History UsefulNotes / Objectivism

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
typo
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.
23rd Apr '14 6:48:56 AM Rotide
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Politics is the field of philosophy that deals with the proper role of the State. The State is defined as an institution that holds exclusive ability to legitimately start the use of force in a specific area. There are multiple answers to this question. For instance, ''Anarchism'' argues that the State should not exist. ''Classical Liberalism'' or ''Minarchism'' argue that the State can be justified if it defends negative liberty. ''Modern Liberalism'' (''Liberal'' as understood in the United States) argues that the State has a legitimate role in providing what political philosophers call ''positive liberty'' (which basically means ''the means to do'' a specific thing, such as (for example) purchase health care or receive education), usually by having the State provide that-which-one-should-have-positive-liberty-to-do (the actual things that individuals should have positive liberty to do are often debated by many modern liberals). ''Conservatism'' (as the term is presently understood in the United States) argues that the State has a legitimate role in protecting traditional beliefs and customs from threats (what beliefs and customs should be protected, and what constitutes a threat to them, is debated by many conservatives). Finally, there are ideologies such as ''Fascism'' and ''State Socialism'' which argue that the State should be the primary organizer of human activity.
to:
Politics Politics, as defined in a liberal sense, is the field of philosophy that deals with the proper role of the State. The State is defined as an institution that holds exclusive ability to legitimately start the use of force in a specific area. There are multiple answers to this question. For instance, ''Anarchism'' argues that the State should not exist. ''Classical Liberalism'' or ''Minarchism'' argue that the State can be justified if it defends negative liberty. ''Modern Liberalism'' (''Liberal'' as understood in the United States) argues that the State has a legitimate role in providing what political philosophers call ''positive liberty'' (which basically means ''the means to do'' a specific thing, such as (for example) purchase health care or receive education), usually by having the State provide that-which-one-should-have-positive-liberty-to-do (the actual things that individuals should have positive liberty to do are often debated by many modern liberals). ''Conservatism'' (as the term is presently understood in the United States) argues that the State has a legitimate role in protecting traditional beliefs and customs from threats (what beliefs and customs should be protected, and what constitutes a threat to them, is debated by many conservatives). Finally, there are ideologies such as ''Fascism'' and ''State Socialism'' which argue that the State should be the primary organizer of human activity.
23rd Apr '14 6:48:01 AM Rotide
Is there an issue? Send a Message
It is ''this'' definition of altruism that Rand was attacking. And Rand was not the only person to consider it insane. John Stuart Mill, a Utilitarian philosopher (''not'' an ethical egoist like Rand), was quite shocked at the implications of Comte's definition. For more on this, please see Robert L. Campbell's [[http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/altruismrandcomte.pdf ''Altruism in Comte and Rand'']], The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 7, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 357 to 369.
to:
It is ''this'' definition of altruism that Rand was attacking. And attacking, and Rand was not the only person to consider it insane.oppose it. John Stuart Mill, a Utilitarian philosopher (''not'' an ethical egoist like Rand), was quite shocked at the implications of Comte's definition. For more on this, please see Robert L. Campbell's [[http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/altruismrandcomte.pdf ''Altruism in Comte and Rand'']], The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 7, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 357 to 369.
This list shows the last 10 events of 61. Show all.