The legacy of Ayn Rand

[blackstar212]

Err no she didn't. Is this another one of your feelings ? She made the argument that the industrial revolution saved us from the fate that befalls those who never experience it. She doesn't regard any person as 'stupid like animals'.

 

No India isn't capitalist-when I say capitalist I mean laissez faire capitalism which shouldn't need saying, but unfortunately Marx and our modern corporate, facistic political class has meant that the distinction is necessary. India has some level of free markets, but it as yet not very wide and corporatism has taken hold, as it has across the entire West today. Corporatism isn't capitalism in any sense, but our politicians like to talk about free markets. I'm guessing you haven't read Atlas Shrugged or you would understand the difference between this crony corporatism and true capitalism.

https://en.wikipedia...f_the_primitive

 

Her entire organization think they are savages. I have read atlas shrugged it leads to what we have now in the US. We are now in a plutocracy because of these failed ideals. We are to work together not exploit. Greed and selfishness are harmful to society.

[Karl]

Yes the corruption Karl brings up is a part of being capitalist and objectivist. Capitalism leads to plutocracy and oligarchy which are horrible. You have the few rich and wealthy and the rest are servants.

There you go again, running off to your Marxist prayer book.

 

What does capitalism mean ?

 

Communism led to........?

Fascism led to ..........?

Totalitarianism leads to.......?

 

Freedom leads to..........?

 

Oligarchs and plutocrats are the result of political power. It is the use of political force to be imposed on the producers (the capitalists). The revolving door of corruption and cronyism allows the few to gain huge wealth. Even in the USSR this was true. The party elite lived like emperors in opulence whilst the people were sent to Gulaks or shot for dissenting, or worked for a pittance and were not free to do anything but what they were told.

 

Have a look at the Besmenenov video. He makes it plain that supporters of communism, those who are anti-capitalist are the first against the wall. Once they discover it is only a utopia for a chosen few they begin to rebel. However, by then it's too late. Bezmenenov says that people will not believe it when facts and figures are presented, even when they are taken to the prison camps (this is the current level of psychological/philosophical inculcation). It's only when a soldiers boot contacts their balls that the reality becomes clear, but, by then it's too late.

[Karl]

https://en.wikipedia...f_the_primitiveHer entire organization think they are savages. I have read atlas shrugged it leads to what we have now in the US. We are now in a plutocracy because of these failed ideals. We are to work together not exploit. Greed and selfishness are harmful to society.

You obviously haven't read it, because what you have now is what Rand predicted if the USA did not look at the original philosophy of the founding fathers.

 

'her entire organisation' ? Dude she's dead and there is an ARI institute which is tiny. It isn't wealthy or powerful. There is no legacy in terms of today's social/political mess, Rand simply doesn't figure in it. It's incredible that anyone thinks she had that kind of influence. If she had then you wouldn't have Obamacare, the Fed, wars on people who have not shown any interest in attacking the US, there would be no cronyism, minimum wage, regulations, or the Government involved in any way with commerce.

 

I thought you were going to argue sensibly, but instead you are off balling in the street with your red flag and mud on your face. It's true because you feel it's true. Heaven help the rest of us.

[blackstar212]

You obviously haven't read it, because what you have now is what Rand predicted if the USA did not look at the original philosophy of the founding fathers.

 

'her entire organisation' ? Dude she's dead and there is an ARI institute which is tiny. It isn't wealthy or powerful. There is no legacy in terms of today's social/political mess, Rand simply doesn't figure in it. It's incredible that anyone thinks she had that kind of influence. If she had then you wouldn't have Obamacare, the Fed, wars on people who have not shown any interest in attacking the US, there would be no cronyism, minimum wage, regulations, or the Government involved in any way with commerce.

 

I thought you were going to argue sensibly, but instead you are off balling in the street with your red flag and mud on your face. It's true because you feel it's true. Heaven help the rest of us.

Obviously you did not read it.

 

Ayn Rand's Objectivism rejects an array of ideas and modes of living that it deems are primitive by nature and indicative of a primitive culture. Objectivism views primitive states of existence as being "savage" and marred in mysticism, fatalism, ignorance, superstition, poverty, passivity, and collectivism. The cure to such a society Objectivism holds is Western civilization, capitalism and modernity,[1] which in its view brings with it reason, individualism, science, industrialization, and ultimately wealth.

