New Member With a Request

Hey, I've been lurking on these forums for months, now, and was recently forced to join because I feel the aid of those who are expert on Objectivism are sorely needed!

A thread on The Fountainhead was recently started on the forums over at www.chud.com where Rand and her philosophy has been virulently attacked by users there. I'm a an Oist newb and don't feel I'm at the point where I can coherently defend her philosophy myself, so I need your help.

One of the site's co-creators, Devin Faraci, has said things like "I wish Ayn Rand was alive today so that I could kill her." And others have said similary horrible things. I wish I could defend the woman the way I want, but I feel I'd be inadequate in doing so. I know this sounds like a very strange request but I think it's warranted! If anyone's in the mood for a little Rand defending, here's the link http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1599370#post1599370

If one of you Oists went over there and laid the smackdown, it'd really make my day! These are the humble requests of an Oist newb.

Post 1

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 10:29am

Justin,

Welcome to RoR!

Don't waste your time with these people. The interenet is full of them and they'll not be convinced by any rational argument. To paraphrase Rand: the mind ends where the gun begins. That posters sentiment about wanting to "kill her" tells you all you need to know. Objectivism is a philosophy for your life. Hang around here and enjoy the company those far more dispossed to passionate rational discussion.

Ethan

Post 2

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 1:27pm

I absolutely agree with Ethan, Justin. Don't bother with them.

You'll learn much more here about how to battle that kind of crap in the future.

(Even though I know how terrible it feels to have your ideas attacked in such a raunchy way, resist the urge to engage with fools. Instead, post questions here that may spring up after reading such distorted crap.)

Glad you spoke up! :)

Teresa

Post 3

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 2:09pm

Hi Justin,

I concur with Ethan and Teresa.

I would also like to add if Mr Faraci is serious and not just throwing things out for controversial reasons, then it is fairly obvious he is fearful of Rand and her Philosophy. that type of reaction is more often than not brought on by fear and a feeling of being threatened somehow.

This is not a sign of a rational mind, but more of a person who operates from knee-jerk emotions, but since he is not here to defend himself I need to leave it at that.

The only thing to add would be if indeed I wanted to kill someone for their philosophy(which I don't), Mohammed(the one called the prophet) would surely be way out in front of Ayn Rand.

(Edited by Mr. L W Hall on 1/05, 2:26pm)

(Edited by Mr. L W Hall on 1/05, 2:27pm)

Post 4

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 2:13pm

Hi L.W.

Just for the record, my name is Ethan not Nathan :-)

Post 5

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 2:20pm

Justin,

I looked the thread over. It's a flame war. Just get out now cause you're not going to get anywhere.

Sarah

Post 6

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 2:26pm

LOL! I didn't know my full name would appear on the boards like that. I feel embarassed now. Is there any way to change that?

Post 7

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 2:30pm

Hi L.W.

Just for the record, my name is Ethan not Nathan :-)

My apologies Ethan, a mistake on my part.

Post 8

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 2:42pm

Contact Dean Gores through RoRmail and he can fix that for you.

Ethan

Post 9

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 2:45pm

Note to all,

Not all of them are bad over there...
BobClark wrote:

I wish she were alive so she could collaborate with Steve Ditko on Spider-Man Shrugged.

Sarah

Post 10

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 3:49pm

DaveB has the most to say in that thread, and he posits two things tha I'd like to get your folks' opinion on. First, he says "The problem is that what is "good" for the self is inherently determined by instinct and whim, with reason applied after the fact to justify any actions taken to fulfill this "good."

And second "Even as humans, we all have moral views that can only be described as subjective. Is forgiveness a greater virtue than punishing those who commit crimes? Is abortion murder? Is homosexuality (of which Rand was not a fan, from what I've read) immoral? These types of questions can't be evaluated from some objective standpoint, and that is where Rand fails."

