Does anyone have more self pity than self styled objectivists? Apart from maybe serial killers.
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/04/04/my_father_the_objectivist/index.html
Father seems like a twat who engages in philosophical Convenience for his own needs. But still his methods do seem ok with regards to objectivism. I think it is clearly immoral and abhorrent to abandon a child like that but then again I am not an rational egoist who pursues his purpose by all means.
At least psychopathic objectivists won’t end up on using state for their own good, they just ruin their private life. Statist ones do.
How does that have anything to do with Objectivism?
I couldn’t manage to find anything substantial in that article besides the claim that Objectivism is about being selfish, and it gave her dad an excuse to be selfish. But is Objectivism even about being selfish in that sense (hogging all the mashed potatoes, not wanting to pay child support, etc)? I assume no.
Most pro-Rand Libertarians praise her books, mainly Atlas Shrugged, because of the pro- free market view it posesses and not on her philosophy… but to me, I do not see why people bother reading Rand simply because of the free market side, I can think of better economic books, fiction and non-fiction, that has similar free market views, if not more free market views, and that doesnt have the whole A is A bull crap.
[quote=“Issac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
the whole A is A bull crap
[/quote]
What makes that bull crap?
What makes that bull crap?
[/quote]
Yeah, of all the errant nonsense in Objectivism the Law of Identity is probably the worst choice he could have made.
There are a number of objectivist writers who care deeply about the subject of parenting. And are generally very empathetic about children. I don’t know if all of them, since Rand didn’t have any interest. But by no means are people drawn towards or away from family life. Rational self-interest, which is what Rand advocated, would entail taking care of spouse and family. Because they are derived from our values. We have children because we want them. We get married because we think this spouse is virtuous and thus something worth valuing and loving.
"Father seems like a twat who engages in philosophical Convenience for his own needs. "
What does this mean? Philosophical convenience? Why the capitalization of ‘convenience’?
“But still his methods do seem ok with regards to objectivism.”
I think abanonment may be an issue of any ideology. Religious people do it all the time. Marx did it. Many many other people. Some by divorce, some through going to prison, some through restraining order, some through being unfit, some for no reason, some by putting up for adoption, etc.
I don’t think there has been a system in which people say that under no circumstances is a father to leave a child. And so, unfortunately, many people take this as license that it will work out okay. Or that theoretically it will be defensible, as long as no other harm is done.
Will people say the same is true of abortion? That abortion (of viable fetuses) is caused by selfishness? For instance, people make the same claim as the objectivists when it comes to abortion. They say that a woman has the right to her own body. In this, people tend to be entitled to themselves and their own goals.
T
Searching…
Thanks John. I want to make an abortion thread.
By convenience I mean that he has a poor grasp of his ideology and he is making things up to fit his personal views.
Yes, and given that it is from Salon.com it seems more like a hit-piece on those evul selfish people. Sure, lots of Objectivists are bastards and poor parents. So are lots of non-Objectivists. How about Marx’ kids living in dire poverty because their dad didn’t have time for them and was more interested in rehashing Ricardo and Hegel to rationalize his socialism.
“I can think of better economic books, fiction and non-fiction, that has similar free market views, if not more free market views,”
Please name me some non-fiction ones it’d be great to have some shorter books that deal with the subject.
"Most pro-Rand Libertarians praise her books, mainly Atlas Shrugged, because of the pro- free market view it possess and not on her philosophy… "
I praise the books because of the fact that its an anthem (pun intended) of individualism, self-fulfillment, and some semblance of rationality and against statism and those who steal without producing. It takes traditional values against greed and freedom and it smashes them utterly.
Meh, A is A is alright, despite rambling on about it for 100 pages I don’t feel that mentioning it even had a point beyond the fact that man must use his mind. The largest problem with Rand comes not from A is A but rather the source of her moral concepts and her fallacious view of rights and human worth actually spawning from anything.
Her objective value thesis is utterly wrong, if you read the first few pages of the virtue of selfishness she attempts to vault over the ought-is gap but instead runs up to it, hops, hits it, falls down, and then is so disoriented that she runs around it thinking that she succeeded. Her reasoning literally just jumps from along the lines of what something has to do to live is moral. and that what it does to live then defines what it ought to do. This, however, spawns no form of objective ought, merely an is. There is no reason one ought to live, or that one ought not to kill unless you get caught for it and its against your values for this to happen, in which case then by your standards immoral things are happening, but this is not objective, this is instead a singular opinion upon events.
At any rate what problems do you have with Rand’s philosophy exactly? Just FYI everything I just said about the ought-is gap applies even more heavily against Rothbard than Rand.
Her objective value thesis is utterly wrong, if you read the first few pages of the virtue of selfishness she attempts to vault over the ought-is gap but instead runs up to it, hops, hits it, falls down, and then is so disoriented that she runs around it thinking that she succeeded. Her reasoning literally just jumps from along the lines of what something has to do to live is moral. and that what it does to live then defines what it ought to do. This, however, spawns no form of objective ought, merely an is. There is no reason one ought to live, or that one ought not to kill unless you get caught for it and its against your values for this to happen, in which case then by your standards immoral things are happening, but this is not objective, this is instead a singular opinion upon events.
At any rate what problems do you have with Rand’s philosophy exactly? Just FYI everything I just said about the ought-is gap applies even more heavily against Rothbard than Rand.
I agree with all of this. I liked Atlas Shrugged because of the general plot and because Henry Rearden is a bad ass. Rand’s philosophy is highly buggy, though. Not just the moralizing, but also her foundationalism.