 

Rand's Objectivism rejects primitivism and tribalism, while arguing that they are symptomatic of an "anti-industrial" mentality.[13] Rand believed that the indigenous Native Americans, who in her estimation exhibited these "savage" traits, thus forfeited their property rights in doing so.[14][15] According to Sam Anderson of New York magazine, Rand also contended that Native Americans, "having failed for millennia to create a heroically productive capitalist society, deserved to be stripped of their land."[16] When Rand addressed West Point Military Academy cadets in 1974 and was asked about the dispossession and "cultural genocide" of Native Americans which occurred en route to forming the United States, she replied that indigenous people "had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages .... Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights – they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures" – they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using." Rand went on to opine that "in opposing the white man" Native Americans wished to "continue a primitive existence" and "live like animals or cavemen", surmising that "any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent."[14]

 

She refers to Native Americans " They were born here and then acted like savages."

 

Sorry objectivism is not healthy or good for the social animal called homo sapiens.

 

Example of Ad Hom "I thought you were going to argue sensibly, but instead you are off balling in the street with your red flag and mud on your face. It's true because you feel it's true. Heaven help the rest of us."

Edited August 25, 2016 by blackstar212

[blackstar212]

Karl,

 

Just so you understand a little more about me.

 

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine', and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

 

— Rousseau 1754

 

Not a red flag nor mud.

[ralis]

Karl,

 

Ayn Rand and here naive disparaging remarks regarding Native Americans as savages is extremely insulting. I am part Cherokee and have no tolerance for bigotry.

 

The US Constitution was modeled in part from the Iroquois Confederacy. A civilized people.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_Peace

[Karl]

Obviously you did not read it.Ayn Rand's Objectivism rejects an array of ideas and modes of living that it deems are primitive by nature and indicative of a primitive culture. Objectivism views primitive states of existence as being "savage" and marred in mysticism, fatalism, ignorance, superstition, poverty, passivity, and collectivism. The cure to such a society Objectivism holds is Western civilization, capitalism and modernity,[1] which in its view brings with it reason, individualism, science, industrialization, and ultimately wealth.Rand's Objectivism rejects primitivism and tribalism, while arguing that they are symptomatic of an "anti-industrial" mentality.[13] Rand believed that the indigenous Native Americans, who in her estimation exhibited these "savage" traits, thus forfeited their property rights in doing so.[14][15] According to Sam Anderson of New York magazine, Rand also contended that Native Americans, "having failed for millennia to create a heroically productive capitalist society, deserved to be stripped of their land."[16] When Rand addressed West Point Military Academy cadets in 1974 and was asked about the dispossession and "cultural genocide" of Native Americans which occurred en route to forming the United States, she replied that indigenous people "had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages .... Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights – they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures" – they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using." Rand went on to opine that "in opposing the white man" Native Americans wished to "continue a primitive existence" and "live like animals or cavemen", surmising that "any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent."[14]She refers to Native Americans " They were born here and then acted like savages."Sorry objectivism is not healthy or good for the social animal called homo sapiens.Example of Ad Hom "I thought you were going to argue sensibly, but instead you are off balling in the street with your red flag and mud on your face. It's true because you feel it's true. Heaven help the rest of us."

You still aren't arguing sensibly. You bring up tribal Indian culture, have you considered what Rand thought of cavemen or those tribes that practised sacrifice of their tribes to Gods/spirits, what about those that went in for flesh eating or the kind of tortures that could only be thought up by the worst sadists. How about those that are today stretching necks and cutting of parts of women's genitalia. Maybe you have watched the Hollywood novels, but make no mistake, many of those Indian tribes were savage, violent brutes that would happily destroy another tribe then loot them. There was no conception of just law or property rights. You got your way with a knife, club, spear or bow.

 

How is this Rand's legacy. The tribes living in tepees, killing their neighbours and scratching a living out of the ground has long gone and good riddance to it. Rand had nothing to do with it. She wasn't born that long ago guys.

[Karl]

Karl,

 

Ayn Rand and here naive disparaging remarks regarding Native Americans as savages is extremely insulting. I am part Cherokee and have no tolerance for bigotry.

 

The US Constitution was modeled in part from the Iroquois Confederacy. A civilized people.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_Peace

Many were savages. I know that there was such a thing as the civilised tribes, but I have no history of it.

You are part Cherokee as I'm part Stone Age man, or part Norman conqueror. I don't get my knickers in a tangle because somebody calls my ancestors savages- they undoubtedly were.

[blackstar212]

Many were savages. I know that there was such a thing as the civilised tribes, but I have no history of it.

