DanaMarie215

I was discussing Objectivism with a friend of mine who said he'd be an Objectivist but he believes there are situations where morality and acting in your self interest come into conflict. The example he gave me was that if the 2 of us were stranded in the middle of nowhere & there was only supplies for one of us to survive, wouldn't it be in our individual self interest to kill the other?

I told him I wasn't sure how to answer it & I've been thinking on it for about 2 weeks. I think this situation wouldn't occur if the 2 of us were looking out for our self interest from the beginning and never let ourselves get stranded and without the things needed to sustain both of us- keeping both of us from getting into the described situation above.

Another scenario he provided is that he is dying and a doctor has the cure needed to save him. He claims it is in his rational self interest to force the doctor to treat him- anything to keep himself alive. My thoughts on that come to the value of the life you're leading after forcing another human to act as your slave. How great could a life, after forcing another human, could you have? I know it may vary for people, but for me, I would be disgusted with myself and unable to truly enjoy life after sacrificing another to me.

I just wanted to get other thoughts on it before I responded to him.

Professor Moriority (Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA. Criminality & Psuedo Social Science) wrote:

Well, it may not be you, but, obviously, it is us, or some of us anyway. It had nothing to do with "her" and everything to do with Dennis and football. We got exuberant for the off-topic post is all. Anyone think of PMing her?

End quote

OK. Perhaps Dana should have stepped through the door in the "Greetings" section and not started her own thread, with its potential for contention between ARI,TOC, and Independent Objectivists. Michael, what is "PMing her?"

Dennis Hardin wrote:

Sic es vos rudis unus. . . I hope this was meant as a joke.

End quote

Just a bit. The only sport I follow is football, but I thought the scantily clad Russian cheerleaders was not the greeting I would want for my daughters. I would advise them to be wary if they were entering a portal with only a bunch of guys answering their knocks.

I want to hear from younger fans of Rand, not drive them off. Has she been driven off? I hope not. I suppose I am a bit like the owners who want to keep OL a vibrant, open, and civil forum. No offense to Dennis who's posts I enjoy.

And I agree with Mr Reidy. I have no beef with Yaron Brook, the head of ARI. He seems like a good and decent man.

Peter

I wasn't driven off & the cheerleaders didn't bother me. I don't mind contention or arguing either- you'll find it takes a lot to drive me off.

I also don't mind men, you gentlemen seem decent enough.

Additionally, I think Yaron Brook is fantastic. His views on Objectivist foreign policy are not any different from Rand's. I think he is, above all, very warm to other people. Where Peikoff might ignore offers from John Stossel, PJTV, and other conservative/libertarian outlets- Brook has decided to embrace the possibility that their could be a conversion there & he is right to do so. I was a christian conservative & my hero was Reagan- but after reading Atlas Shrugged, it flipped me. If there is a chance to reach the reason of another human being, Brook takes it.

I apologize for ... That is not "us." ... over a pretty teenager's picture?

Well, it may not be you, but, obviously, it is us, or some of us anyway. It had nothing to do with "her" and everything to do with Dennis and football. We got exuberant for the off-topic post is all.

Anyone think of PMing her?

It is alright. I enjoyed watching the back & forth. I enjoy observing interactions so it was actually entertaining for me.

Dana Marie,

Welcome to OL.

After all the banter dies down, you will find some serious thinking challenges here. The tonic of this place is that people think for themselves, but still, most folks around here started sometime in their lives from a place where Rand made a strong impact on them.

This means that if you do your own study, you will learn a lot about Objectivism, since you will get seriously challenged on different premises (both for and against Rand's ideas). If you are looking more for a place where people simply teach Objectivism like in a school club, that is not what people here are into.

I foster the free-thinking environment. I believe that you learn a lot better and a lot deeper from being challenged and forced to think through stuff than simply following a reading schedule and filling out exercise books.

That aside, simply as a place to hang, OL is full of great people.

I hope you get into some galling tangles and super-friendly interactions and thoroughly enjoy yourself here. There is grand potential for this if you go after it.

Michael

Thank you, Michael. I am looking for a place to explore other ideas, debate the ones I don't need to explore, and see what other Objectivists & Rand fans are thinking. I'll debate the things I stand by but I'm also looking to learn about ideas and thoughts I haven't considered yet.

