"...Rand can be chilly but not totally without validity in regards to alternative thinking." - SD
Not totally without validity...??? Not exactly a ringing endorsement, eh? :-) On Sep 14, 4:34 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Facts are facts but coloured by our subjective understanding>>Lee > > You can color facts all you want but "fact" remains unchanged. > > I think you have a tendency to get a bit microscopic in your analysis, > not to mention that you are not addressing the point made but > emphasizing subjectivity. It's not about cars! > The "fact of subjectivity" does not alter the "fact". > If a product is junk, the fact that people may perceive it to be other > does not change the fact that the product is junk. > > Rand can be chilly but not totally without validity in regards to > alternative thinking. It's not about the differences in people. > > On Sep 14, 3:56 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hey Slip. > > > Umm much to say on this. > > > Facts are facts but coloured by our subjective understanding. A car > > to you may be a piece of junk, but to others represents freedom of > > movment as well as being a marvel of engineering, these are both facts > > also. However they seem to go against what you claim is the fact of > > the matter re: cars. > > > So which facts are objectivly correct? > > > This: > > > "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. > > He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others > > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational > > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose > > of > > his life." > > > On the surface does look like good advice and I do see some merit in > > it, yet it still ignores the differances in people, and it reminds me > > a ot of certain Church of Satan creeds, again I also have known many > > such Satanists and I can say without fear of contridiction that such a > > philosophy when put into practice makes for a cold human being. > > > No I'm much more comfatable with the philosophy 'be the person you > > wish to be'. If that is to be selfish then that is at least your > > choice, and if that is to be alturisitic again that is personal > > choice. > > The highest moral porpouse then must be live your life how you will, > > in accordance with the law of the land. > > > I am not a fan of soldiers on the whole, our(the UK) armed forces > > takes in children and passes out wankers, of course though I see the > > need and I don't blame the individual squaddies for the lack of care > > that our goverement gives them. Would you say that to be a soldier is > > in keeping with Randian thought? Or that it is more self sacrificial > > in nature? > > > I would argue the latter. So you see the word Randriod is very apt, > > no it would bloody awful if we all thought like that, viva la > > differance! > > > On 13 Sep, 08:25, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the link Molly; > > > Lee, > > > It's really just a ground level platform on which to expand. Rand > > > simply pulls down the curtain and begins to unravel this tangled > > > world. Facts 'are' facts regardless of what we perceive them to be, > > > so we should work from there. It's like watching automobile > > > commercials on television, the fact 'is' the car is a piece of junk > > > but we perceive it to be a fascinating machine because we are not > > > dealing on the level that Rand suggests. You can altruistically give > > > a bag lady a million dollars but most likely down the road you will > > > still have a bag lady. This is not to say that we should try in some > > > way to help but we need to recognize it is our 'self' that takes > > > precedence over the other. Rand states: > > > "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. > > > He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others > > > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational > > > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of > > > his life." > > > It is from that 'core' belief that we can then extend our hand, that > > > is why you are a benefit to your family. Your family is part of your > > > own rational self interest. It wouldn't do your family much good if > > > you put all your resources into some altruistic cause. Even if you > > > were wealthy it would only prove that you were able to provide in > > > excess of your self interest and happiness. > > > > On Sep 9, 6:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > We should all know by know my own feelings on the philosphy of Rand. > > > > There is much that I disagree with yet some that I agree with. > > > > > Rands achieving our own happiness as the highest moral purpose, can > > > > readily fit alongside my own, 'right to be'. But this idea that we > > > > all should rely on our own (absolute) reason, negects some inherent > > > > parts of our 'nature'. > > > > > We are not purely reasonable creatures, and some of us seem to live a > > > > life without any form or reason at all. It is admiral that we seek to > > > > better ourselves, yet not all