Look, you guys win. I admit I like Rand.

[BrightAnarchist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2VzdkXm5Ies#t=18s

Seeing this encounter, I can't help but see the similar value system especially in the regards of discussion and debate.

In this video, Rand mentions she was there to answer questions and to share information -- not to be judged.

Have you seen this?

http://www.atlasshruggedmovie.com/

[1715445182]

1715445182

[1715445182]

1715445182

[1715445182]

1715445182

[1715445182]

1715445182

[RurrayMothbard]

Wow, I thought they weren't even going to bother with that installment, seeing that the first one flopped like a flaccid, um, something.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/04/atlas-shrugged-producer-critics-you-won-hes-going-on-strike.html

[justusranvier]

A=A.

Seems like a logical starting point to me.

She was correct in her choice of methodology, that ethics should be derived from logically consistent principles, but her derivation contained errors. Fortunately other people have improved on her work.

[myrkul]

A=A.

Seems like a logical starting point to me.

She was correct in her choice of methodology, that ethics should be derived from logically consistent principles, but her derivation contained errors. Fortunately other people have improved on her work.

Most notably Stefan Molyneux. (If you haven't read this yet, Atlas, stop EVERYTHING and read it right now.) He corrects every error Rand made in her derivation.

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

Ayn Rand is a vile character and the fact her philosophical "teachings" (if you want to call them that) have found growing support, especially with the neo-cons only sheds light on what a bunch of cnuts they really are.

[Atlas]

Ayn Rand is a vile character and the fact her philosophical "teachings" (if you want to call them that) have found growing support, especially with the neo-cons only sheds light on what a bunch of cnuts they really are.

They don't follow said "teachings" very well especially in their support of social conservatism. Ayn Rand hated modern American politics and politicians for a reason.

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

They may not follow them to the letter, just like some Christians/Jews/Muslim follow the teachings of 'god' to a varying level, that does not deter from the fact that their whole ideology is heavily influenced by said teachings.

Im not sure if your trying to imply that because Rand disliked American politics and politicians there for her work has had no bearing on whats happened politically in the last 30 to 40 years in good ole 'Merica? If so, thats nonsense im afraid, if America isnt the very personification of greed and self interest, sorry self rationalism, then I dont know what is.

[Atlas]

They may not follow them to the letter, just like some Christians/Jews/Muslim follow the teachings of 'god' to a varying level, that does not deter from the fact that their whole ideology is heavily influenced by said teachings.

Im not sure if your trying to imply that because Rand disliked American politics and politicians there for her work has had no bearing on whats happened politically in the last 30 to 40 years in good ole 'Merica? If so, thats nonsense im afraid, if America isnt the very personification of greed and self interest, sorry self rationalism, then I dont know what is.

What should we look up to then? It's not like the nations of Europe sacrificing their sovereignty to the Eurozone has helped or will help anybody in the long-term.

If America is the epiphany of self-interest, then Europe is the monument of self-sacrifice. 

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

I think you should look up to an ideologie that doesnt promote self interest and greed. If you cant see the fallacy in that then well, we're done here.

[Atlas]

I think you should look up to an ideologie that doesnt promote self interest and greed. If you cant see the fallacy in that then well, we're done here.

What does one look to outside of self-interest? Should I look up to a higher power? A god? The man next to me? Should I be a slave to the nearest available whim? I certainly do see a fallacy in slavery and suicide.

To put anything above your own life is against the nature of life itself: Self-preservation. From self-preservation comes the ability to experience pleasure from helping and befriending others, this supposed "selflessness". It is by choice and happiness that comes the sustainment of all life. Not force and slavery.

If one has no incentive to preserve oneself, if one has no happiness, then why should they attempt to preserve the other? Preserve something they have no stake in? For your happiness? Then who is the "selfish" one now? The ones who clamor for the servitude of others are just as selfish as the ones who wish to live their lives by their will. All else is spooks and religious thinking: Life is selfish.

There can be no higher cause than the will of the individual being itself, even when that will sustains others.

Destroy a man's will and you destroy the man.

[lebing]

Thoughtful piece on Rand in the 20th century:

http://thoughtmaybe.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace/

[myrkul]

Ayn Rand : Jews are civilized and Arabs are savages

http://youtu.be/2uHSv1asFvU?t=38s

Yes, Rand had some pretty idiotic opinions. Thankfully, her philosophy was not based on opinion.

[lebing]

Ayn Rand : Jews are civilized and Arabs are savages

http://youtu.be/2uHSv1asFvU?t=38s

Yes, Rand had some pretty idiotic opinions. Thankfully, her philosophy was not based on opinion.

Right, because there is such thing as a philosophical fact.

[myrkul]

Ayn Rand : Jews are civilized and Arabs are savages

http://youtu.be/2uHSv1asFvU?t=38s

Yes, Rand had some pretty idiotic opinions. Thankfully, her philosophy was not based on opinion.

Right, because there is such thing as a philosophical fact.

