearden Metal thing, as if Rearden had developed the metal himself (without a research organization that would is necessary to try out multiple alloy combinations, and test them thoroughly to characterize the metal's properties) and the metal is somehow "perfect," rather than merely being perfect for a particular application.

To be honest, I haven't read the book, although I'm planning to, but knowing what I do about industrial development, it just isn't realistic to posit an invention of this type being the work of one man.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
ok.

like, putting completely aside anything at all about the moral theory of objectivism or the book or any of that.

The trailer looks bad and the movie looks cheap.

The trailer looks amazing, and the movie looks like it's going to be beyond fabulous.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

quote:
To be honest, I haven't read the book, although I'm planning to, but knowing what I do about industrial development, it just isn't realistic to posit an invention of this type being the work of one man.

What if he's a producer?

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
I'm kind of fascinated by the whole Rearden Metal thing, as if Rearden had developed the metal himself (without a research organization that would is necessary to try out multiple alloy combinations, and test them thoroughly to characterize the metal's properties) and the metal is somehow "perfect," rather than merely being perfect for a particular application.

To be honest, I haven't read the book, although I'm planning to, but knowing what I do about industrial development, it just isn't realistic to posit an invention of this type being the work of one man.

The metal itself is a McGuffin. It's like a time machine in a science fiction novel. How it works isn't the issue. How it makes the people surrounding it act is what's important. Do you have a problem with SF stories that include things like time travel or FTL travel without going into the whole deal of how they work? Or is this something special for Atlas Shrugged?

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
The trailer looks amazing, and the movie looks like it's going to be beyond fabulous.

Hee.

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :

quote:
The metal itself is a McGuffin. It's like a time machine in a science fiction novel.

Well, of course. But we do take apart science fiction all the time. Had a pretty good time with Avatar's "unobtainium," you know? Then there's Plinkett's review of star wars.

But the point here is that this rearden metal metaphorically represents the self-made man, when in reality it couldn't have been created by anything less than a large collective effort. It's one thing if the bad science is merely a plot tool, it's another when the thematic symbolism is based on an unworkable fiction.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

quote:
The metal itself is a McGuffin. It's like a time machine in a science fiction novel. How it works isn't the issue. How it makes the people surrounding it act is what's important. Do you have a problem with SF stories that include things like time travel or FTL travel without going into the whole deal of how they work? Or is this something special for Atlas Shrugged?

When the McGuffin fundamentally contradicts the major core moral and philosophical premises of much of the entire rest of the film...well, sure, things can get a bit problematic, yeah. Rearden's a liar...which is a pretty solid premise for the film, really, heh.

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :

I thought the trailer looked kinda "okay." I actually kind of liked the way that it's set in modern times but shot in a way that is reminiscent of earlier.

I had a pretty visceral negative reaction at the cartoonishly evil government guy(s), but honestly it's not like there's a lack of cartoonishly evil corporate guys in cinema, and I don't mind some variety in the protagonist/antagonist demographcis. I particularly liked the American Gothic TV show because it was straight-up unapologetic Christian storyline, and I hadn't actually seen one before.

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :

quote:
I actually kind of liked the way that it's set in modern times but shot in a way that is reminiscent of earlier.

Yeah, actually, from what I understand, the book is set in a nebulous time period, sort of like Brazil's "somewhere in the 20th century."

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
But the point here is that this rearden metal metaphorically represents the self-made man, when in reality it couldn't have been created by anything less than a large collective effort. It's one thing if the bad science is merely a plot tool, it's another when the thematic symbolism is based on an unworkable fiction.

"we captains of industry, and our findings from nasa and the large hadron collider .."

hmm.

quote:
Yeah, actually, from what I understand, the book is set in a nebulous time period, sort of like Brazil's "somewhere in the 20th century."

If it gets more people on board for modernizing our rail architecture and being half as cool in this regard as the chinese and europeans, I am ALL for it.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

I swear I hadn't even mentioned this anywhere else but Atlas Shrugged: The Drinking Game is already an independent idea in multiple places. oh god.

Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :

I can imagine the headline:

"objectivist movie causes Americans to emulate evil socialist and communist countries"

Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :

The director doubles starring as john galt. The budget is five million.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

cmon objectivism, what the hell. Even scientology can plunk down a hundred mil for battlefield earth, and you can't do half that for your own private inchon?

Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
cmon objectivism, what the hell. Even scientology can plunk down a hundred mil for battlefield earth, and you can't do half that for your own private inchon?

That's not very fair. Scientology is known for actively recruiting wealthy celebrities.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
But it isn't really the issue. What Rabbit said was this: If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics. I replied that this was so only in her own ethics, and then she made the claim that it was so in Judaism. It isn't.

The Sages say that "Derekh eretz" (roughly: ethical behavior) preceded the Torah by 26 generations. The reference is to the 26 generations from Adam to Moses. So ethical behavior exists the moment there's even a single person. Dealing with individuals rather than social groups hardly "guts" ethics.

You are missing the key point. An ethical system can only deal directly with individuals without denying the the reality of social groups.

In fact, the extent to which a proposed moral system deals with individuals vs groups is not correlated to whether or not it recognizes the reality of social groups. "Objectivism", for example, denies the reality of social groups yet has a great deal to say about the ethical obligations of social institutions (like government) to individuals.

[ February 14, 2011, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
But it isn't really the issue. What Rabbit said was this: If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics. I replied that this was so only in her own ethics, and then she made the claim that it was so in Judaism. It isn't.

The Sages say that "Derekh eretz" (roughly: ethical behavior) preceded the Torah by 26 generations. The reference is to the 26 generations from Adam to Moses. So ethical behavior exists the moment there's even a single person. Dealing with individuals rather than social groups hardly "guts" ethics.
You are missing the key point. An ethical system can only deal directly with individuals without denying the the reality of social groups.

Yes it can. You assume that the only way to recognize the reality of social groups is to give them a life of their own. To say, for example, that while an individual doesn't have the right to take your money and give it to someone else, a large aggregate of individuals identifying as a social group does.

Which is why I said "...according to your ethics", which are essentially based in pragmatism. The "principles" come later.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

quote:
The metal itself is a McGuffin. It's like a time machine in a science fiction novel.
Well, of course. But we do take apart science fiction all the time. Had a pretty good time with Avatar's "unobtainium," you know? Then there's Plinkett's review of star wars.

But the point here is that this rearden metal metaphorically represents the self-made man, when in reality it couldn't have been created by anything less than a large collective effort. It's one thing if the bad science is merely a plot tool, it's another when the thematic symbolism is based on an unworkable fiction.

But it's not true. Tesla didn't require a large collective effort to invent alternating current. Eli Whitney didn't need a large collective to invent the cotton gin. The transistor wasn't invented by a single person; but it wasn't a "large group effort", either. It was a handful of people.

