History UsefulNotes / Objectivism

22nd Aug '17 10:49:06 AM GrammarNavi
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Because, according to this idea, humans are intrinsically flawed, they have to ''justify their existence''. How? By sacrifice and service to something greater than themselves. Enter various codes of selfless morality, each promoting a different thing to serve; a tribe, a god, a king, a country... [[UsefulNotes/NaziGermany the Aryan race]], [[SovietRussia the universal brotherhood of the proletariat]], the list goes on.

to:

Because, according to this idea, humans are intrinsically flawed, they have to ''justify their existence''. How? By sacrifice and service to something greater than themselves. Enter various codes of selfless morality, each promoting a different thing to serve; a tribe, a god, a king, a country... [[UsefulNotes/NaziGermany the Aryan race]], [[SovietRussia [[UsefulNotes/SovietRussiaUkraineAndSoOn the universal brotherhood of the proletariat]], the list goes on.
19th Apr '16 4:12:55 PM 04tele
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Rand was an empiricist. She argued that ultimately all knowledge and deduction had to rest on empirical facts and that our senses were our point of contact with reality. She accepted that humans had no built-in ideas, and had to build their ideas from observations.

to:

Rand was an empiricist. She argued that ultimately all knowledge and deduction had to rest on empirical facts and that our senses were our point of contact with reality. She accepted believed that humans had no built-in ideas, and had to build their ideas from observations.
19th Nov '15 9:09:30 PM AtticusOmundson
Is there an issue? Send a Message


->''"What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?' A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?' A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God...'"''

to:

->''"What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds. A parasite asks asks, 'Where is my share?' A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?' A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God...'"''
13th Nov '15 9:17:21 PM AtticusOmundson
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->-- '''Andrew Ryan''', ''VideoGame/{{BioShock}}''

to:

-->-- '''Andrew Ryan''', ''VideoGame/{{BioShock}}''
''VideoGame/BioShock2''
13th Nov '15 9:16:30 PM AtticusOmundson
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

->''"What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?' A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?' A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God...'"''
-->-- '''Andrew Ryan''', ''VideoGame/{{BioShock}}''
1st Nov '15 8:38:17 AM SilverDragon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In short, Rand argued that Auguste Comte's definition of Altruism is the best encapsulator of a long-existent moral tradition based in Platonic misanthropy, exploited by the power-hungry and used to control people. It is used to justify heinous acts and violate individual rights. Finally, it does not actually serve the function of an ethical code in the first place; it fails to give guidance on how to live: it essentially states that one '''must''' sacrifice their values/life to others (which in turn makes ''their'' life impossible/unbearable), in order to deserve the right to live Likewise, if one chooses to instead live their life with ''their'' values, then they are denounced as evil and unfit to live by society. Also, accepting the sacrifices is not acceptable. If someone accepts a sacrifice, they could be condemned as selfish. They have made someone else act for their benefit instead of their own. Offering sacrifice for others would be moral, but accepting it would be immoral. This simple contradiction makes Altruism, in Rand's eyes, a morality ''completely impossible to practice''.


to:

In short, Rand argued that Auguste Comte's definition of Altruism is the best encapsulator of a long-existent moral tradition based in Platonic misanthropy, exploited by the power-hungry and used to control people. It is used to justify heinous acts and violate individual rights. Finally, it does not actually serve the function of an ethical code in the first place; it fails to give guidance on how to live: it essentially states that one '''must''' sacrifice their values/life to others (which in turn makes ''their'' life impossible/unbearable), in order to deserve the right to live live. Likewise, if one chooses to instead live their life with ''their'' values, then they are denounced as evil and unfit to live by society. Also, accepting the sacrifices is not acceptable. If someone accepts a sacrifice, they could be condemned as selfish. They have made someone else act for their benefit instead of their own. Offering sacrifice for others would be moral, but accepting it would be immoral. This simple contradiction makes Altruism, in Rand's eyes, a morality ''completely impossible to practice''.