of us do, it is admiral that we seek a > > > > morality with which to better ourselvs, yet some are bound to disagree > > > > on what that morality should be. > > > > > All in all I think that any philosophy NOT grounded in the reality of > > > > the situation is bound to fail. Rand discounts that most of us work > > > > on multilevels, some of our decistions and actions stem from emotion, > > > > some of our belifes are unreasonable. To suggest that doing so is > > > > unethical ignores the way we work, indeed as I have said to Chris, I > > > > have met enough followers of Rand's philosophy to make up my mind on > > > > how such philosophy actualy works in the real world and what it does > > > > to people. They are on the whole, cold, selfish, unemotional people, > > > > yes of course this is merely my opinion but one I certianly hold to be > > > > true due to my experiances. > > > > > Rands objectivism simply does not work, if followed it changes people, > > > > and not for the better. > > > > > On 8 Sep, 01:16, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > There is substance there if one considers the indiscriminate drive to > > > > > love one another, the warped sense of loving thy enemies. We know > > > > > that one cannot begin to love another without loving self first. I've > > > > > counseled many who stated "my whole world revolved around her/him", > > > > > which obviously reveals itself to be the problematic issue, we must > > > > > support our individuality. Once we lose our individuality we fade > > > > > away, exist without substance. Rand's sacrificial analogy is not > > > > > without relevance in that we should not become martyrs for the sake > > > > > of someone's survival, and of course the issue of whether someone even > > > > > deserves the love or attention. I agree that we all should rely on > > > > > our own (absolute) reason and reiterate Kant's "duty of happiness". > > > > > Rand lays it out as achieving our own happiness as the highest moral > > > > > purpose. I've recently jousted with Lee on that very ideal in which I > > > > > felt his concern for families of murderers was misguided and without > > > > > foundation which reveals his personal slant toward the opposing side > > > > > of Rand's proposal which ultimately resulted in assessing my view as > > > > > selfish. I think Rand sees through all the bullshit and all the > > > > > corruptness that comes with modified government regulated capitalism > > > > > (now that's a laugh). Altruism is somewhat honorable when you have > > > > > billions of dollars but for most it is simply a way to dig a grave. > > > > > It's funny that Wallace spews out how we are taught to have concern > > > > > for our fellow man, a "religious" indoctrination by which people > > > > > become subservient with the notion that they are somehow fulfilling > > > > > some kind of altruistic duty towards a God. I agree with Rand that I > > > > > am entitled to my own happiness and also that I must achieve it on my > > > > > own, for if not that then others will leach and suck the life blood > > > > > out of me, however, if my happiness should become so abundant that I > > > > > have the capacity to share it the by all means I would then give in to > > > > > altruism. In aquatic life saving techniques there is a maneuver that > > > > > pushes away the drowning person so that they don't kill you trying to > > > > > save themselves. I don't love everyone and I've made that clear on > > > > > several occasions and I agree with Rand that it would be impossible to > > > > > love everyone. Value and Virtue do play a role in loving and so why > > > > > should I be asked to love lowlife dregs of society? As much as I have > > > > > helped many I have let many slither back under the rock from which > > > > > they came. I've said it before, I'm not Ghandi, step over the line and > > > > > I won't have any problem with shooting your head clean off. > > > > > > On Sep 7, 1:54 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > ““The lower, and purely intellectual, is nearest to the principle of > > > > > > Desire, and is thus distinguished from its other side which has > > > > > > affinity for the spiritual principles above. If the Thinker becomes > > > > > > wholly intellectual, the entire nature begins to tend downward—for > > > > > > intellect alone is cold, heartless, selfish.” – W. Q. Judge: “The > > > > > > Ocean of Theosophy” > > > > > > > We were discussing things like love and compassion along with > > > > > > consciousness in another thread. Here is a view from one extreme > > > > > > point > > > > > > on the spectrum…that of Ayn Rand. Since she has been mentioned now > > > > > > and > > > > > > then here, for those of you who have little exposure to her, her > > > > > > books > > > > > > and/or philosophy, here is a short video interview that may provide > > > > > > a > > > > > > fairly rapid and direct access to what is called objectivism. > > > > > > > While the video is on a Theosophy site, read the other stuff > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
