Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Interview with Ayn Rand (1964)

playboy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Interview with Ayn Rand (1964)

#11

Post by Boxer »

ajju wrote: post #6
GeneralMaximus wrote: post #5

I don't define myself as an Objectivists, but I tend to agree with a lot of Rand's philosophy (mostly about work ethics, individuality and productivity). Unfortunately, she has a rather lopsided view about emotions and human relationships. I'm sure if the following words were coming from someone who is not a bestselling author, that person could be loosely defined as "batshit insane": > If they place such things as f…

It is curious that a proponent of individualism like Rand advocated that her point of view on relationships, family etc is the only one that's moral. I really fell in love with objectivism as a teenager, and am a very strong supporter of free markets (yes, despite all the 'misery' they bring to workers in out-of-date industries). But examining her work and everything she said as a whole, it's clear to me that she too…

So why is 'misery' in quotes? Are the workers bluffing?

Re: Interview with Ayn Rand (1964)

#12

Post by ajju »

Boxer wrote: post #11
ajju wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is curious that a proponent of individualism like Rand advocated that her point of view on relationships, family etc is the only one that's moral. I really fell in love with objectivism as a teenager, and am a very strong supporter of free markets (yes, despite all the 'misery' they bring to workers in out-of-date industries). But examining her work and everything she said as a whole, it's clear to me that she too…

So why is 'misery' in quotes? Are the workers bluffing?

Misery:a state of ill-being due to affliction or misfortune;

I don't think the problems workers face due to globalization are non-existent. I do think that they aren't unforeseen (which is the definition of misfortune). I would argue that as programmers, our skills become obsolete faster than those of factory workers in a particular industry. If we can foresee this and learn new programming languages, it should be possible for workers to do this as well.

In short I think any misery globalization brings is avoidable but it would take not just efforts by governments but also awareness on the part of individuals and a willingness to accept change.

Re: Interview with Ayn Rand (1964)

#14

Post by nailer »

biohacker42 wrote: post #10

an objective reality exists independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver's emotions, feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Couldn't agree more. man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, Couldn't disagree more. And I in no way think that A implies B in this case.

I don't think A implied B either. B is implied through observing the behavior of simpler animals (which are easier to observe than human) and noting that it is generally self interested. Without any compelling reason to determine that man is somehow not an animal, it flows that humans also follow the same behavior.

Re: Interview with Ayn Rand (1964)

#15

Post by biohacker42 »

nailer wrote: post #14
biohacker42 wrote: post #10

an objective reality exists independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver's emotions, feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Couldn't agree more. man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, Couldn't disagree more. And I in no way think that A implies B in this case.

I don't think A implied B either. B is implied through observing the behavior of simpler animals (which are easier to observe than human) and noting that it is generally self interested. Without any compelling reason to determine that man is somehow not an animal, it flows that humans also follow the same behavior.

In this case B != B prime. By that I mean that the evolutionary drive to pass on one's genes is not the same as a human's happiness.

Even natural self interest is more subtle then it would appear as there are corner cases where your genes work against you, like in many social insects.

But humans are self ware and capable of advanced tool use. I'd have to consider crack pipes a tool and smoking crack the shortest path to the greatest and most self contained happiness.

But objectivism isn't simply a repetition of natural selection, nor is it an argument for drug fueled oblivion. Franky I'm not sure what it is?

Re: Interview with Ayn Rand (1964)

#16

Post by nailer »

biohacker42 wrote: post #15
nailer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think A implied B either. B is implied through observing the behavior of simpler animals (which are easier to observe than human) and noting that it is generally self interested. Without any compelling reason to determine that man is somehow not an animal, it flows that humans also follow the same behavior.

In this case B != B prime. By that I mean that the evolutionary drive to pass on one's genes is not the same as a human's happiness. Even natural self interest is more subtle then it would appear as there are corner cases where your genes work against you, like in many social insects. But humans are self ware and capable of advanced tool use. I'd have to consider crack pipes a tool and smoking crack the shortest path…

How do you define advanced? The whole 'animals' don't use tools seems to have been decimated by repeated findings over the last decade, the 'advanced' proviso is new to me.

Objectivism flows on from the idea that humans are self interested, that there is glory to be gained from achievement, that achievement is provision of something of unique value, and that money is the symbol of that unique value.

Though the language can be somewhat blunt, it's objectivism that holds dear the uniqueness you are awarded for providing in a successful startup, versus the hackneyed socialist 'money is the root of all evil' credo.

Re: Interview with Ayn Rand (1964)

#17

Post by asciilifeform »

asciilifeform wrote: post #13

Now, for those who are curious what Rand and her disciples were up to during that period: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

To those who modded this down: do you dispute any of the factual claims in Rothbard's piece? Or are you just reinforcing your image as mindless cultists?
Post reply on HN