it has come to my attention that i haven't posted on here in for freaking ever. I also wanted to comment on a couple of colin's previous posts, but doubted they would be read. And, obviously, Atlas holds the world on the polar ice caps, which very few humans inhabit. If i were to see the condition of Atlas, i would have him destroy earth. Yes, lay it down, or throw it down, or take a hammer to it. Whatever. He might as well.
My other purpose was to give my opinion on objectivism as i see it so far from reading 'Fountainhead'. Surely objectivism and egotism are fine examples to set as indipendent creatures on this planet. However, we see that more and more we are pushed to interact with each other- online, on cell phones, at school, at work, at socialgatherings- all of these things are geared to creating a reputation- a person outside of your physical self, a sort of legend or aura to surround yourself with. The problem with this bubble-wrap of rumors is that it's hard to penetrate, hard to become an objectivist and probably impractical. Emotion is something humans must have, and it is obvious that egotism leaves no room for the wide fluctuations in joy, sadness, fear, and anger to which humankind has grown accustomed. With that being said, objectivism is a fine ideal, but ultimately inhuman.
thank you
~hairy love
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Initially formed in the fall of 2004, the CGS Riverbend Class of 2008 had been together of an epic four years of high school. It disbanded in 2008 after graduation, but it still remains the best in all of CGS history.
The world's best class since 2004! Now? The college years!
Search The CGS Blog!
Links
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(249)
-
▼
October
(21)
- Almighty Overlord of the Internet.
- ~*Cann Cann's Game*~
- Teehee
- Anyone else?
- An Invitation
- Roll.
- A comment
- |-|3110
- This is Ridiculus
- Something other than sports...
- Wow.
- This blog is crap...
- Refs
- "...if you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the worl...
- One google thing
- Happy Birthday! ...
- Football
- YIPEE!!!
- no MORE!
- More!
- Waffles!
-
▼
October
(21)
36 comments:
how do you always sound so smart when you talk? i marvel at your ability.
'The Fountainhead' only shows the very basics of objectivism; much more of it is revealed in 'Atlas Shrugged'. Also, I don't believe it can be directly compared with egotism, if you are talking of that as a philosophy in and of itself.
And, though it may seem impractical to become an objectivist, although most humans are most certainly not cut and dry on any one philosophy, i do not believe that facets of objectivism are impractical, depending on how you view yourself and how you interpret objectivism.
Given the right circumstances, it is not hard at all to adopt a view of objectivism, if you don't already have it. However, I don't believe we have, as individuals and the world as a whole, the circumstances which make it easy to become objectivist-minded. Of course, i speak only of the world of which i know, perhaps not the world which actually is.
And, as may be aforementioned, the circumstances will effect whether it is impractical or inhuman to adopt objectivist views.
actually freakin means the f word. do u know what sucks means? lol jk
Jake, that is completely irrelevant to this post.
"it has come to my attention that i haven't posted on here in for freaking" i do believe it is relevant
it is somewhat relevant jake, but does not deal with the main topic, objectivism.
its still relevant to the post and made sense, plus no one cares about lame books like that anyway
Jake, you truly show your ignorance with that last comment.
First of all, objectivism is not a book, or books, as you imply with your last comment. No, it is a philosophy.
Secondly, people most certainly do care about the books written by Ayn Rand and about objectivism. I am one. If no one cared about them, would the Ayn Rand Institute be in existance today?
And, Jake, you cannot legitimate pass judgement on these books, nor on the philosophy. I somehow doubt you've read any of the books, if even just the back summary on any of them. I also strongly doubt that you know much more about objectivism than what you have heard through the blog and your classmates speak of it. For you to call these books, and objectivism, lame, is ludicrous.
Colin, I wish you wouldn't be such a hypocrite. Talking about not being able to pass judgement on the book, having not read it. It seems to me that you do this all the time. And by that I mean you always pass judgement on things before you know enough about the topic to legitimately do so.
In fact, passing judgement about somethign without enough information to legitimately do so is simply part of human nature. It is impossible to gather enough information about everything that passes throught the scope of our lives in order to make a clear and accurate judgement.
Yes, it is a part of human nature, but to force it upon someone who knows more is not, or, rather, it shouldn't be. Upon more information and evidence revealed, one can stand by their conviction if it appears to be correct, even if only an opinion. And, I'm not talking about all things, just specifically these books.