And WADR, I don't believe you. I think you're using a double standard here. No one kvetched about the FTL drive in Star Wars. No one bellyached about the time machine in Wells' book. I mean, hell, Wells was a socialist to the core, but even he had his Traveller invent and build the thing himself.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Which is why I said "...according to your ethics", which are essentially based in pragmatism. The "principles" come later.

You clearly know nothing about my ethics.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:
The metal itself is a McGuffin. It's like a time machine in a science fiction novel. How it works isn't the issue. How it makes the people surrounding it act is what's important. Do you have a problem with SF stories that include things like time travel or FTL travel without going into the whole deal of how they work? Or is this something special for Atlas Shrugged?
When the McGuffin fundamentally contradicts the major core moral and philosophical premises of much of the entire rest of the film...well, sure, things can get a bit problematic, yeah. Rearden's a liar...which is a pretty solid premise for the film, really, heh.

That's dishonest. How is he a liar? Now you're just trying to find excuses for disliking the story.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

It's nice to see that all you "mature people" are interested in discussing things honestly.

Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :

Someday, you'll be better at picking out which things are actually immature and dishonest rather than in staunch disagreement with your ethical leanings and personal taste.

By doing that you might know Rakeesh isn't just "trying to find excuses for disliking the story". That perhaps he is saying something which is neither dishonest nor immature, but you felt compelled to belt out these insinuations about him or us because you like to get in fights about these things.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
You assume that the only way to recognize the reality of social groups is to give them a life of their own.

This is a gross misunderstanding of my position. You presume that the only way for an ethical system to recognize social groups is to consider them as persons. This is fundamentally wrong. Social groups can be recognized as units with rights, responsibilities, and ethical roles that are different from the rights, roles and responsibilities of individuals.

Let me offer an analogy. An body is made up of individual cells. Those cells are organized into organs and the organs work together to ensure the health of person. The health of individual cells is a critical part of the health of the body and a body can not be healthy unless it is organized to promote the health of individual cells. Nonetheless, there are occasions when the health of the body is achieved by the sacrifice of individual cells. Trying to determine what constitutes a healthy cell without considering its function within the various levels of structure to which it belongs is absurd. A cell that thrives and yet disrupts the healthy function of the body is a disease. When a cell operates to maximize its own vitality, without regard to the body, it becomes a cancer.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

Well, Lisa, if the film remotely follows the book then yeah, he's gonna be a liar or the film will be founded on a total nonsense McGuffin, because you can't create such an uber awesome metal like that alone or even in a small group. As has been repeatedly stated, it needs a huge collective, collaborative effort.

In the film, did he make the metal alone (impossible), or with such an effort, contradicting the rest of the book's philosophy? I'm not being dishonest, there's just a fundamental contradiction here. I can't say for sure but it looks like you're not very happy about that, because it's a pretty basic one.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well, Lisa, if the film remotely follows the book then yeah, he's gonna be a liar or the film will be founded on a total nonsense McGuffin, because you can't create such an uber awesome metal like that alone or even in a small group. As has been repeatedly stated, it needs a huge collective, collaborative effort.

You know, just asserting something over and over doesn't make it true. Just boring.

It does not require a collective or collaborative effort. I can see why someone living in a culture that thinks of everything in terms of collectivism might think that, but it simply doesn't jibe with reality. I gave examples above. Do I need to do so again? Eli Whitney. George Washington Carver. Nicola Tesla. Benjamin Franklin. Thomas Jefferson. Lewis Waterman. Joseph Bramah. Linus Yale Sr. Jonas Salk. Louis Pasteur.

History is absolutely replete with individuals who worked on inventions alone in a basement or a garage and came up with things that changed the world.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

Albert Marsh and William Hoskins coinvented the alloy Nichrome, which is the basis for toasters and electric space heaters. Just the two of them, experimenting.

Richard Waterstrat seems to have invented Reardon Metal, or something pretty similar.

Alfred Wilm discovered age hardening. Perhaps Reardon invented a process by which steel could be altered. The story doesn't get into it because, again, it's a McGuffin. It doesn't matter how he did it; he did it. And all the outraged claims of "But no one can invent things themselves!" simply go to prove Rand's point. Y'all sound like the more pathetic supporting characters in Atlas Shrugged.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

Did you really have to state that last sentence? Seriously, would the effectiveness of your point be diminished if you hadn't said it?

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

Pretty much every example you gave, Lisa, is while a
huge invention also very specific. We'll just have to see how magic Reardon's metal really is. But thanks for the name-calling! Makes me feel better about going out of my way to use the correct terminology for fans of Rand. Classy as usual.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Makes me feel better about going out of my way to use the correct terminology for fans of Rand. Classy as usual.

I appreciated the effort.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

Lisa, None of those are examples of independent invention. There are good reasons that none of these things were invented by orphan children living in the Serengeti. There are good reasons why Nichcrome alloy wasn't discovered in the 13th century and semiconductors weren't invented in the 19th. The rate of invention has exploded over the past century because the knowledge base our society possesses and shares freely. Everyone of the inventions you list is the culmination of a huge body of scientific research. Those invention build on a body of freely exchanged knowlegde that is the product of thousands of people who are supported by society. The people who discover that foundational science almost never produce anything patentable or invent a marketable product, yet there without there work none of these inventions would have been possible.

Most of the greatest scientists in history never held a patent or invented a marketable product, yet without their work most inventions would be impossible. In this sense, every invention is the collaboration of a huge group of people and would be impossible without the society that sponsors basic research and shares knowledge freely.

Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :

quote:
There are good reasons that none of these things were invented by orphan children living in the Serengeti. There are good reasons why Nichcrome alloy wasn't discovered in the 13th century and semiconductors weren't invented in the 19th.

I think these points are particularly salient. Intelligence, creativity, drive, knowledge, etc...don't exist in a vacuum. Many of these people who made great individual inventions were able to do so because of an education system that gave them tools and prepared them to, a social system that afforded them certain opportunities, possibly a supportive family that was integral during their formative years, etc...one of my main criticisms of objectivism is that it seems to ignore factors like this. And along the lines of something I mentioned in the jewish thread, also seems to ignore psychological and neurophysiological facts regarding the constraints and causes of human behavior.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Did you really have to state that last sentence? Seriously, would the effectiveness of your point be diminished if you hadn't said it?

Didn't you mean to post this as JanitorBlade?

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Lisa, None of those are examples of independent invention. There are good reasons that none of these things were invented by orphan children living in the Serengeti. There are good reasons why Nichcrome alloy wasn't discovered in the 13th century and semiconductors weren't invented in the 19th. The rate of invention has exploded over the past century because the knowledge base our society possesses and shares freely. Everyone of the inventions you list is the culmination of a huge body of scientific research. Those invention build on a body of freely exchanged knowlegde that is the product of thousands of people who are supported by society. The people who discover that foundational science almost never produce anything patentable or invent a marketable product, yet there without there work none of these inventions would have been possible.

