Objectivisim: To The Ramparts

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Starjet, Aug 29, 2017.

  1. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Good thing I advocate a lawful revolution that makes politics lawful eventually. And of course law begins with philosophy.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2017
  2. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Imagine what would happen if each person in the world took total responsibility for himself. Every person would do and care for only themselves, yet no person would be a burden on any other, and no person would be uncared for.

    If there was only one person in the world, that is how things would be as no other choice would exist.

    If there were a million people in the world but were so widely distributed that none of them were aware of the others, that is how things would be because people would not be aware that other choices existed. Everyone would still be cared for.

    But- once people are aware there are others, some of them begin to seek ways to place the burdens of their lives on the shoulders of others, way to avoid responsibility for themselves, ways to have more but do less.... ways to use their fellow man to advantage, because they can see that as a choice and they lack the character to not interfere with the rights and choices of others when they can gain from abusing them.

    The choice becomes one of character- do you accept responsibility for yourself and respect the rights of others?
    Imagine a world where all people had character. They didn't lie to you, they didn't steal from you, they kept their word, they said no when they meant no....

    Just imagine how many problems we have today would never exist at all in a world or nation of people with high character.

    People do sacrifice themselves for others, and you can say it is for themselves because they hold the value of others so highly and see it as serving a greater purpose. Sorry, but that is not selfishness. It's not always wise either, but it is a personal choice for personal reasons, and they have a right to do so.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2017
    Starjet likes this.
  3. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Upon this, we are agreed. Hats off to logical and good man.
     
    ChristopherABrown likes this.
  4. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To a great extent I will agree, but when a father jumps in a lake to save his son from drowning, this is a not a sacrifice. The surrendering of a greater value, the life of a son you love, for a lesser value, life without him, is not an heroic selfish act of love; the saving of a greater value, a life with a son you love, and the defeating of a far lesser value, life without him, that would be a selfish act of a hero. The truly selfish don't choose what would be the worst for their lives, they choose what would be the best, And any loving parent would selfishly tell you that their own death would be preferably then to watch that which brings their life great joy and happiness be gone forever to be replace by despair, grief, and sorrow that will last beyond eternity.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2017
  5. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    In that particular scenario, it is not a choice of sacrifice or a trade-off- it is the attempt to rescue at risk of your life rather than stand there and watch the person intention that both can live. That may be motivated by the love for the person or the fear of having to live without acting, but I don't think that makes a difference, and I doubt if many in such a position even give it a thought- they just do what they instinctively feel they must, and that is probably determined by the kind of person they are. There are times as I'm sure must have happened for example with the loss of the Titanic where people made conscious decisions to stay and most probably die so that others could live. Some would have been people they loved, some just for the respect for their fellow men. Again- those are individual variables.

    My point is that we do live for ourselves, each of us is the person put here to guide our lives and make us the best we can be. If we each accept that responsibility- several very good things happen. One, it gives us the power to control our own lives to the greatest extent possible. Two, we do not burden nor interfere with the power of others to do the same for themselves. But when we begin to try to do things that are not truly in our power, refuse to do things that only we have the power to do, or interfere with others to do what they should do- then, we screw up the natural order of things and create a negative situation. The why is not as important as the fact we do this, disrespect or ignore our natural duty to self in life. Then of course, we blame it on someone else- and thus, we have politics...
     
  6. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you're very much correct in this, but biology, anthropology, and paleoanthropology tell us that we've been social creatures from the beginning, there never were any solo humans taking care of and responsibility for themselves. The first tribal or clan leaders would have been the largest, strongest males, the ones most able to defend the tribe or clan from others, and as the tribe or clan grew larger, all or most of the males would have been called on to help defend it, with the top-most one being granted special perks and favors unavailable to the rest. Weak males who didn't fight came up with the idea of religion as a way to improve their status in society. Being "in" with God or the gods was a way to gain special perks and favors, too. It's only with the development of capitalism that we can have mutual benefits through trade among equals instead of having kings and priests, as Ayn Rand called it.

    p.s. Who is your avatar?
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2017
  7. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why kneeling during the National Anthem is an insult to those who have fought and died for its principles of liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness

    Miss Rand:
    "In its great era of capitalism, the United States was the freest country on earth—and the best refutation of racist theories. Men of all races came here, some from obscure, culturally undistinguished countries, and accomplished feats of productive ability which would have remained stillborn in their control-ridden native lands. Men of racial groups that had been slaughtering one another for centuries, learned to live together in harmony and peaceful cooperation. America had been called “the melting pot,” with good reason. But few people realized that America did not melt men into the gray conformity of a collective: she united them by means of protecting their right to individuality.

