Atlas Shrugged-Contradictions Where None Can Exist(VANITY)

dubyagee

[BADROTOFINGER]

But, if you feel good by doing it, how can it be self sacrifice?

This is where Rand kind of sets the context for discussion about her philosophy. Being an avid capitalist (kind of myopically in my opinion, if myopically is a real word) sets the tone of the arguement in the terms of "whats in it for me?". Charity work is self-sacrifice in the sense that you are not being monetarily paid for it. As religeous people, we dont necessarily think as capitalists 24/7, the way Rand thought that we should. That is why you and I (if I may be so presumptuous) dont necessarily think of it as self-sacrifice, because we recieve a reward that Rand, unfortunately, didnt recognize as a reward. And it was HER loss, in my opinion...JFK

[yendu bwam]

This is what Christians do through prayer, and others through other forms of meditation.

Christians are told by God and Jesus what is wrong and what it right. It's then up to them to obey or not. When they have desires (as they all do) to do bad things, they know immediately that such is bad (they've been told so), and they know there will be a price to pay for behaving that way.

[lelio]

Hey that's Ayn Rand! :) Its pronounced "Ein" too.

[clintonh8r]

No, but evil is about being forced to work for the good of the whole. That is the central point about which Rand is most misunderstood.

[07055]

And it was HER loss, in my opinion...JFK

Yes, if that is what she believed, I definitely agree.

To me, self sacrifice would be working to elect Hillary Clinton president.

[Hank Kerchief]

"To know one's own desires, their meaning and their costs requires the highest human virtue: rationality." - Ayn Rand.

This is the biggest piece of Randish poppycock

Don't get excited, take your time. Please reread what you criticized. You seem to have missed the most important phrase, "...their meaning and their costs...." You may totally disagree with everything Ayn Rand wrote or said, but she was always careful about what she said. None of what you implied is true, if you include the phrase you apparently missed.

Since you apparently do not believe good and evil can be determined using the only faculty God has given us with which to understand the truth, what faculty do you propose one uses to determine what is true?

Hank

[jwalsh07]

What is "good?"

Pineapple sundaes, a 270 yard striper and a solid left right combination to an "evil doer".

[dubyagee]

It's an awfully hard thing to do, to defend Christianity with logic. The first question I would ask is, do you honestly believe that if you had been born in Islamabad, you would think the same way?

I have no illusions about defending Christianity with logic. What I would love to defend is the intellect of Christians. (BTW, I cannot answer the Islamabad question because it is not based in reality(grin)).

[yendu bwam]

No, but evil is about being forced to work for the good of the whole. That is the central point about which Rand is most misunderstood.

Well, I agree that such is evil (from my own morality). That is what communism and socialism were. Communism and socialism posited that government could be used to coerce people into forming a selfless society. Christianity tries to get people to see the beauty of living a selfless life, and knows that a better society will follow if they do.

[ken5050]

Did you ever see the movie of "The Fountainhead"..awful..of course, how'd you like to have beenthe screenwriter who was handed the 1300 or so page book and told..."boil it down to a 2 hour screenplay..cut out all the philosophy stuff, and add some sex scenes."...LOL

[stylin_geek]

I was the one who said that Ayn swung and missed when it came to God. However, Ayn believed in free trade, and if one engages in charity work, the "coin" to pay for charitable work is gratitude. However, she had a huge problem with welfare states, because the people receiving charity despised those who gave. Consider also the speech by Francisco to Hank Rearden during the party where they first met.

[mamaduck]

May I add: Sacrifice is giving up something of a lesser nature for something of a higher nature. AND: there is no true "selflessness" because any sacrifice you make - see above - AND if you do it to "make the world a better place", well you are living in that world aren't you?

Sit in a cave until you all you desire is to sit in a cave and you become desireless . . .

[dubyagee]

You're wrong. Stalin and Mao were quite rational and logical and clear-headed (much more than most people) and considered themselves overwhelming successes. It just didn't matter to them that they wiped out tens of millinos of people; it made rational sense for them to do such to reach their goals. That we consider wiping out so many people evil comes from somewhere else.

Yes, and I can see in the above statement where someone with the beliefs of Rand could commit those murders. In their eyes, it would be to their benefit and their profit if the world they lived in inhabited only those who thought like they did.

[mamaduck]

ask YOUR consience ;-)

[dinasour]

Good post. Thank you.

I enjoy reading Objectivist arguments; at least I find more in common with them than when I try to read say, Noam Chomsky.

Ayn Rand certainly did believe in evil, but she failed because she tried, valiantly, to define it objectively, that is, in the absence of God.

On the purely practical side, she failed, as do all utopian systems, because they are all based on the basic principle:

All you have to do is:

[Insert list of rules here]

And the world will be a perfect place.

The world is just not that simple.

Bureaucratic systems are similar, but differ from utopian systems only in the size of the rulebook.

The United States is currently trying this "rules based" approach, in the guise of a regulatory bureaucracy. It is also failing.

The Taliban tried it, the Marxists tried it, the ISO9600-quality-circle-jerk crowd tried it, many religious cults have tried it.

The problem isn't which rules you pick, or how many. The problem is that the world just isn't so simple (IMHO).

[yendu bwam]

Since you apparently do not believe good and evil can be determined using the only faculty God has given us with which to understand the truth, what faculty do you propose one uses to determine what is true?

You assume a truth and a God. So do I. God gave us truth with regard to good and evil. We need to be rational in living our lives according to that morality. But that morality did not emanate from the use of reason. If so, all rational people would be good. They are not. Many rational people (Dr. Moriarity, the Grinch, Lex Luther, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) are perfectly evil.

[BADROTOFINGER]

Stalin and Mao were quite rational and logical and clear-headed (much more than most people) and considered themselves overwhelming successes. It just didn't matter to them that they wiped out tens of millinos of people; it made rational sense for them to do such to reach their goals. That we consider wiping out so many people evil comes from somewhere else.

True, Stalin and Mao were rational and logical, but only to a point. Their goals of a Utopia were impossible to achieve, but their over inflated self opinions refused to let the apparent logic of their fallacy damage their fragile egos. No matter what they did, their ideas did not work, causing them to take measures against people who disagree with them, rather than listen to them as well as facts, and realize that they are wrong. I think that Stalin and Mao and their ilk were exactly the kind of people that Rand hated. You probably know many like them, those that have such a small ego, such a miniscule thread of it, that they will savagely attack anyone who dares to criticize them and endanger that last remaining shred. Randian heroes didnt give a damn what others thought of them, and since they depended on others for nothing (other than what could be bought, sold or traded, that is), paid them no mind. Facist pigs like Stalin and Mao and Clinton cannot abide criticism of them, because they have so much to lose. Just my opinion, hope it made sense...JFK

[stylin_geek]

You have now succeeded in giving me a vision of what a true He** would be like. Working to elect Hillary. The ultimate Freeper nightmare.

[mamaduck]

I agree, I have a naive idea that everyone understands win-win, when actually I don't find many that do . . .

[yendu bwam]

In their eyes, it would be to their benefit and their profit if the world they lived in inhabited only those who thought like they did.

Right. Five adults and five children are stranded on an island with only two days rations. It's perfectly rational for the adults to overpower the children and murder them and take their share of food in the hopes of being saved. Rationality does not make that a 'good' act (for most people!).