# A Rand Rant



## elder999 (Apr 19, 2011)

So, I read _Atlas Shrugged_ a very long time ago. I recently reread it, and I still don&#8217;t get that people actually take this clearly dysfunctional ***** so seriously. 



> "Pride is the recognition of the fact that *you are your own highest value* and, like all of man&#8217;s values, it has to be earned*. His own happiness is man&#8217;s only moral purpose*, but only his own virtue can achieve it&#8230;Life is the reward of virtue- and happiness is the goal and the reward of life.
> Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy- a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your won destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but using your mind&#8217;s fullest power.
> Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seek nothing but rational values *and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.*
> The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trade&#8230;A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved."
> *&#8212; Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged*)


 
I mean, I get it-libertarianism, _laissez faire_ capitalism, self-determination. Sure.

But a complete rejection of _altruism?_ Just for starters, how do all those conservative, tea-partiers who happen to be _fundamentalist Christians_ reconcile Rand&#8217;s objectivism with the teachings of Jesus?

Because, from where I&#8217;m sitting, you *can&#8217;t*.



> My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man [sic] as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."-*Ayn Rand*


 


> &#8221;Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength *and love your neighbor as yourself." *&#8211;Jesus.


 
Rand condemns the giving or receiving of gifts.Altruism-the giving or receiving of that which she sees as &#8220;undeserved&#8221; is condemned as immoral. 

(Unless, of course, it was-rather famously-for her own medical care. )

She saw anything that required a person to live for something other than themselves as immoral. 

Of course, Rand was an atheist, so she knew that her objectivism was incompatible with Jesus, and didn&#8217;t care too much, but what about all those tea partiers? What about Sarah &#8220;pray for protection from witchcraft&#8221; Palin? :lol:

And, Jesus aside, I don&#8217;t think that many of her ideas about human nature match the scientific and historical evidence. I mean, I&#8217;m guessing she was a selfish *****, and needed to philosophize a justification for that selfishness. Didn&#8217;t work too well, though-while she probably tried to exercise a hyper-rational, objectivist control over her own life, the results speak for themselves: pointless extramarital affairs, a broken political movement, estrangement from friends, financial ruin, and poor health. 

I can understand her being anti-Communist, but I think she took her glorification of capitalism and individuality a little too far. The truly "heroic man" is one who gives, rather than one who seeks only his own happiness and self-actualization-he seeks to aid his fellow man in attaining what he has. 

(And, hey, all you Rand fans, you do know, dontcha, that her writing kinda *sucked*? :lol


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 19, 2011)

She saw an opportunity to market a book at an easy audience. Political extremists have already shut down their critical thinking processes. As long as what they read meshes with their political views, it doesn't have to make sense.

Take Palin's 'death panels' speech.
Everyone who actually bothered to inform himself knew it was a blatant lie, meant only to rile up people who were still waffling at the edge of the right wing / moderates. The fact that she actually gave that speach meant she is a) stupid or b) dishonest. Yet many right wingers still worship her. Not because she makes sense or is a good politician, but because what she says meshes with their ideals.

Different example: christian fundies fighting against sex-ed of their children and preaching 'abstinence only'. the fact that it does not solve the problem of teen pregancies or prevents them from having early sex (it actually seems to work counter productive) does not matter to them. Sex-ed is not the solution they want (nevermind that it seems to be the most effective). Rather than solve the problem, they want to agree with the solution.

Extremist opinions will always find an audience. Not because they make sense, but because there are extremists who want to be told things they want to hear.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 19, 2011)

Some of her Ideas on Capitalism were solid, but for the most part she was a bit of a Nutter, and took them to extremes.  

And Is it any surprise that Anton LeVay based many of the ideas in his Satanic Bible on her self-worshiping Philiosophies? (among others)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 19, 2011)

I liked some of her other books better, such as _"For the New Intellectual"_ and _"The Virtue of Selfishness."
_
One of the concepts she believed in which I think I grokked was the concept of selfishness from her perspective.

We tend to have a concept of selfishness which we equate to greediness.  Placing our needs above all others with no other purpose in mind and not just desiring to serve ourselves, but desiring to exclude others.  To _'have it all'_ in other words.

However, it is selfishness that teaches us to put our own oxygen mask on before assisting others in an aircraft emergency.  In other words, we can help no one until we first see to our own survival.

She also taught that there is no external moral imperative because morals are human functions.  The only moral that nature teaches is survival, and that in a limited, self-serving way.  But nature can be stupid, too; survival of the individual can be useless when the individual cannot reproduce, or cannot find food, or cannot exist in the environment created or modified.  This relies upon the morals we human have created as semi-shared values.  She did not say to be amoral or immoral; but rather to recognize that our obligations to others, our kind, our progeny, and our future are within us to recognize or not as we choose; and not imposed from without by Nature or Nature's God.

Want to be altruistic?  Be altruistic.  But recognize that this is because you desire to be so, not because the universe wills it so.

In this, I see parallels with Theosophy and Aleister Crowley's statement that _"Do what thou wilt."_  This statement, by the way, was later twisted slightly by the Wiccans into _"An it harm none, do as though shalt."

_I have not met many people from traditional Western Christian backgrounds who have not objected vehemently to the concept of 'Do what thou wilt'.  They see it as a form of anarchy, in which everyone simply does whatever they feel like doing in a destructive self-absorbed miasma of anarchic hatred.  Rather, it means if you feel like sending your mother a Mother's Day card, do it.  Just don't do it because society pressures you to do it, or because you think God wants you to do it.  Do it as part of your own will, or don't do it and don't feel badly about it.

And what hardly anyone notices is that the second commandment of Thelema is _"Love is the law, love under Will."_ This, for me at least, requires serious cogitation.  I still haven't processed that one sentence to the fullest extent I'd like to.

One can apply Rand and Crowley's thoughts on selfishness to self-defense, too.  One can hardly provide for the safety of one's family and loved ones until one first provides for one's own self-defense.  Once you're dead, you can no longer protect anyone.  The first imperative, then, is to remain alive yourself.  It is the highest imperative; which contradicts noble notions about sacrificing oneself for others.

I haven't talked about it much on MT or anywhere.  It usually ends in angry words.  I have remained bemused over the years that so many people are so thoroughly seduced by outside alien concepts regarding morality, and so violently convinced that selfishness, of and by itself, is a bad thing.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 19, 2011)

It does rather depend on how 'selfishness' is defined, Bill, as you most eloquently pointed out in your post above.

I haven't got time to go into this in detail (as I need to get back to work) but selfishness as an instinct for survival is one aspect of a person that is innate, just as are a drive to altrusim and cooperation.

All three are necessary in order to survive and flourish as an individual and as a social grouping.