    The major victims of such race prejudice as did exist in America were the Negroes. It was a problem originated and perpetuated by the non-capitalist South, though not confined to its boundaries. The persecution of Negroes in the South was and is truly disgraceful. But in the rest of the country, so long as men were free, even that problem was slowly giving way under the pressure of enlightenment and of the white men’s own economic interests.

    Today, that problem is growing worse—and so is every other form of racism. America has become race-conscious in a manner reminiscent of the worst days in the most backward countries of nineteenth-century Europe. The cause is the same: the growth of collectivism and statism."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/america.html

    America is a nation, not of blacks, not of whites, not of browns, not of yellows, not of reds, not of women, not of workers, not of any group or collective. It is a nation of individuals. It is a nation created to the idea that no man would every have to bow or kneel to a king, a pharaoh, an emperor, or any kind of nobility or higher authority ever again for the individual was the highest authority over his life. The nation cheered him to stand tall, to reach farther than his arm could stretch, to bow to no one. Its very existence was almost a command that said, '"Rise, man. Give the best within yourself, and never bow to anyone for you are master of your destiny."

    So when the National Anthem is played--a song dedicated to the heroism of a small group of men who held an important strategic fort against an overwhelming enemy determined to extinguish the light of lady liberty--they are mocking the men who fought that battle, they are mocking the very fundamental principle they need, the principle of individual rights, to protect them not just against police brutality or totalitarian terror, but the criminals that invest the neighborhoods they live in, they are mocking the best within themselves. Americans do not kneel. We do not hide. We do not run. We fight for our rights. We stand tall and tell our enemy to get the hell out of our way. In essence, when these athletes kneel, they are surrendering their rights as free men to the authority of tyranny. They are kneeling to the collective prince called political correctness. They are kneeling to the hatred of the mob.

    They are not making America better, they are making her a nation of tribal savages., and chaining us together as criminals on a chain gang.

    Americans, free men don't were chains...of any kind.

    Ayn Rand: "Only on the basis of individual rights can any good—private or public—be defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to exist for his own sake—neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to others—only then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own choice and by his own effort. And the sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good possible."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/common_good.html
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2017
    Bravo Duck likes this.
  8. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obviously in order to reproduce, no species can live it's life in total isolation and survive (unless it's asexual). My purpose was to point out that simply by each person choosing to accept full personal responsibility for themselves the world becomes a much better place both for the individual and the whole of society; and that the practice of blaming everything we don't like about our own lives on others diminishes the power each of us has over our own lives.

    Religion has had great power over people and values, and it has always been a mixed bag, often dominated by evils. I have long pondered the very origins of religions myself, and tend to think somewhat at you do.

    For example, let's say a primitive tribe 40,000 years ago was faced with some natural but terrifying event, like an earthquake. Perhaps one of them (call him mongo) ran out of hiding, shook his staff at the sky and yelled out in anger for it to stop. By coincidence- the earthquake ceased immediately. The others suddenly see that Mongo has the power to command the supernatural forces they do not understand, and begin to treat him accordingly. Mongo knows better, but likes the attention and authority being given to him- so he accepts it. He is smart enough to position himself not as the higher power (the actual god) that can control earthquakes and such- but as an intermediary, an agent that can speak to the higher power and negotiate on behalf of the lowly people of the tribe, which means he can avoid responsibility for disasters while at the same time claiming responsibility for good events, and at the same time make himself untouchable and unquestionable. For all practical purpose, Mongo is now god's deputy- by accident.. Religion is what he says it is- or actually what "god" says it is according to Mongo.... Mongo is just the interpreter... and the priest with the power. Religion is born.

    Now that is just a hypothesis that I think is probable, because it fits all the parameters- and I think that is the same today as then.

    The Avatar is Charles Kettering, a brilliant and inspirational man that you would enjoy researching. One of his many quotes is in my signature below.
     
  9. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I have speculated upon they same thing many times since reading Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED. Those familiar with her work know her views on the idea of a supernatural omnipotent, and omniscient being that can not be proved. She further comments on Aquinas's argument for God and Aristotle's prime move --the only philosopher that, in my opinion, she values as contributing something valuable to the wisdom and knowledge of man--and sees them both as flawed, I won't go into detail here on her analysis, except to say she is an atheist, and views religion as man's first attempt at philosophy.

    Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I, and only I, am responsible for the views I express in my posts. My understanding and expression of Miss Rand's philosophy are my responsibility alone.

    I hold the view you do, early man needed an explanation of the world he lived in then just as much as he does today. In early man's case, because he himself was a spiritual being, a living thing with consciousness, he viewed all matter the same way be it a flying or crawling insect or a rock or tree. He believed that there existed an essence as the "spirit" of the thing that made it what it was. To an extent, Aristotle made the same error. For Aristotle the nature or essence of a thing or existent existed within, metaphysically. That is, inside each tree there existed an essence, or fundamental force that make a tree a tree. In other words, he viewed the essence of a thing as metaphysical.

    As I understand Objectivism, it does not view the essence of anything as being a part of the thing. It views as a certain way of man seeing things, concept formation. In reality what exist is a thing composed of certain fundamental characteristics and attributes. A tree has roots, leaves, branches, make of wood, and so forth, but no spiritual essence. The essence is man's mind taken that which necessary to be tree, omitting the measurements, height, weight, shape of leaves, anything that is part of the tree, and creating a mental tool which symbolizes that thing that exist as a tree. This is known as concept formation. It is taken the fundamental, ignoring the measurements, and creating a mental tool called a word/concept to signify it and to forever hold it in his mind saving him form constantly rethinking the thing every time he sees it. For Objectivism, the essence of a thing is epistemological. There is no great tree spirt that lives inside the tree, there is a thing that is similar to other things that I shall name tree. Physical measurements not important.

    So man starts with religion, and has now progressed to philosophy, thanks mainly to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. And the reason why is because man is a being of reason, i.e., he needs to understand things in order to prosper in the universe. He needs to think to be. Principle, man needs ideas to move forward for a bear skin covering and cave, to a mink coat and a penthouse on the top floor of a skyscraper. This is how man works. And it is his ideas that determine his actions and future. Nazi Germany didn't happen out of thin air, it happened because of the poison promoted by Immanuel Kant. It was Kant that divorced reason from man's mind, and who taught altruism, and selflessness as moral ideals, and selfishness and happiness as evil behaviors of the uncivilized man. For Kant, man was to serve. It was his duty to sacrifice his self interest to the collective good. For Objectivism, it is the opposite. Man has no duty serve. For Objectivism, Man is an heroic being whose only moral purpose is to be happy, and only moral absolute is to think for himself.

    For further enlightenment I highly recommend Dr. Peikoff's book, The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America. Updated today to The Cause of Hitler's Germany.

    Today, Americans are told to sacrifice for the good of the nation, and to serve and help others as the path of moral idealism. They have surrender science to political power, reason to faith, and truth to majority opinion. They are losing the ability to be independent thinkers, and to revere their liberty. If they stay on this path, there will be blood, there will be economic collapse, there will be another fascist dictatorship, and there will be hell on earth. Read Ayn Rand. Study Objectivism. Defend your birthright as free beings whose lives and future, and happiness on earth belong to you.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  10. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    It is true that most people through history have see other life as relevant and in ways parallel. Many saw the spirits not only in living biology, but in natural powers. Some worked hard to find their place in this network, perhaps to feel a belonging and understand their purpose. Indians saw themselves as a sort to brother to the animals killed for food- and some apologized for the necessity to take their life in order to feed their families. There was a genuine respect for life, all life, among many peoples

    To people that think animals don't think and don't reason- that they are just instinctive- I say you know nothing about animals. What I believe to be the prime difference between most life on earth and humans is the nature of our imaginations. I have noted that animals can indeed imagine things, but it's not the creative imagination that humans have. We can imagine things that do not exist and make them happen- but unfortunately we can imagine that truth is not true and that things we make up are true, philosophically. In other words,
    we are capable of deceiving ourselves almost without limits. While creative imagination has brought us many wonderful things, it has also brought us many horrible things. I believe it's quite likely that the human race will be the first species to be totally responsible for it's own extinction.

    The challenge for the individual is to learn to master the marvelous machine in his head, to make it the reliable analyst and guide that allows him to navigate life successfully in the midst of all the confusion we have created. This is an instrument of great capacity, that we use very poorly... sometimes like a using a Strad violin to hammer nails.

