Jump to content

Rush, Ayn Rand, and Philosophy In Your Life


Lucas
 Share

Recommended Posts

It’s interesting to me how Ayn Rand is considered insane by some and a genius by others. I read “Anthem” and while I appreciated the message I hated the book itself simply because it was very boring. I felt the same way about “Atlas Shrugged.” It contains lots of great points but she makes those same points over and over and over. It’s just sooooooooooo long. I have not yet read “The Fountainhead’ but it is on my list. I actually prefer to listen to Ayn Rand interviews. There are a handful of interviews on YouTube and I enjoy hearing her philosophy from her own mouth. Here’s a good one from 1959:

 

Her philosophy is often twisted and considered “ultra-rightwing” when the truth is that she hated conservatives as much if not more than liberals. If anything I think she is closest to a libertarian.

 

One aspect of her philosophy that her critics like to focus on is “the virtue of selfishness” which many people misunderstand. They assume she meant that you should get whatever you can, be as greedy as you can and don’t share anything with anyone ever which isn’t what she meant at all. What she meant was that putting yourself and your loved ones first is perfectly moral. In other words, if your family is starving and your neighbor’s family is starving you should feed your family first. After you feed your family, if there’s anything left, then giving that to your neighbor is also moral. Giving food to your neighbor first and letting yourself and your family go hungry is very immoral. It’s just like when you’re on an airplane. If the oxygen masks drop they tell you to put your mask on first then help children or others who need help. Why is that? Obviously, if you help others first you may pass out and then you’re of no help to anyone. She was never against charity as long as you don’t sacrifice yourself or your loved ones. She was against the forced charity of income taxes.

 

I’ll jump off the soapbox now.

 

Given that she's dead now, she won't be able to answer this question, but why is it moral to see to your own needs before anyone else's? I can see why it's pragmatic, but why is it moral?

Maybe if you are taken care of first then you will be more apt (or prepared in many ways) to help others?... :huh:
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s interesting to me how Ayn Rand is considered insane by some and a genius by others. I read “Anthem” and while I appreciated the message I hated the book itself simply because it was very boring. I felt the same way about “Atlas Shrugged.” It contains lots of great points but she makes those same points over and over and over. It’s just sooooooooooo long. I have not yet read “The Fountainhead’ but it is on my list. I actually prefer to listen to Ayn Rand interviews. There are a handful of interviews on YouTube and I enjoy hearing her philosophy from her own mouth. Here’s a good one from 1959:

 

Her philosophy is often twisted and considered “ultra-rightwing” when the truth is that she hated conservatives as much if not more than liberals. If anything I think she is closest to a libertarian.

 

One aspect of her philosophy that her critics like to focus on is “the virtue of selfishness” which many people misunderstand. They assume she meant that you should get whatever you can, be as greedy as you can and don’t share anything with anyone ever which isn’t what she meant at all. What she meant was that putting yourself and your loved ones first is perfectly moral. In other words, if your family is starving and your neighbor’s family is starving you should feed your family first. After you feed your family, if there’s anything left, then giving that to your neighbor is also moral. Giving food to your neighbor first and letting yourself and your family go hungry is very immoral. It’s just like when you’re on an airplane. If the oxygen masks drop they tell you to put your mask on first then help children or others who need help. Why is that? Obviously, if you help others first you may pass out and then you’re of no help to anyone. She was never against charity as long as you don’t sacrifice yourself or your loved ones. She was against the forced charity of income taxes.

 

I’ll jump off the soapbox now.

 

Given that she's dead now, she won't be able to answer this question, but why is it moral to see to your own needs before anyone else's? I can see why it's pragmatic, but why is it moral?

 

She actually covers that very thing at the beginning of the interview that I linked to in my post. Give it a listen. Basically, in Ayn Rand’s philosophy morality is based on reason and logic. It’s not based on faith or emotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s interesting to me how Ayn Rand is considered insane by some and a genius by others. I read “Anthem” and while I appreciated the message I hated the book itself simply because it was very boring. I felt the same way about “Atlas Shrugged.” It contains lots of great points but she makes those same points over and over and over. It’s just sooooooooooo long. I have not yet read “The Fountainhead’ but it is on my list. I actually prefer to listen to Ayn Rand interviews. There are a handful of interviews on YouTube and I enjoy hearing her philosophy from her own mouth. Here’s a good one from 1959:

 

Her philosophy is often twisted and considered “ultra-rightwing” when the truth is that she hated conservatives as much if not more than liberals. If anything I think she is closest to a libertarian.