Most of the greatest scientists in history never held a patent or invented a marketable product, yet without their work most inventions would be impossible. In this sense, every invention is the collaboration of a huge group of people and would be impossible without the society that sponsors basic research and shares knowledge freely.

So what? They also wouldn't have been able to invent those things if God hadn't created the earth. You might as well say that Rand didn't write her novels alone. She was inspired by Victor Hugo, she used a typewriter, which she neither invented nor assembled, and she probably ate food that was grown by other people while writing.

You've taken this to such a ridiculous extreme that it's pretty clear you have no real argument and are just arguing for form now.

We're human beings. We don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. That doesn't mean that what I do with my mind is a collaborative act. If I write something, I did it. Me. The fact that I made use of things around me that may have been created by other individuals is a good thing, but it doesn't mean my creation was a collaborative one.

When you define absolutely everything as collaborative, you rob the word of any meaning.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

Everything IS collaborative. That's reality. That's my point. An ethical system that ignores that reality is the equivalent of a scientific theory that ignores the laws of motion. Its meaningless. It doesn't apply to the reality of human existence.

Human beings are a social species. Without society, we would lack most of the traits we think of as be characteristically human. The very thoughts we think are formulated in words we learn from our communities.

You can't build a rational ethical system if you ignore that reality.

[ February 14, 2011, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :

Guys, let's be fair. Lisa does seem to have counterexampled the specific point at issue, namely that Reardon couldn't realistically invent a new alloy without a large team.

It comes as a surprise to me too, but maybe that's just because I'm too accustomed to big-lab research myself.

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :

Not really an either-or. The individual inventor is credited with the spark of creativity that uses previously-discovered principles and engineering to create something new. That inventor should certainly receive credit for the breakthrough, but it was not created in a vacuum and would have been impossible without the previous work of others.

"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."
-- Albert Einstein

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

Lisa's counter-examples were almost entirely much older inventions, though. Hell, 17th and 18th century inventors? Really? I wasn't aware Reardon lived back then. Which is the point Rabbit touched on.

Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :

I'll grant that Destineer, but my particular response was more of a general comment on objectivism. Whether you want to call the factors that I describe above "collaboration" isn't quite so important to me. But accepting those facts, and the types Rabbit brings up, should make us question what we as individuals owe to others besides ourselves. About how much praise or responsibility we deserve for our actions. About whether a laissez faire capitalist system would really ensure non-coercive contracts simply because the government doesn't intervene. Michael Sandel has a great exploration of this in regards to joining the military in his Justice book. It would also seem that almost all of the data coming out of behavioral economics would contradict this notion that individuals make rational economic decisions based on optimizing or maximizing their benefits or well being or whatever.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Did you really have to state that last sentence? Seriously, would the effectiveness of your point be diminished if you hadn't said it?
Didn't you mean to post this as JanitorBlade?

No, I was speaking to you as just another poster.

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :

It's also hard to tell which inventors were truly solo workers. Harry Brearley is credited as the sole inventor of stainless steel, but at the time he was the head of Brown-Firth Research Laboratory, which was tasked with finding ways to reduce rust in gun barrels. He's the one who noticed the lack of rust in one discarded sample, but did he actually create the specific alloy?

Much of the research, experiments and gruntwork that resulted in Thomas Edison's experiments were done by his assistants under his direction. He is listed as the inventor of the results, but can it be said that none of the insights came from his team?

I think you've got a fair example with Tesla, though.

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :

Right, but the initial question had mainly to do with whether Atlas Shrugged is a realistic story. And she did show that this aspect of it isn't unrealistic in a way that undermines the point.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

quote:
Right, but the initial question had mainly to do with whether Atlas Shrugged is a realistic story. And she did show that this aspect of it isn't unrealistic in a way that undermines the point.

Only if the invention in the film were a much older item than it appears to be.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Right, but the initial question had mainly to do with whether Atlas Shrugged is a realistic story. And she did show that this aspect of it isn't unrealistic in a way that undermines the point.

Undermines what particular point?

I think my critiques undermine several of Ayn Rand's main points.

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :

The point that was specifically getting addressed at the time was that an inventor could invent something industrially relevant by himself. While I think it's legitimate to criticize objectivism for the reasons you mention, its harping on a different point than what was relevant at the time.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Everything IS collaborative. That's reality. That's my point. An ethical system that ignores that reality is the equivalent of a scientific theory that ignores the laws of motion. Its meaningless. It doesn't apply to the reality of human existence.

Human beings are a social species. Without society, we would lack most of the traits we think of as be characteristically human. The very thoughts we think are formulated in words we learn from our communities.

You can't build a rational ethical system if you ignore that reality.

Objectivism recognizes that we accumulate knowledge. I can point you to direct quotes from Rand where she talks about it. You want to derive from that that society has rights that the individuals that comprise it do not. That absolutely does not follow. You can believe it, but it doesn't follow from the premise.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Lisa's counter-examples were almost entirely much older inventions, though. Hell, 17th and 18th century inventors? Really? I wasn't aware Reardon lived back then. Which is the point Rabbit touched on.

Really. So a person living today can't do what a person living 150 years ago could? I'd love to see you try and support that.

And "almost entirely" is weaselly. There were modern examples, including one which is extremely close to Reardon Metal itself.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Guys, let's be fair. Lisa does seem to have counterexampled the specific point at issue, namely that Reardon couldn't realistically invent a new alloy without a large team.

It comes as a surprise to me too, but maybe that's just because I'm too accustomed to big-lab research myself.

I appreciate that, Destineer. That's the sort of honesty I actually expected from a number of other posters here (hello, Rakeesh) based on prior interactions. But I guess dogpiling me on the subject is far too much fun to bother with such niceties.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:
Right, but the initial question had mainly to do with whether Atlas Shrugged is a realistic story. And she did show that this aspect of it isn't unrealistic in a way that undermines the point.
Only if the invention in the film were a much older item than it appears to be.

Just bizarre...

Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:
Right, but the initial question had mainly to do with whether Atlas Shrugged is a realistic story. And she did show that this aspect of it isn't unrealistic in a way that undermines the point.
Only if the invention in the film were a much older item than it appears to be.

Oh come on Rakeesh, I know Lisa was rude to you but it seems like you're really pushing this to a silly degree.

Individual inventions continue well past the 18th century. The Wright Brothers were inventing around the changeover from 19th to 20th centuries, for example.

Many inventions of the 20th century were joint efforts, but many more were not. The superconductor, the Fleming valve, the tractor, the electrical ignition system, the bra, the laser, the pacemaker, BASIC, kevlar, the mouse... these were all invented by one or two people. The microchip was invented by a single inventor... twice. And all that's to say nothing of the perhaps more frivolous ones like cornflakes, hacky sack, and instant coffee.