    I spent the first half my life looking for the way to understand how do that. I've spent the second half living by it, with great success. Surprisingly, it is extremely simple.. I live by four principles that I could write on a business card. These are like the principles that are behind all the variables; subconscious tools... like the scale, the square, the compass that separate truth from false, and guide my decisions with consistent reliability. I have taught these professionally, but found that most people simply cannot let go of where they are in order to get to a better place- and one must do that; leave one belief and travel or transition to another that they must trust will be real. One psychologist in a class I taught told me that couldn't be done, but acknowledged I had. I asked why he believed that, and he said "That would take courage bordering on heroism sustained for years". Over time, I came to understand what he meant, and that most people can't find the strength to do it.

    I see our journey starting as a child sitting at a table with a jigsaw puzzle, trying to put the picture of life together so they can understand it. Every day, people come by the table and throw more pieces down, saying "This is important! Pay attention!". By the time the child is a young adult, there are thousands of pieces on the table- but no logical picture, and things keep getting more confusing and looking more and more hopeless.

    In fact, the puzzle only has four pieces, and everything else is trash, or is a variable of far less importance and not part of the basic picture. The trick is not to recognize the four- it is to recognize the trash and throw it off the table. When you can do that, the real pieces are obvious and the puzzle solves itself. Of course, you still live in a world where trash beliefs and false ideas thrive- so it is necessary to never forget what those principles are. They are the only real shield from the lunacies that continually rise and fall in the human world. It works for me- but unfortunately that psychologist was right. The vast majority of people just can't reprogram their heads and throw out the trash, even with an instruction manual.

    As in the computer technician says- "Garbage in, garbage out". Minds and computers work the same way in many regards.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  11. Merwen

    Merwen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,574
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No; they should get up and work.
     
  12. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And when working still doesn't provide sufficient money for them to survive?
     
  13. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    At that point, it would be wise for that person to try and understand why the service they provide is unable to attract a buyer willing to pay them the price they want.
    Business needs help that produce value- and they would be fools to pay $50 for a $5 product, and fools to offer only $5 for a $50 product. Neither of those scenarios work, and they know it. They aren't fools.
     
  14. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you have an absolute power imbalance in negotiating power, it's not hard to understand why the guy who cleans toilets can't get the price he wants from the fat cat he needs to bow and scrape to just to afford a hovel and gruel.
     
  15. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Imbalance? Each of are in business for ourselves, including the businessmen we call employees. Our customers are all looking for good values in the services or products they wish to buy, be it televisions or tomatoes or labor. We are virtually all willing to pay more to get more value. The value of a product of service directly relates to the price it can command. If I my service product is worth $20 an hour and my employer won't recognize that, why would I stay there? I'd be shopping around, finding someone who recognized the value and change customers... (employers). However- if I was unable to find a customer willing to pay more, I would be wise to ask myself why my product wasn't being see as valuable.

    Every employee that holds a job is there voluntarily, working for a wage that they agreed to. If that agreement is no longer satisfactory to the seller of the service (the employee-) he should move. If it is no longer satisfactory to the customer who buys the service (the employers) he should find someone else.

    If the tomatoes and goods at your usual grocery store are always over-priced or under-par in quality, what do you do? You don't buy. What does that tell the grocery? That something is wrong, and if they want to stay in business they need to fix it. Works the same all the way up and down the chain.

    The pitch about imbalance, that employees are victims of evil overlords is part of the mantra of those who resent needing to provide value in order to receive value- and we have a great many of them in an increasingly dependent society, buying into the idea that being alive should be sufficient to entitle you to Other Peoples Money.

    Usually the "fat cat" being blamed is someone who thought the opposite way and became successful because of it.

    The smart people ask him how that was done- the stupid ones call him names and blame him for their failure.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
    Bravo Duck and Merwen like this.
  16. Fred68

    Fred68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2015
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There is no doubt there are dark sides to human nature, but I have seen good people in which altruism sometimes triumphs over selfishness. Isn't purely motivated volunteerism altruistic?
     
  17. Merwen

    Merwen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,574
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Trophy Points:
    113

    It was in Mother Theresa, who continued her service even in the absence of communion with God, for years and years. She was made a saint because of that.

    Most of us don't reach that pinnacle. The true altruism that does exist is probably genetically based.
     
  18. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Difference between man and animal? Man is a conceptual being, animals are perceptual beings, some more or less that others. For example, a tigers perception provides with the information to get its prey, but it will never give the fuel needed, the thrust applied, and trajectory followed to circle the moon. The best it might be able to do is be looking at is appearance, determine what the weather might be like. But it doesn't conceptualize it. it perceives it and acts on past experience. But to be perfectly honest, the board is for a moral battle against the evil of altruism and collectivism, and not a educational class on metaphysics, epistemology, or for that matter, romantic art.

