Who or what is worth saving?

Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
168 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

RimCountry, Zenphamy, Robbie, and a couple of others have been posting a lot of comments about the Article V convention option.

The primary point of disagreement that we have is over what is worth saving.

Are the United States and some of its individuals worth saving? The United States was certainly worth saving until recent years. In my mind, probably about 2007 or the first half of 2008 was the last time it was worth saving. After the TARP bailout, I would argue that the US is no longer worth saving. Certain individuals are worth saving, such as Rearden or Dagny within AS. Most are not. Eddie Willers is an important character in this respect. He was very good as a chief of staff for Dagny, but didn't have the ability to think independently. He was not sought out by those in Atlantis as worth saving. I would not have objected to Eddie Willers being permitted in the Gulch.

The question regarding what is worth saving is a fundamental difference between objectivists and Christians. Christians believe that all individuals are worth saving and evangelize accordingly.

As for whether the United States is worth saving, I suppose that depends on what the alternatives are. If we start a nanosociety founded on objectivist principles, then that would almost certainly change the answer to that question for many of us.

Many of us are torn between the last remnant of the United States, arguably the only society founded on principles that would not be seriously objectionable to objectivists, versus leaving and starting from scratch.

Are looters worth saving? Are moochers worth saving? To objectivists, these last two questions should be rhetorical. It certainly is not a rhetorical question for Christians. Jesus, for instance, had a tax collector as one of his apostles.

Is anyone who voted for Obama worth saving? Unless that person makes the argument that he/she was trying to hasten the end of the looter/moocher era, that question should also be rhetorical. Is anyone who intentionally blanks out so that he/she can further a political agenda worth saving? Would Ayn Rand have viewed intentional blankouts as unforgivable sins? Can such a person ever be "redeemed" if he/she grows into an understanding of objectivist principles? I am reminded of Winston Churchill's line about how if you are 20 and not liberal, you have no heart, but if you are 40 and not conservative, you have no brain.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Yeah but...the meat outburst was based on reason. Emotions can be logical and sometimes outbursts are exactly what's needed. Final straw and all that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    "Generosity is inborn. Altruism is a learned perversity" - Robert A. Heinlein
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I am as blunt as almost anyone and was born without a filter on what I ought to say. Let's just say that my temper has gotten the better of me a few times in life, and I have said some things that would have been better left unsaid. The one time to silence logical thought processes is when your feelings are still dominating your thoughts. One foolish thing said will be remembered a lot longer than a hundred correct things.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    The time to say whatever you want is now. If you don't have anything nice to say...Bla! That's a shutter upper phrase. Be honest about your opinions and your reason for thinking as you do. Never silence logical thought processes, otherwise why bother to think?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes. Church and government schools did that to me as well. But, as I read I quickly realized reason is logical and A=A. And so many things made so much more sense. It explained why I didn't understand others' sense of obligation but could never articulate my reasons for disagreeing very well. Much like the word racist, the word selfish is used to shut you up when you begin to question others.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by readthebook 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    On the contrary, anyone can and should strive to formulate his own concepts and their definitions rather than passively accept what others say. Correct concepts and definitions, which are how we classify in terms of essentials, are critical to rational understanding. Rational people agree on correct concepts. Dictionary definitions are contemporary patterns of word usage, conceptually correct or not, which are subject to change, for better or worse, and rarely definitions of concepts.

    Telling anyone that he is forbidden to make his own definitions means a prohibition, on behalf of collectivist group think, of original thought, new knowledge including all of science, and correction of errors. That is precisely why Ayn Rand did and should have formulated and explained in depth a proper concept of selfishness as essential to moral standards.

    Read Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I made a post on that a couple of months ago as well. Radio is probably a good venue for this, but a good YouTube video ad sequence that goes viral would be more effective. Part of my question was whether we should even try to market this. I know the site owners would like to have a financially successful movie. If the answer is that only a few people are worth reaching, as some might interpret after having read the book, then the logical next question is why should one have a marketing campaign at all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by hrymzk 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    jb
    How to market AS III? I made a topic on that and only got a couple of responses. The producers also made a post.
    To further the point, NPR has many programs where films and books are discussed. They take advertising. Radio's got to be cheaper than TV
    I've watched Charlie Rose for many years. He spends all kinds of time on different things. What could be more important than a discussion with AS3 people and the book.

    Harry M
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    well rational is an objective concept...people make mistakes all the time. But even 50 years ago, most people used their common sense. Of course those pesky writers like Dickens and Steinbeck were always pecking away at those concepts. and religion long before that...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by readthebook 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    The rational is not subjective. She explained very well why rationality as such is at the root of her ethics and why her ethical principles are rational.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by readthebook 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand did not use the word imprecisely. She defined and explained exactly what she meant by the concept of selfishness, and she explained how the traditional word uses are conceptually invalid. They leave out the possibility of the rational concept as the fundamental value in ethics. She also made very clear the distinction between her concept of selfishness and hedonism. Hedonism and altruism are a false alternative and two sides of the same coin of human sacrifice.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by readthebook 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    You should read the non-fiction, including Leonard Peikoff's systematic Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by readthebook 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Eddie Willers, who Ayn Rand said was one of her favorite characters, was capable of independent thought but was of more limited ability. He was left to perish at the end because it shows what happens to good people when those of the most ability are replaced with the worst, like James Taggert and the rest of his ilk whom he went down with. Eddie's fate was disturbing because it was supposed to be -- for the reasons just given, not because Ayn Rand maliciously or recklessly disposed of him without thought or concern.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by readthebook 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Romney couldn't articulate limited government because he doesn't know what it is, not because of how he governed in Massachusetts. He didn't govern in Massachusetts in accordance with limited government for the same reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't believe that we should give others the same level of standing as ourselves, nor do I believe that we should totally regard others. There is a place in the middle.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo