Objectivisim: To The Ramparts

Thank you for writing back. You remind of the picture at the beginning of this thread and that is what attracted my initial interest and why your post really surprised me. Both Eric and Ayn see a value in selfish love, though Ayn far more than Eric. I am not strongly opposed to Mr. Fromm, though there are certain ideas I do disagree with. But seeing your face, I was just surprised at your reaction to Miss Rand. Especially as you remind of the picture at the start of this thread. Anyways, pleasant dreams. And if you still wish when you awake, we can discuss Miss Rand, Objectivism, and Eric Fromm's writings on love.

Something interesting to view: A woman enjoying her life: http://cordair.com/artists/larsen/works/born-with-wings/index.html

 

Good Morning Beer w/Straw; (You must like to drink, however, I would prefer to call you golden one, but I'll leave it up to you)

1st) I Read half of Fromm's article, skimmed the rest--just too much angst, and not enough excitement or fun. In other words, I'm much too selfish to enjoy torture.
2nd) I am now going to state Miss Rand's philosophy as stated by her: Miss Rand, from the back of Atlas Shrugged : Man is an heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest achievement, and reason as his only absolute.
3) Now in my words.: You have a brain, go and use it to become the best you can be.

In essence, Miss Rand sees man as a noble creature deserving of happiness on earth and capable of creating wondrous marvels. Or to put it in more practical terms, man is made up of beings like Salk, Einstein, Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Jobs, Gates, etc. Men such as these created themselves a life building sunrises full of wonder, and earned the smiles they had on their faces.

So, simply put, To act in one's own self interest is to create for one's self a life filled with wonder and happiness. And furthermore, selfishness is not to drink or use drugs to numb oneself to reality, to close one's eyes to the obvious, to refuse to take moral stands, or to allow evil to run wild without opposing it. In other words, being selfish in not choosing a bowl of dog diarrhea over chocolate pudding. but the other way a round, that is of course if one likes chocolate pudding, if not, the selfish just walk away and find something better.

Now, as I understand Fromm, it all boils down to this: to avoid bloody anarchy, society and religion teach that selfishness is bad and that sharing (or self-sacrifice is good). This way everybody has a little misery and a little happiness, and nobody has too much of anything. This must be done this way because the human being is a murdering brute who if left to his own desires would slaughter, loot, and rape. My problem with that analysis is every country founded on the principle of the common good above all else ended up drenched in the blood they all claim they are trying to avoid, Germany, Russia, and China, just to name a few.

I hold to Ayn Rand's Objectivism because it is the only philosophy that puts the human being on a pedestal and tells him now live up to it. Because it is the only philosophy that sees man as life's highest and best creation and expects him to act accordingly.

Now, where is her error? Now what part could you destroy logically without bothering to understand. Or is it a cheap shot just to get attention?

It would be wise to understand, Objectivism can no more be refuted then 2+2=4. Oh, you can play, and pretend, and laugh like an hysterical drunk, and utter gibberish that is nothing more than pretentious drivel, but you can never alter the facts of reality. As Einstein put it, not even God can play it deuces wild with the universe.

The hero in man: http://cordair.com/artists/larsen/works/heroes/index.html

 

My model for an ideal civilization does physically exist, and the more interconnected it's members communicate the more productive it is as a whole: the human brain. But, individual brain cells don't reproduce or feel physical pain. Erich Fromm's thesis 'The attitude towards ourselves and others runs basically parallel' is like one brain cell talking to another saying to another "Hey, all I got is some electrochemical stuff to share via dendrite and two brain cells are better than one." While a third comes in and says "Sounds good, lets do this." This to me is not some philosophical or political microcosm. The mind must be able to learn and adapt to a changing environment. As the answer for something today might not work for tomorrow.

From there we can go further down the rabbit hole. Psychology/psychiatry is still pretty much a science with very few tools. I guess you can even deem it as theoretical neurology. And when you get the electrochemical brain into it, you get closer to chemistry. And then break down molecules and atoms into quarks , venturing into quantum physics which leads to mathematical theories with string theory.

Really, the only philosophy that screws my head up historically is how dumbass philosophers had to debate whether or not something that was already true to be true, i.e. 0 being a real number. That's a big show of how dumb we are as a species.