And, please Kevin, give me an example of my hypocriticy.
First of all, I'd like to say that I haven't actually read the books, but I did read the Sparknotes summaries and look at Ayn Rand's website. (No, I'm not a slacker, I just don't want to have to read all those long books just to disagree with them.)
I would agree that objectivism is inhuman, the very idea encouraging Atlas to drop the earth and kill billions, just because we feel sorry for him that he has to suffer a little is complete madness.
Now, according to the Ayn Rand Institute website, the 4 most important points of the objectivist philosophy are:
1. Objective Reality
2. Reason
3. Self intrest
4. Capitalism
Now, I don't wish to bore you with a lengthy explanation, so in summary, all those 4 things are wrong. Unchecked capitalism is bad. Atlas should NOT drop the world. There, now you can be bored if you have the time.
1. Now, according to the first one, reality is reality, it does not differ from person to person. However, is it not true that the act of observing itself can alter the object being observed? Because of this, I would argue that it is not possible to find a "universal truth," or at least not one that holds for anyone.
2. I agree with the argument that reason is the only way to discover truth, perhaps not absolute universal truth, but truth all the same. However, not everyone is capable of using their reason to do this, so alternatives have to be found to educate the ignorant.
3. I partially agree with this one, it is important to be an individual, but only to a certain extent. If everyone just lived for themsleves nothing would ever be accomplished and we'd all be in a worse condition. Also, the self intrests of most people are completly useless and even harmful to society, the worst of these being greed and the desire for money and material objects. If everyone lives for themselves everyone is greedy, nobody can be trusted, and we find ourselves back in the state of nature, and you know how bad that is. You can't redefine what is morally right to include this kind of greed, ambition, that's different, but greed is usually not a good thing.
4. This is to me, the biggest problem with objectivism, the completely unregulated laissez-faire capitalism it promotes. Ayn Rand wants complete economic freedom, but with this comes the freedom to oppress and to form monopolies, hurting the average consumer. One could defend this by saying that the more valuable members of society are the ones who would benefit, with free reign to reach their full potential, but there are some obvious flaws with this belief. Unlike in Atlas Shrugged, industrialists are not super-human geniuses weighed down by an oppressive society, they are people with more average intelligence and usually rich parents. Economic achievement is important, but it should not be the central focus of society, most of these wealthy industrialists do not contribute to society, they just suck money from other sources and usually use it for their own personal pleasure.
I understand that from the brief summaries I read I might not be comprehending the entire philosophy, but it seems to me to be one of those things that supposedly works in theory but fails in practice. In many ways its like Communism, if only it wasn't the exact opposite...
Uh.. how 'bout.
"I don't want to see Pulp Fiction, I have no desire or reason to see it whatsoever" (Paraphrased from Colin)
first of all colin, i didn't say objectivism is a book, i don't know what u were talking about, i was talking abot the fountainhead and atlas shrugged books. and i didn't say anything about how good the book was, i just sayed that no one cares about it
First, I shall respond to Jake:
First off, is said. And you said, and I quote, "lame books like that". I do believe that is passing judgement on the quality off the books.
Second off, I do care, which destroys your whole theory there...
Next, for Kevin:
My saying that I have no desire to watch the movie is passing no judgement. I did not say that the movie was good, bad, a piece of excrements, or a piece of genius. I passed no such judgement, I simply said that i have no desire to see it--that is passing no judgement.
And now, finally, for John:
How can you possibly say that unchecked capitalism is bad? It isn't. If not for unchecked capitalism, the world would not be where it was today. And as for the Shrugging of Atlas? That is all in the context of the book. Sparknotes will not get the point across.
1. No, the perspective of the observer does not change the state of the observed. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
2. Everyone is capable of using their reason. Whether or not they take advantage of it is up to them. And reason appears to be the source of all truth, of any kind.
3. No--this links directly to capitalism. I believe that everybody has self-interest, the world would benefit. You've all been raised to believe that greed is bad. It isn't. Greed for something you haven't earned is, but greed in and of itself isn't. If I were to run an automobile making company, John, and you a steel mill, I want your steel so as to make my car, so as to make money. You would want my money, so as to buy the materials needed, so as to make even more money. You, my friend, are being greedy. I am being greedy. But there is nothing wrong with it. I need you, and you need me; we don't live through or for each other, we simply co-operate. I know that you can't make steel without me, and you know that I can't make automobiles without you. We do not revert back to the state of nature.