The fact is, even today, individual inventors still exist.

And beyond all that, even if Reardon metal was the work of a group of researchers, whom Reardon had funded entirely out of pocket for that express purpose, it would still be perfectly reasonable for him to claim it as his and guard the secret of its creation.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

Thanks, Dan. And if I was specifically rude to Rakeesh, I apologize.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
And beyond all that, even if Reardon metal was the work of a group of researchers, whom Reardon had funded entirely out of pocket for that express purpose, it would still be perfectly reasonable for him to claim it as his and guard the secret of its creation.

You are begging the question. Whether or not it is ethical for him to guard a secret that could benefit many in order to secure his own profits is the question at hand.

Its certainly the way things are done in our society, but that's a long way from demonstrating that it is the ethical way to do things.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

Pft, if? Lisa, I don't really expect much courtesy from you when it comes to discussing Rand or Objectivism. Anyway, the rudeness isn't the point though it was irritating when you're permitted to get huffy about what I consider to be trivial terminology.

The point is that, as has been discussed at length, it's not just a McGuffin. (And no, it's been discussed in more ways than to just repeat it). My point isn't now and has never been that individual inventors don't exist in the present day. I don't think you'll look around, Dan or Lisa, and see anyone else saying they don't. What you will see is that the more complicated an invention gets, the less likely that it was invented by one lone Producer!, in proportion to its complexity.

Lisa's list of lone inventors does nothing to contradict this point, for two reasons: one, almost all of those inventions are not modern at all and two, most of them are when compared to the kinds of invention we're discussing now not very complex. And even if you break things down to the things you mention, Dan, well then another problem emerges: all of the things you mention require collaborative effort too, but Objectivism requires we reject it for...well, some reason, it's not too clear exactly.

Wait, here it is:

quote:

We're human beings. We don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. That doesn't mean that what I do with my mind is a collaborative act. If I write something, I did it. Me. The fact that I made use of things around me that may have been created by other individuals is a good thing, but it doesn't mean my creation was a collaborative one.

No, what it means is: you couldn't have done it alone. Something which Rand and Objectivism, at least every time I've heard people in support of those ideas ever speak out about it, reject with surprising vehemence.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:

We're human beings. We don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. That doesn't mean that what I do with my mind is a collaborative act. If I write something, I did it. Me. The fact that I made use of things around me that may have been created by other individuals is a good thing, but it doesn't mean my creation was a collaborative one.
No, what it means is: you couldn't have done it alone. Something which Rand and Objectivism, at least every time I've heard people in support of those ideas ever speak out about it, reject with surprising vehemence.

No, you haven't. Clearly you think you have, but you've simply misunderstood. When we say that individuals create, we don't mean that in a vacuum; we simply reject the comparison to that and any kind of collaboration. Because that is not the same thing as collaboration, and the false identification of it as such is a dishonest rhetorical trick, and nothing more.

As I said to Rabbit, if you want, I'll show you where Rand talks about how we build off of a general knowledge base.

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
And beyond all that, even if Reardon metal was the work of a group of researchers, whom Reardon had funded entirely out of pocket for that express purpose, it would still be perfectly reasonable for him to claim it as his and guard the secret of its creation.

See, this I don't necessarily agree with. In fact, I disagree with the notion that just because Reardon did all the work himself, that automatically gives him the right to claim it as "his." Because I don't think that facts about "who owns what" are part of nature. They're for civilization to decide.

This isn't to say that there's no right or wrong decision to make about how to put together a system of property. But constructing such a system and making it work is a practical problem. If we do an effective job of it, we've done well even if not everyone gets to keep what we might naively call the fruits of their labor.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
As I said to Rabbit, if you want, I'll show you where Rand talks about how we build off of a general knowledge base.

I know what Rand says about this issue. She's wrong.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
As I said to Rabbit, if you want, I'll show you where Rand talks about how we build off of a general knowledge base.
I know what Rand says about this issue. She's wrong.

So you don't think that we build off of a general knowledge base?

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."
-- Albert Einstein

That would be Newton, actually. And he wasn't being generous, he was mocking Hooke, who had accused him of stealing results. Hooke was short, and sensitive about it.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

More on-topic: Can I just point out that existing laws about patents and whatnot, horribly statist as Lisa no doubt considers them, do in fact recognise the individual inventor? If someone invents Rearden metal tomorrow and patents it, he will be free to make a humongous profit off it, if the patent system works as intended. Indeed, he'll likely make a bigger profit than in a purely libertarian system, which presumably would not prohibit other people from reverse-engineering his process. So I suggest that those who object to the individual inventor should take a deep breath and recognise that they're just wrong on this point. Such people do exist, and even current law recognises that they are entitled to compensation for their work, whatever the degree of giantism in the shoulders they stood on.

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :

quote:
Lisa does seem to have counterexampled the specific point at issue, namely that Reardon couldn't realistically invent a new alloy without a large team.

Obviously I wasn't precise enough when I used the phrase "collaborative effort." I wasn't necessarily talking about working in a large team. Rabbit is definitely on my wavelength. Inventions don't happen in a vacuum. There has to be the right environment, in terms of prior art, available technology, information exchange, and support from other branches of society to allow for an invention to occur. Albert Marsh and William Hoskins could not have alloyed nickel and chrome unless someone else had been able to isolate those particular elements. The Wright brothers borrowed glider and engine designs from others. Many inventors couldn't reduce their work to practice without government funding, etc.

quote:
Tesla didn't require a large collective effort to invent alternating current.

Let's start with the fact that Tesla didn't invent alternating current. He built on it. And given that Tesla worked for Edison, and Westinghouse, among others, it's not really possible to identify which of Tesla's inventions were purely his, and which were inspired by his coworkers, fellow students, or his teachers. He most certainly did not work in a vacuum.

quote:
No one bellyached about the time machine in Wells' book.

Because the point of Wells' book was a thought experiment about the human tendency to ask "what if?" As I said before, the time machine was merely a plot device that allowed him to examine that question. Rearden metal is a metaphoric device that allowed Rand to argue that since Rearden invented it, he should be entitled to all of its rewards. Once again, I haven't read the book, and I'm planning to, but that's my understanding of it. But unless he saw the need, funded the research, figured out how to isolate the ingredients, and did the grunt work of trial and error combinations, and all the other myriad details that lead to the invention, then the system that supported him as he invented it deserves to benefit to a certain degree. I'm with you 100% that those benefits shouldn't drain him, or cripple further efforts on his part, but hell, you can't even build a railroad unless you've got a government that can use eminent domain to secure contiguous land, and he wouldn't benefit nearly as much if the railroad didn't exist to provide a market for his invention.

Curious, what do you think of businesses that exist merely by taking a cut off of transactions?

quote:
As I said to Rabbit, if you want, I'll show you where Rand talks about how we build off of a general knowledge base.

