General Discussion

Rational Egoism

logon didonai — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:14:34 GMT

Hi folks. I'm new here.
I just finished readin Atlas Shrugged and am half way through The Virtue of Selfishness. I find the whole ordeal quite puzzling, and so I came here with the hope of finding some answers. I'm not opposed to objectivist, it just strikes me as a bizarre outlook. I have a number of concerns, and I'll present one of them in this post.

You wake up one morning to discover yourself in a strange new place. This definitely isn't your bedroom. It looks more like a hospital room. Your head hurts. Maybe you had an accident? As you start to get up, a man walks through the door wearing a white lab coat and a pair of glasses. Ah, this must be the doctor.
"What happened to me?" you ask.
Perhaps you shouldn't have asked.
The man replies, "While you were asleep last night you were drugged and kidnapped. We took a sample of your DNA, along with all of the required epigenetic material. Using a scan of your body, we created a replica. It's perfect, an atom for atom duplicate. I think you'll be impressed."
"What? Why?" you reply.
"Ah, well this is all part of the experiment. You see, in just a few hours we'll be drugging you up again. You'll be unconscious for quite some time."
"Why the heck would you do that?" you reply.
"Oh, we don't want the operation to cause you any pain. You see, we'll be doing an organ transplant. Your brain will be placed in the clones body, and his/her brain put into yours. After the two of you wake up, one will be given $1,000, a sort of thank you for your time and contributions. The other one will, of course, be terminated. We can't let you both leave, then we'd be discovered. Oh, and don't worry, we've done this countless times, and the surgery will go exactly as planned. Now, here's where you come into all this. You get to decide which body is destroyed, and which is handed the $1,000. So, take your time, think it over, and have an answer ready for us within 4 hours. Farewell."
With that the doctor (or, mad scientist?) walked away. You, being a strong objectivist, are of course concerned with being logical and rational. And, as an objectivist, you know that the rational course of action is that which will serve your interests. But, what are your interests? Which body should receive the $1,000?

The Venus project and the Resource Based Economy

Vicksburg — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:34:28 GMT

Hello everyone! My name is Vicky :)

I'm new in this forum, and I hope you find my postings constructive and interesting. First off, about a year ago, a friend of my brothers suggested watching "Zeitgeist", a movie by Peter Joseph that was floating around on the internet and now has had millions of views. It attempted to take a closer look at the causes of corrupt behavior though the examples of the (emergence of Christianity) (9/11), and (The banking system). It takes a conspiracy theory approach (it's outdated now and Joseph has edited it but I don't know to what extent). I don't believe in that kind of theory, but the movie nevertheless made an impression on me.That was its purpose, to hint me at something. That's where the second movie, "Zeitgeist Addendum" extended that hint. The conspiracy theories thinned out a little more, but more explanatory. It theses is that the root causes of all social corruption are caused by the implementation of religion, politics, and the monetary system. The movie argues that these three concepts are currently inhibiting the growth of the global community. Check these movies out. It will be worth your time.

Back to the part of the monetary system, (I know this is a testy subject ^^; but I'm brave) the movie explains how at this point in time the usage of money to support an economy is no longer relevant. It promotes Venus Project, an alternative social design plan by Jacque Fresco. (more on this later) This is why I wanted to post this because money is important part of Ayn Rand's idea of value. I loved reading Atlas Shrugged and I'm sure you all agree it is a life-changing book. It clarified how I viewed morality and it sharpened my mind to become a better critical thinker. I have become an Objectivist. This philosophy is an accordance with the ideas of Fresco, which is a brilliant thinker; when he speaks it makes more sense than anything. The Venus Project advocates the usage of a resource based economy by using the scientific method to solve problems. check out the website I think you will find it interesting:

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

Also take a look at the zeitgeist movement: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?Itemid=50

There is a lot of emphasis on corruption, greed and the illness that comes with ego and competition. I understand that Ayn Rand advocated rational self-interest. That exists independent of ego and competition. Of course promoting ego and competition would help a capitalist system (that was her frame of reference at the time) but with, I think, unnecessary consequences. Money is used as a medium of exchange for resources that are scarce. I hold no romantic views on money because it is only a tool.