On top of those are built social constructs that work to reinforce the most useful traits for the group as a whole, for, in the end, any given individual is not as important as the survival of the group.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 19, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> It does rather depend on how 'selfishness' is defined, Bill, as you most eloquently pointed out in your post above.
> 
> I haven't got time to go into this in detail (as I need to get back to work) but selfishness as an instinct for survival is one aspect of a person that is innate, just as are a drive to altrusim and cooperation.
> 
> ...



But I must order my priorities, mustn't I?  My first priority must be own survival, else I cannot assist society to survive.  Therefore, placing the good of society above my own survival is not rational.  First the one, then the other.

Many are shocked by this thought.  But in the end, most people actually behave this way, even if they have been conditioned to see it as evil.


----------



## crushing (Apr 19, 2011)

> My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man [sic] as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."-*Ayn Rand*


 
If one derives happiness from being altruistic, then altruism is not incompatible with this statement.  Altruism is Peter helping Paul of his own free will and because he is happy to do so.  Altruism is not done at the point of a gun by an expensive middle man.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 19, 2011)

crushing said:


> If one derives happiness from being altruistic, then altruism is not incompatible with this statement.  Altruism is Peter helping Paul of his own free will and because he is happy to do so.  Altruism is not done at the point of a gun by an expensive middle man.



Actually, Rand rejected altruism completely, but in the sense that the word itself was defined.  People tend to use the word 'altruism' to mean being kind, generous, and loving towards others.  In fact, the word itself refers to the moral obligation to live one's life for others.  Rand stated that there is no such obligation; and in fact, that the very notion of altruism requires one to reject the notions of kindness, generosity, and loving behavior.  If one is doing such things because one ought, then it is not by Will that they are doing it, and it is thus rendered valueless.

Rand's belief was that if one wants to give to the poor because (as you said) it gives you happiness, or because you rationally see the value of supporting those who cannot (yet) support themselves (in the rational belief that they will produce and support society at some future date), then you are in fact giving for the right reasons; because you want to, and because you rationally see the value in it.

The very notion of _'altruism'_ in the original sense defined by the man who coined the term is anathema to Objectivism; it literally means giving because one should live for others.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 19, 2011)

crushing said:


> If one derives happiness from being altruistic, then altruism is not incompatible with this statement.  Altruism is Peter helping Paul of his own free will and because he is happy to do so.  Altruism is not done at the point of a gun by an expensive middle man.



Altruism can happen out of compassion, not because it makes me happy.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 19, 2011)

Never read it and don't plan on reading it but based on Elder's post...I'm not sure that a Buddhist would agree with Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged.... and you know this post has absolutely nothing to contribute to the topic and I'm OK with that


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 19, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 19, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Altruism can happen out of compassion, not because it makes me happy.



One of the reasons (IMHO) that Rand is so often disliked is because people fail to grasp her understanding and use of the language.  She used the term 'altruism' as it was meant to be used, not as people have come to use it:

http://www.altruists.org/about/altruism/



> *Altruism*
> _*1*. Loving others as oneself. *2*. Behaviour that promotes the survival chances of others at a cost to ones own.  *3*. Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others_ [Italian: altrui others]      French philosopher Auguste Comte coined the word _altruisme_ (with meaning *3*) in 1851, and two years later it entered the English language as _altruism_. Many considered his ethical system - in which the only moral acts were  those intended to promote the happiness of others - rather extreme,  so meaning *1* evolved.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 19, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have remained bemused over the years that so many people are so thoroughly seduced by outside alien concepts regarding morality, and so violently convinced that selfishness, of and by itself, is a bad thing.



I'm not sure why you would be.  What you describe above is the general basis of your religion and most others.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 19, 2011)

Since you brought this subject up, I figured I'd necro a thread I started a long time ago, found_here. Looking back on it....good gods, but I've been on this forum a long time. :boing2:


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Of course, Rand was an atheist, so she knew that her objectivism was incompatible with Jesus, and didnt care too much, but what about all those tea partiers? What about Sarah pray for protection from witchcraft Palin? :lol:



You are right about all of it.  Despite all the flaws though, the reason that Rand remains so popular, especially among the wealthy and powerful, is that she tells them what they want to hear.  She provides a philosophical justification for what they already want to do anyway.  She also provides a means to ease cognitive dissonance and reduce potential distress over the treatment of those beneath you, by re-labeling them the "looters" and "moochers", and casting the exploitative as the heroes of the story.

There must be a reason after all that wealthy, powerful people like Alan Greenspan became such disciples, or why governmental leaders like Paul Ryan or Clarence Thomas are enamored of her to such a degree that they require their staff to read her works.  It isn't because of the high quality of the story writing in _Atlas Shrugged_.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest  exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral  justification for selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith  
Although it goes far beyond conservatism.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 19, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I'm not sure why you would be.  What you describe above is the general basis of your religion and most others.



I can balance the two and compartmentalize where I must and remain amazed that others cannot.  It's like dealing with evolution and creation.  I can entertain both without offending my sensibilities.  Not rationalize them, mind you, but entertain the concepts of both.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> So, I read _Atlas Shrugged_ a very long time ago. I recently reread it, and I still dont get that people actually take this clearly dysfunctional ***** so seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I only read "Anthem" but I did see an interview with her and she doesn't reject altruism; however, if it keeps people in a state of dependence, I see her point. I didn't read the Big ones, but she seemed level headed to me.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 19, 2011)

Consider that no act is completely selfless.
Sean


----------



## crushing (Apr 19, 2011)

I've seen a blogger from an article Mr. Mattocks posted recently try that same type of line when actually, competent workers at all levels were celebrated and very valuable to their companies. The competent workers are the heroes of Atlas Shrugged.  That idea of providing value for value is likely why the story is recommended reading for staff.

The looters and moochers were those people that want to get something for nothing; people gaming the system and especially goverment connections for advantage. The looters and moochers were wealthy corporate tycoons, celebrities, and socialites that used their connections and influenced government decisions that help gain them advantage over competitors in the marketplace or to advance their own agendas.

This may be why the book is not recommended for reading by the ultra-wealthy and the real powerbrokers.  People that can smash Thomas and Paul Ryan like little bugs if they wanted to moveon to doing something like that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 19, 2011)

People have been imprinted and seem unable to shake off their programming.  This will perpetually lead to not understanding what Rand was saying.  How can one object to her ideas if one doesn't actually understand what they are?

Selfish means (to her) to be primarily concerned about one's self.  This is common sense; it is an imperative in nature.  From this basic concept, she builds other more complex theories about how people in society ought to interact, and how they *do* interact.  I find many of her thoughts to be more interesting from that standpoint, to be honest.  I enjoy uncovering what appear to be actual motivations behind certain behaviors as opposed to what we might otherwise suppose.

However, as long as one reads the word 'selfish' to mean 'evil', communication is not possible.  And that is the meme most of us have been imprinted with.  If I'm selfish, it means (to most) that I want what you have and I want you to have nothing.  