Please do.

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :

quote:
If someone invents Rearden metal tomorrow and patents it, he will be free to make a humongous profit off it, if the patent system works as intended.

Bear in mind that the reason patents exist is not to ensure that inventors profit, it is to ensure that inventions are published so that others can learn from and build on that art.

Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :

I never thought about eminent domain and how it makes railroads a horrible example to use for the vindication of objectivism, since rail systems basically require eminent domain to be functional.

I am sure that it can be as easily sidestepped in the movie.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

quote:
If someone invents Rearden metal tomorrow and patents it, he will be free to make a humongous profit off it, if the patent system works as intended.
Bear in mind that the reason patents exist is not to ensure that inventors profit, it is to ensure that inventions are published so that others can learn from and build on that art.

Actually, this isn't even a matter of opinion. That may be one benefit of them, from your POV, but the Constitution (Article I, section 8) lists the power of Congress, including:

quote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Since it actually states the reason for patents, it's kind of hard to argue about it.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

quote:
Tesla didn't require a large collective effort to invent alternating current.
Let's start with the fact that Tesla didn't invent alternating current. He built on it. And given that Tesla worked for Edison, and Westinghouse, among others, it's not really possible to identify which of Tesla's inventions were purely his, and which were inspired by his coworkers, fellow students, or his teachers. He most certainly did not work in a vacuum.

Considering that Edison tried to ruin Tesla, as well as AC, using every dirty trick in the book, it's pretty unlikely that he invented it himself. And inspiration isn't the issue. A hundred people can be inspired, but only a few of them are going to act successfully on that inspiration. They're entitled to claim that achievement for themselves.

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

quote:
No one bellyached about the time machine in Wells' book.
Because the point of Wells' book was a thought experiment about the human tendency to ask "what if?" As I said before, the time machine was merely a plot device that allowed him to examine that question. Rearden metal is a metaphoric device that allowed Rand to argue that since Rearden invented it, he should be entitled to all of its rewards.

What distinction are you trying to make? Reardon Metal could have been Reardon Foam Rubber. That it was an alloy is utterly nonessential to the point of the book. Reardon Metal, to phrase it as you did with Wells, was merely a plot device that allowed Rand to examine the question of whether a creator is entitled to his creation.

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Once again, I haven't read the book, and I'm planning to, but that's my understanding of it. But unless he saw the need, funded the research, figured out how to isolate the ingredients, and did the grunt work of trial and error combinations, and all the other myriad details that lead to the invention,

That's the implication in the book. Except for the "funded the research" part. It seemed to me that he did the research. That he experimented until he came up with Reardon Metal. I can't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure the book even mentions the effort.

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
but hell, you can't even build a railroad unless you've got a government that can use eminent domain to secure contiguous land, and he wouldn't benefit nearly as much if the railroad didn't exist to provide a market for his invention.

Again, that's not true. There was one transcontinental railroad in the days of the robber barons which refused to take grants from the government, and operated independently. And thrived while railroads based on government grants crashed and burned. The whole "robber baron" phenomenon was yet another example of how government interference makes things worse.

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Curious, what do you think of businesses that exist merely by taking a cut off of transactions?

Insufficient data. Capital is the lifeblood of innovation. Few people can afford to produce in a big way without the investment of capital from the outside. People who facilitate this investment are providing a vital service. So it isn't simply a matter of taking a cut; it's a matter of getting paid for services rendered.

Yes, there are people who take a cut without actually providing any real service, and those are parasites, worth about as much as the stuff stuck to the bottom of my shoe. But there will always be bottom feeders.

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

quote:
As I said to Rabbit, if you want, I'll show you where Rand talks about how we build off of a general knowledge base.
Please do.

Sure.

quote:
Can man derive any personal benefit from living in a human society? Yes--if it is a human society. The two great values to be gained from social existence are: knowledge and trade. Man is the only species that can transmit and expand his store of knowledge from generation to generation; the knowledge potentially available to man is greater than any one man could begin to acquire in his own life-span; every man gains an incalculable benefit from the knowledge discovered by others. The second great benefit is the division of labor: it enables a man to devote his effort to a particular field of work and to trade with others who specialize in other fields. This form of cooperation allows all men who take part in it to achieve a greater knowledge, skill and productive return on their effort than they could achieve if each had to produce everything he needs, on a desert island or on a self-sustaining farm.

But these very benefits indicate, delimit and define what kind of men can be of value to one another and in what kind of society: only rational, productive, independent men in a rational, productive, free society.

--Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics"

If you want to read the whole article, you can read it here. The problem is when someone comes along and says, "Because you benefited from others (any others), you owe all others a piece of your life." That's a lot like a kid running into an intersection and washing windshields (without asking permission) and then demanding payment. It's the moral equivalent of extortion.

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :

quote:
There was one transcontinental railroad in the days of the robber barons which refused to take grants from the government, and operated independently.

How did they acquire land from people that didn't want to give or sell it to them?

quote:
People who facilitate this investment are providing a vital service.

Then government provides a vital service.

quote:
Because you benefited from others (any others), you owe all others a piece of your life."

Strawman. Because you benefitted from others you owe those others a share of what you were only able to create due to that support. Where that share goes is irrelevant, although in a system of democratic government you have a say in making that decision.

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :

quote:
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Since it actually states the reason for patents, it's kind of hard to argue about it.

You're right, the Constitution specifically says: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,"

"by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" is a means to that end.

Thanks.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

quote:
There was one transcontinental railroad in the days of the robber barons which refused to take grants from the government, and operated independently.
How did they acquire land from people that didn't want to give or sell it to them?

Like who, for example? How do you know there were such people?

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

quote:
People who facilitate this investment are providing a vital service.
Then government provides a vital service.

Pardon me. People who facilitate this investment are providing a service to people who are voluntarily purchasing it. I wasn't precise enough, I guess.

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

quote:
Because you benefited from others (any others), you owe all others a piece of your life."
Strawman. Because you benefitted from others you owe those others a share of what you were only able to create due to that support.

Except that you don't want me to owe only them. No, you want me to owe everyone.

quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Where that share goes is irrelevant, although in a system of democratic government you have a say in making that decision.

Democracy is good for deciding between two or more legitimate things. It doesn't ever justify robbing one person to pay another person.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
As I said to Rabbit, if you want, I'll show you where Rand talks about how we build off of a general knowledge base.
I know what Rand says about this issue. She's wrong.
So you don't think that we build off of a general knowledge base?

How could you possibly have gotten that from my post.

Ayn Rand goes through a lot of mental gymnastics to explain why building off a general knowledge base does not create a moral obligation to the society which has fostered, preserved, taught, and freely distributed that knowledge. She's wrong.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Again, that's not true. There was one transcontinental railroad in the days of the robber barons which refused to take grants from the government, and operated independently. And thrived while railroads based on government grants crashed and burned. The whole "robber baron" phenomenon was yet another example of how government interference makes things worse.