You are part Cherokee as I'm part Stone Age man, or part Norman conqueror. I don't get my knickers in a tangle because somebody calls my ancestors savages- they undoubtedly were.

Savages? I am now laughing, how much money did a savage scalp bring? Genocide is conducted by the savages. They merely had a different culture.

 

Rand and Objectivism is not healthy for humans.

[Karl]

Savages? I am now laughing, how much money did a savage scalp bring? Genocide is conducted by the savages. They merely had a different culture.Rand and Objectivism is not healthy for humans.

Rand has never been tried by humans, we appear to prefer stealing, lying, cheating, polluting and killing each other. We tried communism, fascism, totalitarianism and democracy, but it's all pretty much the same. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and ...."

 

Yes they had a culture of savagery.

[Astral Monk]

Yes the corruption Karl brings up is a part of being capitalist and objectivist. Capitalism leads to plutocracy and oligarchy which are horrible. You have the few rich and wealthy and the rest are servants.

Seems to me that the socialist complaint about capitolism leading to oligarchy is just a way of people bitching that others are better than them, and demanding that such success be thwarted so we can all race to the bottom in fairness and equality.

 

Oligarchy happens because people are both dishonest and willfully ignorant. And because of the constructs of money and economy and taking these to be natural or necessary features of human existence.

 

Politics in the end is about good governence and community decision making. If we hand our decision making power over to bureaucrats and complain about the 1% running everything who is to blame? We give them the cake they eat when we should give them the guilotine.

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

"Objectivism views primitive states of existence as being "savage" and marred in mysticism, fatalism, ignorance, superstition, poverty, passivity, and collectivism. "

 

Quite correctly too. Can anyone deny this assessment?

 

Of course there is a moral judgment here--that those paths lead humanity nowhere but into further barbarity, and history proves this correct; if there is a way out it at least starts with reason and critical thinking.

 

Now I dont care for the Rand comments below but not because they are dismissive of native tribes, but because they overreach with the concept of 'rights'. Her position is just another form of might makes right. Neither the mystic nor the objectivist are superior paths--each has their own fruits. We simply choose which one we want to back, then gather enough friends to force our way to a favorable outcome. There is no essential difference between Socrates satisfied and a pig satisfied. If we suggest otherwise its not a function of empirical observation tempered by reason, but a personal choice to place more value on the one than the other. We choose to be 'righteous' over others because it serves us.

 

But as a moral question, looking at the fruits is a good way of helping us choose.

 

Rights are not natural laws. The are constitutional provisions designed to help keep the peace in large societies, and they are ONLY backed by THREAT OF VIOLENCE, same as all notions of 'property'.

 

So when someone suggest some group (lmao) has a 'right' to, for example, land occupied by other people, it just means that someone supports the violent subjugation of others for the benefit of themselves (and by extension their 'group').

 

That isnt reason, folks.

 

8)

 

Ayn Rand's Objectivism rejects an array of ideas and modes of living that it deems are primitive by nature and indicative of a primitive culture. Objectivism views primitive states of existence as being "savage" and marred in mysticism, fatalism, ignorance, superstition, poverty, passivity, and collectivism. The cure to such a society Objectivism holds is Western civilization, capitalism and modernity,[1] which in its view brings with it reason, individualism, science, industrialization, and ultimately wealth.

 

Rand's Objectivism rejects primitivism and tribalism, while arguing that they are symptomatic of an "anti-industrial" mentality.[13] Rand believed that the indigenous Native Americans, who in her estimation exhibited these "savage" traits, thus forfeited their property rights in doing so.[14][15] According to Sam Anderson of New York magazine, Rand also contended that Native Americans, "having failed for millennia to create a heroically productive capitalist society, deserved to be stripped of their land."[16] When Rand addressed West Point Military Academy cadets in 1974 and was asked about the dispossession and "cultural genocide" of Native Americans which occurred en route to forming the United States, she replied that indigenous people "had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages .... Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights – they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures" – they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using." Rand went on to opine that "in opposing the white man" Native Americans wished to "continue a primitive existence" and "live like animals or cavemen", surmising that "any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent."[14]

 

She refers to Native Americans " They were born here and then acted like savages."

 

Sorry objectivism is not healthy or good for the social animal called homo sapiens.

 

Example of Ad Hom "I thought you were going to argue sensibly, but instead you are off balling in the street with your red flag and mud on your face. It's true because you feel it's true. Heaven help the rest of us."

