19 Jan 11
Originally posted by Wajoma*Sound the buzzer*
Contrary to your scenario it is the person that considers the situation in rational way that is more likely to make it out alive. The situation you are in will determine your options, it will not determine whether you rationally consider those options, that is up to you. Have you actually read any Rand i.e. more than the title "The Virtue of Selfishnes ...[text shortened]... eeds It", there are a couple of plugs for objectiviism in it but for the most it is neutral.
Nope. People who in a blind panic rush towards the exit are most likely to survive fires, sinking boats and crashing trains. Look it up.
19 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirThen the rational response (if all you care is surviving) is to rush for the exit as fast as you can. Duh.
*Sound the buzzer*
Nope. People who in a blind panic rush towards the exit are most likely to survive fires, sinking boats and crashing trains. Look it up.
19 Jan 11
Originally posted by PalynkaAnd it's not the rushing towards the exist which is the point at hand. Is it?
It's not the panic that saves them, it's the rushing towards the exit. Jesus, you're thick.
No. It's acting rationally or not.
Get with the picture. Or, in this case, remain in the theatre. At least you'd be of amusement.
21 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderAnother one of ours...Los Angeles represent! Woo... 😕
1920's child killer William Edward Hickman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman
On December 19, Parker delivered the ransom in Los Angeles but in return Hickman delivered the girl's dismembered body. Her arms and legs had been severed and her internal organs removed. A towel stuffed into her body to absorb blood led police to Hickman's apartment building, but he managed to escape. A $100,000 reward was offered for his capture, and for nearly a week Hickman eluded capture.
He was finally caught after spending some of the ransom in Washington and Oregon. He subsequently confessed to kidnapping Marion, but blamed her murder on a man who was actually in jail during the time of the crime. He was extradited back to Los Angeles where he confessed to another murder he committed during a drug store hold-up as well as many other armed robberies.[2]
Hickman was one of the earliest defendants to use California's new law that allowed pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity. However, in February 1928 a jury rejected his claim and he was sentenced to hang. He appealed the conviction, but both the law and the verdict were upheld by the California Supreme Court; and on October 19th 1928 he died on the gallows.
From the same Wiki article...an interesting Ayn Rand quote for Rand loving property rights fundamentalists who complain about thieves:
It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Jan 11
Originally posted by PalynkaThe other day I heard an interesting factoid. The people on the Titanic had about 2 - 3 hours to react to the capsize/sinking, and a sizable number of women and children were saved. The people on the Lusitania had about 18 minutes to react, and the number saved was skewed toward able-bodied men. The thought was that individualism is the first reaction but yields to social values when there is time. Of course the social values reflect species-survival behavior that is seen in any social animal. The Titanic folks were just acting at a different organizational level of their rational selfishness. What Rand didn't like is the fact that the group *is* a sort of self. To that, I say, get over it, or you will end up admiring the psychopath.
Then the rational response (if all you care is surviving) is to rush for the exit as fast as you can. Duh.
On a different tack. Dexter. The TV show. Sheds light on what it means to BE a psychopath. If you have no empathy, you need The Code. Of course, Dexter is a killer, the series needs him to be, to get ratings and sell commercial time. The Code does not make him socially acceptable, it just keeps him from getting caught and it channels his psychopathology toward "bad guys." It would be interesting to hear from some people who have their psychopathology completely under control, where control means they aren't acting out illegally like Dexter is, but they still wonder what empathy feels like.
22 Jan 11
1 edit
http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killers
Who are all these serial killers? and where is the admiration?
A loan quote taken out of context at a an early stage in Rands life before she had developed her philosophy of individualism. Other quotes intimate that at this early stage she toyed with the idea of determinism but later with the develpoment of a full philosophical system she defends free will. A young writer experimenting with the character of a murderer, oh dear, I wonder if any other young authors have tried the same.
"And when we look at the other side of it-there was a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy turned into a purposeless monster."
When we look at the other side of it, yes, thank you No1 for prompting a deeper examination and appreciation of Rand that your thread has prompted. Given your randophobia I imagine you started the thread with a knod towards damaging Rands integrity and possibly trying to make a chink in the philosophy of objectivism, if that is so it has been a non flyer. The criticisms of objectivism have amounted to one nut case claiming irrational behaviour is a more rational than rational behaviour, another (psued alert here) that felt it was too tiresome to list alllllll the flaws and (from memory) something about donkey balls.