Consider the word.  'Self' meaning me, and 'ish' meaning pertaining to the subject - me.  'Selfish' just means 'about me'.  It says nothing about you, nothing about how I choose to interact with you, nothing about how I feel, what or whom I love, my generosity, or anything else.  It means of or pertaining to me.  Rand stated that the real virtue was recognizing that our primary responsibility was to ourselves; everything else we are and do builds on that basic concept.

Those who criticize Rand often do so (as in this thread, IMHO) on the basis of the words she uses and the meanings they themselves assign to them; they do not wrestle with her concepts and ideas, but simply take issue with certain words such as 'selfish' and reject the rest out-of-hand.  To me, this is frustrating; it makes it hard to have a conversation about Rand without emotion and rancor.  I suspect she may have intended it; it excludes people who think on the surface from the conversation.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> So, I read _Atlas Shrugged_ a very long time ago. I recently reread it, and I still dont get that people actually take this clearly dysfunctional ***** so seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I have not read the book, I enjoy reading sci fi and fantasy and horror.. I keep thinking I need to read it though to see what the hub bub is about..
but I dont see the problem with what you are saying meshing with Christian values, or conservative values etc... seems a reach..
I mean Obama claims to pray, and believe in god.. I know alot of athiest Liberals who that should turn off so much they shouldnt vote for or support him... how does that reconcile?

I get you just want to pick a fight with the conservatives, or be sarcastic, or have fun with it... but it seems a stretch to me.. /shrug


----------



## granfire (Apr 19, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> People have been imprinted and seem unable to shake off their programming.  This will perpetually lead to not understanding what Rand was saying.  How can one object to her ideas if one doesn't actually understand what they are?
> 
> Selfish means (to her) to be primarily concerned about one's self.  This is common sense; it is an imperative in nature.  From this basic concept, she builds other more complex theories about how people in society ought to interact, and how they *do* interact.  I find many of her thoughts to be more interesting from that standpoint, to be honest.  I enjoy uncovering what appear to be actual motivations behind certain behaviors as opposed to what we might otherwise suppose.
> 
> ...




Somewhere there I wonder if she is autistic?
I don't mean this as insult, by all means.

But there is this communications gap as it seems. 

A word means what it means. The social context, the imprinting as you put it, gives it it's meaning. 

There are many words that have lost their meaning and moved on to something else. Gay being one of them, so much so you can't type out the lyrics to a Diana Ross song without upsetting the swear filter in some areas. 

back to selfishness....
I have not read the book. Doubt I will with the snail's pace I get to read these days, so my understanding is somewhat 2nd/3rd hand.

Then again, the book is old. By now it's meaning is being taken out of context. The environment now is different from then (I'd think) and that influences our understanding. 



Ah, well, it was clearer in my mind before I started typing...then another ADOS moment struck...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 19, 2011)

granfire said:


> back to selfishness....
> I have not read the book. Doubt I will with the snail's pace I get to read these days, so my understanding is somewhat 2nd/3rd hand.
> 
> Then again, the book is old. By now it's meaning is being taken out of context. The environment now is different from then (I'd think) and that influences our understanding.
> ...



You might consider _"Anthem"_ or _"The Virtue of Selfishness"_ if you're interested.  I frankly found _"Atlas Shrugged"_ to be nearly unreadable and "The Fountainhead" to require a lot of close reading.  They're both dense, and as some have suggested, she was not a terrific novelist.

I find Objectivism has a lot to offer, and Rand was clearly (IMHO) on to something.  However, she's not the be-all and end-all, and now that she's going to be marketed to the Tea Party as something she never was, I doubt I'll have much interest.  Her basic precepts were both interesting and entertaining; but consider that I find as much value in the writings of Aleister Crowley...


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 19, 2011)

seldom right and wrong again bruno

there WILL be rationing of care, so there WILL BE panels sitting around making decisions about who gets what care....Palin was right on the money

friggin obama even admitted that there will be cases where instead of surgery some people will "have to just take a pill"

the fact that people still deny what THEY ADMITTED TO is pathetic





Bruno@MT said:


> Take Palin's 'death panels' speech.
> Everyone who actually bothered to inform himself knew it was a blatant lie, meant only to rile up people who were still waffling at the edge of the right wing / moderates. The fact that she actually gave that speach meant she is a) stupid or b) dishonest. Yet many right wingers still worship her. Not because she makes sense or is a good politician, but because what she says meshes with their ideals.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 19, 2011)

never read it, but i am planning to


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 19, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> seldom right and wrong again bruno
> 
> there WILL be rationing of care, so there WILL BE panels sitting around making decisions about who gets what care....Palin was right on the money
> 
> ...


 

:hmm: 
Take a nice little Ayn Rand rant that has turned into a semi-interesting discussion then you come along and decide to interject a bit of politically loaded way off topic inflamatory stuff first



Twin Fist said:


> never read it, but i am planning to


 
Then you decide to do an actual on topic post, albeit it a rather short one

Nice redirect


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 19, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> :hmm:
> Take a nice little Ayn Rand rant that has turned into a semi-interesting discussion then you come along and decide to interject a bit of politically loaded way off topic inflamatory stuff first
> 
> 
> ...


 

oh you must have missed the first reply to the OP where Bruno shot the load on the death panel comment... seems to me Twin fist answered him then answered the original poster... I can see how that is a problem though....:shrug:


----------



## granfire (Apr 19, 2011)

But TF didn't comment on the sex-ed....


----------



## girlbug2 (Apr 19, 2011)

A practical example of how I see the differences in philosophies between Objectivism, Christianity, and Liberalism:

Let's say my friend Pete wanted to write a check for $100 to the Police Activities League (a local charity which provides after school activities for kids who are at risk for being recruited by gangs in their neighborhoods, among other things). He wants to do so because he thinks that the PAL is a good investment in the future of his community. If it works, the kids that are served by the PAL will have a better chance of staying out of trouble, completing school, and becoming productive members of society. Not only will those kids benefit, but so will the city. Pete also gets personal satisfaction from this. This is Objectivism.

OTOH, let's say instead Pete wrote that same check because he felt compassion for the troubled kids in his city. Perhaps he's just a naturally compassionate guy, or perhaps he had a spiritual awakening in which he feels that God was guiding him to help those kids. Pete also gets personal satisfaction from contributing that $100. That would be Altruism as defined by Christianity.

Now let's say that in an alternate universe, there is a PAL tax in place on the citizens of that city which amounts to about $100 per annum from each citizen. Pete is therefore taxed that $100 without any say in the matter. He does not therefore contribute it from compassion, nor rationalism, nor in response to his spiritual beliefs, but out of legal obligation. There is little or no personal or spiritual satisfaction for Pete. That is Liberalism --or Social Obligation if you will.


All three philosophies seek to do good. There is overlapping objectives from all three in that they seek to help the at risk kids in poor neighborhoods. Personally, I would write that check out of either Objectivism or Altruism gladly, but I resent being taxed that exact same amount by law.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 19, 2011)

As someone pointed out before, your highest value should be what brings you joy so there's no rule against doing anything.