4. Capitalism is the best way. Unbridled capitalism. Lassiez-faire. Whatever; capitalism is best. The reasons are the same as in #3. Socialism doesn't work, cuz then people are fighting to do the worst, to need more, to depend more on the government and on others, because they want the most money possible. But in capitalism, you have all you need. You don't try to be the worst, you try to be the best, so as to make more money. Men do not kill over it, typically, because then they just get thrown in jail, thus ending their capitalistic career. If they are less capable, but refuse to work under a more capable boss, they become the thiefs and leechers, getting their success through directives and equal-opportunity laws. There can be no "To each according to his need." No. It should "For each according to his ability." If one does only $10 worth of work, he should not be paid $40 dolors because he needs it. He should have to earn it. That is a basis of capitalism. This allows for competition, which brings out the best in people.
colin by "lame book" i was refering to ur ayn rand books...also i can pass on a book if it sucks anyway, it just shows my ability to sort through the sucky (yes i know what it means and thats what it does (jk)) books
you guys are confusing me cause you keep posting essays. keep it simple, and like isaac said, sports are more fun to talk about.
No, Brian, don't make me write an essay about why this is better than sports, which I will do if everyone starts talking about sports.
Colin, everything you said is wrong, everything I said is right.
1. Nobody knows everything, even though people like Ayn Rand might claim to. Why should we believe them over other people's versions of truth?
2. Reason is the source, but as humans our reason can be flawed. Not knowing all the facts can also prevent people from discovering everything through pure reason.
3. First of all, you say that greed for something you haven't earned is bad, but how do you determine what has and has not been earned? Do rich industrialists really earn what they have? Now as for the example you gave, that is the state of nature. The most powerful people (in this case you and me) are able to do whatever they want. Co-operation is possible if both people are not competing. The point is that all the other people will have to buy your cars, and will have to pay whatever price you charge. You will also have to pay whateber price I want for the steel. Also, we can both exploit as many people as we want to. We can abuse our workers, destroy the enviornment, do anything that will make us as rich as possible in our lives, and ultimately hurt everyone else, and all future generations.
4. It doesn't work, people WILL kill over it, whatever government there is can be bribed or threatened by those powerful enough. And, perhaps most importantly, wealth (or the lack of it) is passed on from the parents to their children. Should stupid people be rich because their parents were? Should a genius be poor because his parents were? There is no way to overcome this problem in a complete capitalism. That is the problem with uncontrolled capitalism, everyone does not start out with equal chances to succede, in anideal world they would, but in an ideal world Communism would also work...
Jake, you've never read the book. You don't know if it sucks or not. If you read it and determine that it was the worst book you have ever read, ok, thats fine. If you've never read it, then, please, don't comment on it; keep your opinion to yourself.
Brian...sports, while being a great topic and such, will ultimately get you nowhere unless you manage to make it to the top, which is only a very small percentage of all of us. And if essays confuse you...well, good luck.
John...
Not everything I said was wrong; not everything you said was wrong.
1. I never said that anybody knew everything; that anybody could know everything. However, everything can be deduced solely by reason, even if no one person can perceive it all at once. And there is only one version of truth, ultimately. If, for instance, Joe (fictional character) was to slap Betty (another fictional character), he slapped Betty. Betty might say that he came over and viciously slapped her. Joe might say it was in self defense. However, there is only one ultimate truth that we can deduce-Joe slapped Betty. We have to get back to the basics.
2. First of all, no facts have to be unknown; we can discover them all. Secondly, yes, human reason is flawed, I never claimed it was perfect. All that is asked is that people use what they were given to the best of their ability (how you judge it is up to you).
3. John, you know whether or not you've earned something. In essence, I believe, that if you do the same work as an incompetent fool, you should be paid the same; It shouldn't matter if you are living in the mansion and the incompetent fool is a hobo. As for the analogy, we would not exploit others, because, John, we would have a set of moral values that we would not drop below. Now, you can say that objectivism has no moral values, but that is a lie. For each individual, every person, has a set of moral values. If we were objectivists, ours would be high enough to know that we would not have earned that; we want no more than we earned. We do not need help, we do not want help.