[Astral Monk]

Lots of good talking points here, but just one thing for now...

 

Consciousness must be conscious of something and that means existence must have primacy.

Doesnt seem all that different from Kant. In both cases reason is being used to go beyond what is possibly knowable by concluding a necessary relationship as existing and underwriting. As someone with empiricist and phenomenalist leanings I cant justify that extension, because the 'answer' is not accessible via experience but rather only through judgment--which we know is a construct or structure a mind or cognitive process builds through increasing levels of abstraction *away* from direct experience.

 

What does direct experience reveal? The primacy and utter inescapableness of consciousness. The entire 'world' is completely 'within' consciousness. There is no connection to the 'outside'--there IS no 'outside'. Call me a Leibnizian on this.

 

Does consciousness need to be conscious of some 'thing'? No. Consciousness is pure precence. Awareness of differentiated 'things' is a cognitive process. Consciousness IS NOT cognition.

 

Cognition creates/reveals objects. Consciousness is conscious of cognition. Again, it is all 'within' consciousness. There are two very different levels here.

 

Berkeley where art thou??

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

Basically, Rand hasnt improved on Hume.

 

Whereas Hume pointed out that we cant observe causality but nonetheless we make practical use of it, any philosophy grounded in tautology is in the same boat.

 

A is A is practical because it fixes our attention on one level of abstraction, but it simply cant reveal knowledge about reality, that is, about individual 'things'. Why? Because a true analysis shows that concepts of 'things' are artifical impositions.

 

What does this mean? It means as part of our cognitive processing of raw reality we force stop at a certain level of abstraction to play the 'thing' game. If we followed tbe process to its (infinite) conclusion we'd see how provisional and relative our thing-concepts are.

 

There is absolutely no separation in fact between the land and the sky, yet we say there are two 'things', we talk about two things separately, then later try to cobble together an external relationship between them.

 

Its the same way with any argument about responsibility. There is none that does not call the whole fabric of spacetime together. Yet we speak of this man and this woman's 'responsibility'. Provisional practicality that purposefully avoids the ontological fact of impermanence and interdependence. And here's where I go Buddhist.

 

Kant was trying to overcome Hume, but Rand just reiterates that the billard balls hit each other. That just shows she understood neither Hume nor Kant nor the project of modern philosophy. Certainly its hard to take a 'critique' of a philosopher by someone who admited to never having read his work.

 

Well I think Wittgenstien was an ass. Never read Tractatus. LOL

 

8)

Edited August 26, 2016 by Astral Monk

[Karl]

Lots of good talking points here, but just one thing for now...

 

Doesnt seem all that different from Kant. In both cases reason is being used to go beyond what is possibly knowable by concluding a necessary relationship as existing and underwriting. As someone with empiricist and phenomenalist leanings I cant justify that extension, because the 'answer' is not accessible via experience but rather only through judgment--which we know is a construct or structure a mind or cognitive process builds through increasing levels of abstraction *away* from direct experience.

What does direct experience reveal? The primacy and utter inescapableness of consciousness. The entire 'world' is completely 'within' consciousness. There is no connection to the 'outside'--there IS no 'outside'. Call me a Leibnizian on this.

Does consciousness need to be conscious of some 'thing'? No. Consciousness is pure precence. Awareness of differentiated 'things' is a cognitive process. Consciousness IS NOT cognition.

Cognition creates/reveals objects. Consciousness is conscious of cognition. Again, it is all 'within' consciousness. There are two very different levels here.

Berkeley where art thou??

8)

Kant was effectively killing reason to save religious altruism. That was his stated intention. It's not really necessary to argue the fundamental differences because Kants critique of reason really didn't care by which method he reached that conclusion. This is why Rand holds him as evil, he knew what he was doing he walked in on the enlightenment and proceeded to take a wrecking ball to it. I hold that view because I'm an objectivist first-if you grasp the difference-in that respect, but a thinker prior to an objectivist. I haven't the time, nor the inclination to read Kant, so, I accept that Rand/Peikoff might well have misread his work, but Rand was a far brighter spark than I am, so, as I completely grasp and agree with objectivism, then I will have to trust she knows what she is talking about. I'm mindful that this is something akin to blind faith and as I haven't read the critique of reason I shouldn't not really hold an opinion about it, but I see sufficient proof in the world of the operating philosophy-in microcosm here on the forum-that I'm disinclined to question her opinion.

 

So, having got that out of the way; that's my blunt reply :-) I'm kicking Kants head in, 'cause my gang leader told me too :-) a bit of irrationalism on my own part, but re-inventing the wheel seems pointless.