She also talked volumes about using your own rational judgment and deciding for yourself.  Even to the point of rejecting parts or even the whole of her philosophy.  Nathaniel Brandon is an example of this.  He's still an objectivist but his divide with Ayn came because of their divergence on the idea of mental health (Branden studying mental health) ... as well as the ending of their affair.

There are also many gay objectivists.  Rand was against the gays.  But again using rational judgment one can come to the conclusion that her ideas about the subject were antiquated.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 19, 2011)

girlbug2 said:


> A practical example of how I see the differences in philosophies between Objectivism, Christianity, and Liberalism:
> 
> Let's say my friend Pete wanted to write a check for $100 to the Police Activities League (a local charity which provides after school activities for kids who are at risk for being recruited by gangs in their neighborhoods, among other things). He wants to do so because he thinks that the PAL is a good investment in the future of his community. If it works, the kids that are served by the PAL will have a better chance of staying out of trouble, completing school, and becoming productive members of society. Not only will those kids benefit, but so will the city. Pete also gets personal satisfaction from this. This is Objectivism.
> 
> ...



I don't 100% agree with the above, but close enough.  I'd like to add something to your statements.

Consider the same three scenarios.  In the first, since you are donating the money because you desire an outcome, you have a vested interest in seeking out and donating money where you feel it will actually have a positive effect, one that benefits you (by way of a safe society where your rights will be respected).

In the second, your goal is to feel good or to meet a moral obligation.  Once you donate, your goal has been met.  It hardly matters what is done with that money once it leaves your hands from your perspective.

In the third, you are even more disconnected; you not only don't care what happens to your money, you don't know and probably can't find out in any level of detail.

Objectivism encourages a person who chooses to give to guide their giving to obtain the outcome that best suits their goals, such as a safe and stable society with the maximum number of employed workers, which in turn gives them a platform from which to realize their own happiness.  And of course, there is nothing saying an Objectivist can't give money simply because that gives them pleasure with no other reason.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 19, 2011)

I'm an objectivist and done a whole bunch of stuff that would be called altruistic, like working triage after 9/11.  But it's what I wanted to do, it's where I wanted to be so there was no conflict there.

Ayn was a flawed person, she was certainly not the pure objectivist archetype.  But it's based upon logic and like any system of philosophy, the individual still decides.  Or even in the case of some religions (pre-marital sex anyone?).

We can never reach Superman levels of nobility, but we can always strive for it.  That works for just about everything.


----------



## crushing (Apr 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Rand condemns the giving or receiving of gifts.Altruism-the giving or receiving of that which she sees as undeserved is condemned as immoral.
> 
> (Unless, of course, it was-rather famously-for her own medical care. )


 
"Famous" may be a bit of an exageration.  It did bounce around some internet Hufferground echo chambers for a bit and made a brief appearance in another thread on MT.  Anyway, it was found to jive with her writing from 1966.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html



> The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the right to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own moneyand they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> seldom right and wrong again bruno
> 
> there WILL be rationing of care, so there WILL BE panels sitting around making decisions about who gets what care....Palin was right on the money
> 
> ...



True. Yet that is true today as well. Both in our socialized healthcare system as in the US private system. Some things will not be covered. If that is an argument against Obamacare, it is also an argument against whatever you currently have.

But Palin was talking about people appearing in front of a panel to decide if they were worthy of care. And that is a totally different allegation, don't you think?


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 20, 2011)

Personally I liked the book. A little too verbose and repetitive at times, but on the whole, I do enjoy her writing.

Her writing inspired me to study both philosophy and economics. Ones she agreed with and also others. A lot of people got their introductions to those subjects through her. Plus, she inspired a few great Rush songs!

Would I call myself an Objectivist today? No. But I do consider myself a proponent of rational self interest.

As far as modern day conservatives  idolizing her, I don't get it either. So much of what they stand for goes sharply against her philosophy. Big things too, like abortion and keeping religion out of government.

One of the things I have kept from her writings is her views on both modern liberals and conservatives. They both want control over what they think is important. The conservatives want to control your morals whereas the liberals want to control your money.

Jeff


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 20, 2011)

SFC JeffJ said:


> Personally I liked the book. A little too verbose and repetitive at times, but on the whole, I do enjoy her writing.
> 
> Her writing inspired me to study both philosophy and economics. Ones she agreed with and also others. A lot of people got their introductions to those subjects through her. Plus, she inspired a few great Rush songs!
> 
> ...



Fantastic.  Agree 100%.  Well said!


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 20, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> True. Yet that is true today as well. Both in our socialized healthcare system as in the US private system. Some things will not be covered. If that is an argument against Obamacare, it is also an argument against whatever you currently have.
> 
> But Palin was talking about people appearing in front of a panel to decide if they were worthy of care. And that is a totally different allegation, don't you think?




no, it isnt, there wil be a PANEL of people deciding who DIES

thats a death panel weather you call it that or not.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 20, 2011)

I don't really understand this argument between Bruno and Twin Fist, especially in relation to the subject of the thread?

What're you trying to say and how does it relate to the not-particularly-cogent writings of Rand?


----------



## crushing (Apr 21, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I don't really understand this argument between Bruno and Twin Fist, especially in relation to the subject of the thread?
> 
> What're you trying to say and how does it relate to the not-particularly-cogent writings of Rand?


 
You may want to go back and read the OP as it was more about Palin and the Tea Party than Rand.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

crushing said:


> You may want to go back and read the OP as it was more about Palin and the Tea Party than Rand.



The original post simply pointed out that many of Rand's beliefs were incompatible with right-wing populists who are largely Christian, otherwise known as the Tea Party.

I think that is self-evident and not truly in need of debate.  Yes, she was an atheist.

As a populist movement, the Tea Party also has the usual incongruous mixture of socialist and capitalist ideals.  A recent poll by The New York Times & CBS showed that more self-identified members of the 'Tea Party' are on the dole (Medicare, Medicaid, and/or Social Security) than the average non-Tea Party respondent, and more favored government services of that sort.  In other words, the Tea Party isn't about to go shut down Social Security; they just don't want to pay for it.  Rand would clearly be against that.

With regard to the O/P's comment on altruism, I feel he (sorry Elder!) was just incorrect.  Rand was most definitely against altruism, defined as the person who coined the term defined it.  She was not against 'giving' in the sense that it gave one pleasure to do so or served an identifiable good that was ultimately self-serving (like promoting the stability of society, which benefits the self, by assisting those in need of temporary assistance).