4. Among the enlightened, John, there really would be no riots breaking out. The government might become corrupt if one lets it become corrupt. This is where teh Atlases come in. It is up to they to keep the others in check, and, ultimately, carry the weaker. If the larger of the corporations were to adopt a purely capitalism point of view, the others would have no choice but to follow, because if they didn't, we could crush them. But see, we realize, John, that if we crush them it overall would do us no good. Their market is much too small too affect us. And if we have major competition at the national level, we beat them out, just as, if you will allow me to make an analogy to Atlas Shrugged, Dagny intended to do to Dan Conway and the Phoenix-Durango Line in part one of the book. This is the way it is meant to be done, I think.
Now, this is not directed at John, but at anyone who cares to listen. Apparently it is thought that I am now a die-hard objectivist. This is not true. Yes, I believe a lot of objectivism just makes sense. But I am by no means, though this may be a bit extreme, Ayn Rand incarnated. No. I do not fully accept her teachings, some just make perfect sense. I'm not just arguing for arguments sake however. When I am under attack, and this does not pertain to you John, for you back what you say, I will defend myself and what just makes sense to me.
And I do certainly know that objectivism may not be a plausible philosophy at this point in any of our lives, if ever, with the world we are living in. But some facets of it doe appear plausible, and if they help, I'll apply them as need be. If you have a problem with this, very well, but don't berate me with statements trying to prove objectivism wrong...its a philosophy, it can't really be wrong.
Just so you know.
yeah, and i didn't realyl read all the comments. Except the first one, and i find that i only sound smart when i really want to, which isn't too often. And i can say freaking and not mean the f word. That is my right! freedom of speech!
Ok, I did exaggerate a little bit... or mabey a lot, but I still stand by most of what I wrote.
I think we can all agree that you cannot change reality,(for example, how the Soviets "changed" the past, like big brother did in the book, 1984) but because nobody can know for certain its important to be open minded.
Like many philosophies, it seems to me that this one can vary in effectiveness depending on who comes to power. For example (and this is just an example) a dictatorship works really well if the right person is dictator, but usually, the odds are that the wrong person will get in power at some time. This is one of the problems I see with objectivism, there's no gaurentee that the capitalist elite will be the moral philosophical type, from what I understand about their counterparts in America today, it seems to me more likely that they will be (at least slightly) immoral. (but of course true objectivism has never been implemented)
Now, about my attacks on objectivism, don't take anything I say as a personal attack or anything like that, because it is certainly not intended to be one. For the record, I belive that all philosophies are wrong. Many philosophies claim to be the one true answer, and they may seem that way to the person who created it, but I certainly do not completly support or completely denounce any of them. Now having said this, there are philosophies that work reasonably well, but I believe that there are different approaches that work equally well, depending on the situation to which they are applied. Also, since all philosophies are wrong, it is much easier to attack one than to support one.
(Sorry about all the long posts, but this is just so interesting, much better than sports or something which is as meaningless in comparison.)
Okay well.
1. Sports is NOT better. As someone said, it will get you nowhere in life to talk about sports. However, talking/debating about philosophy not only makes you smarter, but gices you a difference perspective on things.
2. Whoever is saying that Ayn Rand books suck, this is for you. READ THE FREAKING BOOK BEFORE YOU SAY THAT. Whether you agree with objectivism or not, they are amazing books. In the Fountainhead, all of the things that one man goes through to simply do the things he loves, the trials and tribulations and the ending of the book is just great. When I read the book I wasn't think about the philosophy at all, I was thinking about the characters, the plot, THE BOOK.
3. I forgot what else I was going to say. Damn.
Well, John, if you reread my last comment, you'll find that me refering to the attacks on the philosophy were not directed towards you; you are not one of the kind of people who yell out their ideas while covering up their ears.
I understand what you are saying. However, this is philosophy, so I am approaching it from a more ideo-logical point of view, you from a more practical point of view. Truly, I know that circumstances have to be just right for objectivism to work; it is to be hoped that the industrialists, the capitalist elite, will be the correct people morally, assuming they are self-made, not inherited, for then they truly knows what goes into the making of business.