 

One aspect of her philosophy that her critics like to focus on is “the virtue of selfishness” which many people misunderstand. They assume she meant that you should get whatever you can, be as greedy as you can and don’t share anything with anyone ever which isn’t what she meant at all. What she meant was that putting yourself and your loved ones first is perfectly moral. In other words, if your family is starving and your neighbor’s family is starving you should feed your family first. After you feed your family, if there’s anything left, then giving that to your neighbor is also moral. Giving food to your neighbor first and letting yourself and your family go hungry is very immoral. It’s just like when you’re on an airplane. If the oxygen masks drop they tell you to put your mask on first then help children or others who need help. Why is that? Obviously, if you help others first you may pass out and then you’re of no help to anyone. She was never against charity as long as you don’t sacrifice yourself or your loved ones. She was against the forced charity of income taxes.

 

I’ll jump off the soapbox now.

 

Given that she's dead now, she won't be able to answer this question, but why is it moral to see to your own needs before anyone else's? I can see why it's pragmatic, but why is it moral?

 

She actually covers that very thing at the beginning of the interview that I linked to in my post. Give it a listen. Basically, in Ayn Rand’s philosophy morality is based on reason and logic. It’s not based on faith or emotion.

 

I listened up to the 7:00 mark. Does she ever get around to saying why putting your interest ahead of others is immoral? She claims that reason will lead one to an objective morality, and that's a pill many of her followers (or former followers, as I was) unthinkingly swallow, but she never goes beyond assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy. Edited by Tony R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

 

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

 

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

 

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

 

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

 

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...

Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand's points regarding "selfishness" are difficult to explain without examples - an example of my personal interpretation might be how I feel about personal relationships, esp the relationship between partners ... A "significant other" type relationship will not work, or be healthy, unless the individuals are happy and comfortable with themselves coming into the relationship.

 

In other words, the "Without you I'm nothing" bit is bullshit ( ... apologies to Brian Molko ;)

 

A relationship that works is a magical thing - true love .... but unless a person loves themselves, it's not going to work with someone else ..

 

I may be opening a can of worms here, but one of my favorite films - Suicide Club - touches on this in a very convoluted and perverse way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but unless a person loves themselves, it's not going to work with someone else ..

 

^^^ This is sort of along the same train of thought as my post earlier. Philosophy isn't really my thing but this and what I posted earlier make some sense to me anyway... :huh:

 

Edit: Never heard of that movie but I would bet some others can help with that can and those worms... ;)

Edited by Narpsberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

 

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

 

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...

Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

I read Anthem, in public school, before I ever heard 2112.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I first read her in 1973. A friend thought I would like The Fountainhead.

 

And did you?

 

Yes. I was young. :) He next had me read Narcissus and Goldmund. I liked that book better.

 

I went back to reading comic books after that. ;)

Edited by Lorraine
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I first read her in 1973. A friend thought I would like The Fountainhead.

 

And did you?

 

Yes. I was young. :) He next had me read Narcissus and Goldmund. I liked that book better.

 

I went back to reading comic books after that. ;)

 

Casper and Wendy? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I first read her in 1973. A friend thought I would like The Fountainhead.

 

And did you?

 

Yes. I was young. :) He next had me read Narcissus and Goldmund. I liked that book better.

 

I went back to reading comic books after that. ;)

 

Casper and Wendy? ;)

 

Archie and Veronica

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s interesting to me how Ayn Rand is considered insane by some and a genius by others. I read “Anthem” and while I appreciated the message I hated the book itself simply because it was very boring. I felt the same way about “Atlas Shrugged.” It contains lots of great points but she makes those same points over and over and over. It’s just sooooooooooo long. I have not yet read “The Fountainhead’ but it is on my list. I actually prefer to listen to Ayn Rand interviews. There are a handful of interviews on YouTube and I enjoy hearing her philosophy from her own mouth. Here’s a good one from 1959:

 

Her philosophy is often twisted and considered “ultra-rightwing” when the truth is that she hated conservatives as much if not more than liberals. If anything I think she is closest to a libertarian.

