Objectivism

[louis]

From Louis...
So far, all I've done here is ask a few dumb questions
without offering any alternative ideas - I'll offer one now
and leave it for you to check out for yourselves.
The only "philosophy of life" that ever appealed to me is
somehthing called "Objectivism" - the brainchild of a
female writer named Ayn Rand.
( They have a website under "Ayn Rand Institute". )
First let me say I don't agree with every idea her followers
embrace ( They're all Atheists ), but a lot of their notions
are consistent with my outlook on reality.
For example, they're concerned only with life on THIS
EARTH - they don't care what happens after death.
According to them, our INDIVIDUAL SELVES should be
our highest concern and they are opposed to any form
"collective", such as Communism, or organised religion.
No individual needs to be "propped up" by indentifying
with some larger "cause" or social order - your own
EGO is all you ever need to affirm your personal worth.
But let me make it clear that I did not "pick up" those
ideas from Objectivism - they just reflect they the way
I've ALWAYS felt since I first tried to learn to think.
Does that means I'm a case of "arrested development"
or that I still retain something that others have lost ?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, louis!

Sounds like you met Miss Rand from a different place than I did. I am aware of the website and institute, but I have not visited. I have read a couple of her books, and like you, I found she put words to concepts I already had for myself. Also like you, I am not in total agreement, and I find the insistance on atheism a bit harsh.
Otherwise, glad to hear you like her work!

[samabudhi]

So far, all I've done here is ask a few dumb questions
without offering any alternative ideas

I recall reading in Hindu philosophy about how to debate correctly. They say that you should never try to disprove something is you don't offer an alternative. People often enter debates for reasons other than seeking the truth, and this 'rule' more or less makes sure that those sort of people don't stay too long, clogging up the works.

Glad to hear you've got some alternatives.

[louis]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, louis!

Sounds like you met Miss Rand from a different place than I did. I am aware of the website and institute, but I have not visited. I have read a couple of her books, and like you, I found she put words to concepts I already had for myself. Also like you, I am not in total agreement, and I find the insistance on atheism a bit harsh.
Otherwise, glad to hear you like her work!

From Louis...
Thanks for the encouragement.
I've always preferred to choose my own way and have the most
respect for others who feel the same.
I wish you a satisfying journey.

[louis]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, louis!

Sounds like you met Miss Rand from a different place than I did. I am aware of the website and institute, but I have not visited. I have read a couple of her books, and like you, I found she put words to concepts I already had for myself. Also like you, I am not in total agreement, and I find the insistance on atheism a bit harsh.
Otherwise, glad to hear you like her work!

From Louis
website is : www.aynrand.org

[barefootgal9]

Well, I guess that makes me a died in the woll "subjectivist!"

:-D

Louis, no wonder we don't understand each other, since I think the objective world pales to insignificance compared to one's inner experience of reality!

"It's all good" as one of my favorite friends would say.

bfg

[louis]

Originally Posted by barefootgal9

Well, I guess that makes me a died in the woll "subjectivist!"

:-D

Louis, no wonder we don't understand each other, since I think the objective world pales to insignificance compared to one's inner experience of reality!

"It's all good" as one of my favorite friends would say.

bfg

From louis...
exactly ! what's good for you may not be good for me,
but as long as it "feels" good, that's what matters.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Louis!

Concerning Rand's "Objectivism," like I said, there is a lot she says that is common sense.

I had long discussions about her philosophy with a philo. major in Utah awhile back.

There were two questions he struggled with. If you are up to it, I would like to pose them to you.

I accept that a person should be able to use resources available to them to sustain themselves and earn a living.
In that context, is it justifiable then to destroy an ecosystem in that pursuit. If earning your living means ruining the drinking water for those downstream, are you still justified?

Since Rand's view is that humans are limited only to this existance, what resource does a human being comprise? Her phlosophy values the mind and intellect, but is lacking in discussing human capital. A human could just as readily be a resource for creation of whatever for the benefit of the next human. In the context of work, this makes sense. What then of a dead human body? Is that a resource with no value other than intrinsic, that is, should dead humans be cremated and their ashes used to fertilize crop fields?