 

So, to your summation:

 

Consciousness is the axiomatic corollary of existence and identity. There is no cognition without consciousness. Consciousness is not a passive non identified thing. Consciousness IS something. It therefore has an identity. It is an active faculty. It is grasping existence.

 

It is true that conception is an abstractive process, however this is not true of perception. Perception is the direct experience of existent reality. Such is the oft repeated 'bent stick in the tumbler of water' thought experiment. Our conception might conclude that the stick is really physically bent, then our conception would require verification by resorting back to concrete existence to test the theory. We do that all the time so there is no mystery to it. The stick stays bent even after we have expanded our conceptions of the laws of light and diffraction of different liquids. That alone proves that we are not being deceived by our senses, the stick genuinely does look bent. If we saw the stick as straight, then we would be in trouble.

 

Consciousness does not exist without being conscious of something, if you want to break that into cognition the perception I don't object, but it is a parallel consciousness and not a series one. Cognition is not occurring prior to the senses experiencing concrete perception. That should be obvious to anyone who has been a child. We are born tabula rasa, sans concrete perceptions of reality we would have no cognitive function we wouldn't even know we existed. Consciousness is actively enmeshed in both perception and conception as an active component. We can steer our awareness to new experiences that we then conceptualise.

 

I never understand why subjectivists don't get this, it's exactly as we experience it, we don't need Kant telling us it's wrong. Objectivism only points out what we already know. Kant is like the magician that chops the lady in two and tells us that it's simply magic, whilst we know it's impossible, but we shouldn't walk out of the show claiming we have in fact seen magic. This is what Kant has done. He has convinced everyone that magic is possible and that they shouldn't bother their silly little heads in trying to disprove it. It's like watching people in a trance state, yet a cursory introspection and extrospection proves it isn't so. Objectivism only tells people what they should already know, it was Kant that was once again condemning those who would listen to ancient mysticism. He wasn't the only one, but he was the most influential.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Basically, Rand hasnt improved on Hume.

Whereas Hume pointed out that we cant observe causality but nonetheless we make practical use of it, any philosophy grounded in tautology is in the same boat.

A is A is practical because it fixes our attention on one level of abstraction, but it simply cant reveal knowledge about reality, that is, about individual 'things'. Why? Because a true analysis shows that concepts of 'things' are artifical impositions.

What does this mean? It means as part of our cognitive processing of raw reality we force stop at a certain level of abstraction to play the 'thing' game. If we followed tbe process to its (infinite) conclusion we'd see how provisional and relative our thing-concepts are.

There is absolutely no separation in fact between the land and the sky, yet we say there are two 'things', we talk about two things separately, then later try to cobble together an external relationship between them.

Its the same way with any argument about responsibility. There is none that does not call the whole fabric of spacetime together. Yet we speak of this man and this woman's 'responsibility'. Provisional practicality that purposefully avoids the ontological fact of impermanence and interdependence. And here's where I go Buddhist.

Kant was trying to overcome Hume, but Rand just reiterates that the billard balls hit each other. That just shows she understood neither Hume nor Kant nor the project of modern philosophy. Certainly its hard to take a 'critique' of a philosopher by someone who admited to never having read his work.

Well I think Wittgenstien was an ass. Never read Tractatus. LOL

8)

Of course we can observe causality. The problem objectivism observes is that we observe causality with relationship to the nature and identity of objects. You mentioned the billiard balls, there is a tendency to remove the balls from the table and replace them with invisible arrows labelled causality. Thus the actual nature of objects acting and reacting becomes fuzzy. Physics taught us the abstraction. However there are real snooker balls, with individual identities and natures that are reacting, we cannot truly see beyond the angular momentum and vectors that we calculate, but we certainly see the action/ reaction. Just as in the bent stick we are seeing the balls and their actions perceptually accurately, it is our conception of the abstractions that leads us to reverse our understanding.

 

Yes Kant was trying to overcome the materialists and restore the spiritualists to prominence. This has been a philosophical war that has raged for centuries now. There is no difference between the two mystic philosophies really. Sure they argue cat and dog, but they essentially refute the identity of consciousness. The war climaxed when both philosophies reached the same conclusion, but the method was essentially one of atheism vs religion. As I said, Kant killed reason and Hegel/Descartes killed God.