22 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaOn the contrary, Rand's admiration for Hickman and contempt for societal mores are an example of her pathological "individualism". Her heroes in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are similar in outlook to sociopaths like Hickman. Her refinements of that warped philosophy do not effect her admiration for such characters; they are her idolized Man.
http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killers
Who are all these serial killers? and where is the admiration?
A loan quote taken out of context at a an early stage in Rands life before she had developed her philosophy of individualism. Other quotes intimat ...[text shortened]... it was too tiresome to list alllllll the flaws and (from memory) something about donkey balls.
22 Jan 11
Originally posted by JS357Dexter, unlike Hickman and other Randian heroes, at least does something socially useful i.e. saves the lives of potential victims of the murderers he dispatches.
The other day I heard an interesting factoid. The people on the Titanic had about 2 - 3 hours to react to the capsize/sinking, and a sizable number of women and children were saved. The people on the Lusitania had about 18 minutes to react, and the number saved was skewed toward able-bodied men. The thought was that individualism is the first reaction but yiel ...[text shortened]... y aren't acting out illegally like Dexter is, but they still wonder what empathy feels like.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
22 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderSure. Being a fictional character, Dexter has the advantage of being as sympathetic, even as admirable a character as he is written to be. So do Rand's fictional heroes. Let's assume that Dexter and Roark are admirable. The question is, in the real world, do the people who take it upon themselves to be the incarnation of such fictional characters,, live up to these positive stereotypes? Do Dexters really exist? Does the Randian model work in practice?
Dexter, unlike Hickman and other Randian heroes, at least does something socially useful i.e. saves the lives of potential victims of the murderers he dispatches.
Some Randians would probably say we have no evidence that the Randian model can't work, because the Randian model is never allowed to work, it is always sabotaged by the combined forces of the weak, or by being attempted by flawed or corruptible humans. Well, if that is the case, the Randian model is not favored by evolution, is it? Randianism, if it always fails, is the evolutionary weaker strategy. I believe evolution shows that a mixed strategy, that maintains a dynamic and shifting equilibrium between competing models, is the strongest model. And this makes sense because when there is a threat to the whole, that part of the whole that is best adapted to deal with it, can come to the fore.
22 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderRand, more importantly, misses the philosophical point altogether and veers off into eccentricity.
On the contrary, Rand's admiration for Hickman and contempt for societal mores are an example of her pathological "individualism". Her heroes in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are similar in outlook to sociopaths like Hickman. Her refinements of that warped philosophy do not effect her admiration for such characters; they are her idolized Man.
Kant (for instance) argued that morality cannot be the product of our inclinations but requires a foundation in a rational code of laws (never mind why). Max Stirner, the Egoist, argued that any social code is actually a delusion - a voice in our head that has no reality compared with our own, authentic inclinations. It suits other people - those in control of social order - to confuse us and secure our submission to a code that protects others at our expense. Nietzsche argued indeed that social codes serve to protect the weak and the inferior at the expense of the truly superior and great individuals. He thought that the whole point of life is not the continuing tedious replication of mediocracy but rather the occasional emergence of greatness - the Superman. Marx argued against Stirner that the very notion of an individual is less "real" than the notion of social beings, and that there are no examples at all of people who are not social beings. So there is no delusion required and we must understand how we (as individuals) are located in a social world. Within this philosophical history Rand fails to address the well established debate into which she paddles like an amateur. She blithely ignores the many refutations of her arguments for example so she is just not worth taking seriously. It is not enough to say she disagrees - she must set out grounds and deal with the counter arguments. She doesn't because she can't.
Rand also describes a fallacious version of how evolution works, especially the concept of the survival of the fittest (not Darwin's phrase of course and not accurate). In terms of the evolution of life, humans are no more successful than a blade of grass and it is hard to be sure that humans will last longer, or that the planet may not shortly be covered with grass and devoid of humans. Human individuals do not survive at all of course - and groups survive if they are successful as groups, not if they contain special individuals.