 

One aspect of her philosophy that her critics like to focus on is “the virtue of selfishness” which many people misunderstand. They assume she meant that you should get whatever you can, be as greedy as you can and don’t share anything with anyone ever which isn’t what she meant at all. What she meant was that putting yourself and your loved ones first is perfectly moral. In other words, if your family is starving and your neighbor’s family is starving you should feed your family first. After you feed your family, if there’s anything left, then giving that to your neighbor is also moral. Giving food to your neighbor first and letting yourself and your family go hungry is very immoral. It’s just like when you’re on an airplane. If the oxygen masks drop they tell you to put your mask on first then help children or others who need help. Why is that? Obviously, if you help others first you may pass out and then you’re of no help to anyone. She was never against charity as long as you don’t sacrifice yourself or your loved ones. She was against the forced charity of income taxes.

 

I’ll jump off the soapbox now.

 

Given that she's dead now, she won't be able to answer this question, but why is it moral to see to your own needs before anyone else's? I can see why it's pragmatic, but why is it moral?

 

She actually covers that very thing at the beginning of the interview that I linked to in my post. Give it a listen. Basically, in Ayn Rand’s philosophy morality is based on reason and logic. It’s not based on faith or emotion.

 

I listened up to the 7:00 mark. Does she ever get around to saying why putting your interest ahead of others is immoral? She claims that reason will lead one to an objective morality, and that's a pill many of her followers (or former followers, as I was) unthinkingly swallow, but she never goes beyond assertion.

 

I’m surprised that you call yourself a former follower of Rand’s yet you don’t seem to know what Objectivism is all about. By the way, you got it backwards. Putting the interests of others ahead of yours is immoral. That is because when you do you become a sacrificial animal. Do you believe that it is moral to, for example, feed your neighbor’s kids first and let your kids starve? You can take that example to the extreme. If your child and your neighbor’s child were dying of the same disease and you could only save one of them, who would you choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

 

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

 

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...

Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

I read Anthem, in public school, before I ever heard 2112.

 

wow, did the school / teacher recommend Anthem, or was it your choice ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

 

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

 

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...

Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

I read Anthem, in public school, before I ever heard 2112.

 

wow, did the school / teacher recommend Anthem, or was it your choice ?

It was assigned.

 

I did enjoy it though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s interesting to me how Ayn Rand is considered insane by some and a genius by others. I read “Anthem” and while I appreciated the message I hated the book itself simply because it was very boring. I felt the same way about “Atlas Shrugged.” It contains lots of great points but she makes those same points over and over and over. It’s just sooooooooooo long. I have not yet read “The Fountainhead’ but it is on my list. I actually prefer to listen to Ayn Rand interviews. There are a handful of interviews on YouTube and I enjoy hearing her philosophy from her own mouth. Here’s a good one from 1959:

 

Her philosophy is often twisted and considered “ultra-rightwing” when the truth is that she hated conservatives as much if not more than liberals. If anything I think she is closest to a libertarian.

 

One aspect of her philosophy that her critics like to focus on is “the virtue of selfishness” which many people misunderstand. They assume she meant that you should get whatever you can, be as greedy as you can and don’t share anything with anyone ever which isn’t what she meant at all. What she meant was that putting yourself and your loved ones first is perfectly moral. In other words, if your family is starving and your neighbor’s family is starving you should feed your family first. After you feed your family, if there’s anything left, then giving that to your neighbor is also moral. Giving food to your neighbor first and letting yourself and your family go hungry is very immoral. It’s just like when you’re on an airplane. If the oxygen masks drop they tell you to put your mask on first then help children or others who need help. Why is that? Obviously, if you help others first you may pass out and then you’re of no help to anyone. She was never against charity as long as you don’t sacrifice yourself or your loved ones. She was against the forced charity of income taxes.

 

I’ll jump off the soapbox now.

 

Given that she's dead now, she won't be able to answer this question, but why is it moral to see to your own needs before anyone else's? I can see why it's pragmatic, but why is it moral?

 

She actually covers that very thing at the beginning of the interview that I linked to in my post. Give it a listen. Basically, in Ayn Rand’s philosophy morality is based on reason and logic. It’s not based on faith or emotion.

 

I listened up to the 7:00 mark. Does she ever get around to saying why putting your interest ahead of others is moral? She claims that reason will lead one to an objective morality, and that's a pill many of her followers (or former followers, as I was) unthinkingly swallow, but she never goes beyond assertion.

 

I’m surprised that you call yourself a former follower of Rand’s yet you don’t seem to know what Objectivism is all about. By the way, you got it backwards.

