Thread: Randian Philosophy in Light of the Current Economy

I'm moving this out of another thread because it was pretty much irrelevant to the purpose of the thread, but for some reason I still kind of have to get it out there.

Originally Posted by Mortimer

Plato is okay - the translated script is right next to the original, and it's not so much complex as it is slightly ridiculous - but modern philosophy just makes my brain fart and feel very ashamed of itself. I don't know if that's because of the modern writers' tendency to overcomplicate everything we write, but if it is, then it can fool me, because I don't know what to make of it.

I hate modern philosophy, honestly. They think they're so clever, but they suffer from the same problems that the contemporaries of Socrates had. They rely too much on rhetoric, clever analogies, and incomplete conjecture to come to a conclusion which is obviously absurd. As a result, the only modern philosophy I give any attention to is metaphysics (and even then I am extremely critical).

I ignore ethical arguments altogether, with the exception of Ayn Rand. Seems like she's the only one who is honest enough to leave moral platitudes at the door. On the other hand, I am not impressed with any of those who have come into power under the guise of objectivism. I think Rand would smack them all if she discovered the way they do business. Greatness does not come from exploitation of the workforce or cutting every corner possible; greatness comes from excellence. When I look at this Finance CEO's that got the bailout (which I am sure Rand would have opposed) and the way they've reacted to the problems they have, the first thing that comes to mind is James Taggart and his friends in Atlas Shrugged who's only reaction to business problems is to cry, "NOT MY FAULT!" Who gives a crap?! It's your company, and it's your responsibility to fix it! You don't pay off your executives who've run the business into the ground. You fire the incompetent ones and invest everything else into fixing the problems you've created.

Sorry for the soap box. I've been giving a lot of thought into Randian ethics since this whole financial crisis and the subsequent Occupy Movement came about. I should really read Atlas Shrugged again in light of recent events. I've never finished it simply because I get too angry to finish it. This particular distopia hits a little too close to home, I think.

Originally Posted by themooresho

I ignore ethical arguments altogether, with the exception of Ayn Rand. Seems like she's the only one who is honest enough to leave moral platitudes at the door.

May I point something out.

Originally Posted by themooresho

I think Rand would smack them all if she discovered the way they do business. Greatness does not come from exploitation of the workforce or cutting every corner possible; greatness comes from excellence. When I look at this Finance CEO's that got the bailout (which I am sure Rand would have opposed) and the way they've reacted to the problems they have, the first thing that comes to mind is James Taggart and his friends in Atlas Shrugged who's only reaction to business problems is to cry, "NOT MY FAULT!" Who gives a crap?! It's your company, and it's your responsibility to fix it! You don't pay off your executives who've run the business into the ground. You fire the incompetent ones and invest everything else into fixing the problems you've created.

These are ethical arguments.




Against my better judgement....
I'm going to attempt to write this in the most polite manner (I didn't get [one of] my nicknames relating to subtlety & brick for no reason).


If you begin a speech by writing that you ignore the arguments of others altogether (except for a special someone who conforms with your viewpoint), then you're suggesting in your writing that others don't count. It may not be your intention, but it doesn't project the most positive image in the minds of readers. Maybe I agree with your viewpoint, or maybe I don't; but when somebody writes something which suggests they mightn't care about other's viewpoints, I doesn't tend to give the greatest incentive to continue reading.
Hope you don't see this as being impolite.

That's why I say, "With the exception of..."

Against my better judgement....
I'm going to attempt to write this in the most polite manner (I didn't get [one of] my nicknames relating to subtlety & brick for no reason).


If you begin a speech by writing that you ignore the arguments of others altogether (except for a special someone who conforms with your viewpoint), then you're suggesting in your writing that others don't count. It may not be your intention, but it doesn't project the most positive image in the minds of readers. Maybe I agree with your viewpoint, or maybe I don't; but when somebody writes something which suggests they mightn't care about other's viewpoints, I doesn't tend to give the greatest incentive to continue reading.
Hope you don't see this as being impolite.