My friend's responses immediately attacked me personally on these questions, he assumed I was promoting some organization like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club. I am not. My questions were (and are) sincere. After I was able to calm him down and get him to realize these things, he was not able to address my questions. I came to realize that he was using a diversion to try to get around questions that Objectivism cannot properly address.

Can you address my questions?

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I accept that a person should be able to use resources available to them to sustain themselves and earn a living.
In that context, is it justifiable then to destroy an ecosystem in that pursuit. If earning your living means ruining the drinking water for those downstream, are you still justified?

Define justified. Is it wise? No. Knowing that you are causing harm and doing it will bring you bad karma. Not in the next life. Not years later. The moment you realise you've done it, you will start to suffer because of it. It will work on your consciousness, and if you're able to bury it, then it will come out in dreams or seep through your subconscious while you're awake, like toxic waste that's been buried too close to a water source. You'll go sour, and because you've buried the issue, you won't know why. Things will just get worse and worse. You'll try to justify yourself and this will only make it hurt more. You'll begin to avoid those who have the habit of bringing out your faults, which you are secretly hiding (even secret to yourself) and slowly the process of isolation begins. I could on, but I'd rather you had a nice day.

Since Rand's view is that humans are limited only to this existance, what resource does a human being comprise? Her phlosophy values the mind and intellect, but is lacking in discussing human capital. A human could just as readily be a resource for creation of whatever for the benefit of the next human. In the context of work, this makes sense. What then of a dead human body? Is that a resource with no value other than intrinsic, that is, should dead humans be cremated and their ashes used to fertilize crop fields?

Burying the dead is done by the living. It is for the living that dead soldiers are honoured. The psyche of human beings is such that we are not just machines. We have feelings and emotions, and we need to feel valued. If we fling our dead to the beasts, what does that show about attitude towards those still living. It shows that as soon as someone loses their purpose, they will be disposed of. This is a great fear amoungst humans. It is almost inevitable that we will, at least at some stage in our lives, not be contributing to the 'colony.' Our strength as humans, and indeed in all social animals, is that when one has a bad day out hunting, the others will share. We need them and they need us. When we die, we'd like to think that that need was out of something more than just necessity. If this thought was not there, then we would return to selfish lives of solitude, and our platform for success, the group, would fall.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, samabudhi!

Yes, I am pretty much in agreement with you on these. I posed the question to point a couple of lapses in my understanding of Rand's philosophy. She has a lot of good stuff, especially pertaining to politics and psychology, but in dismissing religion, she dismisses many things that are pertinent to humanity.

[louis]

I accept that a person should be able to use resources available to them to sustain themselves and earn a living.
In that context, is it justifiable then to destroy an ecosystem in that pursuit. If earning your living means ruining the drinking water for those downstream, are you still justified?

From Louis...
As I said, I don't agree with everything Ms Rand advocates....
My basic answer to your question would be NO - I am not justified in harming
others to sustain my own comfort. BUT ...I am free to use what is MINE -
if I OWN the source of drinking water, then what I do with it is MY CHOICE.
I may take steps to preserve it - I may SHARE it if I wish.
But no one has the right to DEMAND that I presereve it or share it -
or make laws trying to force me to share it !
Do you dig the difference ?


Since Rand's view is that humans are limited only to this existance, what resource does a human being comprise? Her phlosophy values the mind and intellect, but is lacking in discussing human capital. A human could just as readily be a resource for creation of whatever for the benefit of the next human. In the context of work, this makes sense. What then of a dead human body? Is that a resource with no value other than intrinsic, that is, should dead humans be cremated and their ashes used to fertilize crop fields?

