IMO it's just a semantics mess when I try and read Ayn Rand's work these days.

Sure we need to be judgmental in order to make choices in our reality, but this isn't the same kind of meaning we usually associate with the word. I can be judgmental of someone's car because I think it's a piece of junk compared to mine - am I morally obligated to do so?

She seems quite PMR-centric and narrow minded to her own words which confines her to a little picture view of the world.

Just take Tom's simple thought experiment about two communities: one that is selfless (love) and one that is selfish (fear). Run that simulation in your mind a few different ways and see what results you get. Which community would be better?

I think she fails to see that you benefit many times over from other people being selfless or altruistic, and that the group only gets stronger when more people (including yourself) are selfless. You help others (even if it's to your detriment or self-sacrifice) and they are then more capable of helping you in return.

I say this with admitting that I was very much in an Ayn Rand phase pre-MBT.

_________________
Mike

There is a significant meaning difference between being judgmental and using judgement. Logic and judgement are significant in making choices. Something that we must do as unavoidable in the ordinary course of living. We must use judgement in making a choice for optimum results. Compare to making random choices.

From my usual choice for consistency of the Meriam-Webster dictionary on line.

Definition of JUDGMENTAL
1: of, relating to, or involving judgment
2: characterized by a tendency to judge harshly <judgmental prigs>

If 2 is Ayn Rand's choice, that is in no way a necessity or necessarily a good choice of behavior. I can see no basis for this as any kind of imperative, moral or otherwise. But as has been repeated, her writing is not clear. Why this should be a preferred or required choice is not clear. Perhaps as has been suggested, she has language problems and expresses herself poorly in English. She was a native Russian speaking novelist writing in English. Had she training in logic and philosophy adequate to seriously create a new philosophy?

Ted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
'
Objectivism is a philosophy created by the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982). Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.
Rand characterized Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth," grounded in reality, and aimed at defining man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives.[1]'

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

Reding Wiki I can see who was Ayn Rand's opponent. She left USSR, she hated communists and what they have done to Russia. She hated their totalitarian regime, and its ideology. Philosophy of Objectivism was her dialog, her rejection, and her response to a totalitarian regime of her lost country.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

As I understand you Lena, and you are most likely to fully understand her thinking, Ayn Rand was primarily reacting against her past experience in communist Russia.

Ayn Rand's ideas would appear to be diametrically opposed to Tom's understanding as expressed in My Big TOE, based upon the above description.

AR: reality exists independent of consciousness
MBT: our Virtual Reality exists as a function of consciousness

AR: human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception
MBT: our perception of this VR is provided to us via the RWW data stream and sense perception is part of the VR

AR: one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic
MBT: our perception of this VR can only be subjective as each 'person' is provided a separate data stream which they interpret individually based upon their own history and level of development

AR: the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest
MBT: ideal interaction with others (for optimum improvement of QoC and entropy reduction) is based upon maintaining optimum free will for all involved

Pretty near a diametrical opposition. MBT does not provide specific correlates for the other specific ideas of AR regarding the political and economic system.

Ted

It's right there, above: Living rationally in an irrational society. She asserts that we must be judgmental, the exact opposite of 'judge not lest ye be judged'.

-Montana

...perhaps .... read the essay?

Hmm... I think I need an NPMR oaken stake to drive through the heart of this thread, as, apparently, no one is going to actually read the essay.

</looks at NPMR watch> Ah! Time to lower my expectations!

-Montana

But they can be derived from:



And thus I stated above that for these particular points of her system there isn't much of a contradiction of MBT. For example a republic with minimum government that protects individuals from the transgressions of their personal freedom [dignity, mobility, possession etc.] by others [domestic and foreign; individual and collective] and provides and maintains basic public infrastructure seems to be compatible with the moral of MBT and the laissez-fair approach of Rand.

_________________
"Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world."

- Dao de jing, 1.

I already stated above that you underestimate the intellectual capacity of the forum users gathered here.