31st Oct '15 10:14:07 PM FuriouslySleepingIdea
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In short, Rand argued that Auguste Comte's definition of Altruism is the best encapsulator of a long-existent moral tradition based in Platonic misanthropy, exploited by the power-hungry and used to control people. It is used to justify heinous acts and violate individual rights. Finally, it does not actually serve the function of an ethical code in the first place; it fails to give guidance on how to live: it essentially states that one '''must''' sacrifice their values/life to others (which in turn makes ''their'' life impossible/unbearable), in order to deserve the right to live. Likewise, if one chooses to instead live their life with ''their'' values, then they are denounced as evil and unfit to live by society. This simple contradiction makes Altruism, in Rand's eyes, a morality ''completely impossible to practice''.


to:

In short, Rand argued that Auguste Comte's definition of Altruism is the best encapsulator of a long-existent moral tradition based in Platonic misanthropy, exploited by the power-hungry and used to control people. It is used to justify heinous acts and violate individual rights. Finally, it does not actually serve the function of an ethical code in the first place; it fails to give guidance on how to live: it essentially states that one '''must''' sacrifice their values/life to others (which in turn makes ''their'' life impossible/unbearable), in order to deserve the right to live. live Likewise, if one chooses to instead live their life with ''their'' values, then they are denounced as evil and unfit to live by society.society. Also, accepting the sacrifices is not acceptable. If someone accepts a sacrifice, they could be condemned as selfish. They have made someone else act for their benefit instead of their own. Offering sacrifice for others would be moral, but accepting it would be immoral. This simple contradiction makes Altruism, in Rand's eyes, a morality ''completely impossible to practice''.

31st Jul '15 2:44:05 PM phoenix
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Because, according to this idea, humans are intrinsically flawed, they have to ''justify their existence''. How? By sacrifice and service to something greater than themselves. Enter various codes of selfless morality, each promoting a different thing to serve; a tribe, a god, a king, a country... [[NaziGermany the Aryan race]], [[SovietRussia the universal brotherhood of the proletariat]], the list goes on.

to:

Because, according to this idea, humans are intrinsically flawed, they have to ''justify their existence''. How? By sacrifice and service to something greater than themselves. Enter various codes of selfless morality, each promoting a different thing to serve; a tribe, a god, a king, a country... [[NaziGermany [[UsefulNotes/NaziGermany the Aryan race]], [[SovietRussia the universal brotherhood of the proletariat]], the list goes on.
5th Jan '15 4:27:02 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Objectivism argues that: 1) There is something. 2) That it exists ''independently of your consciousness'' and you can't simply think it into non-existence. PhilipKDick, no Objectivist himself, nevertheless articulated a definition of reality that many Objectivists can agree with: "Reality is that which, if you stop believing in it, does not go away."

to:

Objectivism argues that: 1) There is something. 2) That it exists ''independently of your consciousness'' and you can't simply think it into non-existence. PhilipKDick, Creator/PhilipKDick, no Objectivist himself, nevertheless articulated a definition of reality that many Objectivists can agree with: "Reality is that which, if you stop believing in it, does not go away."
19th Nov '14 4:34:59 PM MarkLungo
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Metaphysics is the study of existence (also known as Ontology) as well as the basic 'substances' which make it up (also known as Cosmology). Rand argued, following Aristotle, that Ontology was the proper area of Metaphysics and that Cosmology should be reserved for the physical sciences. Thus, Objectivist metaphysics is confined to an Ontology.

to:

Metaphysics is the study of existence (also known as Ontology) as well as the basic 'substances' which make it up (also known as Cosmology). Rand argued, following Aristotle, Creator/{{Aristotle}}, that Ontology was the proper area of Metaphysics and that Cosmology should be reserved for the physical sciences. Thus, Objectivist metaphysics is confined to an Ontology.
This list shows the last 10 events of 63. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.Objectivism