Only in fantasy. The first transcontinental railroad (completed in 1869) was built with huge government subsidies. Nearly all the land was donated by the government (most of it stolen from Indian tribes). The power of eminent domain was used to obtain lands from private white land owners. In addition to donating the land , the government paid The Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads with a combination of government bonds and land grants for constructing the railroad.

[ February 15, 2011, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

I think it would help to know what the One Transcontinental Railroad was that apparently operated independently.

Not that it makes such a great example with what to do with rail now, since placing down the rail without eminent domain only really works when all the land is just stolen from the native americans. Doesn't quite work so well for modernizing rail infrastructure from yon 1800's.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
As I said to Rabbit, if you want, I'll show you where Rand talks about how we build off of a general knowledge base.
I know what Rand says about this issue. She's wrong.
So you don't think that we build off of a general knowledge base?
How could you possibly have gotten that from my post.

Ayn Rand goes through a lot of mental gymnastics to explain why building off a general knowledge base does not create a moral obligation to the society which has fostered, preserved, taught, and freely distributed that knowledge. She's wrong.

"Society" hasn't fostered, preserved, taught, or freely distributed anything. Individual human beings have.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I think it would help to know what the One Transcontinental Railroad was that apparently operated independently.

Not that it makes such a great example with what to do with rail now, since placing down the rail without eminent domain only really works when all the land is just stolen from the native americans. Doesn't quite work so well for modernizing rail infrastructure from yon 1800's.

The Great Northern Railway

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

quote:
"Society" hasn't fostered, preserved, taught, or freely distributed anything. Individual human beings have.

What happens when the vast majority, or at least an undoubted plurality, of those individual human beings, believe in that "society" themselves? Do you then tell them, "Well y'all are just kiddin' yourself, don't know what you're talkin' about you're not actually a part of any sort of group fostering of effort whether or not you think you are. I know better."

(The funny thing being that that kind of presumption would just positively steam your broccoli if it came from, y'know, government but is quite right and proper when coming from you.)

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:
"Society" hasn't fostered, preserved, taught, or freely distributed anything. Individual human beings have.
What happens when the vast majority, or at least an undoubted plurality, of those individual human beings, believe in that "society" themselves?

The same thing that happens when they believe in fairies, or the FSM.

"If 10 million people say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." --Anatole France

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

quote:
"If 10 million people say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." --Anatole France

But in this case doesn't the predominant view actually define the reality? When a group of people collectively agree about the existence of the community and what it's rights and responsibilities are?

If you're born on a commune is it your right to enjoy the benefits of the commune without having any responsibility to contribute back to it? Do the members of the commune have an obligation to permit this parasitic behavior?

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
"Society" hasn't fostered, preserved, taught, or freely distributed anything. Individual human beings have.

That's a meaningless distinction. It's like saying, "People don't write books, its a biochemical process".

Collaboration is essential in fostering, preserving, teaching and distributing knowledge. These aren't things that can be done individually. Yes collaborative groups are made up of individuals. But some things are better described as a working unit rather than a collection of part. When talking about the writing of a book, its more useful to talk about the work done by person than the individual biochemical reactions that make up that person. In exactly that same way, when we consider fostering, preserving, and distributing knowledge it is more useful to talk about societies and cultures than the individuals within them.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
"Society" hasn't fostered, preserved, taught, or freely distributed anything. Individual human beings have.
That's a meaningless distinction. It's like saying, "People don't write books, its a biochemical process".

Again, that's only true according to your view. I can understand that you see the world differently, even if I disagree. Why do you lack that ability? I'd understand if you were a little kid, but I'm fairly sure you aren't.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Collaboration is essential in fostering, preserving, teaching and distributing knowledge.

Collaborating is when individuals collaborate with one another. What you're describing is not collaboration in the way the word is ever used. You're basically arguing that it's qualitatively the same, but that's an argument; not a fact.

Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
The Great Northern Railway[/URL]

You are pointing at a railroad that didn't take public money for the transcontinental railroad specifically but took governmental land grants to expand. Land from the government is much more relevant to questioning whether modern rail development requires Eminent Domain.

I think your point is lost if you have to point to a project done in the 1800s that would rely on dispossession of undeveloped land from indigenous peoples, that would not work today without the ability for the government to force buyout of private land.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
"Society" hasn't fostered, preserved, taught, or freely distributed anything. Individual human beings have.
That's a meaningless distinction. It's like saying, "People don't write books, its a biochemical process".
Again, that's only true according to your view. I can understand that you see the world differently, even if I disagree. Why do you lack that ability? I'd understand if you were a little kid, but I'm fairly sure you aren't.

It's not a matter of a point of view, its a statement of fact. Unless we are talking about fundamental atomic particles, everything is made up of some collection of smaller things. Whether it's useful to think of a collection of things as something distinctive (like a person or a nation) or merely collection of smaller subunits depends on the types of questions we are asking.

The writing of a book could be described as a series of chemical reactions, but there are reasons why it is more useful in most cases to think of that collection of chemicals as a human being. Neither way of viewing the system is factually incorrect. The "proper" way of describing the system depends on the type of questions you are trying to act.

In exactly the same way, it is factually accurate to describe the United States as either a collection of individuals or one nation. Both ways of looking at it are useful for answering certain questions. Was the Gaza strip bombed by Israel or by individual Israelis? It's not a fair question because both ways of looking at it are factually accurate. The "correct" way of looking at it depends on the question we are trying to answer.

If you are going to keep arguing that groups don't do anything, only Individuals, then I will keep countering with "Individuals don't do anything, only quarks actually do anything until you give me some reason why there is a difference between the two statements.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Collaboration is essential in fostering, preserving, teaching and distributing knowledge.
Collaborating is when individuals collaborate with one another. What you're describing is not collaboration in the way the word is ever used. You're basically arguing that it's qualitatively the same, but that's an argument; not a fact.

This quite simply put not true. Individuals have to work together in ways that are collaborative in the way the word is used in ordinary language and by you in order to foster, preserve, teach and distribute knowledge. This is my profession and it is fundamentally collaborative in the way you think of as collaboration. I interact directly with hundreds of collaborators to foster, preserve, teach and distribute knowledge. We have this as a common goal. We agree to work together. If that isn't what you mean by collaboration, what do you mean?

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
I think your point is lost if you have to point to a project done in the 1800s that would rely on dispossession of undeveloped land from indigenous peoples.

Don't forget that this also required military action to remove said indigenous peoples from their land.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

The tycoon in charge of the GNR totally lobbied for the U.S. government to give him permission to just baldly force a railroad straight through established Indian-held lands at the time and was pretty set on doing it, too. He was thwarted by a veto.

