Assuming and pain, questions

[A7A]

I have read atlas shrugged and some wikipedia articles on objectivism, a couple of years ago (when bioshock was released). I remember some thought that inspired me from atlas shrugged, but don't remember where or what they were about in the book, which is what I want your help with.

1. Assuming that others are evil, lie or will perform bad actions was deemed immoral somehow. Not perhaps that it was your duty as a moral person to believe in the goodness of others, but that it was bad, unconvient, or similar, to do so. Anyone know where I got this from or if it was what ayn rand (or some character from atlas shrugged) was trying to say? How was this notion conceived of?

2. Learning through pain is noble according to christianity, which is bollocks. To human is not necessarily to err, and humanity must not be eternally doomed. We must not like people for the good attributes and love them for their lack thereof, but rather the other way around; otherwise we are cowardly and hide in the failure of others.

Does this ring any bell and does it sound randish?

[Brant Gaede]

I have read atlas shrugged and some wikipedia articles on objectivism, a couple of years ago (when bioshock was released). I remember some thought that inspired me from atlas shrugged, but don't remember where or what they were about in the book, which is what I want your help with.

1. Assuming that others are evil, lie or will perform bad actions was deemed immoral somehow. Not perhaps that it was your duty as a moral person to believe in the goodness of others, but that it was bad, unconvient, or similar, to do so. Anyone know where I got this from or if it was what ayn rand (or some character from atlas shrugged) was trying to say? How was this notion conceived of?

2. Learning through pain is noble according to christianity, which is bollocks. To human is not necessarily to err, and humanity must not be eternally doomed. We must not like people for the good attributes and love them for their lack thereof, but rather the other way around; otherwise we are cowardly and hide in the failure of others.

Does this ring any bell and does it sound randish?

Is English your first language, A7A? "1." is a question, but I cannot figure out what you mean by your "notion." "2." is just a statement, but I cannot understand it either.

--Brant

[A7A]

English is not my first language. My question concerning "the notion" referred to the impression I got that rand deemed the action of assuming immorality of others itself an immoral act. Was I on to something or simply conjured up this notion myself?

2 is a statement. Do you agree with it, and does rand? Imagine my statement being said by rand, do you recognize it? If one believes that to be human is to err, then humanity is doomed to always be wrong and not strive for perfection. Some people in atlas shrugged loved others because of their weaknesses, because then they wouldn't feel so small. And well, learning through pain is noble indeed, but how does rand see on this; does a moral lesson that hurts make you more a saint?

[Brant Gaede]

English is not my first language. My question concerning "the notion" referred to the impression I got that rand deemed the action of assuming immorality of others itself an immoral act. Was I on to something or simply conjured up this notion myself?

2 is a statement. Do you agree with it, and does rand? Imagine my statement being said by rand, do you recognize it? If one believes that to be human is to err, then humanity is doomed to always be wrong and not strive for perfection. Some people in atlas shrugged loved others because of their weaknesses, because then they wouldn't feel so small. And well, learning through pain is noble indeed, but how does rand see on this; does a moral lesson that hurts make you more a saint?

I had an answer to you but it was lost by the lack of stability in this platform. I'll try again:

Rand didn't assume someone was immoral, only that human beings were capable of good and evil apropos their free will.

No one in AS loved anyone for their weaknesses that I can recall. If there is an instance or two it's too trivial to paste onto Rand's philosophy.

If you read AS in translation, try it in English. I'd also try to upgrade my English skills for you are just on the verge of reading and writing competence. That still needs a lot of work, but not as much as you've already put into it by far.

--Brant

Edited June 11, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[A7A]

Let's not discuss Rand for a moment then; in ordinary life you are bound to come across people whose intentions you will be guessing in order to make a rational decision. Is it ok, according to you, to assume that someone will make an immoral decision in the future, thus in a way labeling them as irrational?

Maybe people didn't love others for the weaknesses, but I do recall a similar theme/thought being invoked by my reading AS. Was it perhaps that some boss didn't like dagny for hir power and autonomy while loving the weaker employees thus making the boss' love immoral?

[RightJungle]

Let's not discuss Rand for a moment then; in ordinary life you are bound to come across people whose intentions you will be guessing in order to make a rational decision. Is it ok, according to you, to assume that someone will make an immoral decision in the future, thus in a way labeling them as irrational?

Maybe people didn't love others for the weaknesses, but I do recall a similar theme/thought being invoked by my reading AS. Was it perhaps that some boss didn't like dagny for hir power and autonomy while loving the weaker employees thus making the boss' love immoral?

Dear A7A,

What you might be thinking about with the first point is the simple fact that we assume that a person's past choices and behavior can be used to predict their future choices and behaviour, especially if we are looking at their recent history. In Atlas Shrugged this assumption is dramatized through Reardon's judgment that his wife, Lydia, his mother and his brother will not change their way of thinking about him, and therefore they will continue to behave in ways that could hurt him. With that assumption in place, he divorces his wife and abandons his family and business to join the rest of the strikers.

That assumption also worked for Reardon's family. It came as quite a surprise to them that he was suddenly no longer willing to play the patsy in order to assuage his guilt about loving his factory and not being particularly interested in the silly pasttimes of his family. They had counted on his purity of character to hold him prisoner to their helplessness. Ignoring one's own values in deference to the immoral values of others is also an irrational act.

As to your second point: The best dramatization of a person loving someone for her weakness is James Taggart who sees Cheryl Taggart as ignorant, low-class and yet of good character. He begs her to love him for himself, not for his actions, or thoughts, or values, or character, but for himself. See how ludicrous that is? It backfired for him because Cheryl sought to live up to the man that she thought she had married and became a graceful, sophisticated woman. Still, she could not bear the evil that slapped her in the face and she ran to her death.

In AS, we never actually see any of Dagny's bosses except for her brother, James Taggart who is president of the Railroad. Dagny rose quickly up the corporate ladder because there was no one else standing on the rungs.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Mary Lee Harsha