I read the essay. And I find that it is bad philosophy. Bad because she doesn't bother to define the terms she uses. Bad because she doesn't bother to explain causal relationships between the obligations she defines and the terms she uses.



This is a non sequitur. Judging 'the good' is easier than judging 'the evil'. 'Good' deeds are more obvious than 'evil' ones. So I might struggle to acknowledge what is 'evil' - because it is very hard to determine - if at all I bother to use these relative terms.



She never explained why I have a moral obligation to judge immoral behavior. She never explained what apart from judging others is moral. If you like irrational rants like these you might like Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' - that, too, sounds quite reasonable until one goes through the drain of taking it apart...



She did not define rationality. She did not explain the logical system she follows. Is she using Aristotelian logic? Non-Aristotelian logic? Fuzzy logic? What are her ontological axioms to which the logic she uses is applied and according to which I shall judge others?

Better people? How am I going to judge a 'better' person? According to how rational they are? And what if I am a complete moron that thinks himself to be rational. Do I have the right to judge others because I can't grasp their elevated rationality and thus mistake them to be morons?

And again: A judgment - as is any moral system - is of no avail if it does not provide a method of action. I cannot see where Rand is pointing to with all this judgment. If she wants to conquer 'evil' - and whatever that means to her - she will at some point have to use force and take action. And frankly - I would not want to be at that place when that happens... ;)

I am sorry - but this is bad philosophy. If you really want to go onto the trip of me, myself and I - I really suggest you read Nietzsche. This woman's philosophy is but a distorted shadow of that man's heritage.

_________________
"Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world."

- Dao de jing, 1.

Actually, she herself said that the only philosopher that influenced her was Aristotle.

You sound very much in attack mode, Nemo. Mein Kampf....? Was that necessary?

A man who struggles not to acknowledge that evil is evil, finds it increasingly dangerous to acknowledge that the good is the good.

"This is a non sequitur. Judging 'the good' is easier than judging 'the evil'. 'Good' deeds are more obvious than 'evil' ones. So I might struggle to acknowledge what is 'evil' - because it is very hard to determine - if at all I bother to use these relative terms. "

You may apply all the logic you like, but if you can't see directly the fact that that statement refers to, and if you can't see the utility of terms like good or evil, then I suspect that you are the victim of a sort of dis-order that is not uncommon in bright, callow young men ... they get carried away by their own minds and spend their lives in a generally unpleasant (to me, at least) state of constant bickering .... see posts by old Claudio (Suprano). Be careful.... else the spider spins a web from which it can find no escape.

-Montana

Even if she didn't study him her work would still be far inferior.



Oh, that wasn't an attack. I stick to open minded skepticism - so reading 'Mein Kampf' is a justified way of getting to know PMR mindsets.



So I meant it the way I said it: If you are interested in - which you appear to be - irrational rants you might enjoy reading 'Mein Kampf'. I didn't take into account that you actually identify with Rand's philosophy - which seems to be the reason you didn't get that connection.



I do not need your paternalistic advice. Especially not if you are trying to cover your disappointment over the refutation of a philosophy which you hold deer with it. An ad-hominem argument won't get you out of the situation you maneuvered yourself into. And apart from the bad rhetoric strategy you chose it would interest me how you arrive at the conclusion that I am not able to make a moral judgment - other than that I reject relative terms of good and evil. Here in the forum we discuss a moral system that does not need these terms and still is far superior than what Rand came up with.

Does this, too, tempt you to throw some big-headed advice at Tom?

_________________
"Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world."

- Dao de jing, 1.

Trying to lower your expectations is just another expectation Montana.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Ted,

I deleted one more line in my post about Ayn Rand. Understanding is not the same as accepting.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

LOL, Thanks, as ever. You know (totally off topic here) I was thinking about the nature of 'measuring devices' and then wikied the idea... and ... you'd never guess, but there is such a thing as a bettsometer !~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_measuring_devices

Nemo: Good luck in your search for happiness, education, or whatever it is you yearn for.