    It's point is to make the morally good but unenlightened realize wanting the government to provide is pointing a gun at your neighbors head and robbing him. Government help is not charity, its armed robbery to maintain political power to for the morally bankrupt to fake a heroism they haven't earned.

    Ayn Rand: "Do not be misled by sloppy expressions such as “A murderer commits a crime against society.” It is not society that a murderer murders, but an individual man. It is not a social right that he breaks, but an individual right. He is not punished for hurting a collective—he has not hurt a whole collective—he has hurt one man. If a criminal robs ten men—it is still not “society” that he has robbed, but ten individuals. There are no “crimes against society”—all crimes are committed against specific men, against individuals. And it is precisely the duty of a proper social system and of a proper government to protect an individual against criminal attack—against force."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/crime.html

    In other words, politicians are men with guns, and every law they create ends with that gun pointed at the citizen's head. In a proper society that head is the head of a rapist, thief, con-man, or murderer, not that of a creative mind, or an industrialist, or a hedge fund manager, or an artist.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2017
    Merwen likes this.
  19. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Mother Theresa wasn't a saint, she was a monster who lived in comfort by feeding off the sores of the poor.
     
  20. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think perhaps you mis-understand my point in regards to animals. It was to point out that we have a distinctive difference- and that the difference has brought about a lot of good things, but also enabled incredibly bad ones. Specifically- our ability to deceive ourselves. Most of the arguments on this forums and a hundred others are exactly that; contests about whose the most deceived by his own beliefs. Truth and understanding are buried under a pile of BS- idiots with bullhorns. That is why we are by far our own worst enemy, most people have great difficulty (and often no interest or make no effort) to separate the grain from the chaff. Because we invent the chaff, there is one hell of a lot of it, and most people don't know the difference. I've spent a great deal of time in the study of animals, particularly marine animals. I assure you they think, they plan, and they come up with solutions that are not obvious and I doubt come from experience. In different areas, they will invent ways to accomplish things and teach them to their offspring- yet that skill remain common only to the group or area. Those in another area will be skilled, but with other ways. One of the important points is that all animals on earth can do what humans cannot do- survive and thrive with only what nature provided to them. They have done this for millions of years; done it without laws, religions, psychologists, politicians and so on. What's more they do it without destroying the planet- so just maybe, we should ask ourselves why with all our advantage, we can't even begin to do what they do. Ask what they know that we don't. I did exactly that, and while it took a long time to see the obvious answer- I did learn. Changed everything, ever since.

    Part of the difference is how rules are accepted. Nature makes the only true permanent principles of life, and all animals live by them. Man has invented thousands of rules and laws- all of which are temporary variables, but many of which try to supersede natures principles. We make things vastly more complex than they are, then endlessly argue about the pros and cons of the variables- while we ignore the unchanging principles that would allow us to thrive. About 35 years ago, I figured it out, thus I now have only a few principles to live by, and they always work for me. All the rest is temporary- and while some of it must be addressed, it is always secondary and subject to the principles I live by. Those are directly taught by the master- Mother Nature. Everybody is aware of nature, very few actually learn from it. Sometimes people ask me about religion. I tell them I do believe in a higher power- But not a God.

    It is not society that makes us rich or poor or anything else. They may interfere and do damage with a life, but the bottom line is that the person who is in touch with himself and understand his own powers can pretty well determine his own destiny, in good times of bad- he just needs to play the cards differently.. I am a member of a society, but I am not society, I am an individual. I may contribute to society, may or may not influence it, but neither will it influence me without it being my choice, and it rarely is. I do put myself first- after all, that is what all of us should do. Because I am good at it and can produce much more than I need, I can give away much to others... things that wouldn't be available if I failed to put myself first and was always needy in some way. Now that isn't altruism as defined technically-" the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others" - but it is the belief that before you can be of any value to others or to society, your first obligation is to get your own house in order.

    The ability to live successfully is far more mental than physical. If you don't take responsibility for yourself, if you don't have good judgment and good values, if you don't have an objective and you won't get your butt in the drivers seat- you are lost, and it's your own damn fault. It's that simple. When I read things like Rands philosophy, it gets measured with the principle I live by, and they reliably separate the wheat from the chaff. I take what is worth taking and discard the rest.
     
  21. Merwen

    Merwen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,574
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Trophy Points:
    113

    There are times when altruism is helpful. MT served the dying, who were truly unable to help themselves, and in the process gave comfort to many that would otherwise have died while suffering alone.