Let me start by saying nobodies opinions are under attack. Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinions. I was simply venting mine.

The reason why I ignore most ethical arguments is because it is an exercise in futility. They never get anywhere except for what amounts to, "Nuh, uh! I'm right!" This is true regardless of the position one is arguing.

By the way, I am hardly alone in ignoring the arguements of others. I can't really think of a single socialist I've met that really understood what Ayn Rand stood for except for what they see in the actions of the so called Titans of Capitalism who, as I stated before, would be the villains of Rand's story, not the heros.

As a matter of fact, the only ethical school that I actually pay attention to outside of objectivism is, believe it or not, socialism. Not only does it get crammed down all of our throats in the debates of the presidential candidates and the demands of protesters, but I have actually read the communist manifesto. It's been a while, but yes I have read it. To be honest, I empathize with socialists because I am very much in the same boat as most of them are. The problem is that you get the same problems that Rand pointed out. And now we're essentially seeing what she predicted in the news.

Now, if objectism and socialism are the two schools of ethics that actually address the issues that are important to me, why would I care what's going on with the utilitarians and the relativists and all the others who, as I stated before, rely on empty rhetoric, and incomplete conjecture to support their position. The arguments as far as I have seen have more to do with party affiliation than with actual philosophical discourse.

Finally, if you read my original post I was not condemning relativism, utilitarianism, or even socialism. I was instead condemning the false objectivists who have brought this country to ruin. I'm sorry Mr. 1% (here I'm not talking to anyone on the forum, but to the criminals who have put us in this mess), but profit margins and bottom lines are meaningless to those with true vision that Rand spoke of. The only thing that matters is the product. And if your product is mediocre, wasteful, or destructive, guess what, you are what Rand called a LOOTER!

That is the point I was trying to get off me chest when I posted what I did. Yes, it is a rant, which is why I moved it out of the original thread it was in and put it in the debate section where it belongs.

And I'm sorry that I let my anger get the best of me. Honestly, the more I learn, the angrier I get. After I finished writing that, I read your post again and you know what, I admit I took offense where none was ment. Unfortunately, I'm on my smart phone right now, not on a PC and editing something on a phone is very difficult and time consuming

1.

Originally Posted by themooresho

Let me start by saying nobodies opinions are under attack. Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinions. I was simply venting mine.

2.

Originally Posted by themooresho

I hate modern philosophy, honestly. They think they're so clever, but they suffer from the same problems that the contemporaries of Socrates had. They rely too much on rhetoric, clever analogies, and incomplete conjecture to come to a conclusion which is obviously absurd.

...


1.

Originally Posted by themooresho

The reason why I ignore most ethical arguments is because it is an exercise in futility. They never get anywhere except for what amounts to, "Nuh, uh! I'm right!" This is true regardless of the position one is arguing.

2.

Originally Posted by themooresho

When I look at this Finance CEO's that got the bailout (which I am sure Rand would have opposed) and the way they've reacted to the problems they have, the first thing that comes to mind is James Taggart and his friends in Atlas Shrugged who's only reaction to business problems is to cry, "NOT MY FAULT!" Who gives a crap?! It's your company, and it's your responsibility to fix it! You don't pay off your executives who've run the business into the ground. You fire the incompetent ones and invest everything else into fixing the problems you've created.

...

If you'd like Rand's philosophy without her bizarre claims that such things as art and fashion were objectively quantifiable, her utter contempt of religion, personal sexual hangups and thud n' blunder prose style, I suggest Ludwig Von Mises' Human Action. For a warm up, try F.A. Hayek's The Road To Serfdom. (And yes, I am claiming that two rather dry economic treatises are easier reading than Rand's novels.)

Originally Posted by Leyline

=(And yes, I am claiming that two rather dry economic treatises are easier reading than Rand's novels.)

Yeah, she's not easy. Her only book that I've gotten through was Anthem. I've gotten pretty far into Atlas Shrugged about a dozen times, but it wasn't the fact that she's hard to read that stopped me from finishing, it's that I got too angry to continue.