The reason, I suspect, that the Tea Party is embracing Rand is because the Tea Party is a mish-mash of conflicting viewpoints, not all of which can be rationalized or homogenized into a single set of core beliefs.  They tend to be against Social Security, for example, if they have to pay for it and someone else gets it.  They're very angry if it is suggested that they should lose their own Social Security benefits, which _'they paid for'_ even when it is demonstrated that most Social Security recipients have received back more than they paid in within 3 to 5 years.  As long as the Tea Party consists of an angry ball of unfocused rage at 'other people' and their problems, they're going to embrace whomever has a sound bite that seems appropriate at the time.  We're not talking about deep thinkers here.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The original post simply pointed out that many of Rand's beliefs were incompatible with *right-wing* populists who are largely Christian, otherwise known as the Tea Party.


 
Who apparently prefer to sit on teh right side of the room


----------



## crushing (Apr 21, 2011)

Ah, thanks.  I did misunderstand the OP.  After re-reading in context of the responses I see that _elder_ appears to be challenging the sterotype of Tea Partiers as the closed minded monolithic "fundamentalist Christian" group that they are being portrayed as in the media and by others.  Heck, At least one has admitted to dabbling in witchcraft (O'Donnell, not Palin).  This certainly fits in with other threads and replies that have done well to challenge thoughts that all Muslims are similarly fundamentalist.

And really, are the Tea Partiers really talking all that much about Rand and Objectivism?  I know Libertarians tend to, but Tea Partiers?  Rand seems more of the Cato Institute side of of 'conservativism', but not so much for the Heritage Foundation folks like the Tea Party.


----------



## WC_lun (Apr 21, 2011)

I've tried to read Rand's stuff on a friend's suggestion, but to be honest I would fall asleep or be bored to tears.  Add to the mix, I am not a fan of her ideas.

For myself, I have a belief system that is based primarily on compassion.  Compassion for others and myself.  If people determined thier action from a compassionate mind, both thier society and themselves benefit.  Act from a selfish mind set and both degrade.  While I think I understand her points, I do not agree with them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

crushing said:


> And really, are the Tea Partiers really talking all that much about Rand and Objectivism?  I know Libertarians tend to, but Tea Partiers?  Rand seems more of the Cato Institute side of of 'conservativism', but not so much for the Heritage Foundation folks like the Tea Party.



http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/4934946-421/right-wing-rallies-around-ayn-rand.html



> With its celebration of individual achievement and condemnation of  government meddling, the book became a bible for libertarians and, more  recently, the Tea Party movement. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), author of a  recently unveiled, cost-slashing 2012 budget plan, encourages his staff  to read Atlas Shrugged and once said,  The reason I got involved in  public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one  person, it would be Ayn Rand.



Paul Ryan is a self-proclaimed Tea Party member.


----------



## granfire (Apr 21, 2011)

Kind of like those peddlers of Jesus knick knacks and chotzkies...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> For myself, I have a belief system that is based primarily on compassion.  Compassion for others and myself.  If people determined thier action from a compassionate mind, both thier society and themselves benefit.  Act from a selfish mind set and both degrade.  While I think I understand her points, I do not agree with them.



That has long been a frustration of mine with regard to Rand.  There's nothing wrong with compassion, and in my opinion, it is not incompatible with selfishness in the sense that Rand intended it - concern with the self as the primary responsibility of every person.  It's purely practical; you cannot help anyone if you yourself are dead, incapacitated, or whatever.  That's why they say to put on your oxygen mask first before helping others when they give they airplane safety lecture on planes before you push back from the gate.

As long as people continue to equate _'selfish'_ with _'I want what's mine and I want you not to have any'_, then they will disagree with Rand.  The problem is, that's not what she said or meant.

Enlightened self-interest to me means that if I drop a coin into the beggar's cup, I do it because it is pleasing to me to do so, or because I feel I am doing myself a service by assisting someone to be less dependent upon government services.  If I do so because I feel compelled to do so by a religious, moral, or even legal requirement, then there is no real value in it.

Rand dealt with some harsh realities - things people often understand and do, but don't like to think about or discuss.


----------



## crushing (Apr 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/4934946-421/right-wing-rallies-around-ayn-rand.html
> 
> 
> Paul Ryan is a self-proclaimed Tea Party member.


 
I can't help but laugh when the headline screams--
*Right wing rallies around Ayn Rand *

And this is supported in the article by the fact that one self-proclaimed Tea Party member encourages his staff to read Atlas Shrugged and credits Rand with the reason he got involved in politics.


Anyway, I think I've found the real reason people have recently started to get in this extra long book with simplistic characters and repeated cliches:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/09/807430/-Atlas-Chugged:-The-Ayn-Rand-Drinking-Game  :lol:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 21, 2011)

crushing said:


> I can't help but laugh when the headline screams--
> *Right wing rallies around Ayn Rand *
> 
> And this is supported in the article by the fact that one self-proclaimed Tea Party member encourages his staff to read Atlas Shrugged and credits Rand with the reason he got involved in politics.
> ...


 

:hmm: So then they feel that Ayan Rand sits on the right side of the room too then..... interesting


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

crushing said:


> I can't help but laugh when the headline screams--
> *Right wing rallies around Ayn Rand *
> 
> And this is supported in the article by the fact that one self-proclaimed Tea Party member encourages his staff to read Atlas Shrugged and credits Rand with the reason he got involved in politics.



http://www.libertasfilmmagazine.com...ssons-first-interview-about-the-film-part-ii/







http://coloradoindependent.com/23026/ayn-rand-stars-at-denver-stimulus-tea-party-protest



> One hundred enthusiastic _Atlas Shrugged_ fans braved chilly temperatures on the east steps of the Colorado capitol Friday as part of a nationwide tea party protest to rail against the federal stimulus package and the government, in general.
> Beyond the typical conservative-Libertarian rhetoric was some  practical advice on how to shrug these parasites off our backs like  opening a black market in your own garage.
> 
> Jenny Hatch of Louisville kicked off the event with a reading from the fictional anti-government manifesto _Atlas Shrugged_ by libertarian darling Ayn Rand.



Jenny Hatch of Louisville kicked off the event with a reading from the fictional anti-government manifesto _Atlas Shrugged_ by libertarian darling Ayn Rand.  



> Over the weekend, I watched a CNN report on the Tea Party demonstration  in Washington. Behind the reporter stood someone who carried a sign that  read Who is John Galt?  a reference to Ayn Rands novel _Atlas Shrugged._  Rand, who was born in Russia but chose to become an American, wrote her  book in the 1950s largely in response to Marxism. And she does an  incredible job showing why Marxism ultimately does not work.








http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-national/ayn-rand-and-the-tea-party-movement



> *Ayn Rand and the tea party movement*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://blogs.forbes.com/dorothypome...ed-ranks-14th-consipracy-or-just-a-bad-movie/



> Billed as the first Tea Party movie, _Atlas Shrugged_ opened this weekend in 300 theaters. It earned only $1.6 million. That ranks the movie 14th for the weekend.





> The film was heavily marketed to Tea Party members. According to a story in The Hollywood Reporter  Freedom Works, an organization closely linked with the Tea Party,  pushed the film to 1 million members. The film was also being promoted  by right leaning talk show hosts like Neal Boortz who tweeted about the  movie.