Personaly, I couldn't care less what happens to my body once I'm done
with it. If I could still serve some useful purpose such as fertilizing a field
or even being re-cycled as food ( like in the movie "Soylent Green" ), it
wouldn't matter to ME. Isn't that what happens to us anyway? - getting
re-cyled to feed bugs in the grave or having organs or stem-cells harvested to help somebody still living ?
Maybe a bit cold but an honest statement of what I think ....

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, louis!

Originally Posted by louis

As I said, I don't agree with everything Ms Rand advocates....
My basic answer to your question would be NO - I am not justified in harming
others to sustain my own comfort. BUT ...I am free to use what is MINE -
if I OWN the source of drinking water, then what I do with it is MY CHOICE.
I may take steps to preserve it - I may SHARE it if I wish.
But no one has the right to DEMAND that I presereve it or share it -
or make laws trying to force me to share it !
Do you dig the difference ?

Of course I dig the difference. However, since objectivism disregards the inherent value in nature, and the interconnection of parts in the natural cycle, it is easy to overlook the abuse or destruction of a part of that cycle and how it affects the whole.

It is also easy to overlook how one's personal actions affect the next person "downstream." Unless you happen to be that person downstream. The person upstream figures "it's mine, you have no right to tell me what to do." The person downstream figures "the person upstream is irresponsible, and not using the finite resource in a considerate manner."
You are correct in that no one can tell a person what to do with their capital development, in this case the well, but it is incumbent on society to ensure that finite resources such as water are used responsibly. No individual "owns" something like water, and that is a concept disregarded by objectivism.

Personaly, I couldn't care less what happens to my body once I'm done
with it. If I could still serve some useful purpose such as fertilizing a field
or even being re-cycled as food ( like in the movie "Soylent Green" ), it
wouldn't matter to ME. Isn't that what happens to us anyway? - getting
re-cyled to feed bugs in the grave or having organs or stem-cells harvested to help somebody still living ?
Maybe a bit cold but an honest statement of what I think ....

I accept your position about yourself personally, but society does value its dead. This is why there are ceremonies like funerals, and places like cemetaries. We have a collective connection to our past through our ancestors.

And when it comes to harvesting stem cells, that broaches another boundary that devalues human life. Since this is covered extensively on another thread, I won't go on about it, other than to say the potential for minimizing life at its foundation poses a possibility of devaluing human life in a more wholesale manner. I do not see this as desirable or wise. Can you see?

[louis]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, louis!
Of course I dig the difference. However, since objectivism disregards the inherent value in nature, and the interconnection of parts in the natural cycle, it is easy to overlook the abuse or destruction of a part of that cycle and how it affects the whole.

It is also easy to overlook how one's personal actions affect the next person "downstream." Unless you happen to be that person downstream. The person upstream figures "it's mine, you have no right to tell me what to do." The person downstream figures "the person upstream is irresponsible, and not using the finite resource in a considerate manner."
You are correct in that no one can tell a person what to do with their capital development, in this case the well, but it is incumbent on society to ensure that finite resources such as water are used responsibly. No individual "owns" something like water, and that is a concept disregarded by objectivism.

I accept your position about yourself personally, but society does value its dead. This is why there are ceremonies like funerals, and places like cemetaries. We have a collective connection to our past through our ancestors.

And when it comes to harvesting stem cells, that broaches another boundary that devalues human life. Since this is covered extensively on another thread, I won't go on about it, other than to say the potential for minimizing life at its foundation poses a possibility of devaluing human life in a more wholesale manner. I do not see this as desirable or wise. Can you see?

From Louis...
Sorry I did not make myself clear....
"Mine" means what I own because I worked for it or
because I made it. When it comes to natural resourses,
no one truly "owns" them - we just own the right to
use them responsibly, taking only what we need and
leaving enough for natural recovery - as the native
peoples did. They were able to live off the land
without ever changing it.
As for the people "downstream", aren't we ALL in that
position - trying to recover from our ancestors'
mistakes - trying not to repeat them ?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, louis!

Yes, I agree. It seems we are mostly in agreement.