Ayn Rand and other philosophers may only be fitting in certain ways, but should not be thought of as absolute, or at least they should be able to be used in comedic cartoon.
:EDIT:
Acting in one's self interests means you have to know about the reality around you which means you have to use your brain and think...

 

To communicate you need free speech and something intelligence to communicate. Furthermore, man does not adapt himself to his environment, he adapts his environment to his vision, that is why we live in skyscrapers and not caves, unless of course your still stuck in the 60's; in that case, you may still be living in a cave. After reading your posts its obvious I have made a serior error: mistaken iron pyrite for the real thing. it is true that some one has fallen down a rabbit hole, and let me assure my sarcastic cynic, it isn't Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand: Romantic art is the fuel and the spark plug of a man’s soul; its task is to set a soul on fire and never let it go out.--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/romanticism.html
Sorry to have disturbed your sleep. Bye Bye. Enjoy your post modern neurosis, I'll enjoy Ayn Rand's vision of man as an heroic soul.

One last thing, you were right: it didn't take much to get bored with you.

 

I get it. You wanted me to be submissive.

Well, my friends like me just the way I am. And they make me happy.

 

Hmmm, if that were true: I'm surprised you survived without your parents taking care of you. I'm surprised any Indigenous people survived.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

People today do not seem to understand what unalienable rights are, and do not know how they are supposed to alter or abolish because the political system is hijacked. They cannot even figure out how to stop the plunge into tyranny because they were not taught about the meanings of the 9th Amendment, the 1st Amendment and how to use them within Article 5.

But there is a way.

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html

 

Wouldn't the mindset where you get more personal gratification from helping others than you do helping yourself be 'altruistic'? I mean, sure, it might be selfish in your own head because you're doing it to feel good, but all the real world results are altruistic, which means that for all intents and purposes, for anyone outside the mind of the individual in question, the altruism is real.

It seems like we're pointing at a car and saying 'thats a car' while you argue 'no, thats one of the molecules the car is made of...' Technically correct, but not realistically relevent or useful.

 

This is an thread is an intellectual war against today's anti-idealist who see man as morally corrupt, free speech as dangerous to social justice, liberty as an illusion of the insane, religion as man's only hope for happiness. I am not interested in arguing about the “analytic-synthetic” dichotomy, or other bs.

You worry about cars and molecules, I'm fighting for free speech, individual rights, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the virtue of selfishness, Capitalsim, Romanticism in art, in essences, Ayn Rand's Objectivism, free market healthcare, and against collectivism, faith, God, BLM, the alt right, the antifa, safe places on college campuses, in other words, I fight for liberty against tyranny, because as I see it now, another dark age is coming fast.

 

bye

 

Before their can be a political revolution, there must be a philosophical revolution. That philosophical revolution is Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

 

I was only talking about altruism. You presume much (incorrectly) based on my position that altruism exists, at least realistically: in the effects of those who enjoy helping. Im a liberty minded individualist who, like you, sees TPTB moving for neo-feudalistic control over humanity and the creation of a new, permanant dark age where they reign absolutely over a new hell on earth.

I seek to fight this as well, though not for myself. Quite frankly, a desperate war against the powers of darkness with survival and victory as the only daily worries sound like a nice change from the daily grind of juggling bills and custody obligations and trying live around 'the man'... but a war would be nearly the hell for most folks that the coming dark age will be. Not fighting to prevent either would be selfish of me. How is that not altruism?

 

Anthem is the story of a man who rediscovers independent thought. He stands alone in a society where the greatest sin is to stand alone. He does not realize his difference in the beginning and his discovery at the end of the novella is one of the greatest climaxes that has ever been written in a story. The hero's epiphany surpasses St. Paul in greatness and in its insightfulness.