Post 11

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 4:45pm

Hi Justin,

The "good" is that which enhances your life as a rational human being. The good is not just the whim of the moment satisfaction of any pleasure that poops in your head. I suggest picking up a copy of Objectivism" The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and reading more on this. Peikoff has a while chapter entitled "The Good." You may also wish to check out the other RoR site http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/ that covers a whole bunch of the basics. That will help you clairify your understanding of this common misconcpetion spouted by non-Objectivists. I found it invaluable in helping me to understand a lot about Objectivism.

As to your second question, this is heard everywhere. What's right is subjecteive, but it isn't so. There IS an Objectivie standard of value. Again, I encourage you to check out the website I mention above. This link in particlualr should be very helpful: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_LifeAsMoralStandard.html
You can then check out the various articles here by Joe Rowlands. I'll post some more when I get a chance.

While your at it, check out my article here as well http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Dawe/Thoughts_for_the_Neophyte_Objectivist.shtml

Don't be afraid to join in any of the topics here, as there is a lot of great stuff to read and a lot of great people to learn from.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 1/05, 4:47pm)

Post 12

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 4:47pm

Another good thing about http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com is that there is a lot of material dealing with the common misconceptions and evil ideas we see around us from day to day. Check out this one that specifically adresses your second question.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_SubjectiveValue.html

Ethan

Post 13

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 5:11pm

DaveB has the most to say in that thread, and he posits two things tha I'd like to get your folks' opinion on. First, he says "The problem is that what is "good" for the self is inherently determined by instinct and whim, with reason applied after the fact to justify any actions taken to fulfill this "good."

I wonder how he knows this? Must be "instinct," huh? So, we can't say that "it's not good to walk into speeding traffic," because knowing not to do that is merely instinct, but we have some need to justify the instinct with reason by calling it good....

Does he have any clue how stupid this sounds?

Is his existence merely a product of instinct and whim? It must be, otherwise, how could he view himself as good, or anyone, or anything? Either it's instinct, whim, or reason, but it can't be all three. "Instinct" is automatic, and perfect knowledge that does not need reason to justify it.

And second "Even as humans, we all have moral views that can only be described as subjective. Is forgiveness a greater virtue than punishing those who commit crimes? Is abortion murder? Is homosexuality (of which Rand was not a fan, from what I've read) immoral? These types of questions can't be evaluated from some objective standpoint, and that is where Rand fails."

His claim that even humans (!? Does something else aspire to moral views??) have moral views that can only be described as subjective is actually correct, but that's not the goal. Just because some humans do, doesn't mean they should. Is this guy a moral relativist?? Lets stone him now! Afterall, his life and views are only "subjective."

What a fucktard.

Post 14

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 5:16pm

Fucktard

Ethan mentally notes to use this word in a converstaion this week for the simple pleasure of it.

EDIT: Ahhhhhh http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fucktard
EDIT2: Oh, there are 236 definitions for this word on that site :-)
EDIT3: I especially like #178, as the school mentioned is across the street from my favorite restaurant:

chet (Chelsia Siegel of Merrill Hall, Phillips Exeter Academy, in New Hampshire, USA) was the first to use this term in 2002...it is a tribute to the AIMization of our English Language...an abbreviation of "Fucking Retard"
you fucktard!!!!!!!!! you stole my ramen!!!!!!

But I digress...........

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 1/05, 5:30pm)

Post 15

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 5:49pm

Justin-
Ethan is right. You will go a long way if you seek to determine the difference between hedonism and objectivism. The people on that site seem to confuse the two.

Post 16

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 5:59pm

Fucktard - almost as good as petard... and the language grows..........

Post 17

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 7:22pm

definition of a fucktard = whoever thought up this word and debased the English language even further

Post 18

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 7:43pm

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fucktard
#7 has me in tears, I'm laughing so hard. Thanks a lot, Ethan! *snort*

Phil, are you lamenting my use of vernacular? I could swear I saw that term for the first time on SoloHQ.

Post 19

Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 8:54pm