And I'm inclined to agree with Toni here. This philosophical debate is much more enlightening than any sports conversation; and understand that I am (or was) a sports junkie.
And Jake...don't judge the book simply because I like it, or what have you...if you form the opinion after you have read the book, that is more than acceptable.
Yes; Fountainhead is the best book I have ever read, and not because of the objectivism. Indeed, as I mentioned in my first comment, the Fountainhead gives only the very basics-the moral principles of a man. The rest I don't think she truly reveals until Atlas Shrugged.
first of all "what have you" is hte stupidest fraze, second of all,out of all of us u are the one who says stuff and covers up your ears, third of all, ideological doesn't have a dash or hyphen or what have you
Yeah, Colin I know, but I do stretch the truth sometimes in these posts, Im still right though. And is there really any difference between ideologival and practical thinking? The way I see it practical thinking is simply ideology which takes into consideration more facts about life which may not be instantly apparent. For an ideology to be correct it must work, if it doesn't the thinker must have made a mistake somewhere, whether these mistakes are avoided by reason or experience makes no difference to the final product.
Jake, your last comment would have been better without the first and third statements, considering that you used that phrase and you made several spelling and grammer errors.
Jake, Jake, Jake...the first claim of yours is an opinion, and you are entitled to yours-I don't challenge you on this as I did when you said theat Atlas Shrugged was lame, because I trust that you have heard enough phrases. You are the only one I have actually seen say something and cover up their ears. And note, I did not say that anybody else was; i simply said that John is not one of those who do. And thirdly, the only reason 'ideological' has a hyphen is because it would have run over the line in the comment box, so instead of implementing a new line, I hyphenated it.
Well, asking that question about ideological and practical thinking, John...I believe that thinking ideologically, there is no difference; however, when thinking practically there is. You could take all I have said about objectivism and insert it all into practice, given the circumstances be the needed ones. However, it is harder to take your ideas and take them back to a philosophy; I'm not saying that it's not possible, just that its not practical.
I'm thinking that no one is right here. Sure, even the greatest of pihlosophies have some kind of flaw, especially when humans (who are bound to screw everything up in some way) put it into practice. I don't think I get the theory of objectivism completely, but I do somewhat, and I'm thinking its like Communism in that its good on paper, but when put into practice things get messed up because humans get so greedy, so selfish that they won't let anything stand in their way and go a little overboard. Its not the philopsohy thats bad, its the people who interpret it wrong, or just screw up entirely.
colin are u kidding? u are the queen of covering ur ears and not listening, thats all u do!
i dont like reading the essays, but im not gonna call the disscusion beteween all of you is stupid, like isaac. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion, so i agree with toni saying that no one is rigth. I have not read the book, so i have none on the subject.
Well, Colin then it seems that thinking ideologically violeates the first principle of objectivism(which, since it won't actually work, uses an ideal world) - reality is reality, you can't use a substitute for what is actually there. Also, reason itself has clearly not yet been able to show us the ideal philosophy, so there goes the second principle.
I think I'm gonna hafta go with Brian and Toni on this one... But why is this topic so interesting to you guys? Just the debating? You must really enjoy it then, cause your posts are like a frikin (Which, by the way, is a subsitute for the "Eff" word, and according to Doctor Walker, none of us youngins no that, but those old poeple do.) page. By the looks of it, Colin's opinion, (Whatever it may be on, I haven't been paying attention.) Is the wronger of the two, (As wrong as any opinion can be, anyway.) is wrong, because it's 3 on 1, Kevin, John, and more recently, Anne Marie, vs. Colin. I think he's wrong.
That is all.
-Eric
I don't really believe thinking ideologically is breaching the first point. For I accept the world for what it is; reality is reality. Thinking ideologically does not change this, nor does it change my perspective. It just simply shows that this world has so much it hasn't accomplished. I am not using a substitute; I am merely stating as I am to get the point across. Indeed, Rand herself got her point across in the exact opposite from the ideal world, so as to show the ideal world.
And who is to say that reason has not shown us the correct philosophy? Perhaps, John, we are all just blind to it.
Eric, that should never be your sole reason for saying somebody is wrong. You must look up on the topic yourself. They can all think I'm wrong; I respect that, because they all did some amount of research, whether it be absorbing through reading or reading sparknotes or just reading an intro into objectivism. However, Eric, you, having done none of this, are simply saying it so as to be on the popular side. By doing so, you truly have given up the choice of your own opinion. Shame.