The view of capitalism as an ideal is shallow. I see a resource-based economy, a far more sophisticated plan, as an outgrowth of the capitalist system in the way Ayn Rand envisioned. Okay, what else, um. This is a complex, heavy, and very difficult undertaking to exchange thoughts accurately on this enormous idea. But I can tell you I have been updated on the information of the movement and the project so I'll direct you answers to your questions. I hope some of you have seen all of the movies already...it would be a much smoother discussion if you have a strong background on these ideas, but of course I encourage all of you to seek out the information you need before we discuss.

I'll give you a recommended checklist:
-watch zeitgest
-watch zeitgeist addendum from home website : http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?Itemid=50
-take a look at some of the interviews of peter joseph on youtube
-take a look at some of the interviews of jacque fresco on youtube
-watch the zeitgeist movement orientation guide from home web.
-watch the peter joseph lecture in london 7/25/09 on home web

Well Cheers everybody! I hope you have fun and find interest :)

Hoping this is the correct place to post items for sale . . .

FloridaBob — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:24:08 GMT

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} Hoping this is the correct place to post items for sale . . .

I am a long-time Ayn Rand fan, now getting up in the years and selling off stuff to eventually save my heirs the trouble. Looking for help on the best way to get these things appraised and sold. All opinions are appreciated.

I have all four volumes of The Objectivist Newsletter (1962 to 1965).

And then when the name was changed to simply The Objectivist,

Volume 5, 1-12, 1966
Volume 6, 1-12, 1967
Volume 7, 1-12, 1968
Volume 8, 1-12, 1969
Volume 9, 1-12, 1970
Volume 10, 1-6, 1971

Also have the following individual brochures:

ANTITRUST, Alen Greenspan, 1962
NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE, Ayn Rand, 1959
THE FACIST NEW FRONTIER, Ayn Rand, 1963
TEXTBOOK OF AMERICANISM, Ayn Rand, 1959
THE MORAL ANTAGONISM OF CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM, Barbara Branden, 1959
CONSERVATISM: AN OBITUARY, Ayn Rand, 1962
THE REVOLT AGAINST AFFLUENCE: GALBRAITH’S NEO-FEUDALISM, George Reisman, 1961
PLAYBOY’S INTERVIEW WITH AYN RAND, 1964
AMERICA’S PERSECUTED MINORITY: BIG BUSINESS, Ayn Rand, 1962

Also have several advertising brochures from NBI during those years. They have obviously been cherished and well kept.

Thank You!

EDIT: Just remembered that I also have the 78 RPM long-play record, THE NEW FASCISM: RULE BY CONSENSUS, Ayn Rand lecture at the Ford Hall Forum, Boston, April 18, 1965 (with album cover of course).

Will American objectivists stop being "American"?

Hotu Matua — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:50:48 GMT

Imagine we are living in year 2150.

Objectivism has won the minds of the people all over the world. Country after country, even in Africa, the Muslim World and Latin America, citizens have achieved an unprecedented level of freedom and prosperity.

Science and technology have brought high standards of life for most of the people. "Poverty" still exists in some way, but those considered "poor" by 2150 standards are far better off than the rich people of today. The arts are flourshing. People live 120 years in average, explore planets, use solar and hydrogen energy, enjoy sex, tolerate religous differences (most of which are withering away or becoming less mystical) and introduce improvements in the genetic legacy of their children.

Millions of people have been moving to the USA from all over the world, and millions of Americans have moved abroad. As a result, the ethnic mix and the language diversity in the USA is far wider than what seen today. Whites speaking English as their mothertongue represent a third of the USA population The rest is a mix of Hispanic, African, Asian and Hindu people. By the same token, a big chunk of Mexican citizens are ethnically Anglosaxon, and so forth for the rest of the world.

Since all countries are now free and rich, someone proposes to have a single planetary government, a single police force and a single army. And mankind says yes. The new World government restricts itself to safety and justice issues. Laissez-faire economy is respected and promoted. ;ost parents worldwide take their children to objectivists schools.