 

 

Good catch -- I was thinking of expressing it one way and typed it the other. I fixed it up there ^^^^

Putting the interests of others ahead of yours is immoral. That is because when you do you become a sacrificial animal.

OK, why is becoming a sacrificial animal immoral?

Do you believe that it is moral to, for example, feed your neighbor’s kids first and let your kids starve?

Nope.

You can take that example to the extreme. If your child and your neighbor’s child were dying of the same disease and you could only save one of them, who would you choose?

My own kid, of course. But that's just my sense of morality.

 

Why is it moral to see to your own interests before seeing to a stranger's? How is the morality of choice determined to be objective?

 

This is where Objectivism falls apart. It took me a while to get clear of it to see its failings, but it's so plain to see once you're on the outside looking in.

Edited by JARG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

 

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

 

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...

Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

Misogynist.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peart has been partly responsible for perpetuating Rand's legacy. But for him most people on this forum would never heard of her and her snivelling little personality cult masquerading as an intellectually robust philosophy.

 

I don't know if I would've never heard of Rand were it not for 2112, but yeah, 2112 was my gateway. :)

 

I think it's pretty hard to get to the age of 22 and not have heard of Rand.

In the US maybe, in certain circles, in mommy and daddy's basement culture...

Everywhere else, outside of the Rush connection, she's totally obscure. As she should be...

 

Yes, if you're intellectually lazy and think that living in an echo-chamber is a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s interesting to me how Ayn Rand is considered insane by some and a genius by others. I read “Anthem” and while I appreciated the message I hated the book itself simply because it was very boring. I felt the same way about “Atlas Shrugged.” It contains lots of great points but she makes those same points over and over and over. It’s just sooooooooooo long. I have not yet read “The Fountainhead’ but it is on my list. I actually prefer to listen to Ayn Rand interviews. There are a handful of interviews on YouTube and I enjoy hearing her philosophy from her own mouth. Here’s a good one from 1959:

 

Her philosophy is often twisted and considered “ultra-rightwing” when the truth is that she hated conservatives as much if not more than liberals. If anything I think she is closest to a libertarian.

 

One aspect of her philosophy that her critics like to focus on is “the virtue of selfishness” which many people misunderstand. They assume she meant that you should get whatever you can, be as greedy as you can and don’t share anything with anyone ever which isn’t what she meant at all. What she meant was that putting yourself and your loved ones first is perfectly moral. In other words, if your family is starving and your neighbor’s family is starving you should feed your family first. After you feed your family, if there’s anything left, then giving that to your neighbor is also moral. Giving food to your neighbor first and letting yourself and your family go hungry is very immoral. It’s just like when you’re on an airplane. If the oxygen masks drop they tell you to put your mask on first then help children or others who need help. Why is that? Obviously, if you help others first you may pass out and then you’re of no help to anyone. She was never against charity as long as you don’t sacrifice yourself or your loved ones. She was against the forced charity of income taxes.

 

I’ll jump off the soapbox now.

 

Given that she's dead now, she won't be able to answer this question, but why is it moral to see to your own needs before anyone else's? I can see why it's pragmatic, but why is it moral?

 

She actually covers that very thing at the beginning of the interview that I linked to in my post. Give it a listen. Basically, in Ayn Rand’s philosophy morality is based on reason and logic. It’s not based on faith or emotion.

 

I listened up to the 7:00 mark. Does she ever get around to saying why putting your interest ahead of others is immoral? She claims that reason will lead one to an objective morality, and that's a pill many of her followers (or former followers, as I was) unthinkingly swallow, but she never goes beyond assertion.

 

I’m surprised that you call yourself a former follower of Rand’s yet you don’t seem to know what Objectivism is all about. By the way, you got it backwards. Putting the interests of others ahead of yours is immoral. That is because when you do you become a sacrificial animal. Do you believe that it is moral to, for example, feed your neighbor’s kids first and let your kids starve? You can take that example to the extreme. If your child and your neighbor’s child were dying of the same disease and you could only save one of them, who would you choose?

 

I think that he thinks that morality is subjective, and so making a statement that x = moral will usually fail, and at the least needs persuasive reasons for such beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s interesting to me how Ayn Rand is considered insane by some and a genius by others. I read “Anthem” and while I appreciated the message I hated the book itself simply because it was very boring. I felt the same way about “Atlas Shrugged.” It contains lots of great points but she makes those same points over and over and over. It’s just sooooooooooo long. I have not yet read “The Fountainhead’ but it is on my list. I actually prefer to listen to Ayn Rand interviews. There are a handful of interviews on YouTube and I enjoy hearing her philosophy from her own mouth. Here’s a good one from 1959:

 

Her philosophy is often twisted and considered “ultra-rightwing” when the truth is that she hated conservatives as much if not more than liberals. If anything I think she is closest to a libertarian.

