Ramerstanzy

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ramerstanzy

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Steven Ramsden
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Ramerstanzy's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Your responses have all been more reasonable than my assertions. It seems to understand Objectivism fully I must read Atlas Shrugged. Today I ordered it along with TG's new book. With my limited research so far being what it is, I realized last night asking you all to defend the positions of other Objectivists I disagree with is like the same misinformation and blanket statements that I found offensive at Rational Public Radio. I should have both books in two weeks, I'll come back and comment on them long after this post is forgotten (Next month), to remind you and tell you all how it went. Sorry this post short and I left some questions in the air, but I don't feel right commenting on Objectivism any further until I've actually read Atlas Shrugged. However I don't see this as a mistake because it prompted me to BUY the book.
  2. History with Objectivism: I was introduced to the Philosophy through Terry Goodkind’s novels many years ago. I was of mixed emotion about it, I agreed for the most part about Selfishness vs. Selflessness, what I didn’t like was some of his cut throat ideas on the rest of humanity. For those who read that book, I took away a few ‘never answered’ assumptions from certain parts; For example how Cyrilla was treated made me think Goodkind pretty much considered people dead if they became irrational, add that to the fact that he was pretty good at making people CARE about his characters and it got a bit depressing. Also Richard playing Drefan, a serial killer, up while leaving the murders unsolved because he was a decent guy. There were other things and I found myself getting angry at Goodkind for, it felt like he was beating up strawmen – I liked his Objectivist Heroes, I disliked how all of his enemies could be summoned up as Rapist/Communist/Pedophile save ONE guy in Soul of the Fire. After reading the book I was interested in Objectivism so I looked into it further. I liked most of what Rand had to say, but cringe a little when it sounds like the ‘perfect man’ doesn’t even care about those close to him. I don’t have any objections to her political ideas that I’m aware of; this has always been a morality issue for me. I wanted to learn more about the Philosophy so I decided to look up ‘Objectivist Podcasts’ and found Rational Public Radio. The show’s rundown went like this: Democrates evil, socialists, evil, Obama evil, Muslims, evil, stupid, evil, stupid, evil, nazi’s. Which brings me to that issue I mentioned in the OP, I think what I consider evil and what the Objectivists I’ve been listening to consider evil are too very different things. I wouldn’t consider someone evil, immoral or stupid for an opposing view, I’m more interested in how they treat other people and if they try to enforce their opinion on others or not. Back to RPR, I lost interest in listening to them again when they wrote a report asserting that Muslims were responsible for all rape in a certain city – I didn’t immediately go “Not PC!” and drop them, if it was true then I wouldn’t have had a problem, but I actually looked at the report and found it didn’t have a leg to stand on. http://www.rationalpublicradio.com/rational-public-radio-podcast/
  3. (Sort Setup) These are some of my issues with the philosophy: First, this Selfishness vs. Altruism thing: I know what Rand considers true altruism, and I agree that 0 reward mindset is wrong, to suppress compassion and good feelings for the sake of selflessness goes against what makes us human. But on the flipside selfishness can be just as destructive; someone psychotic would be a selfish individual. So how come Altruism is the root of all evil in the world? What I see is two mindsets that if taken to the extreme, can be very destructive while here it's only one. Second, everyone that disagrees with Ayn Rand is either immoral or stupid?: This is the one that truly bothers me, I’ll use this Objectivist Podcast ‘Rational Public Radio’ that I listened to. I listened to a full years-worth of their archive and for the most part it goes like this: Democrats Evil, Obama Evil, Muslims Evil Stupid Evil Stupid, Evil, Nazi’s, Nazi’s Nazi’s. One of the hosts of this show even went so far as to say that anyone supporting a socialist party deserves to die if a nutcase highjacks it. I actually know one of those evil socialists and she isn’t all that bad. When I talk with her at work her philosophies almost never come up, but without knowing much about her beliefs she seems like a decent person, I wouldn't consider her any dumber or evil than she is now regardless of wether she was a Communist or a Capitalist. I tend to reserve the word 'Immoral' for people that are knowingly and gleefully hurting others, not someone who wishes society should be run a certain way. Third, this whole Global Warming Thing: Ok this point annoys the shit out of me, because I assume as ‘Rational Individuals’ an Objectivist SHOULD have a leg to stand on when he claims everything we’re being fed about man-made global warming is a pack of lies. This one hurts me rationally. I know enough to trust Science as our collective understanding of truth in the world. The trouble is Objectivists tend to be smart individuals and it’s hard for me to write them off along with the guy I see at work every day claiming the The New World Order built the Hotel across the highway to ‘spy on us’. Yet apparently theirs a Global Warming conspiracy and a lot of evil Bio scientists our there. Whats the ratio of the correct scientists that agree vs disagree that global warming is man made, and if disagree is higher why? (and Finish) I'd like to here some responses to them, am I characterizing Objectivism correctly when I ask or am I missing something?