Thanks for the welcome!

ARI Watch doesn’t worry much over squabbles within ARI. It addresses issues like government institutionalized torture, support for Israel, war, etc. Yaron Brook (president of ARI) doesn’t just put up with Leonard Peikoff (ARI’s founder) regarding these issues, they’re on the same page. (I don’t know who you mean by Peikoff’s cohort.)

Some ARI people will be featured in the new documentary “Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged” (first known as “Is Atlas Shrugging?”), but it’s produced and directed by Chris Mortensen. I don’t think ARI has a part in the production. (It’s scheduled for release 7 October 2011.)

In any case Atlas Shrugged doesn’t need a documentary to promote it, and one featuring the likes of Berliner, Bernstein, Binswanger, and Brook without opposition – and consequently promoting them (and ARI) – is a poor way to spread Ayn Rand’s ideas. See:

Harry Binswanger on Torture

and

Who’s Who

and the other articles on ARI Watch.

I'll check them out if I have time.

Brook is doing an excellent job as a spokesman and a better job than we could have expected of running ARI. He has to put up with Peikoff and his cohort, but he seems to be making an effort to move beyond them. The forthcoming Atlas Shrugged documentary, featuring former non-persons, is a case in point. People new to Rand's writings don't care about the factional squabbles anyway.

You're right, I have zero interest in whatever created the rift between Peikoff & Kelly. I find it irrelevant to me.

Dennis: I keep looking in the Ayn Rand Lexicon for "football" and I just do not find it. Personally, I find baseball far more rational and a more objective measure of sportsmanship. Baseball is a thinker's game. (Football reguires the collective sacrifice of linemen to enable the quarterback to complete a play.) Baseball can be played well by persons of any size and gender. (Football has turned universities in minor league training camps.) Baseball requires a mix of skills from every player. (Football consists of a lot of short action plays punctuating long delays.) You can play baseball by yourself: toss up the ball, swing the bat. (Football requires others.)

Baseball fans are loyal. Football fans are fanatical.

I point out that the NBI formed baseball teams while the Kennedy family played touch football on the White House lawn.

George Carlin explained the key differences between football and baseball very well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om_yq4L3M_I

The bottom line:

In football, the object is for the quarterback, otherwise known as the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his recievers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use the shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy's defensive line.

In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"

Baseball is for pansies! (Nothing personal, Mike.)

It’s true that the NBI staff in the sixties always played baseball, never football. But I think that was because every time someone suggested football, Ayn always insisted on being the quarterback. You can imagine how that worked out.

As for the Lexicon, one look at Binswanger and you know he’s a baseball guy. (Actually, probably a badminton guy.)

I would bet Nathaniel prefers football. I seem to recall visiting his home back in the 70’s and noticing an autographed picture from Johnny Unitas, another great Colt quarterback and Peyton's mentor, on his wall. I would swear to it.

I've always thought that Carlin put the differences between football & baseball beautifully. I find myself resorting back to his ideas when trying to compare the two.

Dana,

Welcome to Objectivist Living.

I sympathize with you about the college problems. What are you studying?

I'm an economist; BEcon and MBusEcon. I actually had a positive time overall; certainly my Objectivism wasn't popular amongst all but there were many that were partially or wholly sympathetic. My Master's Thesis advisor was inspired by my work on the commonalities between his Evolutionary Economics and Objectivism; he read Atlas Shrugged and absolutely loved it. At the moment we are both working on an article for the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

OL has been a fantastic forum in my experience. There's no pressure for ideological conformity (in spite of Dennis' blustering about "libertarian nihilists" I have yet to encounter any actual nihilist on these forums) so you get a lot of Randian, Neo-Randian, and Rand-inspired perspectives here. I happen to enjoy that; exploring common ground between Objectivism and other schools of thought is far more productive than burning intellectual bridges at every opportunity. If I were to offer any advice about being an Objectivist in college, that's the advice I offer; try to find common ground between Objectivism and your Profs.

