20 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauder"Of course this is incompatible with being a social animal concerned with others."
Rand's philosophy is uninterested in the individual's "fellows, his family, his society". Pure selfishness is not only the highest virtue, but a moral imperative:
The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or ...[text shortened]... reme form of capitalism she regards as morally required is unsustainable given what Man is.
Invalid conclusion, in spite of your "of course". It is not only possible, but imperative that to be any good to society, one must first be self reliant, rationally selfish. If there were none that did so, no hunting and gathering, no agriculture, no industry, no charity would ever happen. If every last "social animal" waited for someone else or for society to do things, they would have never been done, and humans would probably have ended up as lion poop.
Check your premises, as Ms. Rand often advised. You assert that pure selfishness "would have quickly resulted in the disappearance of the human race." Your premise seems to be, although inadequately articulated, that rational selfishness can't include cooperation. Rational selfishness for the early human hunter faced with animals stronger, faster, and harder to kill than himself, would be to team up with at least another hunter, perhaps a group of hunters. American Indians used this technique to kill Buffalo with bow and arrow requiring getting very close to the powerful beast.
You will argue that this is an example of socialism, but no it is rational selfishness. Men with the capacity to reason on what they learned, and learned that hunting alone was both dangerous and unproductive. They still hunted selfishly, but in a manner that was more productive and safer. In cases where they were able to hunt solo, they did so.
After checking your premises, there is nothing incompatible with rational selfishness, and cooperation. You don't disagree with Ayn Rand's philosophy so much as you disagree with your poor understanding of it, most likely due to reading hatchet job comics versions of it instead of Rand's own works.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderSee my more complete analysis, or you might actually try reading Rand, with your thinker in gear. You might try one of her easier reads, such as her essays on Capitalism.
Wajoma: it is mans selfishness that makes him a social animal
Surely even you can see that this statement is utter, Orwellian nonsense.
That way at least you'ld understand what you are arguing against.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by shavixmir"However, Ayn Rand is so backwards she makes a priori sound like an Italian flower-scented pasta dish."
Well, if man wasn't shellfish, Aquaman would be completely useless.
However, Ayn Rand is so backwards she makes a priori sound like an Italian flower-scented pasta dish.
Skillful use of simili, but hardly rational, or meaningful. If bullfrogs had wings they wouldn't be such hard asses.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderNope, I don't see that, you spend time with your family because of what you get out of it, you go to work because of what you get out of it (not necessarily just the wages) you're in a relationship with a girlfriend, boyfriend etc because of what you get out of it, how long does a relationship last if one/the other or both are not getting anything from it. You go to Bingo, the chess club, even voluntary groups, all those things you do because of what you get out of it.
Wajoma: it is mans selfishness that makes him a social animal
Surely even you can see that this statement is utter, Orwellian nonsense.
Do you really live your life in the service of your fellow man, please don't think you're doing us a service with all the time you spend here with your envy ridden, collectivist, control freaks posts.
http://blogs.forbes.com/marcbabej/2011/04/17/atlas-shrugged-movie-boosts-book-to-4-on-amazon-bestseller-list/
For the shavmiester:
http://5z8.info/blackmarket_x2a4bb_inject_now
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by WajomaThere are very few people has pathologically selfish as Rand believed the ideal human being was. In fact every person every day does things that are of no benefit to them or even detrimental to them simply because they want to help others (that's how we're hotwired). That's actually what pissed Rand off about the human race; the vast majority refuse to act as self-interested as Rand believed they should. Therefore, there must be something wrong with with them.
Nope, I don't see that, you spend time with your family because of what you get out of it, you go to work because of what you get out of it (not necessarily just the wages) you're in a relationship with a girlfriend, boyfriend etc because of what you get out of it, how long does a relationship last if one/the other or both are not getting anything from it. Yo ...[text shortened]... on-bestseller-list/
For the shavmiester:
http://5z8.info/blackmarket_x2a4bb_inject_now
Both you and norm have a diseased view of human nature so it's no wonder you're both admirers of such a warped philosophy designed by such an embittered, wounded person. Unfortunately for you two and Ms. Rand but very fortunately for the human race, altruistic and sacrificial behavior is the approved norm virtually everywhere and selfishlessness is frowned on almost uniformly in all societies.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by normbenignYour reading of Rand is lazy and self-serving. She goes far beyond the "economic rational man" model (which itself is inadequate to explain most human behavior) to espouse selfishness as a moral imperative. Again:
"Of course this is incompatible with being a social animal concerned with others."