Hmmm.  Maybe more than one guy.


----------



## crushing (Apr 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Hmmm. Maybe more than one guy.


 
Yes, I don't think anyone would believe that it was just the one guy.  You had to google and research to find this information that helped confirm for you that maybe there was actually something to that headline.  A headline that was not at all supported in the content of the article.

You did the work the journalist failed to do.  Actually, it was more likely the editor failed to create an adequate headline to represent the actual article.  Maybe *Ryan Cites Rand as Influence* or *Rand, Ryan's Inspiration* would have been more honest to the article?  Nah, they just don't have the emotional punch  and click-thru opportunities that sensational headlines with words like "right-wing" and "rallies" have.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2011)

granfire said:


> Somewhere there I wonder if she is autistic?
> I don't mean this as insult, by all means.
> 
> But there is this communications gap as it seems.


 
I have a nephew-now my ward, and probably in need of some supervision for the rest of his life-who has Asperger's Syndrome.

There's a fair amount of speculation that Rand had Asperger's, so that's pretty astute of you there, Gran, and worth pointing out in light of this. The more intelligent of those who have Asperger's are often compared to Mr. Spock, or Vulcans in general.




Bill Mattocks said:


> Enlightened self-interest to me means that if I drop a coin into the beggar's cup, I do it because it is pleasing to me to do so, or because I feel I am doing myself a service by assisting someone to be less dependent upon government services. .


 

Ah, but Bill.....

Yesterday, glitching through the rot on television to kill a little time, I caught a bunch of people risking their lives to save a _moose_ that had fallen through thin ice. We've all seen footage of people doing the same for dogs, other animals, and each other, under other life-threatening circumstances like fires and raging rapids-to _waterfalls._
We're also all familiar with the stories-all true-of men in combat diving on grenades to save their fellow soldiers. I can't find it online, but there's a story that's floated around about a rabid racist-a Klan member-who was killed saving a black child from being hit by a truck. 

We-that is to say, _human beings_-don't do these things because they make us feel good, though they may, or because they're in the best interests of society, though they be.

We do them because *we must*. Altruism is a fundamental part of human nature.....and one which psycopaths, the autistic, and those with _Asperger's_ can lack. Given her hyper-rationality, and the possibility that she had Asperger's, or some other autistic spectrum "disorder," many odd things about  her philosophy begin to make sense.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

All she was saying in not to let our altruism guide us into irrational or self defeating positions. 
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> All she was saying in not to let our altruism guide us into irrational or self defeating positions.
> Sean


 
Tell that to the guy who sacrifices himself jumping on a grenade.



> It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master-*Ayn Rand*


 

It's a good thing she didn't have any children.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Tell that to the guy who sacrifices himself jumping on a grenade.


That, my friend, is a rational decision. You may feel differently.
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> That, my friend, is a rational decision. You may feel differently.
> Sean


 

No, it's *not* a rational decision; it's an altogether impulsive one.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> No, it's *not* a rational decision; it's an altogether impulsive one.


Let's see, you decide we all die or I save my men by jumping on the grenade. That is called doing the math. You can call it what you like, but its rational. Again this is a personal thing that has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. Its a way for you to be somehow correct.
Sean


----------



## granfire (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Let's see, you decide we all die or I save my men by jumping on the grenade. That is called doing the math. You can call it what you like, but its rational. Again this is a personal thing that has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. Its a way for you to be somehow correct.
> Sean



LOL, if it was rational you'd run for cover.

I think what this is pointing to is the question of 'what's in it for me' 
Obviously, you throw yourself on a grenade, not a whole lot, since you can't count on it being a dud and you getting to actually hold the Congressional Medal of Honor...

I don't think there is a lot of thought involved.

However, there is that lack of emotion involved in the idea to avoid altruism. 
If you don't get a tangible return from it, if you lack the ability to feel emotions, it's for nothing, so you are out the whatever you gave, no return, unlike most people who get a good feeling for themselves from giving, which is for them beneficial.

To take it back to autism, I have talked to a couple of people with this condition (to put it most neutral) and they seem to have great difficulty to reconcile the emotional aspects of their environment and their actions. They simply could not muster the empathy needed to put themselves in someone else's shoes. 

I can see where this different outlook on life can advance the thinking on a matter (Temple Grandin is probably right now one of the most high profile Autistics, but a leading capacity in her field of study about animal welfare in the slaughter industry) and I can see where a more 'objective' point of view can advance social thinking.

But I think that is somewhat unique and hard to duplicate for the average person who is in general highly emotional.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 21, 2011)

I don&#8217;t think it is rational, heroic, altruistic, selfless, possibly crazy but not rational. 

That is saying that someone first had time to rationalize the act of jumping on a grenade to save others and being in full possession of one's reason also know as sane and or lucid deciding to die (kill themselves) in order to save the lives of others. 

I do not think in that situation anyone would have time to rationalize it, just respond to it much like a reflex action. If you hit me in the knee, in the right place, my knee will jump. It is not rationalized it is just a reflex


----------



## crushing (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Let's see, you decide we all die or I save my men by jumping on the grenade. That is called doing the math. You can call it what you like, but its rational. Again this is a personal thing that has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. Its a way for you to be somehow correct.
> Sean


 
Nope.  You don't think like us so, like Rand, your brain must not be wired quite right.  Have you been checked by a doctor?


----------



## aedrasteia (Apr 21, 2011)

crushing said:


> Anyway, I think I've found the real reason people have recently started to get in this extra long book with simplistic characters and repeated cliches:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/09/807430/-Atlas-Chugged:-The-Ayn-Rand-Drinking-Game  :lol:


Oh Chrush many thanks - and thanks again - giggling on every line. 

the movie seems to be a mistake. I've always thought it would make a much better graphic novel - with some intense editing, but her Super Heros and wormy villans fit that format - and the 'ordinary people' can form the fuzzy background. No ridicule meant - graphic novels can be exceptionally powerful.

reviews (2, one on substance, the other on AR's style) by the self described libertarian who designed the drinking game, are among the best I've read anywhere - well thought out and well written, fair, based on actual reading and thinking and funny - he is spot on.
*A Libertarian Reads "Atlas Shrugged" -www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/8/811778/-A-Libertarian-Reads-Atlas-ShruggedPart-2  
*

Last year i read both AR biographies and I encourage anyone interested in her to read them.  They are jointly reviewed here: www.*slate*.com/id/2233966/
How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon The perverse allure of a damaged woman. By Johann Hari Nov. 2, 2009

Of all I've read, her relationship with her husband Frank O'Connor holds my attention - very handsome/striking, a small part actor she met in Hollywood, later to become a painter/artist (not especially well received) with a spirit responsive to color, beauty, the natural world. Not remotely her intellectual equal, tho she made herself believe her was, because that was her criteria, he seems to have loved and supported her steadfastly, and was devestated by her long relationship with her much younger disciple, Nathaniel Brandon; one that became secret from her supporters when it became sexual. O'Connor was described as 'agreeing' to that affair, along with Brandon's wife. But the evidence doesn't support that claim.