Now, since nationalism is remembered as a source of irrational conflicts and coertion, people get rid of all national flags and national anthems, including yours. The name "dollar" is left to history. The Constitution of the United States of America becomes a venerated but outdated document, overshadowed by a new World Constitution. A World Flag is invented with a corresponding World Anthem. . My question is: would this world, in principle, appeal to the objectivist? More specifically, will the perspective of a free global society based on objectivist principles compensate for the future loss of the American national identity?

(I am a Mexican, and therefore not particulary sensitive about the loss of an American identity (or a Mexican identity to be honest), but since Ayn Rand wrote with such a patriotic zeal, I wonder what would it mean for an American objectivist to lose national identity in favour of a free planet)

Act according to our nature

freedomintruth — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:09:40 GMT

According to objectivism, it is morally right for people to act in accordance with their natures. "Lord of the Flies" is an example of how children behave with nothing to control their human nature. Yes, I know that's a book, however, I've raised four children that had to be prevented from killing each other at times. People with innate behaviors (natural for them) that prey on society now have scientific research that indicate that these people do not have the ability to inhibit their natural impulses. How does Objectivism dictate our reaction to these people?

I have had to step between adults in an effort to stop them from reacting instead of thinking of the consequences to them and others.

I read Atlas Shrugged and could see the reality of separating from the distorted societal culture and individual selfishness that the law enabled them to embrace. Living a life with objectivism as the only guide seems unrealistic. Adopting objectivism as an attempt to give society a new start reminds me of socialism taking over. At the beginning socialists state that they must establish a totalitarian government before all citizens can thrive in a socialist society.

Citizens need to use their vote and voice to prevent government from erroding to a level of enabling people. When caring becomes enabling individuals tend to live down to their primitive instincts. Working to become educated and skilled and providing same for their children may seem not necessary for their survival. Very low levels of surviving become the norm. Sometimes just having one status symble like a cool car or clothes fulfils their vision of self esteem.

I've gone on and on. Please reply to any or all questions.
Thank you, Jane

Howard Roark as a physician

Hotu Matua — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:00:26 GMT

Hi everybody.

I am a Mexican 43 old physician who is new to Objectivism. I am reading eagerly Ayn Rand's wonderful books.

I must tell I first got to know Ayn Rand work through Rothbard, Friedman and Nozick

Reading The Fountainhead, I suddendly asked myself: How would Ayn Rand describe the character of Howard Roark had he been a physican rather than an architect?

We doctors take the wellbeing of our patients as our source of professional satisfaction. In serving others, we many times give up sleeptime, time to spend with our families, or entertainment.

I believe that Howard Roark could have spent many hours working late at night in the design of a new building. Howard Roark could have also give up merrily a lot of things to undertake the construction of the skyscraper he dreamed about. But what about working hard to ensure that another human being (generally an stranger for whom we have no love) is relieved from his pain? In what respect the health of a stranger would become Roark's accomplishment?

I would like to know your thoughts about it.

Best regards

Deism

kasualkafe_com — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:39:38 GMT

Objective reality denies mysticism and religion, rightly. This is absolutely an atheistic philosophy.

ObjReality even makes a case that one cannot be agnostic.

But what about Deism? A deistic belief of a God outside of nature , with no particular providence within nature , in my opinion does not affect a humanistic , non-mystical philosophy.
I only recently gave myself a title of Deism. I always thought of God as someone who set the "big bang " in motion , wether from the singularity and "poof" expanding universe , or the original collision theory.
But outside of space and time , not in it. I imagined a Good but dispassionate God that set this nature thing in motion , and the incredible laws of nature , and the wondrousness of evolution , and the immensity of vast amounts of time and small steps and changes that amount to leaps etc; And he looks at us like one would look at an ant farm. What a wonderful little world. I won`t touch a thing.

This is a thought I had probably a decade ago , whilst struggling with christianity.

So , during my last few years of self-education , I came across a religious philophy that comes close to this previous thought (granted , I`m simplifying Deism)

But my question remains. Does Deism clash with objectivism , and if so, how?
Kevin Beary www.kasualkafe.com

Sustainability Thoughts

The Youthopian — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:23:03 GMT

Hi,

I've been reading on this site and forum for several months and I'm very pleased to find people thinking feely. However I have some questions especially on the theme of environment/sustainability and related issues.

