Some of my best friends are communists
What makes a "good" person or a "bad" person is (no surprise) personal: within the individual. That is usually hidden from external view and judged only by actions and words in the world. That judgment is also personal: it depends on the person making it.
Consider John D. Rockefeller. Most people who care to know anything about him dislike him. Objectivists admire him, but dislike his having been a church-going Baptist. Would Rockefeller have been a better person as an atheist? You only have to look at Edison to think more than twice about that question.
That is not to say that "one hand washes the other." I believe that the final balance is, indeed, a balance, of admirable qualities versus failures.
What is the essential characteristic?
A productive person will admire the productivity of others. Consider Thomas Edison, Sandra Lerner (Cisco Systems), or Martha Stewart. Edison was not a nice guy, but that is not the essential judgment. None of them were or are paragons of Objectivist virtues - some producers seem to have had no special virtues outside of their work. Consider how we wring our hands over Bill Gates. Yet, Microsoft cannot be denied. I admire
George Soros for his success as a trader. Haters take a different view.
You can find producers and haters in any population, just like short and tall people, no matter how short or tall the group. It is an assumption in social science that however defined, differences _within_ groups are greater than differences _across_ groups. Thus, I have had many friends who were political progressives and born-again Christians, while I have suffer through many libertarian or Objectivist meetings.
Consider John D. Rockefeller. Most people who care to know anything about him dislike him. Objectivists admire him, but dislike his having been a church-going Baptist. Would Rockefeller have been a better person as an atheist? You only have to look at Edison to think more than twice about that question.
That is not to say that "one hand washes the other." I believe that the final balance is, indeed, a balance, of admirable qualities versus failures.
What is the essential characteristic?
A productive person will admire the productivity of others. Consider Thomas Edison, Sandra Lerner (Cisco Systems), or Martha Stewart. Edison was not a nice guy, but that is not the essential judgment. None of them were or are paragons of Objectivist virtues - some producers seem to have had no special virtues outside of their work. Consider how we wring our hands over Bill Gates. Yet, Microsoft cannot be denied. I admire
George Soros for his success as a trader. Haters take a different view.
You can find producers and haters in any population, just like short and tall people, no matter how short or tall the group. It is an assumption in social science that however defined, differences _within_ groups are greater than differences _across_ groups. Thus, I have had many friends who were political progressives and born-again Christians, while I have suffer through many libertarian or Objectivist meetings.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
MM tells us how tolerant, good natured, and fair-minded he is, and an Objectivist to top it off. Yes, we already know that, the question here is- can you have a best friend who is a communist?
You can deal with many in the course of business, you can chat with many others socially, but being a best friend requires more than the usual civilities that make life smooth. The affable and amiable are good to deal with at the bar, at child care, the gas station, and in contract negotiation.
But being 'good to me and good for me' is something else.
Our parents were good to us (often), the designer of the ring road by-pass around that bad traffic blockage was very good for me. The big swindler may get you onto a good deal, a wife basher may may wave you on at the road intersection. But can that person be your best friend? With best friends you can talk about anything and your values have to be similar on most topics for you both to open up and enjoy the interaction. So I conclude that yes a communist can be your best friend if- you are one as well, or a fellow traveler, or, that politics, philosophy, economics, government, starvation, mass murder and history are subjects outside your range of interest so you have no thoughts or ideas there. I guess that would include few on this forum.
As it is for all species.
Humans are unique.
We can conceptualize the future.
And create a fantasy of eternal life.
Which is useful (by priests) to control others.
No thanks.
2. Not blaming Christianity -saying it has not solved these problems.
3. Atheism is not important to the argument-nor was it made. Natural rights and property rights and the system of Capitalism is important and successful
You are your own property.
Trade as you choose...
And you really want to blame Christianity on roughly 1200 years of societal stagnation? What about the lack of progress in Africa, Australia, and North and South America? Wouldn't those areas have flourished and advanced at a much more rapid pace if it were merely a function of Christianity holding back progress?
And do you really want to ascribe the advances of the American nation to atheism? I will point to insurmountable evidence that demonstrates that is not the case. It might not be due to faith, but it certainly is not because of rejecting faith.
.
From what?
Life on earth?
Objectvists need not apply.
As a former Christian turned Objectivist, I welcome the discussion of faith.
Have you kept track of the number of atheists that are intolerant, or are you generalizing?
"When has the world ever been "man qua man?" History shows that this is not true, thus to base your ethical system..."
This is your first mistaken premise. We are not discussing History-we are discussing an ethical system. Ethical systems are about what should be. Is absolutely necessary to measure against what is. This is the same argument the marxists used against Locke. All we can hope to have is no better than what we've had before?
The more free the society with strong protections for property rights, the more individuals pursue virtuous endeavors. How did the US grow in a short 150 years from its infancy to the most powerful nation in the world?
Christianity had over 1800 years and we were still in the malthusian trap. That means death and starvation. That means not prospering, not inventing cures, etc. In under 150 years, under a system of natural rights, the US went from a new nation to the most powerful and prosperous on Earth. Rand developed Objectivism in the middle of the last century. Let's give it a little time before we call me pollyanna.
The nature of reason is volitional. You can choose reason. The fact that many do not, does not stand against the validity of the premise. Just because most people do not study physics does not mean we are aren't better off with Physics.
[Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature ]
This is an objectivist forum, so it should be obvious when we use the word collectivism that we are referring to those forms that suppress individual rights in favor of group rights.
In her writing, Ayn Rand only ever uses the Marxist definition of collectivism, which is not the only definition the word can possibly have. The fact that Ayn Rand ironically named her group of followers "The Collective" tells me that she was at least aware of this on some level, even if she never explicitly stated it.
You can't skip years of study and practice. Painting after painting and you still will not have the skills to paint a masterpiece.
A child can understand the simple plan of salvation, but they won't sit down with the theologians of the day for a bit of discussion.
Now, you can dream up this fantasy in which everyone is going to behave "rationally". But isn't that just as full of mysticism as one in which there is a deity?
I can show you innumerable examples (and have) of where one man has not behaved as you propose. This is the nature of humanity.
I totally accept that humans will work to achieve their self interest. Most will do so without infringing on the interests of others "too much." Counting on that to occur as a basis of a system of ethics is irrational, as that is not the nature of mankind.
No. God gives life. That's it, finish, 30, over and out, nothing follows, end of story. We think because we have life. It's the way God made us.
When I build a computer and switch it on, I expect it to function because of the way it is made. Had I wanted a toaster, I wouldn't have needed a hard drive. Form follows function.
We agree in everything after who pushed the "ON" button. You seem to think it was some galactic accident and I see a order to the process.
Load more comments...