I'm not gonna make a guess at whether he was overall a good dude or a bad dude but his is an example only of expansive capitalism that is made possible only by American pioneers capitalizing on an easily malignable indiginous race that can be pushed out of the way to consider all land along the frontier essentially "up for grabs," which the government doled out accordingly and used militaries and state guard to enforce this dispossession and dispersion.

There's no more frontier. There's no more wide swaths of completely undeveloped land with indians you can just push out of the way or pay people to shoot. Unless you want to leave rail lines in pretty much the condition and operability they were capped at from during this period, rail networks act as a quintessential example of things that need eminent domain to modernize.

Which makes it, at the very least, amusing that it would be the centerpiece for a modernized Objectivist fairy tale. Especially in an era where the Reardenized high speed rail lines of the world are ONLY being developed via eminent domain and/or outright seizure of land from people.

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :

quote:
Collaborating is when individuals collaborate with one another.

And a sovereign nation is a nation that is sovereign.

I think this argument is over.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
The Great Northern Railway
You are pointing at a railroad that didn't take public money for the transcontinental railroad specifically but took governmental land grants to expand. Land from the government is much more relevant to questioning whether modern rail development requires Eminent Domain.

Interesting. Since the article I linked to (and which you removed the link from (I've replaced it... you don't need to thank me) says otherwise, I wonder what your source is.

quote:
The Great Northern was the only privately funded, and successfully built, transcontinental railroad in United States history. No federal land grants were used during its construction, unlike every other transcontinental railroad built. It was one of the few transcontinental railroads to avoid receivership following the Panic of 1893. (emphasis added --LL)

quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
I think your point is lost if you have to point to a project done in the 1800s that would rely on dispossession of undeveloped land from indigenous peoples, that would not work today without the ability for the government to force buyout of private land.

Not at all. Because the actual subject was whether railroads had been problematic for use in Atlas Shrugged, and the answer is: no. Taggart Transcontinental wasn't built yesterday.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:
"Society" hasn't fostered, preserved, taught, or freely distributed anything. Individual human beings have.
That's a meaningless distinction. It's like saying, "People don't write books, its a biochemical process".
Again, that's only true according to your view. I can understand that you see the world differently, even if I disagree. Why do you lack that ability? I'd understand if you were a little kid, but I'm fairly sure you aren't.
It's not a matter of a point of view, its a statement of fact.

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :

This is not an argument that can be won. Mostly, I think, because the people involved do not at all experience life and interaction with other people the same way.

I'm not claiming this as analogous to anyone here, but by way of demonstration my son has many of the same habits and attitudes recently associated with Aspergers. He had extremely delayed development, he tends to get extremely focused on some things, he demonstrates almost no empathy to others at all unless he makes an effort to do so, and he doesn't understand a lot of social traditions. We've talked about it and he said he has to consciously notice how people react to each other in social situations and then make sure he says and does the same sort of things when it's called for. We all do, to some extent, I assured him, but when we talked further it became obvious that he really had no concept of the reasons behind many social interactions that I took for granted.

Please note that he's not "challenged." He's smart as hell and I think his focus gives him talents I don't have, and an awful lot of top scientists and mathematicians have similar traits. But he does see things differently than I do.

It wasn't a surprise to me that he read and enjoyed "Atlas Shrugged." To him, it makes perfect and self-evident sense because, I think, it's one of the first times he's read something written by someone thinking the same way he does.

It's easy to dismiss the use and value of a group if you are personally unable to see it, or ever feel a part of it. It's also easy to dismiss the opinions of someone who values the individual over all when you yourself see social grouping as inevitable, desirable. And both would be correct for themselves, but totally wrong for the other.

Again, not claiming I know the thoughts or motivations of anyone here, and certainly there are fans and detractors of Rand for many reasons. But it does read to me like two people who are perhaps physically and emotionally incapable of perceiving life the way their opponent does, which makes any sort of agreement impossible.

[ February 16, 2011, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

quote:
It's not a matter of a point of view, its a statement of fact. Unless we are talking about fundamental atomic particles, everything is made up of some collection of smaller things. Whether it's useful to think of a collection of things as something distinctive (like a person or a nation) or merely collection of smaller subunits depends on the types of questions we are asking.

Rather than simply snicker Lisa, can you please point to the parts of this statement which you consider opinion rather than fact.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
There's a difference between someone disagreeing with Rand (I do, on numerous points) or even disagreeing with Objectivism, and the big wave of "crappy writer! dumb philosophy!" and a whole slew of strawman attacks on either Rand or Objectivism. It happens every time the subject comes up.

So we've got 3 different topics here:
(crossed with something like serious discussion vs flaming)
* Ayn Rand - the person, & her views outside Objectivism sensu stricto
* Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand
* her fiction

It occurred to me (finally!(?)) that this thread is (supposed to be) focused on the last of these..
..so I reckon I should start a new thread, since what I'm interested in is the middle one.

I can get past not having done that in these forums..
..but it would seem best to reply to some of the posts in this thread over on that new one..
..but I don't know whether or not there's some special way to do that.
(I ran across some mention of ~copying over~ some things, but...)

I'll just jump in & try something, I guess.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

PMH, I have no clue what you are talking about. Where did you start this new thread? What are you going to copy over.

I'm afraid you will find that threads in this forum have a life of their own. You can try to limit a discussion, but it rarely works.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

I haven't started a new thread yet.

I thought I'd wait & see if there were any helpful replies.

Now that you mention it, where to do it is an issue. Maybe Ornery American General Comments.

If ~copy over~ doesn't ring any bells, forget it; it was just something I ran across in my whirlwind tour.

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :

PMH, Its actually common practice for people here to copy a post from one thread into another thread when they want to discuss some aspect of that post without derailing the original thread. I don't think anyone sees it as problematic, I just wasn't sure whether this was what you meant by ~copy over~. If you want to start a new thread on Objectivism here at hatrack without some of the baggage in this thread, please feel free. It may work. Sometimes it does but more often than not threads here tend to head in directions the OP never intended or imagined.

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
PMH, Its actually common practice for people here to copy a post from one thread into another thread when they want to discuss some aspect of that post without derailing the original thread. I don't think anyone sees it as problematic, I just wasn't sure whether this was what you meant by ~copy over~. If you want to start a new thread on Objectivism here at hatrack without some of the baggage in this thread, please feel free. It may work. Sometimes it does but more often than not threads here tend to head in directions the OP never intended or imagined.

I recommend putting on some asbestos underwear first. You'll need it.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by PMH:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Whenever the objectivist ethics become a topic of philosophical review, they get demolished, because the premises and implicit premises contain at least eight fatal flaws
I think that's the one I referred to above.
You'll find that Sam whips out Heumer's opus every time the subject comes up. I've pointed out that the "refutation" is based on clear misreading. Heumer takes Rand's definitions of terms as claims. So he'll say that Rand is claiming value to be only agent-relative, and say, "But she doesn't prove it! And here are examples where it isn't!" What he seems clueless about is that Rand, like any philosopher, requires a more rigorous terminology than a person might use in everyday speech. And she is defining the word "value" as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep."