 

One aspect of her philosophy that her critics like to focus on is “the virtue of selfishness” which many people misunderstand. They assume she meant that you should get whatever you can, be as greedy as you can and don’t share anything with anyone ever which isn’t what she meant at all. What she meant was that putting yourself and your loved ones first is perfectly moral. In other words, if your family is starving and your neighbor’s family is starving you should feed your family first. After you feed your family, if there’s anything left, then giving that to your neighbor is also moral. Giving food to your neighbor first and letting yourself and your family go hungry is very immoral. It’s just like when you’re on an airplane. If the oxygen masks drop they tell you to put your mask on first then help children or others who need help. Why is that? Obviously, if you help others first you may pass out and then you’re of no help to anyone. She was never against charity as long as you don’t sacrifice yourself or your loved ones. She was against the forced charity of income taxes.

 

I’ll jump off the soapbox now.

 

Given that she's dead now, she won't be able to answer this question, but why is it moral to see to your own needs before anyone else's? I can see why it's pragmatic, but why is it moral?

 

She actually covers that very thing at the beginning of the interview that I linked to in my post. Give it a listen. Basically, in Ayn Rand’s philosophy morality is based on reason and logic. It’s not based on faith or emotion.

 

I listened up to the 7:00 mark. Does she ever get around to saying why putting your interest ahead of others is immoral? She claims that reason will lead one to an objective morality, and that's a pill many of her followers (or former followers, as I was) unthinkingly swallow, but she never goes beyond assertion.

 

I’m surprised that you call yourself a former follower of Rand’s yet you don’t seem to know what Objectivism is all about. By the way, you got it backwards. Putting the interests of others ahead of yours is immoral. That is because when you do you become a sacrificial animal. Do you believe that it is moral to, for example, feed your neighbor’s kids first and let your kids starve? You can take that example to the extreme. If your child and your neighbor’s child were dying of the same disease and you could only save one of them, who would you choose?

 

I think that he thinks that morality is subjective, and so making a statement that x = moral will usually fail, and at the least needs persuasive reasons for such beliefs.

 

Rand frequently touted that Objectivist morality is, well, objective. Morals could be "discovered" (and I believe that's actually the word she used from time to time) via reason. It's somewhat tragic that Objectivist ethics fails due to the fact that it hinges on a ridiculous notion.

 

As I said, I'm down with her metaphysics and epistemology, but her ethics goes off the rails.

 

The reason why Rand believes it's moral to put ones own interests ahead of anyone else's is because she said so. It's not like there are morals floating out there in the ether just waiting to be "discovered". Morals are a human mental constructs and are thus completely subjective. They aren't discovered. They're invented/made up.

Edited by JARG
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can take any philosophy or religion that teaches right and wrong and ask “why is this moral and that isn’t?” And then for every answer you can still ask “why?” Why is it wrong to kill, to steal, to covet, etc? In many cases you eventually get to the core of the belief system where the truth is self-evident and you either agree with it or you don’t.

 

At this point I have to ask the obvious question: why is it immoral to pursue your own self-interest? Why should you put others people’s interests ahead of your own? Ayn Rand rejected the idea that we are our brother’s keeper. Everyone is responsible for their own happiness. Obviously if someone is mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves then of course we should help them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe that it is moral to, for example, feed your neighbor’s kids first and let your kids starve?

Nope.

You can take that example to the extreme. If your child and your neighbor’s child were dying of the same disease and you could only save one of them, who would you choose?

My own kid, of course. But that's just my sense of morality.

 

Why is it moral to see to your own interests before seeing to a stranger's? How is the morality of choice determined to be objective?

 

This is where Objectivism falls apart. It took me a while to get clear of it to see its failings, but it's so plain to see once you're on the outside looking in.

 

I really don’t understand your point. You say that Objectivism falls apart but in the two examples above you are right in line with it. You would choose to put your self-interest ahead of your neighbor’s. The truth is, we do it every day without even thinking about it because it makes sense. Putting our self-interest first doesn’t mean that we’re greedy, unkind or don’t care for others. That’s another misconception about Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...