AS influences on phlosophy

Post Reply New Topic

I've studied the failures of the Soviet Union, too. I read several nonfiction histories and the more personal Gulag Archipelago series. I also wrote an essay on Maoism that was not too flattering to its founder. Totalitarianism is actually one of my special interests. 19th century novels were more attuned than most to the importance of money and social class in governing an individual's fate.

The revised sentence reads: You should read Orwell, if you haven't already.

Ah, I wasn't just focusing on money and social class but rather on government control and authority. Money and social class I view as necessary evils given the need to allocate limited resources based upon wants, and the tendency of people to cluster together in groups of their choosing. To quote Hayek again(note: I am not brainwashed, I just find quoting people smarter than I am to be very effective, and given that I use Nobel prize winners and major theorists, one can consider it my use of ethos) "What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves." Now, I'll be honest, I am aware of the fact that perfect freedom is not going to exist and cannot exist no matter what societal path we take. The Jungle is an ok book for looking at this element of unfreedom in property systems, even though I tend to think it goes too far.

I have read some Orwell and I enjoy Orwell immensely.

I was a poststructuralist long before I was diagnosed as an aspie.

However. poststructuralism does provide a useful standpoint. I realize that I am under no obligation to accept the constructions, paradigms, or language games of others. They are not real. At most, they provide us with conventions for explaining our experiences or observations.

This makes me happy. I loathe utopianism. One of the reasons I resist Ayn Rand is the obvious miniarchist utopianism (see the society in the valley in Atlas Shrugged). The perfect society cannot be created by any system of thought, and it is nice to see a fan of an admitted utopist writer express this realism.



Yes! It does go both ways. And The Jungle, while good muckraking journalism that had a valid point, veered too far into propaganda territory for me, too.

GUSHING COMPLIMENT WARNING: It is difficult to find a truly independent thinker, even in puportedly individualist circles. I do believe I have located one of these rare creatures, even if we do not agree on everything. How awesomely glorious is this serendipity?

I have been looking for a good resource for structuralist and poststructuralist ideas accessable to the intelligent laywoman. I did a school project on Lacan, but he was more of a neo-Freudian. And I know enough about deconstruction to have decided I don't want to know more. But midcentury linguistic philosophy is difficult to find.

I usually refer people to this site:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm

There are, for instance, several essays by Foucault and Derrida linked from that page.

Oh, heck, I have always been an enemy of utopianism and of extreme pessimism as well. Both sides seem to reek of idealism, one of ideals that could be theoretically achieved, and the other of an ideal brokenness. I am not an Objectivist though, and honestly have not read a lot by Rand, but I know a good amount about it through readings in similar circles though.


Independent thinker? Perhaps I am. I am not sure I would necessarily call myself that, but then again, independence in thought to me is something difficult to define. We are never independent of our own biases, but can only perhaps be independent of the biases of others.

You're not?

No. I have done readings in similar circles as Objectivists and know their position to a reasonable extent and have some ideas in common with them(I have tended towards libertarian ideas in the past) but I am not an Objectivist. I often defend them because they are very unpopular and because of my sympathy for their position vs those of their opponents.

A mind-blowing topic.

I am humbled by the brilliance of these young people, as I have never known personally anyone who could argue and debate with such flair and eloquence.

Some of these writers I have read briefly, such as Rand and Foucault. I certainly do not understand them enough to speak of them so fluently, but then again I am not probably on the same pages as any of you intellectually.

I have a very narrow interest range as it was enough for me just to understand what I know. I tend to read other books on philosophy and politics in order to find out others' viewpoints. I could certainly not debate any of it. I am only passionate about that which I am aware on a daily basis. If this is how any of you function then you must be aware of mind-boggling amounts of information you can retrieve effortlessly from your minds at will. Truly an awe-inspiring ability.

Thanks to all of you. I have learned quite a bit about Rand, libertarianism, neoconservatism, etc. in a 101 sort of way.

I wouldn't be too humbled if I were you sartresue. And I would encourage you not to go by many of the aspersions of what Objectivism actually is. At least, not from this thread. Philosophy SHOULD be an easily approachable subject for EVERY person on the planet. It is the systems of rationalisations that cast philosophy to the murky depths that cause everyone to stutter when the subject is broached.

Even if you don't read Rand, I do not care one way or the other. I can at least confirm that it is not a confusing philosophy that leaves you feeling stupid and unworthy. It is clear, and concise, and logical. Even if you eventually judge it to be untrue, it is at least, present and unhidden so as to be accessible to judge.

If you chose not to read Rand, as is your choice, I offer a piece of advice if you are to avoid feeling humble in the future. In each claim you see (or make yourself) accept it at face value as literally true (probably not too hard to do as an AS). Then ask yourself "If I were to accept this, what would follow?"

For instance....

some definitions:
Perfect: Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
Society: a body of individuals living as members of a community.
Thought: To have or formulate in the mind.

Now ask yourself, if you accepted that sentence... what would follow?

What would follow is that human societal perfection is impossible, correct? If a system of thought cannot be devised to describe such a system then no thought could because once we devise a thought it becomes a system of some form and if we could see a perfect society then we could formulate a systemized thought based upon it. This does not seem irrational either given that few people would argue any system would create paradise on earth. Now, if we argue perfection to be the best system possible based upon our limited tools then the statement must obviously be wrong(there always must be a relative best and worst if we argue a framework for best and worse), but perfect does not need to be defined as such and I think was defined as utopic.

I am not one of the aspersers am I? I mean, I know I did not perfectly formulate all of the ideas of Rand and drew in a lot from outside libertarian sources, but I did affirm the libertarian and egoist bases of Rand even though I did not do so much with her formulations.

Randian "objectivism" a philosophy? LOL, it's a frigging cult of narcissistic teenagers and Libertarians trying to rationalize their selfishness.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Well, some of them, most certainly. I consider objectivism to be a very weird, extreme form of classical liberalism (if an idea exists- we will assume ideas exist- there is certain to be a weird, extreme form of it somewhere).

Though I haven't declared myself a libertarian, I would suggest reading Payne, Locke,
Adam Smith, and the rest of the enlightenment brigade instead of Rand. This would give you a much more accurate picture of what libertarianism is. Trust me, you're not the first to be turned off by the vaguely adolescent combativeness of Rand's rhetoric.