RED DAVE

Discussing Nathaniel Branden's 6th Principle of Objectivism:




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions � that existence exists, that A is A;
2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;
3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;
4. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;
5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;
6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;
7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;
8. That no individual � and no group � has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;
9. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;
10. That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;

In a certain abstract sense, I guess I agree with this, but there are a few problems. (Just a few.)

1) Where do children fit in to all this? As a parent, I made many sacrifices for my sons. There were many projects that I gave up to give them what they needed. In short, I sacrificed. I deliberately and consciously put myself second in my life for twenty years to raise them. That's just what one does as a decent parent. I see no place for this in the Objectivist system. Rand herself had no children, and there are no child characters in any of her books. Frankly, I think she was too selfish to be a parent.

As a corollary, would you risk or even lose your life to save the life of a child?

2) What happens when your concept of yourself as an end in yourself and my concept of myself as an end in myself conflict? There has to be some kind of institution over both of us to resolve this conflict if we can't work it out. Of course, this implies a social contract and all that evil stuff that Objectivists can't stand.

3) To what extent will you defend my right to be myself if it doesn't especially aggrandize you or, even, might conflict with you, just because I have rights, too. The history of Rand in the United States is that she had no problem with sacrificing the rights of others who disagreed with her, on the most spurous grounds.

4) Does compassion enter into the Objectivist system or do we jsut fuck 'em all if they're weaker than we are?



RED DAVE

RED DAVE

Discussing Nathaniel Branden's 7th Principle of Objectivism:

7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;

This point, while rhetorically attractive, begs several points:

1) What is "individual autonomy"?
2) What are "personal rights"?
3) When did the principle of sacrifice come to be a guiding principle in human relationships?

Objectivists and Libertarians, please clarify so this discussion can go on.

I keep trying to come to grips with the heart of Objectivism and Libertarianism. It's apparent to me that Objectivism, which I saw close up in the early Sixties, when Rand was forming her cabal around her, is a perverted form of radicalism. In many ways, the Objectivists were very similar to socialists and other radicals around Greenwich Village at that time.

What distinguished them, besides their bizarre politics, was a fanatical insistance on individuality, in a contest (the Village) where their individuality was neither threatened nor questioned. What was apparent was that they experienced society as a threat to individualism, which indeed it is. But what they could not fathom was that that the society they were criticizing was capitalist society itself, and that their solution of a more radical capitalism was curing the disease with its own disease.

Never could figure it out. One of the things that did come out was that they enjoyed being right wing opponents of the Left. All our concerns: the fight against racism, war, repression, for the rights of labor, women, etc., were objects of contempt for them.

RED DAVE

Bebbo

"STRIPLING: You have been employed as a writer in Hollywood?

RAND: Yes, I am under contract at present."

I know that Hollywood has turned out some rubbish over the years, but the mind boggles at Rand being used as a screenwriter.

--
Dene

Iluvatar

Did anyone ever see the Futurama-episode where Nibbler is flushed down the toilet and when Leela, Fry and Bender goes down in the sewers to look for him they also find a copy of Atlas Shrugged?

I thought it was funny.

elwoodblues

The thread... that wouldn't... die...

August Spies

for some reason I got subscribed to this thread, 1 of 2 I somehow subscribed too, and they keep sending me emails about replys. mon dieu what is left to discuss?

RED DAVE

In honor of Black History Month, The ThreaD That Wouldn't Die is proud to present

AYN RAND ON RACISM

Or, how not to blame slavery on capitalism and how to discuss US history without mentioning the "S" word.

Ayn Rand on Racism

RED DAVE

Clutch

pug, let me go way back in the thread to this point:I shouldn't have to point out the complete non-sequitur here: popularity versus "biggest literary difference in life of respondant". The latter only requires that, of the people who could choose any one book as making the greatest difference, many chose this book.

Notice that this is consistent with -- among other things -- a disproportionately high level of respondants for Atlas Shrugged that had read very little else of a either a literary or philosophical nature. There is no way of telling, from the data you give, whether AS is a great book, or whether there is a class of people, potentially quite a small class all things considered, especially apt to be dazzled by its dubious or non-existent virtues, whose vote is not split.

The message of very simple points (which the reader is delighted to find himself grasping with great clarity) plus the intimation that nobody else understands these points or has the moral courage to take them seriously, can combine to give the unread a feeling of vast enfranchaisement over the rest of so-called intellectuals. Whereas anyone with any antecedent knowledge of philosophy, political theory, or the other areas in which Rand pretends an expertise, is very unlikely to find her books more than mediocre novels, and utter drivel from the perspective of broader intellectual lessons.

Zar

This goes some distance toward an explanation of the Ayn Rand phenomenon.

tk

More Objectivist weirdness, though not from Rand:
Why is skepticism bad? If someone is skeptical, he may ultimately reject Objectivism, and that'll be wrong.

So why haven't skeptics fully rejected the ideas of Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc.? Of course, it must have something to do with the evils of collectivism!