Invalid conclusion, in spite of your "of course". It is not only possible, but imperative that to be any good to society, one must first be self reliant, rationally selfish. If there were none that did so, no hunting and gathering, no agriculture, no industry, no char ...[text shortened]... likely due to reading hatchet job comics versions of it instead of Rand's own works.
To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.
Hunter gatherer bands are virtually uniformly egalitarian and laissez faire capitalism, the only moral economic system according to Rand, was unknown to them. Of course, cooperation aids the individual, but that is a small part of why Man cooperates. And men will often do things that require them to risk their lives for the good of others, a complete rejection of Rand's view of what man's "highest moral purpose" is supposed to be. And it is completely careless reading to assert that Rand would have thought the type of communal living and egalitarian sharing done by primitive tribes in our "Natural State" was an example of "rational selfishness". You know better or you're simply ignorant of how Man lived for most of his time on Earth.
20 Apr 11
"Selfishness" is typically defined differently by Objectivists than it is for the rest of us.
Suppose it gives me great joy and a deep sense of peace to donate money to and volunteer at a food bank for the poor.
Objectivist: This is selfish because you do it for the emotional rewards.
Non-objectivist: This is not selfish because the emotional rewards are dependent on helping others at one's own financial detriment.
Both sides agree there are emotional rewards and financial sacrifice involved for the individual. Yet one group calls it "selfish" and the other calls it "not selfish".
As with many arguments, it comes down to how you define the words.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauder"To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose. "
Your reading of Rand is lazy and self-serving. She goes far beyond the "economic rational man" model (which itself is inadequate to explain most human behavior) to espouse selfishness as a moral imperative. Again:
To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.
...[text shortened]... know better or you're simply ignorant of how Man lived for most of his time on Earth.
Well stated. That often includes thing like happiness derived from support of his family, assisting his neighbors, but he doesn't sacrifice himself in doing those things. They are not duties imposed on him, or done at threat of punishment for failing to act for the collective.
"Hunter gatherer bands are virtually uniformly egalitarian and laissez faire capitalism, the only moral economic system according to Rand, was unknown to them."
Hunter gather bands were made up of individual men, and families. Rational self interest brought them to cooperate. There was no force or fraud involved, and they in many cases acted entirely on their own when group action was not called for. As to capitalism unknown, the American Indian was a trader, both within his tribe and without. He may not have called it capitalism, but it was laissez-faire and it was capitalistic.
"And men will often do things that require them to risk their lives for the good of others, a complete rejection of Rand's view of what man's "highest moral purpose" is supposed to be."
Only the motives of those men might violate Rand's philosophy. Irratiionally giving up one's life or liberty would be immoral. Doing so based on immoral, fraudulent, or force of government would also be immoral.
"And it is completely careless reading to assert that Rand would have thought the type of communal living and egalitarian sharing done by primitive tribes in our "Natural State" was an example of "rational selfishness". You know better or you're simply ignorant of how Man lived for most of his time on Earth"
I'm not here to parrot Ayn Rand's thoughts, or to defend them. I happen to have my own. The difference between man and the other inhabitants of this planet, are intelligence, cognition, and reason. Man is at his center a selfish creature, and a social one. Reason and cognition enables to two to function well together. In the most egalitarian of societies, even those with heavy handed statist motifs, the selfishness of man stands out. Capitalism simply recognizes and utilizes man's very nature instead of attempting to demonize it, and to glorify self sacrifice.
Clearly, if through his entire life a man engages in self destruction, there is never anything to sacrifice, which is why the egalitarians are always finding ways to exploit the selfish. There is the true immoral greed, the desire to live from the productivity of others.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy this obsession with the hunter gatherer bands? The hunter-gatherer bands and their progeny unleashed an enormous amount of superstition on the world that you would no doubt dismiss as tommyrot. Why should what they did or what they thought be relevant to our morality?