 

The two philosophies have left man teetering on the edge of a new dark age. Kant told us there is no knowing reality, Hegel told us that the new reality was the human collective. We are told reality is whatever we think it is, that pragmatism is the name of the game, that might makes right, that we should simply seek pleasure and discard the values, we should do whatever we want, believe whatever we want and do so at any cost. That morals can be abandoned and the state, or anyone who holds the authority can arbitrarily specify morality and then change it a bit if it isn't working.

[joeblast]

my post fit better in the diversity deception

Edited August 26, 2016 by joeblast

[Astral Monk]

oh, I want to come back to this, but toobusy atm. Thread resurrection in 5...4...3.....

 

[Brian]

Seems to me that the socialist complaint about capitolism leading to oligarchy is just a way of people bitching that others are better than them, and demanding that such success be thwarted so we can all race to the bottom in fairness and equality.

 

Oligarchy happens because people are both dishonest and willfully ignorant. And because of the constructs of money and economy and taking these to be natural or necessary features of human existence.

 

Politics in the end is about good governence and community decision making. If we hand our decision making power over to bureaucrats and complain about the 1% running everything who is to blame? We give them the cake they eat when we should give them the guilotine.

 

8)

I don't advocate for the use of the guillotine but otherwise I think you've done well here.

[Orion]

The only thing I have to contribute to this thread, having read some of Rand's works, is that a highly developed intellect is not necessarily indicative of a highly developed moral core. The two are mutually exclusive. Some of the most psychopathic people to have ever graced this planet were extremely brilliant. Many misattribute smarts to merits, and this is the danger of the school of rationality.

 

Compassion, charity (not in the liberal sense, in the general sense), and loving action are always signs of a morally developed society. I don't feel that objectivism can bring us these.

 

Rand's works are almost bulletproof logic, but logic is not enough to govern the human condition.

[Brian]

The only thing I have to contribute to this thread, having read some of Rand's works, is that a highly developed intellect is not necessarily indicative of a highly developed moral core. The two are mutually exclusive. Some of the most psychopathic people to have ever graced this planet were extremely brilliant. Many misattribute smarts to merits, and this is the danger of the school of rationality.

 

Compassion, charity (not in the liberal sense, in the general sense), and loving action are always signs of a morally developed society. I don't feel that objectivism can bring us these.

 

Rand's works are almost bulletproof logic, but logic is not enough to govern the human condition.

I would suggest that the two are not mutually exclusive but merely decoupled from each other.

[Karl]

The only thing I have to contribute to this thread, having read some of Rand's works, is that a highly developed intellect is not necessarily indicative of a highly developed moral core. The two are mutually exclusive. Some of the most psychopathic people to have ever graced this planet were extremely brilliant. Many misattribute smarts to merits, and this is the danger of the school of rationality.

 

Compassion, charity (not in the liberal sense, in the general sense), and loving action are always signs of a morally developed society. I don't feel that objectivism can bring us these.

 

Rand's works are almost bulletproof logic, but logic is not enough to govern the human condition.

compassion, charity and kindness were something she most definitely approved of, but none of those are available without the use of the mind to first gain the possibility of performing those things. Objectivism is the most moral.

[redcairo]

I do not think that compassion, charity and kindness are available as a result of rational thinking or the mind.

 

I think if people do not develop the qualities of the heart[1], which often happens prior to their (over-) development of reason, they lack the innate morality that sponsors those feelings and behaviors.

 

[1] I say heart not to be poetic, but literal. I (subjectively, since that is the only way any of us can experience anything) have perceived that at least three of my chakra areas of body/self seem to have a focus on emotion. They are different sorts for each. The emotions you speak of are those I have felt in the chest region.

 

RC

[Karl]

I do not think that compassion, charity and kindness are available as a result of rational thinking or the mind.

 

I think if people do not develop the qualities of the heart[1], which often happens prior to their (over-) development of reason, they lack the innate morality that sponsors those feelings and behaviors.

 

[1] I say heart not to be poetic, but literal. I (subjectively, since that is the only way any of us can experience anything) have perceived that at least three of my chakra areas of body/self seem to have a focus on emotion. They are different sorts for each. The emotions you speak of are those I have felt in the chest region.

 

RC

It's just another form of value which is why it is rational. We do it because it makes us feel happy and happiness is the moral purpose of life. As our own lives are the ultimate measure against which we judge all values, with happiness our moral purpose, production our noblest activity and reason as our only absolute, then by helping others, we reinforce our own values/ethics/philosophy. It is akin to catching ourselves in the mirror on a particularly good day :-)