But both biographers describe his depression and heavy drinking during the times when he was asked to vacate his apartment when Brandon and Rand were together. SHe considered cognition and thinking a matter of will and commitment: Frank's confusion and mental problems baffled and irritated her as he later experienced senility, possible Alzheimers and the effects of heavy drinking. I think she loved him, as much as she was able, sadly so self deluded about him. Strangely i've come to think of her as a deeply self-deluded ideolgue, as unable to face real human complexity as the other deluded ideolgues and determinists she so strongly (and correctly) opposed.

thanks again Crush, 
A


----------



## granfire (Apr 21, 2011)

well, somewhere in her making her husband vacate the house so she can have her affair does show a certain disconnect. The delusion about her emotional affairs/impact, very interesting.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

granfire said:


> LOL, if it was rational you'd run for cover.
> 
> I think what this is pointing to is the question of 'what's in it for me'
> Obviously, you throw yourself on a grenade, not a whole lot, since you can't count on it being a dud and you getting to actually hold the Congressional Medal of Honor...
> ...


The whole idea of jumping on a grenade is that there is no cover.
Sean


----------



## granfire (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> The whole idea of jumping on a grenade is that there is no cover.
> Sean



and that there is no time to reflect

thus irrational.


----------



## crushing (Apr 21, 2011)

granfire said:


> and that there is no time to reflect
> 
> thus irrational.


 
I agree, there wouldn't be any time for reflection.  However, before the grenade goes of there may be just enough time to choose to save some people.


----------



## granfire (Apr 21, 2011)

crushing said:


> I agree, there wouldn't be any time for reflection.  However, before the grenade goes of there may be just enough time to choose to save some people.



Not sure I would think past 'FUUUUUUUU....'

but that's just me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Ah, but Bill.....
> 
> Yesterday, glitching through the rot on television to kill a little time, I caught a bunch of people risking their lives to save a _moose_ that had fallen through thin ice. We've all seen footage of people doing the same for dogs, other animals, and each other, under other life-threatening circumstances like fires and raging rapids-to _waterfalls._
> We're also all familiar with the stories-all true-of men in combat diving on grenades to save their fellow soldiers. I can't find it online, but there's a story that's floated around about a rabid racist-a Klan member-who was killed saving a black child from being hit by a truck.
> ...



I do not think we have enough data to argue nature or nurture in this sense.  Do we do these things because we are hardwired to do them, or because we have been conditioned to do them.  Living in a Judeo-Christian influenced society as (most of us) do, it is hard to escape the philosophic dictums of such religions, which of course include the concept of altruism.

Must we do these things?  Perhaps.  Is it because we are genetically predisposed to do so, or because our society has trained us to do these things?  I do not know.

I would posit two things, however.  The first is that I have a notion that societies inherently produce systems which reward behavior that is counter self-interest in favor of societal interest.  That is, a truly enlightened selfish person would wish society to continue, because it serves their interests.  However, that same person would be highly critical of every aspect of society, and would likewise demand that the parts of it that operate contrary to their own interests be shut down.  Society is an organism, and like any organism, desires to survive, expand, and multiply.  It is in the best of interests of a society that people occasionally jump on grenades, even when it is not in the best interests of the person who does so.  Inducements from hero status and perpetual remembrance to societal caring for surviving family members and a culture of respect to those who selfless sacrifice are the conditioning operants I'm thinking of here.

The second is that conditioning and programming can be undone by conscious, if significant intentional effort.

And if I squint a little at it, I suppose I could even produce an Objectivist-style response to the question of why people risk their lives for what appears to be no reward.  With the concept of equitable exchange on the table and the rational understanding that even one's own life is finite, one could make the argument that it is entirely rational for a self-interested person to risk their lives in exchange for a perceived higher value that gave that person joy; such as the idea of knowing they would be a hero to society or that their families would be cared for after they were gone.  Just spitballin' here, I'm not an Objectivist, although I played one in college.  Didn't get me the girls, though; it wasn't cool then.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

granfire said:


> and that there is no time to reflect
> 
> thus irrational.


Not if your goal was to keep your men alive.
Sean


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Not if your goal was to keep your men alive.
> Sean



Once you are dead, you can no longer keep your men alive.  You have failed.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Once you are dead, you can no longer keep your men alive.  You have failed.


In that instance you have succeeded. Future incidences are where your point may come in.
Sean


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Not if your goal was to keep your men alive.
> Sean


 
But did you rationally think about that prior to the act or just act out of reflex?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> In that instance you have succeeded. Future incidences are where your point may come in.
> Sean



Actually, you cannot even know if you have succeeded.  You can only hope that your sacrifice worked; you won't be around to observe whether it did or not.

This is why the US military teaches us not to go around leapin' on grenades.  In addition to it being your last act, it may not even be effective; as 'smothering' a modern fragmentation grenade may not even be possible - it might be that your bone shards will be what kills your comrades rather than little pieces of red-hot metal.

Immediate action for a grenade is to immediately take a prone position with your feet towards the grenade and your head as far from it as possible.  Feet together, of course, if you value your wedding tackle.

If everyone does so - looking to their own self-interest as their highest value - then survival rates tend to be higher.  Uncle Sam is really rather unfond of their soldiers, whom they have paid good money to train, becoming something that must instead be scraped off of walls and removed surgically from other soldiers.

Yes, we honor 'heroic' acts, but many of us who are veterans have also heard our Drill Instructors tell us that if we drop the grenade during live throwing exercises, they will be placing our bodies over the blast, not their own.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> But did you rationally think about that prior to the act or just act out of reflex?


That would depend on the individual, I suppose. Some of us are just waiting for a grenade to jump on, and others would do it out of reflex... oh, and some of us would stand there slack jawed saying, "Fuuuuuuu....."
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually, you cannot even know if you have succeeded.  You can only hope that your sacrifice worked; you won't be around to observe whether it did or not.
> 
> This is why the US military teaches us not to go around leapin' on grenades.  In addition to it being your last act, it may not even be effective; as 'smothering' a modern fragmentation grenade may not even be possible - it might be that your bone shards will be what kills your comrades rather than little pieces of red-hot metal.
> 
> ...


Thank you, but the grenade is just a metaphor.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

OK... now your child is standing in the way of a Speeding Mack Truck and you run in its path to push them out of the way, so as not to offend modern, military trained, response sensibilities.:mst:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Thank you, but the grenade is just a metaphor.



It's a good one, too.  The point being that there is usually more than one way to look at things.  What appears on the surface to be a selfless act that accomplishes a worthy goal might actually be capable of being accomplished sans the heroics.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Thank you, but the grenade is just a metaphor.


 

No, it's not.