When America was born, it birth was a creation of the Enlightenment, commonly known as the Age of Reason. Man, since St. Aquinas had reintroduce Aristotle to the western world, had had a rebirth know as the Renaissance. The Renaissance saw reason return to earth and light the way to man's future of todays wonders and blessings. In science, alchemy morphed into chemistry, astrology became the disowned child of astronomy, and man was portrayed by the great artists of Michelangelo, Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, and many more, as a being of capable of greatness, as a being of knowledge and pride, as a being worthy of living on earth. The scientists, Galileo, Newton, and Copernicus, all paved the way to new knowledge that is the foundation of today's science. They turned the world upside down and inside out. After their discoveries, man held a new vision of himself and his place in a world he never knew existed. Additionally, men like John Locke, provided a new view on how this man ought to be treated and how he ought to live...Individualism was born. And it was upon this principle of this new political philosophy, Individualism, that America's Declaration of Independence and constitution were created. The result was a nation that took the age of Indian tribal warfare, horse and buggy travel and dung, and foul smelling smoky oil lamps to light the night to a world filled with skyscraper's, neon lights, jets, spaceships, automobiles, organ transplants, the eradication of some man's deadliest diseases--small pox, polio, measles, diphtheria, cholera, and many more, (though these diseases still exist in most third world countries and some scientific laboratories, for the most part they had been eradicated in the western nations),and wealth that eclipsed everything that had been created from man's first appearance on the planet until the present. This is what reason, freedom, and individualism gave man, heaven on earth. Today it is all under attack.

While philosophers argue about the arcane and pointless-- is reality real, does man know anything if he knows something, the rationalism of “analytic-synthetic” dichotomy--religious tyrants and state dictators are banding together to destroy the greatest nation ever created. They seek, not the happiness for the greater good, but the annihilation of man, period. This time they are not after a dark age, they are working to create a world where man doesn't exist.

I suggest those who can still see a spaceship rise to the heavens and feel the pride of being alive, read Anthem and rediscover what it means to say, "I". Then read the rest of Ayn Rand's fiction and non-fiction, learn her philosophy of Objectivism, practice and live it, and return to reason and set America back on the path to a future of prosperity and wonders.

As always, the choice is yours, as will be the result of your decision.

 

No need for that. The framing documents have exactly what is needed. Albeit inferred, but by the 9th Amendment we can do that and a lot more.

Simply making two unconsciously, but presently accepted agreements upon the definitions of the most prime constitutional intent, conscious, then compelling state legislatures by petition to convene conventions in 38 states, the philosophical and LEGAL pinnacle is ascended and the federal government can be made constitutional by amendment.

Agreements upon these definitions of intent and right of the constitution are it.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling the unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

With the end of the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech, democracy and self education of the public is attained. Preparation for Article 5 is greatly curative in its own right.

 

I never knew Ayn Rand was a fan of the Romantics. Thanks for that link. I'm a little surprised because while I'm a fan of the Romantics as well, at least in literature, they were a reaction to and a pushback against the Enlightenment and the Classical age that preceded them.

That website is rather vague, long on words and short on explanation. Am I to understand it correctly that he wants to overthrow the government to get a creek in California cleaned up?

Is this your writing, Starjet? It's freaking brilliant, and much better than your other posts on this thread. If it is, this is for you...

 

Not buying it. We need our James Otis, Sam and John Adams, Hamiltons and Jeffersons, not Clintons, McCains, Ryans, or Trumps.

We do have Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism, but it must be as prevalent in the culture as the ideas of John Locke and Adam Smith. It is Objectivism that must be taught and spread first. It must be learned so that it becomes as automatic in our lives as children today say their prayers at night. It must be in the music, the paintings, the movies, the books. Its starting, Yaron Brook has done an excellent job of moving it along, Dr. Leonard Peikoff has written a number of excellent non fiction books on Objectivism, but there is still quite a ways to go. When the general population reject faith and return to reason; when God is viewed as no more powerful than a lucky rabbit's foot; when the idea of sacrificing the best in the name of the worst makes human souls want to vomit in revulsion, we will be ready. But by then, it won't be necessary--it will already have happened, naturally,

So, thanks, but no thanks. The mission is not political revolution, it is philosophical, and that means accepting and spreading the ideas of Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

Ayn Rand: "The present state of the world is not the proof of philosophy’s impotence, but the proof of philosophy’s power. It is philosophy that has brought men to this state—it is only philosophy that can lead them out."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/philosophy.html

 

Man who are free do not need permission to sell what they have to whom they want, for the price they seek. Free men choose the life they desire, the woman they love, the work they do, the place they live, the vacations they take, and so on. They don't seek special papers. They don't need a bureaucrat's permission, They don't kneel or bow to authority. They stand tall with pride and say to those who oppose them, "Get the hell out of my way". This is what we must never surrender. This is what is now under attack by proposed and actual regulations being placed on our free speech. It is time to speak up now before it is too late. It is time to the tell the government : "Kiss my free American a$$".