On the one hand I understand the Objectivist objections to environmentalisme and to some extend agree, but on the other hand I find there's several points where that angle fails to address reality. The persistent negating of global warming and related problems such as the overburdening of the earth's capacity, I find baffling. I've done extensive reading on the subject and logic and the lion's share of proof are on the side of those who say human activity is seriously harming the earth.

Progress in a objectivist fashion is a linear process of ever further, ever better, ever more. However appealling this vision is to me, I'm convinced that we must realize that it's impossible to have a linear process like that go on infinitely on our finite planet.

We could say that a healthy planet earth is in everyones best interest, however short term gain is so often chosen, causing such eromous long term problems, that it is obvious most people think 'earth will be able to take this as well, I'll be gone by the time the *** hits the fan'. This may be true but I fail to see how this mode of behaviour can possibly be called moral.

The built-in unsustainability of the current 'consumerism', is mind boggling; things are made to break, not to last, needs are created on a massive scale, prices are kept absurdly low by externalizing production costs, natural resources are brutally exploited, etc, etc.

Rand wrote that 'reality is the final judge' and I agree, but if we wait for reality to show us beyond any doubt that we're killing the planet we live on, it almost certainly will be too late by the time we get the message. Isn't it clear enough by now? Apparently not. . .

Sustainablility is what we should be looking at. And guys, relax, there's loads we can do within the parameters of sustainability, it's not about going back to the dark ages or living primitive, it's about being smart enough to respect the planet that sustains us. Ultimately we cannot do without it (all the outer space fanasies are avoiding responsability here and now) so lets get real. Leaving the mess for whoever comes after us cannot be a viable option, can it?

Also, I've become more and more convinced that Capitalism as Rand pictured it, is not possible within the current monetary system as Rand rightly describes money as value, but in this system, money equeals debt. It's created out of debt and because of the interest due on it evermore money must be created to pay that interest. However this is a process without end , which is why this system needs continous growth, which, in the end, isn't sustainable.

A few films to check out:

'Zeitgeist' and 'Zeitgeist Addendum' on : www.zeitgeistmovie.com

'Money as Debt' :www.moneyasdebt.net

'The Story of Stuff' : http://www.storyofstuff.com/international/

Sincerely,

The Youthopian

What do you think about the following extract?

Delayed_flight — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:53:25 GMT

I have ust run into this article

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=518&h=54

and the following statement made me disagree: "But worse is spending one's money to promote evil: irrationalism, collectivism, sacrifice. As a case in point, consider corporations and wealthy individuals (often heirs) that finance anti-industrial, anti-civilization environmental groups such as Greenpeace..."

Isn't it irrationality at its best?

New Political Cartoons!

LampoonTheSystem — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:07:26 GMT

Check out our new hilarious political cartoons at www.lampoonthesystem.com!

Current topics ranging from separation of church and state to Obama's school speech. View, share, add a comment. Support the fight for liberty!

The John Galt Pledge Initiative

Jeffery Small — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:31:26 GMT

I have created a new web site that explores the ramifications to the country and its citizens resulting from the renewed calls for voluntary and mandatory National Service. I think the site is rather self-explanatory. Take a look and let me know (by email) your thoughts.
--
C. Jeffery Small

The John Galt Pledge Initiative

If Ayn Rand could write cartoons... www.LampoonTheSystem.com

LampoonTheSystem — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:21:02 GMT

Hi everyone. If you love Ayn Rand's works, please check out my new political and social satire website... www.LampoonTheSystem.com

It's inspired by the likes of Ayn Rand, Dr. Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and Lew Rockwell. Freedom and liberty for all!

Jon

Logic, Objectivism new God

NickOtani — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:13:20 GMT

Gödel’s theorems, simplified

Sometimes, I think Objectivists place too much emphasis on logic and reason. It’s almost like a blind faith, like they replace the God they rejected with this new God, their only means of discovering reality. This doesn’t need to be. One can stand on one’s own feet and use logic as a tool but not let logic, like a new deity, rule.