For example, in one of my philosophy courses, I had a feminist Foucault-scholar (she wasn't necessarily a Foucualdian herself, though). So I did a piece heavily inspired by Objectivist approaches to feminism. If you have the misfortune of ending up with a devout Postmodernist as a teacher, you could try to introduce the Objectivist concept of "the Metaphysical vs. the Man-Made" (what Rand calls "the man-made," postmodernists call "the socially constructed"). In economics, there are plenty of scholars besides Mises to look at... you can find a lot of Objectivist-compatible value in both Hayek and Schumpeter.

I will echo some of the warnings given by others... the reading of Atlas and Fountainhead can be an amazingly empowering and liberating experience (it certainly was for me), but it does run a risk of leaving one 'blinded by the light.' This can make one develop a harsh, dogmatic approach, which would be exacerbated by being in an environment that lacks much sympathy for Objectivism... being surrounded by an 'hostile, enemy world' can make one develop a seige mentality (speaking from extensive experience). This is not to discount the immense value of Objectivism; merely to provide some caution.

As for relating to Rand characters, I too find it easy to relate to Dominique (although I lack the fetish for bodice-ripper ravishment sex). A sense of disgust at society in general can easily do that to one However I also relate to Roark in many respects.

Either way, I look forward to talking with you more and I hope you find much value in these forums.

-Andrew

Hi Andrew,

I have not declared a major yet & have no idea what I will when I do so. I'll probably major in communication or something with a journalism type of focus but this changes probably weekly. I have no idea what I want to ultimately do & because I have a number of things I'd be good at, it gets difficult to narrow it down.

I understand and appreciate the warnings. I've been careful not to fall into the trap of objectivist dogma and the worship, so to speak, of Rand. I love both but I also aknowledge that I don't need to march in lockstep with all of her views to live by reason.

Hi Dana. Where are you going to school?

Do you prefer college football or NFL?

Not that you asked, but my favorite team is the Indianapolis Colts, since they obviously have the best quarterback in all of human history, Peyton Manning. (Don’t pay any attention to what Adam Selene says. He likes football too but doesn’t seem to appreciate the fact that Peyton walks on water. Howard Roark in a football jersey. And he claims to be rational!! Hah!)

Objectivism and football. You have definitely come to the right place.

As long as he doesn't have to run (er, attempt to run), Manning is great. But until the Colts lose Austin Collie (prick from BYU) I cannot cheer for them.

Go Steelers & Bears... and any team with my fantasy players.

Mike

I prefer the NFL, I don't have a favorite college team. I do enjoy watching the SEC though- I don't have a specific team though.

Welcome, Dana. I’m Dennis. Well, now that the introductions are out of the way, let’s dive right into the heavy stuff. Who is your favorite NFL team?

Not that you asked, but my favorite team is the Indianapolis Colts, since they obviously have the best quarterback in all of human history, Peyton Manning. (Don’t pay any attention to what Adam Selene says. He likes football too but doesn’t seem to appreciate the fact that Peyton walks on water. Howard Roark in a football jersey. And he claims to be rational!! Hah!)

Objectivism and football. You have definitely come to the right place.

Most of the people here are rational and benevolent, but you will inevitably encounter the occasional libertarian nihilist/homeless mental patient. They are easy to recognize. They write like Ellsworth Toohey and they hate football. Just ignore them.

Again, welcome.

Hi there Dennis... & the Colts? Eh. I'm a Bronco fan so I'll have to disagree with you on the idea of the "best quarterback in all of human history". I like Peyton, but Elway takes the GOAT title.

Ha. I'll be sure to keep the 2nd part of advice in mind.

So, hi all.

I’m Dana and, obviously, new here. My purpose of joining this forum is to interact with Objectivists and other Ayn Rand fans. I am a 19 year old college student and being such, it is like nails on a chalkboard when I try to discuss Ayn Rand with those older than me…“You’ll grow out of it” “I loved Ayn Rand in college but then I got into the real world” “You’ll have to compromise someday” “I loved Gary Cooper in the The Fountainhead” are just some of the things I hear from people after telling them I am an Ayn Rand fan and an objectivist. It is incredibly exhausting.

I don’t take sides in the Peikoff vs. Kelley argument. I do, however, really like Yaron Brook and think he is a wonderful advocate of Objectivism and Capitalism.

I could give you a long description of who I am and the things I value but I won’t. I’ll just say that the character I admire most in all of literature is Hank Rearden. The one I relate to the most? Dominque.