dagblog - Comments for "Rand/Thrasymachus, Marx, and Dostoyevsky"

Yessssss!

Bluesplashy — Sat, 02 May 2009 22:03:30 +0000

In reply to Had to repost this - my

Yessssss!

That's really too awesome to

DF — Sat, 02 May 2009 16:13:37 +0000

In reply to Had to repost this - my

That's really too awesome to be anonymous. Wish we had a source for it.

Had to repost this - my

Deadman — Sat, 02 May 2009 02:39:17 +0000

In reply to Rand/Thrasymachus, Marx, and Dostoyevsky

Had to repost this - my friend Jay had it on Facebook - it's an anonymous quote and it's a classic.

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

I am now convinced Gengis is

elliottness — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:29:35 +0000

In reply to http://www.hereticalideas.c

I am now convinced Gengis is bored and/or developing additional personalities.

I can hear you Nebtonites

quinn esq — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:43:12 +0000

In reply to Thanks, and I, too, will

I can hear you Nebtonites plotting.

"This post has confirmed my

MichaelM — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:41:54 +0000

In reply to This post has confirmed my

"This post has confirmed my opinion that in order to adher to an objectivist philosophy, you have to assume that everyone will play by your power rules and agree to your world view."

How did it do that? To adhere to Objectivist rules for a society of men, one need only refrain from using force against other persons in order to take something away from them. Why is it you think you could resist the temptation to do that and no one else could (knowing that if they did they would land in jail.)

"I find the idea that only

MichaelM — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:01:55 +0000

In reply to In the context of politics

"I find the idea that only physical coercion is relevant to be somewhat naive."

What is naive is imagining that calling something naive is of value to anyone when you do not bother to give them one single example of coercion other than coercion backed by physical force that can interfere with your ability to choose your own actions per your own values. It is a reply as cheap as it is impotent.

"WalMart would only be a major contributor to the government if they believed it would benefit them."

My point exactly. And how would they benefit? The same way Budweiser does when they sponser the Super Bowl. And no matter how many times that company full of evil rich people has sponsored it, the power of their money has never enabled them to fix the game.

"Do you really think it would be hard for a company controlling the purse strings of law enforcement to persuade the masses to follow along?"

Your'e kidding right? Big companies get big by slavishly providing exactly what customers want. Yesterday was the 25th anniversary of Coca-Cola's attempt to persuade the public to switch to "New Coke", a sweeter version of the old one with which they were going to clobber Pepsi. I wonder what restaurant that CEO is waiting tables at today.

But the more pertinent answer to your question is that if they persuade them and do not force them, and if the people freely choose to buy into whatever WalMart preaches, so be it. People get the government they deserve.

You also cannot seem to keep in your head the fact that an Objectivist government cannot exist without a dominant portion of the population buying into Rand's idea that they are competent to make up their own mind if they use their capacity of reason and logic. Those will not be people likely to succumb to the ideas of some corporate CEO when their life and the lives of their family are at stake— unless — they are able to validate the company's recommendations as the right thing to do.

And let me caution you about recklessly hurling assertions about how dumb and gullible the masses are, bein' as you're one of them.

http://www.hereticalideas.c

MichaelM — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:30:41 +0000

In reply to Jesus never wrote The Virtue

http://www.hereticalideas.com/2009/04/jesus-christ-a-heretical-appreciation/

Ayn Rand

In forming her philosophy of Objectivism, Ayn Rand disavowed all notions of the supernatural and religious. Still, even she had admiration for Jesus, as she wrote here in a letter to a fan in 1946.

“Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism — the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul, and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal; this means — one’s ego and the integrity of one’s ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one’s soul — (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one’s soul?) — Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one’s soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one’s soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one’s soul to the souls of others.”

He did lose his objective

elliottness — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:56:02 +0000

In reply to Thanks, and I, too, will

He did lose his objective coherency tho.

I especially enjoy how, after every regular had a chance to beat up on him, we proceeded to talk about him as if he was not real/non-existant. I would bet he has not fully abandoned this site...

at least I hope not as I was looking forward to writting an "Objectivism is Bunk" post over the weekend.

Footnotes and all.

Thanks, and I, too, will

Nebton — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:21:18 +0000

In reply to I gotta credit MichaelM for

Thanks, and I, too, will credit MichaelM for being a good foil. Although I did sense a bit of anger in him, it was always subtle, and he never hit below the belt.