Heumer's inability to understand the difference between defining a specialized terminology and making claims about terms as they are used on the street makes his whole article a complete non sequitur. It may be a refutation, but certainly not of anything Rand wrote.

I've now read your post contra Huemer(sic)'s contra the Objectivist Ethics..
..and gone through his original - again - again..
..and I have a (bit of a (?)) different analysis:

I'd say that AR's definition of "value" /is/ in fact a(n implicit) claim.
(that value is "agent-relative")

The thing is, she goes on to prove that.
(show that/why it is true)
(contra H's "she offers no argument for it")

...but the rest of H's critique shows that his reading of AR was with an eye to finding a number of things that he could say she /seems/ to be saying, and that he could then demolish..
..rather than trying to understand what she was saying.

And so thereby he was able to write something that looks..
(to someone who is anti-AR to begin with)

..like a nice upstanding academic philosopher work..

..which people who also don't actually care to understand her work can point to as an official demolishing of her.

(I realize that that will not convince anyone. I'm learning that to be convincing..
(to people who are coming from a position that AR was just BS - even if they are amenable to convincing)

..one has to somehow manage to present the arguments for them..
(ie, as opposed to just pointing to her presentation)

..in terms that they will understand.
(on first reading)

That is incredibly difficult to do - as I would venture to guess has been demonstrated many times here.

But I'm going to try just a little bit:

I myself had a hard time understanding why in the world she defined "value" that way - as opposed to just going with the colloquial.

I think the reason is that the point of ethics is to guide human choice - and human choice is for the purpose of action..
..at least in the context of ethics, which is built upon the observation that Man has to act in order to survive.

So it's fine to sit around and think that one "values" something -- but absent action, that is sterile.

I'd be happy to go on like this if anyone is interested.

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :

What's your opinion on the inconsistency Sam points out in Rand's discussion of the hypothetical immortal robot?

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

Again, I give you the big immortal robot:

quote:
To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.

Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.
Now, it's also fun to note that if the meaning of "value" that Rand is inherently working with, as you point out here in your dismissal of the author, is "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" — then even the assertions about the robot are false on their face. If it moves and acts, is capable of moving and acting, it can surely act to gain and/or keep anything it's programmed to take or build. Therefore, such an entity is clearly able to have "values(rand)." What a strange, convoluted-to-reconcile issue to have in a statement in the opener of the summation of the ethics of objectivism!

Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :

As a follow up, I think that the argument can be made slightly more powerful: "If it moves and acts, is capable of moving and acting, it can surely act to gain and/or keep anything it's programmed to take or build."

This is well taken, but let us imagine that it is not programmed to take or build anything. Let us only focus on the fact that it moves and acts. These are end driven things. Particularly in a machine, there is no action without purpose and there is no purpose without "value". The fact that it acts implies value.

Perhaps Rand would want to say that it is merely capable of moving and acting, but it does not. If, however, Rand's point is taken seriously, then essentially the robot does not do so. I also take cognitive functioning as a form of action. If we eliminate all these things, then the robot is no longer intelligent and the example is moot. So it seems, at least to me, that Rand's view is incoherent.

Edit to fix ambiguous pronoun.

[ March 08, 2011, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: JonHecht ]

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Why is the robot immortal and indestructible? Or conversely, why is the immortal, indestructible being a robot? It seems to me that Rand is arguing from immortal-and-indestructible part that the entity can have no values, and then turning around and saying that it's because it's a robot. If the robot were not indestructible it could act to prevent its own destruction, and that would be a value by Rand's standard; conversely if it were organic but immortal, it could not have the value of preventing its own death. Making it a robot at the same time as you make it immortal confuses the issue.

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :

Yeah, there are many problems with the way the thought experiment is employed in her argument.

Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

Now, it's also fun to note that if the meaning of "value" that Rand is inherently working with, as you point out here in your dismissal of the author, is "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" — then even the assertions about the robot are false on their face. If it moves and acts, is capable of moving and acting, it can surely act to gain and/or keep anything it's programmed to take or build. Therefore, such an entity is clearly able to have "values(rand)." What a strange, convoluted-to-reconcile issue to have in a statement in the opener of the summation of the ethics of objectivism!

I myself found the immortal robot thought experiment somewhat less than immediately convincing.

I had to imagine myself - a conscious entity with free will - as immortal (& indestructible, &c).

Doing so, I saw that I would then /not/ have any reason to act so as further my continued existence -- and then, further, my kind, Man, would not have evolved with the pleasure/pain mechanisms that underly all of our considering things to be more or less desirable.

That's still not unavoidably convincing, is it?

Let's look at it some other ways:

Is it controversial that the concept value arises only in the context of life? Surely, absent life, there would be no value - and non-living things don't value.

I only recently realized that ethics does not address the issue of whether to choose life or death. If one doesn't choose to live, if one doesn't care whether he lives or dies, then ethics has nothing to say to him.
(If one chooses positively to die, then there could well be something like ethics that could guide him along that path. Since that's a lot easier than living, there wouldn't be much to it, but...)

One is free to choose whatever values he wants to. In the sense of acting to gain and/or keep. He can choose to go for whatever he happens to feel like at the moment. Question is, what is likely to be the case at the next moment? Ethics doesn't guide such choices; there's nothing to guide. It's only when one has a goal that's longer range than the current moment that any thinking, any planning, any ethics is needed.

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :

Non-SENTIENT things don't value. Plants included.

Most of my values have nothing to do with preserving my life. They have to do with improving the quality of it.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Is it controversial that the concept value arises only in the context of life? Surely, absent life, there would be no value - and non-living things don't value.

You are assuming the definition of life. Is an immortal being alive? If not, what does it mean that it is 'immortal'? Is a robot alive? And incidentally, just what do you mean by 'robot' in this context? Is being constructed of metal or plastic or semiconductors sufficient to make it a dead thing, or is there some other quality you're looking at? If you're going to appeal to free will, please define it in such a way that it's clear that humans have it, noting that the operations of human brains are bound by the laws of physics.

quote:
One is free to choose whatever values he wants to.

No, because you cannot choose the system by which you choose your values.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Doing so, I saw that I would then /not/ have any reason to act so as further my continued existence -- and then, further, my kind, Man, would not have evolved with the pleasure/pain mechanisms that underly all of our considering things to be more or less desirable.

value, or the capacity to value things, is not a trait that has to be inherently tied to you via certain evolutionary processes. As noted before, the immortal robot can possess values(rand). It does not need to have evolved. It could have been programmed with these values whole-cloth.

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :

Right. Think of Frankenstein's monster: a being who didn't evolve, but who undeniably has desires and can act to satisfy them.