Logicians and mathematicians warn us not to use formal theorems, like Gödel’s theorems, on regular spoken language, to apply them only to set theory and mathematics. However, I think we can learn something about our informal, fuzzy logic, by studying what happens in formal logic, which is only a more precise and rigid meta-language used to study our regular spoken language.

Propositional calculus is symbolic logic, the meta-language we use sometimes to study logical relationships in regular, spoken language, but it is much more precise and rigid, like mathematics. There are symbols to represent statements and signs to represent operations, like conjunction and disjunction and conditionals and double implication and negation, all things we use in spoken language when we say “and”, “or”, “if…, then…” , “if and only if”, and “not”. (A ^B) ->~(CvD) can be translated to “If A and B, then not C or D,” and we can assume that each variable is a simple sentence. There are ways to determine the truth such long statements with truth table analysis, assuming a truth value for each variable and determining what truth value the sentence will have when it is joined by the different connectives and descriptions. If A is true, then (not A) or ~A is false.

Now, in logical systems, there has to be some axioms and rules of inference. Then a system is complete if it can include every possible statement and determine its truth. It is consistent if all statements follow the law of non-contradiction, A statement cannot be true and false at the same time.

In regular spoken language, there are paradoxes, like the liar’s paradox: If the statement “I am lying,” is true, then it is false, because it says I am lying when I am telling the truth, but if it is false, then it is true, because I am telling the truth about lying.

Well, Gödel, in his first theorem, found a way to formulate this paradox in logical language and slip it into formal systems of logic. He came up with a statement like, “This sentence is not provable.” Like the liar’s paradox, if it is true, it is false, and if it is false, it is true. This can’t happen in a system that is complete and consistent. So, we can have a complete system which is inconsistent, or a consistent system which is incomplete, does not contain such a statement.

The second theorem states that if a system is consistent, its consistency cannot be proved by methods formalizable in that system. Another system must be used to determine this, but that system would have the same problem, and so on into infinity. So, consistency cannot be proved.

A system is closed if it contains all possible statements. Obviously, regular spoken language is not closed. We are constantly coming up with meaningful sentences which have never been uttered or thought of before. This is Chomsky’s creativity principle. It could point to free-will and resourcefulness in humans. However, this openness in logic also allows for this. We don’t have all the answers already, we continue to learn and adapt.

So, logic is not a substitute God to which humans should subjugate themselves. It is a tool for their use. They are primary and in control of their tools. Their tools should not control them.

bis bald,

Nick

Orjectivism and Religon

mnichols1202 — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:11:54 GMT

Hello All,
This is my first post here. I'm quite new to the philosophy of Objectivism though I feel I’ve been am adherent all my life!
I’m about 2/3 of the way through Atlas Shrugged and I’m chewing through it like a sugar addict and a box of doughnuts! LOL!

Anyway – my first stab at a question here is, I’m hoping, not going to be too controversial. My greatest fear is to opening my mouth for the first time from an Objectivists point of view in an Objectivism forum, and going down in a barrage of flames. Be that as it may…here goes.

Question: Is Objectivism necessarily Atheist?
I don’t believe so!

Most adherents to any organized religion would hotly disagree with me. On this point I think I’m on solid ground. You see, I’m a Seventh Day Adventist….
ok, pick your jaws up off the floor.

Not just a Seventh Day Adventist, but I believe, a Thinking Adventist and while I’m very new to Objectivism, I don’t believe that any of Christ’s teachings contradicts any tenant of Objectivism.
Please don’t respond to me to refute this claim but presenting the view of most organized churches (including my own) of Jesus as a collectivist hippie, it’s just not there.

Anyway, I look forward to this post starting a raucous intellectual debate.

Cheers

In defense of a second hander

rca411 — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:40:47 GMT

So my question is this:

If a person is a gifted social engineer, would it not be a violation of his integrity to follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand and subdue that part of his personality?

Roark uses building materials arranged in such a way that only his individual mind could to affect his ends and realize his creation. Toohey, likewise, uses the masses' willingness to submit to collectivist ideals in the same way. They are both using tools and resources to build structures.

I think this is a valid question concerning Rand's work.