And, finally, Jake. Simply not true. There is a difference between doing as you do and being able to actually refute their argument, and do so in a way that shows you are correct. In areas in which I have a lesser expertise, or am simply unsure, I do not cover my ears to the facts as you do.
i know that the book is stupid cuz i looked up objectivism which was defined as "laisse faire capitalism" so she didn't invent anything. plus it is stupid because it isn't about anything important, just a stupid philosophy by someone trying to make money, its a scam, like scientology
If you allow to make your opinion for you, do not allow yourself the time to make your own opinion, just follow others, yes, you give up the choice of your opinion. And it is not wise to go around calling other people's philosophy's stupid...challenge them, sure, but don't call them outright stupid. And Isaac, you know you have a challenger.
Jake, first off its laissez-faire. And this is not the whole of the philosophy, just a facet of it. And no, I never said she came up with new ideas. However, she was the first publicly known to have put these ideas. Even she talks of how she draws some ideas from Aristotle, among others.
And, to reiterate, for I said it in an earlier comment that most likely you guys didn't take the time to read...I'm not a die-hard objectivists. Some facets just make sense. Others, not so much. If you know about it, and don't like it; very well, I respect your opinion. I am willing to debate, and defend my position; i just ask that you do not come out and blatantly said that objectivism is stupid, have no proof, and then cover your ears (Jake); you must be willing to actually debate. However, Jake, people like you are very frustrating. They are the kind of people with which you cannot debate with, the refuse to see your point of view and just argue blindly, while not listening to the other side. You cannot back up anything you say. The extent you know about objectivism is that it supports laissez-faire capitalism! And then you continue to call the economony, the thing that runs the bussiness world, stupid...
Just so you know
Yes Jake, shut up. You obviously don't know anything about objectivism so you can't show how it is wrong. And you call a book about philosophy stupid??? Are you crazy??? As you should know, scientology is a religion, not a philosophy, and anyway you can't call a philosophy a scam, when you buy a book on philosophy you know that its just ideas made up by some person that may or may not be true. Also, a major facet of objectivism IS about making money, so she's living according to her philosophy by selling books.
Colin, thinking ideologically is thinking about what the world should be, not what it is. All ideologys take a simplified view of the world so that human reason can comprehend it and form a philosophy about it. Ayn Rand seems to have assumed an ideal world in her philosophy, but she says that it is a philosophy for "living on earth" so she clearly intends it to be practical as well.
As for the second point, we're all blind to the "true" answer because we don't have the reason to find it.
Anyway, did anyone else see Seinfeld tonight? I don't usually watch it, but this one was about Communism! I didn't see the entire thing, but it was awesome, nearly everyone turned Communist, it even had a commie santa and Fidel Castro in it!
Ok, seriously, I skipped over all those comments except for Toni's.
Really, stop talking about this. I've never read the books, and I don't plan to. I care more about the message a book is sending, then the plot itself.
Ayn Rand is using the books to promote objectivism, I don't believe in objectivism, and therefore will not read the books.
I'm not going to comment on the philosophy itself.
Kevin, understand something. She did not write the books to portray objectivism. Rather, she came up with objectivism to create the heroes of her books. She considered herself first and foremost a fiction novel writing; she noticed that in order to make the heroes she wanted, she had to revamp the common philosophy.
And as I said earlier, but you clearly did not read, Atlas Shrugged is the only one of Ayn Rand's books is the only one that really portrays objectivism. Fountainhead only portrays the very basics, but one really doesn't pick up on it. I'd still recommend Fountainhead very strongly; not for the philosophy, but for the work of art, for what Ayn Rand portrays. If you don't want to read them though; so be it. Shouldn't just disregard something; should see the opposing sides point of view, if just for the sake of you knowing it, so as to beat them at their own game.
I know you'd throw that last sentence in my face about Pulp Fiction. However, when I say that I have no desire to see it, I do not mean throughout my entire life. I mean at this point in my life, I have no desire to see it. But who knows what the future will bring.
And Anne Marie, congratulations on the most commented upon post in the history of the blog; first one to have over 40.
Post a Comment