 

LOL! As I explained in the post Americans cannot understand their constitution let alone use it. Their ability to focus is damaged by media manipulation while their human instinct of sharing or using information for species survival is impaired.

For example, this, defining a right to define rights, is utterly beyond the mental reach of many, as the quote above shows.

~~~Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ~~~

 

Starjet, yours is an excellent post and deserves parsing it in reply. I agree, ojectivism is valid, but the practice of it is rare while the promotion is rampant despite Ayn Rand.

True enough, however an example of what I state above can be found carved in stone on our local courthouse then executed in fraud by the judges therein. "Reason is the life of the law"(Locke) Lol, the judges will not reason or recognize, follow and uphold the law.

Agreed, but what about their product, the constitution? We can simply use the principles placed therein by those people and build upon them but we do not.

"Moving it along"? What I find is more words and less use of them and no use of the words already written. Worship of objectivism is not nearly as functional as the use of it.

Setting an example of the use of reason goes a long way towards getting public appreciation of it. Please show me you can practically do it by reasoning an acceptance of these two definitions of the most prime constitutional intent.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech be for Americans use to enable the unity under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights .

Reasonably, you would be capable of using those intents by setting an example of the PURPOSE of free speech by working for the needed unity to protect the rights that John Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson saw written.

Hmmm, I'm not writing about politics. I am writing about law and the PURPOSE of it.

Demonstrate the functionality of that please by leading with example and promote 1) and 2) above as an agreement founded in reason and law that protects our lives and our species future.

 

But what right is it specifically you are seeking? And what right is it specifically the website author is seeking? Or are they one and the same? As I said, the only concrete change I could see pushed for in the website was getting some chemical out of some creek in California, which he blamed on NAFTA, which he blamed on Congress not following the Constitution, which, personally, I find rather a long stretch. It's an even further stretch to suggest the only way to get the creek cleaned up is a revolution, even if it is non-violent.

 

Stick with showing you can understand the 9th Amendment. No more evasion.

Continued conflation of many subjects is confusory tactic used by cognitive infiltrators.

~~~
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive2_nbc_document.pdf

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95K0ZV20130621?irpc=932
"For decades, the NSA and GCHQ have worked as close partners, sharing intelligence under an arrangement known as the UKUSA agreement. They also collaborate with eavesdropping agencies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand under an arrangement known as the "Five Eyes" alliance."

 

I understand and support the 9th AND 10th Amendments (former lawyer here). But you still haven't answered the question, what change specifically is it you're looking for? Talking about the 9th Amendment is fine, but you can use it for almost anything. If you wanted to use it to support abortion, you could. You say abortion's not a right protected by the Constitution, oh, but it is, it's right there in the 9th Amendment, you can't say abortion's not a right because that's disparaging a right retained by the people. Just because it's not in any of the other amendments, or the founding fathers would be horrified that we're killing off a million babies a year, is irrelevant.

 

It is not the majority that move men toward the good, its the few with the vision of the good that do it. Be they artists, scientists, intellectuals, or philosophers. Any attempt at a political revolution will fail at the present time, as they all have since the Right's "Contract with America". We have a larger welfare state, thanks to that revolution, a greater hatred of capitalism, a greater debt, a politically ignorant generation, less liberty, greater regulation of the market, ranchers going to prison over the government's abuse of land rights, and on, and on, and on, and on, ad infinitum.

So, no to any political revolution. It must philosophical, a revolution of ideas, like Galileo over turning the order of the universe. When this happens, the political revolution will work, because the foundation has been laid, and actually it will happen as a natural recourse.

 

A Challenge: Gravity is an absolute that can't be changed; America has 50 states is an absolute that can be changed. Why? What's the difference? They are both facts about reality that define two truths.

You reward: I will not put you on ignore no matter how boring you become, or pointless.

 

Hmm, now you understand, before you could not. This inconsistency evidences effort to manipulate.

We need to amend and end the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech and secure the vote before any other amendment takes place as PREPARATION assuring all amendments are constitutional.

The right to prepare is a right we can constitutionally define under the 9th.