...You're not familiar with Objectivism, are you?

[lebing]

Ayn Rand : Jews are civilized and Arabs are savages

http://youtu.be/2uHSv1asFvU?t=38s

Yes, Rand had some pretty idiotic opinions. Thankfully, her philosophy was not based on opinion.

Right, because there is such thing as a philosophical fact.

...You're not familiar with Objectivism, are you?

Quite. Just not a subscriber.

[myrkul]

Ayn Rand : Jews are civilized and Arabs are savages

http://youtu.be/2uHSv1asFvU?t=38s

Yes, Rand had some pretty idiotic opinions. Thankfully, her philosophy was not based on opinion.

Right, because there is such thing as a philosophical fact.

...You're not familiar with Objectivism, are you?

Quite. Just not a subscriber. I could go into detail, but that would derail this quite a bit.

OK, do you understand the concept of "objective"?

[lebing]

Ayn Rand : Jews are civilized and Arabs are savages

http://youtu.be/2uHSv1asFvU?t=38s

Yes, Rand had some pretty idiotic opinions. Thankfully, her philosophy was not based on opinion.

Right, because there is such thing as a philosophical fact.

...You're not familiar with Objectivism, are you?

Quite. Just not a subscriber. I could go into detail, but that would derail this quite a bit.

OK, do you understand the concept of "objective"?

Modern science has turned over the notion of an objective reality quite awhile ago (see the observer effect) or holographic theory (backed in both neuroscience and astrophysics). We create our own realities and certainly our own philosophies, to consider otherwise is hubris.

[myrkul]

Ayn Rand : Jews are civilized and Arabs are savages

http://youtu.be/2uHSv1asFvU?t=38s

Yes, Rand had some pretty idiotic opinions. Thankfully, her philosophy was not based on opinion.

Right, because there is such thing as a philosophical fact.

...You're not familiar with Objectivism, are you?

Quite. Just not a subscriber. I could go into detail, but that would derail this quite a bit.

OK, do you understand the concept of "objective"?

Modern science has turned over the notion of an objective reality quite awhile ago (see the observer effect) or holographic theory (backed in both neuroscience and astrophysics). We create our own realities and certainly our own philosophies, to consider otherwise is hubris.

Quantum mechanics is not relevant to interpersonal relationships. Try as I might, no matter how hard I believe it, I cannot make you into anyone other than you. That is objective fact. Knowing that I cannot make you into anyone other than you, and you cannot make me into anyone other than me, we must work out a way to settle our differences based on those objective facts. There are several options. I could force you to accept my stance, but that doesn't help much since I've just browbeaten you into submission. You could do the same to me, but again that's not "working out our differences." So we debate. We attempt convince each other that our opinions are the right one.

Now, I'm not an adherent of Rand's philosophy, either. Rather, I prefer Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behavior. Click the link in the post above (Stefan's name) to go directly to that book. As I said, she started out with a good premise, but made some errors. He corrects them. If you're familiar with Objectivism, I suggest a perusal of that book may prove interesting.

[lebing]

Quantum mechanics is not relevant to interpersonal relationships.

I disagree. It affects everything, especially how we relate to others. You might not be able to make me into something else (to me), but you don't have to. If you believe that I am something else, then I am something else (to you).

I used to be an "objectivist" (not because of rand explicitly, but because of my experience/ education), but a few years ago started down a research path which led me to question everything and has since shaped my life into something I couldn't have imagined at that time.

[the joint]

Quantum mechanics is not relevant to interpersonal relationships.

I disagree. It affects everything, especially how we relate to others. You might not be able to make me into something else (to me), but you don't have to. If you believe that I am something else, then I am something else (to you).

I used to be an "objectivist" (not because of rand explicitly, but because of my experience/ education), but a few years ago started down a research path which led me to question everything and has since shaped my life into something I couldn't have imagined at that time.

+1

Consider classical physics...

and then, an analogy:

When a radioactive isotope decays, it essentially - to put it very simply - splits apart with great energy. These pieces fly off and can hit other atoms.  When these pieces hit other atoms, they can knock pieces off those atoms (e.g. a proton from one atom knocks off the proton of another atom).  Such phenomena can result in an atomic reconfiguration of an atom.  In other words, when one atom 'explodes' (really it's more like nuclear emission) another atom can suffer damage...and both are radically changed after the incident.

When people become angry, they can release their anger either upon themselves or upon the environment/others.  When a person loses control of their anger and 'explodes,' they cause damage to themselves and their relationships.  This damage, too, can cause radical changes.

So people:atoms, the interaction between atoms:interaction between humans, anger:radioactivity, etc...seriously the analogies are endless.  Why wouldn't they be?  Laws of systems distribute to all content therein, so it should come as no surprise that the laws governing the system containing physics and interpersonal relationships (the existence of this system is obvious) would result in an endless series of similarities between the two.  That's the fun thing about the Universe, you can study one thing and learn about everything.