Lots of stories like that one.



> A California-based SEAL who *threw* his *body* on a *grenade* to save his comrades in Iraq will posthumously receive the Medal of Honor


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> OK... now your child is standing in the way of a Speeding Mack Truck and you run in its path to push them out of the way, so as not to offend modern, military trained, response sensibilities.:mst:



I cannot imagine why one would push a child out of the way of the speeding truck and then just stand there, waiting to have one's forehead imprinted with the reverse-image of a bulldog.  I would think that continuing to run would be a good course of action.

In cases of certain death, one merely has to consult the notion that once one is melded with a radiator, one can no longer see to the safety of one's progeny anymore.  In fact, one's hurling to safety may have amounted to a hurling down a sewer grate or into the path of yet another vehicle.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> Lots of stories like that one.


Oh, for God's sake. I'm afraid when discussing self sacrifice, even real cases become a metaphor.:ultracool
Sean


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> Lots of stories like that one.



John 15:13 says it all.  But it pretty clearly is establishing a norm which is expected to be respected by society.  The question a person must ask oneself is whether or not that is a rational reaction.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I cannot imagine why one would push a child out of the way of the speeding truck and then just stand there, waiting to have one's forehead imprinted with the reverse-image of a bulldog.  I would think that continuing to run would be a good course of action.
> 
> In cases of certain death, one merely has to consult the notion that once one is melded with a radiator, one can no longer see to the safety of one's progeny anymore.  In fact, one's hurling to safety may have amounted to a hurling down a sewer grate or into the path of yet another vehicle.


One would just have to make the assumption you weren't pushing your child into the other lanes of traffic, or off a cliff, into a woodchipper, or what ever else you can come up with.
Sean


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Oh, for God's sake. I'm afraid when discussing self sacrifice, even real cases become a metaphor.:ultracool
> Sean



You can take it to extremes to illustrate the obverse, though.

If self-sacrifice for one's chums is a good thing, when if one should become marooned in a lifeboat, one should immediately look for a way to off oneself, with the idea being that one's pals could have a bit of a picnic on one's edible bits.  Yet in cases where the horrible has happened, it seems most have gone rather unwillingly into the stew pot.

If I think about it some, I can probably come up with justification for self-sacrifice in any number of ways.  From selling my possessions and giving them all to charity - which Jesus did urge, as I recall - to donating various organs that I possess in duplicate to actually self-destructing to avoid continuing to burden the earth with my various polluting ways.

Nature urges self-preservation, and intelligence urges that self-preservation be balanced with the preservation of the society that supports that to which we have become accustomed and prefer.  There is little found in nature that urges self-sacrifice, lemmings to the contrary.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> One would just have to make the assumption you weren't pushing your child into the other lanes of traffic, or off a cliff, into a woodchipper, or what ever else you can come up with.
> Sean



I believe that is what I said.  My thought would be to gather said malfunctioning child into an arm and continue on at great velocity with him, using my own senses and brain to attempt to do the thinking for both of us, since I had apparently raised an imbecile, to wander out in front of a truck like that.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You can take it to extremes to illustrate the obverse, though.
> 
> If self-sacrifice for one's chums is a good thing, when if one should become marooned in a lifeboat, one should immediately look for a way to off oneself, with the idea being that one's pals could have a bit of a picnic on one's edible bits.  Yet in cases where the horrible has happened, it seems most have gone rather unwillingly into the stew pot.
> 
> ...


Lemmings are not suicidal, they just choose bad leaders sometimes.
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Oh, for God's sake. I'm afraid when discussing self sacrifice, even real cases become a metaphor.:ultracool
> Sean


 
Nope. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Nope. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


You get 20 points if you can tell me which member of Pink Floyd sang that song; hint, its a trick question. I'll be keeping those twenty points no matter how you answer.
Sean


----------



## granfire (Apr 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Nope. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.



 And sometimes it's a Horse


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> You get 20 points if you can tell me which member of Pink Floyd sang that song; hint, its a trick question. I'll be keeping those twenty points no matter how you answer.
> Sean


 

If that was _Have a Cigar_ you're referring to, it wasn't sung by a _member_ of Pink Floyd at all, but some folk singer.

Remember, I *live* for little factoids like that:


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I believe that is what I said.  My thought would be to gather said malfunctioning child into an arm and continue on at great velocity with him, using my own senses and brain to attempt to do the thinking for both of us, since I had apparently raised an imbecile, to wander out in front of a truck like that.



:chuckles:  As a matter of fact, my father did just that for me when I was maybe three years old.  The good hiding I got for that particular stupidity was so monumental that I remember to this day :lol:.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 21, 2011)

"Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar.
You're gonna go far, you're gonna fly high,
You're never gonna die, you're gonna make it if you try;they're gonna love you."

Most definitely Pink Floyd but sung by Roy Harper I believe?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not think we have enough data to argue nature or nurture in this sense. .


 
Why not? *She* did:



> Mans life, *as required by his nature*, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking beingnot life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievementnot survival at any price, since theres only one price that pays for mans survival: reason.
> 
> Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choiceand* the alternative his nature offers him* is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be manby choice; he has to hold his life as a valueby choice; he has to learn to sustain itby choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtuesby choice.
> 
> ...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

That's the same guy who wrote "The Black Cloud Of Islam". 
"What Kind of God can this be anyway?
That you've got to stop and pray to him five times a day..."


I'm surprised it was never a hit. LOL
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> That's the same guy who wrote "The Black Cloud Of Islam".
> "What Kind of God can this be anyway?
> That you've got to stop and pray to him five times a day..."
> 
> ...


 
That's actually a song about how religion in general can cloud the mind. It was also before it became fashionable to bash Islam-it  was written in response to the fatwah against Salman Rushdie.

I dunno, I pray at least 5 times a day........


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I dunno, I pray at least 5 times a day........



I pray like Conan:
"Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No  one, not even you will remember if we were good men or bad, why we  fought, or why we died. No, all that matters is that two stood against  many, that's what's important. Valor pleases you, Crom, so grant me one  request, grant me REVENGE! And if you do not listen, then the hell with  you!"


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> That's actually a song about how religion in general can cloud the mind. It was also before it became fashionable to bash Islam-it  was written in response to the fatwah against Salman Rushdie.
> 
> I dunno, I pray at least 5 times a day........


"... Where is the Love you're always talking of, when you can't stand man to man?"
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Apr 23, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> "... Where is the Love you're always talking of, when you can't stand man to man?"
> Sean


 
.


> "A human being without the proper empathy or feeling is the same as an android built so as to lack it, either by design or mistake. We mean, basically, someone who does not care about the fate which his fellow living creatures fall victim to; he stands detached, a spectator, acting out by his indifference John Donne's theorem that 'No man is an island,' but giving that theorem a twist: that which is a mental and a moral island _is not a man_."
>  Philip K. Dick (The Dark-Haired Girl)


----------