    Even evolution recognizes that altruism can sometimes help species, as witnessed by saving the altruism gene, at least in one species of birds in which it has been studied.

    IMO your viewpoint on this is extreme.
     
  22. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, and Red China all were built upon the moral principle of self-sacrifice for the common good. Altruism isn't letting your neighbor borrow your lawn mower, its individuals dying so the poor can see a doctor for free whenever they want. It's the brutal and savage murder of Hans and Sophia Sholl--creators of the paper known as The White Rose--for the sake of the common good of National Socialism, Nazi Germany; its the murderous collectivization of the Kulaks by Stalin, and the dangling machine gunned, bullet riddled body of a teenage boy on Stalin's barbed wire of his communist workers' paradise trying to escape altruistic East Germany to selfish capitalist West Germany; its the butchering of 60 million peasant farmers during Mao's Cultural Revolution; it's Pol Pots killing fields. Funny thing about that word extreme, its always used to condemn fidelity to the truth.

    I am a radical. I want to change ethics from the mysticism of self-sacrifice to reality of selfishness. I want to change the sacredness of the common good to the holy inviolable sovereignty of the individual. I want to change the American ethos from the religion of faith, mysticism, and the supernatural to the objectivity of reality, reason, and logic. I want the best of man on a pedestal as a creative soul to be worshiped and emulated, not on a cross as a sacrificial animal for the worst of us. I want the psychological crown of thrones put around the heads of the innocent (the children) and instead put a thinking cap on the top of their heads and teach and give them a vision of themselves as life's highest value. Yes, I am extreme, because what is, is. And I am a radical for liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness because life as a man is meant to lived standing and walking tall, not kneeling and crawling to the altar of altruism.

    Ayn Rand: "What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

    Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html

    Extreme: Here's another, the American college of yesterday is rapidly becoming the re-education camps of tomorrow. I offer Berkley and its "Free Speech Week" as exhibit number 1.

    I am not interested in being mankind's servant; I am by the right of being alive, a free man who can chose his own dreams and path for his own sake and happiness. That's the moral. All else that attacks this idea is an evil monstrosity, and number one is altruism.

    Best of wishes.

    America. Don't surrender her to the parasites and the pimps of the poor.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  23. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    First, I apologize for not doing a better job of editing my post. I have a fractured back and cancer and sometimes my painkillers interfere with proficient editing.

    As to animals, I do not have the same affinity for them as you do. I view them as animals and only think of them as something valuable only to the extent they make my life better. I would love a world without wolves, sharks, tigers, grizzles, snakes, spiders, hornets, wasps, or any animal that I view as a threat to my existence. They belong in a zoo, not roaming free to terrorize man's life. Nor do I have any care about how smart or not smart any one them are. An eagle can fly to the top of the highest mountain, it will never fly a spaceship to mars. A whale will dive to the deepest depths of the sea, it will never power a nuclear submarine under the north pole. Animals have value only as assets to my life. They do not impress me, and most of the time, utterly bore me, except in one area, some of them, especially the cheetah, have incredible speed. But even given that, a cheetah will run for a short distance at 70 mph, a man can drive a Bugatti Veyron – The Super Sport at 253 mph forever.

    [​IMG]

    The above is the power of the conceptual mind, which I prefer to the below, the power of the perceptual mind.

    [​IMG]

    So, so much for animals, if I can use them, fine; otherwise kill them or put them in a medical research laboratory, or a zoo, or if you prefer, give them to PETA members to enjoy their bestiality. After all, they love animals and view them as more moral and valuable than human life. So let them have them. They deserve hell on earth.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  24. Merwen

    Merwen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,574
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you ever considered the possibility that this

    could have some sort of causal connection with this:

    I have a fractured back and cancer


    Good luck on your recovery.....
     
  25. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tough, but getting there. I'll be fine.

    BTW: Could what have a casual connection. If you mean, my cancer fracturing my back, possible, and is being checked out. I also have other medical issues, but not here for those issues. If you mean the pain killers affecting both, nah. Or if you mean the insane, God punishing me for my views, God can rot. Which I can't even believe could be brought up--this the 21st century, not the dark ages. Not yet anyway, though on the path.

    I just mentioned the back and pain killers because of such a poor job I did on editing one of my posts. I was really surprised. Not here for sympathy or pity, or for that matter, compassion--that's for medical support groups, not discussion on this thread. This thread is for my fighting for Objectivism and against all else.

    But thanks again for the well wishes. It is kind and thoughtful.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
    Merwen likes this.

Share This Page