Your reading of Rand is lazy and self-serving. She goes far beyond the "economic rational man" model (which itself is inadequate to explain most human behavior) to espouse selfishness as a moral imperative. Again:
To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.
...[text shortened]... know better or you're simply ignorant of how Man lived for most of his time on Earth.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by sh76His discussion was a reply to my assertions about man's basic instinctive makeup. Clearly, ancient hunter/gatherers had no knowledge of Rand's objectivism. Nor had they read Marx, or other treatises on dialectic materialism.
Why this obsession with the hunter gatherer bands? The hunter-gatherer bands and their progeny unleashed an enormous amount of superstition on the world that you would no doubt dismiss as tommyrot. Why should what they did or what they thought be relevant to our morality?
I contend they acted on their basic instincts, which are selfish. Selfishness, or selfpreservation, or survival instinct amount to the same thing. Primitive humans due to their cognitive abilities, soon learned that practical, rational selfishness meant teaming up or cooperating, especially when hunting, or when defending against larger, faster, stronger predators. There is nothing incompatible with Rand's rational selfishness and man's social behaviour. Capitalism similarly, based on selfishness (desire for profits) is almost always a cooperative or collective effort, the capitalist employing and paying for the time of employees, who also benefit from their own selfishness, and the capitalist's.
Had ancient man not acted in his own selfish interests, he and his fellows would likely not have survived for long. No 1 wants to credit collectivism (man's social nature) for his survival, but his social nature came about due to his individual instinct for survival, and observing human nature was probably organized by an A type heroic man such as Rand's John Gault.
Today, there is nothing wrong with cooperative efforts of men, voluntary collaborations, corporate ventures, partnerships, which are entered into openly without force or fraud. The objectivist loaths the collectives that are forced on people, or which are promoted by government fraud promising free stuff, or reductions of cost, which take away choice and markets, and eventually cost more than free solutions.
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, it's very common for people to try to use non-standard definitions and force their definition on others. But the one from Merriam-Webster is what is meant by "selfish":
"Selfishness" is typically defined differently by Objectivists than it is for the rest of us.
Suppose it gives me great joy and a deep sense of peace to donate money to and volunteer at a food bank for the poor.
Objectivist: This is selfish because you do it for the emotional rewards.
Non-objectivist: This is not selfish because the emotional ...[text shortened]... s it "not selfish".
As with many arguments, it comes down to how you define the words.
: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish
I note that Rand is clearly using the same definition and finding in it a great moral virtue. However, norm is trying to rewrite it and force it into a theory where it clearly doesn't fit and to describe behavior that it clearly doesn't apply to.
In short, Man is not selfish and being selfish is both unnatural and detrimental to human survival (which is based on group living).
25 Apr 11
Looks like the movie had a rough weekend; despite opening in 166 more theaters, its take from last Friday and Saturday was down almost 50% and per theater was only about a third of last weekend. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=atlasshrugged.htm
At that pace, it looks rather unlikely to recoup its production and advertising costs.
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom your link no1;
Yes, it's very common for people to try to use non-standard definitions and force their definition on others. But the one from Merriam-Webster is what is meant by "selfish":
: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
http://www ...[text shortened]... fish is both unnatural and detrimental to human survival (which is based on group living).
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
This is probably closer to it, and ones own welfare or advantage is dependent on interaction with ones fellow man, which makes a selfish man a social man. Let's also be reminded that Ayn Rand made quite something of that interaction needing to be voluntary, a concept you struggle with.
25 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderEdit: Not sure what happened there, nothing to see, move along.
Yes, it's very common for people to try to use non-standard definitions and force their definition on others. But the one from Merriam-Webster is what is meant by "selfish":
: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
http://www fish is both unnatural and detrimental to human survival (which is based on group living).
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by Wajoma"In disregard for others" is not compatible with the examples given by norm or you. Acting in total disregard for others is unnatural and detrimental to human survival.
From your link no1;
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
This is probably closer to it, and ones own welfare or advantage is dependent on interaction with ones fellow man, which makes a selfish man a social man. Let's also be reminded that Ayn Rand made quite something of that interaction needing to be voluntary, a concept you struggle with.