Longbow

Why is that counter-intuitive? It is only counter-intuitive to a secular humanist.

elwoodblues

Once you've decided to ignore the proponents of a theory and only listen to their detractors, it's very easy to say any given idea is crap. If the only thing you listened to was intelligent design agitprop, without looking at Dawkins and other various evolution proponents, you could fairly soon be saying that ID made a lot of sense...

Murphy

That isn't bloody-minded distortion. It's almost an exact quote from an Objectivist friend of mine that has been backed up by several other Objectivists I know. If this doesn't represent the mainstream Objectivist viewpoint, then I'm sorry for criticising you unjustly, but it wasn't my distortion, it was the distortion of an Objectivist. In response to Rand protagonists risking their lives, is it impossible to risk one's life for selfish reasons? If you believe the potential benefit to be worth the risk, it can be entirely selfish. And finally, I'm assuming that your comment about Objectivists being atheists is in response to my saying that they seemed religious, because I don't see any connection to the above quote, but then again, that may be because of lack of sleep. Anyway, assuming that's what you were responding to, yes, Objectivists are virtually all atheists. And the Objectivists I know are also some of the most religious people I know. They take what Rand says on faith, attack anything she disagrees with, simply because she does. They have a tendency to ignore logic where it doesn't agree with Rand. When faced with a question they can't answer, they fall back on the books and use them as an argument. All of which are things that fundamentalist Christians tend to do, and ironically really annoys the Objectivists when they do. Again, these observations are based on my experiences with Objectivists and I fully realise that this doesn't apply to all or even necessarily most.

99Percent

A lot of confusion arises on what are selfish actions. For the objectivists one should act with rational self-interest, not just selfish perse.

Of course acting trully rationally escapes a lot of people. For example some people cannot think why murder for a lot of money is not acting in rational self-interest.

Most rational self-interests acts involve trading value for value with other rational minded beings.

galiel

Are you going to explain your assertions, back them up with a solid argument, or just continue to quote cant?

What common attributes do you find between Objectivism and secular humanism, what parallels can you cite, and what in Murphy's post about Objectivism leads you to say you feel the same way about secular humanism?

Equating the two makes about as much sense as equating fundamentalism to modern dance.

galiel

I'm not sure what point you are making, but I would point out that it is quite possible to conclude that a given idea is crap *after* considering both points of view. That is methodology I try to use, within the limits of time and space. I conclude that ID is crap *because* I examined its claims and found them wanting, not the other way around. Similarly, I have found the proponents (or should I say followers) of Objectivism to be just as irrational and dogmatic, in particular building its entire philosophy on a dubious undefended premise, being absolutist, dualist and simplistic in its point of view, and refusing to consider opposing arguments.

Giving Longbow the benefit of the doubt, and not assuming that he has made a knee-jerk irrational conclusion about whatever it is that he defines as "secular humanism", I ask for his reasoning behind equating it with Objectivism, in style if not in content. My understanding of secular humanism would not lead one to make an equivalence even in the wildest stretch of the imagination.

I suspect that he may be using a different definition of the term than the one secular humanists use, or that he is not in fact familiar with what secular humanism is all about, but I don't know what the issue is as long as he refuses to substantiate his statement.

elwoodblues

Fair enough. In fact, I've heard similar distortion from people who do call themselves Objectivists. I don't know if they've just swallowed the rhetoric that gets tossed at Rand or if they came to the idea themselves. Doesn't really matter, I guess.

The trick is in the definition of 'enlightened self-interest'. It's important.

Actually, I meant something along these lines:
Rand's protagonists routinely risk their lives for others.
Rand's protagonists are almost without exception atheists or agnostic.
They cannot be hoping to 'score points' for the afterlife.
Therefore, they must be taking this risk for some other reason, for some other value.

Ah. It becomes clearer. I've run into these people myself. They are scary, and yes, a little bit religious. That's why I make sure to stress that I'm a 'little-o' objectivist. I take a lot of what Rand said as true, because it works and proves out as far as I've seen. But I disagree with her on various points.

If these clowns had any idea what Rand intended Objectivism to mean, they'd be questioning it left and right. That's the only way to find truth: try to knock it down, as hard as you can. Attack it, ruthlessly. If it stands, or at least doesn't totally crumble, then you might have something. If it falls apart, no loss.

Yes. And that's where the trick is. 'Enlightened self-interest' can mean lots and lots of things. I have a girlfriend whom I love utterly (who, incidentally, is NOT an objectivist of any stripe), and would go to any length to defend from harm, including risk to my own life. That's entirely self-interest, but I'd jump in the fucking ocean to try and save her, even though I can't swim worth a damn.

However, I'd also do a hell of a lot to save a stranger. I wouldn't jump in the ocean, but I'd do everything else possible to save him. I'd even lean far over the side trying to haul him up, knowing that he MIGHT drag me out into the sea. I'd take a marginal risk of my life, even for a stranger. Why? Because I value human life. I place more value on the lives I know and love, but I place some value on human life. Probably more-so than a theist because I know we're all we've got; there's no one else to pass the buck to.

'Enlightened self-interest' is tough to pin down. It's one of the things Rand talked about the most but was least able to communicate clearly about.

Murphy

Thank you for clarifying that. It makes all the difference in the world. I have no beef at all with 'little-o' objectivists. In fact, I have discovered that several of my own conclusions that I have come to in various regards agree with some things that Rand said and could be considered objectivist. It's the Objectivists-with-a-capital-O who follow Rand, and even worse, Peikoff, blindly that really annoy me. It's very good to hear from someone who agrees with Rand's teachings for the most part but at least realises that she isn't infallible and at times is downright self-contradictory.

Out of idle curiosity, what do you think of the Libertarians?

elwoodblues

Well, I am one. So I guess I like 'em.

Murphy

Okay, then maybe you can answer a question for me. I was discussing politics with my good Libertarian friend (yes, the same one who told me all that Objectivist stuff), and we ended up arguing over morality and Marx and such, and she came at me with the assertation that greed and ambition are one in the same, and that greed is a virtue. If you hold these beliefs, could you explain them to me, and if not, could you explain how someone came to this notion from Objectivism and Libertarianism. Unfortunately, I am not well versed enough in these areas for my arguements to carry enough weight to matter with this person, but maybe hearing what someone else on 'her side' has to say will help. Thanks!