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 9.
As a libertarian who loathes both GW Bush and Obama people have asked me which one I dislike more. I reply, "Obama." They ask why and I reply, "Bush did bad things but he was a dope and was greatly influenced by others, but Obama is smart and knows what he's doing. That makes him more evil than Bush."
Oh, that's right, it's from the Bible, so the Objectivists wouldn't know the actual quote.
The sentence would have had a different meaning with a comma.
I know exactly what you mean. I had to terminate two friendships because they were such enthusiastic collectivists. The benefits of their friendship didn't even come close to matching the revulsion to everything they stood for.
I have one other friend I sometimes think I'd prefer not to see any more because of his progressive tendencies but then I remember all his good qualities and I decide to stick with him.
Anything that's not a concrete is a concept. BUT, even concretes have to be backed up by a concept. For instance, one particular chair is a concrete. But for a person to recognize that object as a chair, and other similar but not exact objects as chairs, the mind must have first formed the concept of a chair.
Rand wrote about that in "Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology." Maybe you should read it.
Or maybe not because then you might actually learn what Objectivism really means instead of that fantastical version you have in your mind.
Do you have a problem with concepts? Does conceptual thinking make you nervous? Human existence depends on concepts and further, on abstractions based on those concepts.
Have you any concepts of your own; or do you simply get them pre-fabricated by others??
It was painful to read Reardon... It sounds like hard-on...
How stupid I was...
It features a bafoon who syas "comonmymany"
in a western movie seting.
The correct line would have been, "Make my day."
My suggestion to rlewellen is that if English isn't your "first language" please get some help...
Intelligent individuals can only have an intelligent discussion with others who ae capable of expessing themselves in an intelligible manner.
You seem to have no concept of Rand or Objectivism, and if you dislike it so much, again I ask, "Wtf are you doing here?"
Load more comments...