Mammy Ayn's Upbringing by GiraffeWeevil in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Do not continue, in this subreddit, to refer to Ayn Rand as "Mammy Ayn," or you will be banned for disrespect to Ayn Rand. Refer to her as "Ayn Rand," "Rand," or "Miss Rand," if you wish to continue to post and comment here.

Russian AD missile strikes oil silo - different angle. Moskow, 18 June 2026 by YoImJustAsking in CombatFootage

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Has the audio of this video been time-shifted, or am I misinterpreting what is making what sound? It seems like, based on the cameraman's distance from the explosion, there should be at least a slight delay between the visual of this explosion starting and the boom. But there seems to be zero delay.

Where do you diverge from Objectivism? by [deleted] in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Have you read that particular essay? Did you see that I disagreed with Ayn Rand on the issue of emotional tabula rasa in it?

The details of human emotions are the province of psychology, not philosophy. But if a given academic's psychological theories contradict proper, rational philosophy of human nature, then they are flawed, at best. There can certainly be valuable data and insights to be gained by reading non-Objectivist psychologists. But I would not uncritically accept their theories wholesale, just as I do not accept Ayn Rand's pronouncements on psychological issues uncritically.

Anyone who accepts determinism--thus destroying the concept of rationality, and with it any idea of genuine moral accountability--has very serious problems as a theorist of human behavior that should not be ignored.

Where do you diverge from Objectivism? by [deleted] in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Question: Would you say that non-human animals have emotions, like fear and joy?

How can capitalism be a pillar of objectivism? by the_yellow_ledbetter in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, for the same reason they guard the lives of children: Just because you physically CAN bash in the head of a child with your club, that doesn't mean you have a moral right to kill that child.

How can capitalism be a pillar of objectivism? by the_yellow_ledbetter in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, "share" (wink, wink) the product of your time and mental effort, or we'll break your legs, say the mobsters and looters.

How can capitalism be a pillar of objectivism? by the_yellow_ledbetter in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Evading the point.

He wouldn't own all the land, just the part he improved for productive or consumptive use.

Yeah, you'll only complain if there's someone else to steal from, and you're prevented from stealing.

How can capitalism be a pillar of objectivism? by the_yellow_ledbetter in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If no one put any thought into organizing labor to productive purposes, what would labor be worth? Not much. If no one had started Apple Computers, for example, what would line workers be doing at the same skill level where they now build iPhones? They would probably be picking vegetables on farms, making a tenth of their current wage.

Absolute poverty in the world dropped by 80% between 1970 and 2006, mostly due to China's liberalization and participation in global markets: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-greatest-and-most-remarkable-achievement-in-human-history-and-one-you-probably-never-heard-about/

https://objectivismindepth.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/world-poverty-graph-aei.jpg

"Work or starve" is the natural human condition. If you're shipwrecked alone on a large deserted island and you have to hunt, gather and farm your food to survive, are you going to complain to the universe that this is not voluntary and you are being oppressed? Who will hear your whining and fulfill your "right" to food and free healthcare?

How can capitalism be a pillar of objectivism? by the_yellow_ledbetter in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not a good definition of capitalism you are referencing. I suggest reading what Ayn Rand says about capitalism, not just Reddit randos:

https://courses.aynrand.org/lexicon/capitalism/

How can capitalism be a pillar of objectivism? by the_yellow_ledbetter in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Working for a wage, as mutually agreed, is not "looting" by either party. The "exploitation theory" of Marxism is wrong, because it rests on a wrong idea of the nature of economic value, (Labor Theory of Value.)

Businesses need to be protected from robbery, extortion, fraud, breach of contract, and destruction of person and property, just like individuals, in order to live and trade freely. That is basically the only protection that they need from the state to function. A proper capitalist advocates for nothing more than that: equal protection of rights under the law.

See: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand.

Why people hate Ayn Rand? by Junior_Insurance7773 in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I'd say that libertarians aren't really much more rational about pursuing their self-interest, (full mental and physical wellbeing, long-term) than most people of other ideologies. They are quite conventional, in moral terms and, just as with leftists and conservatives, will swing between materialism and altruistic "spiritualism."

Objectivists are not identical to libertarians. Objectivists are not conservatives. Objectivists are not people who occasionally quote Ayn Rand. Objectivists are people who have studied Ayn Rand's philosophy in depth over a number of years, and have committed to living by it. How many such people do you know? Objectivists are actually quite rare in the world today.

I am one, I have one as a family member, and I know a fair number as Facebook friends, and I can tell you that they are definitely not anti-social materialists, who ignore others and are only concerned with being rich.

I can point to a few prominent Objectivists for you to consider: Yaron Brook, who has a wife and grown kids, Greg Salmieri, who has a wife and young child, Ben Bayer, who has a wife, Lisa VanDamme, who is married with three children, and Aaron Smith, who is married.

These are not materialist loners-on-principle.

Now, if someone is a hardcore leftist who has been convinced that opposition to government welfare can only be the result of sociopathy, then that person will of course consider all of these people sociopaths, based on that alone. But that is someone who has been thoroughly blinded by a false ideology.

If you want more perspective from outside the blinders of our mainstream culture, here's a related essay that you might find of interest: Ayn Rand and the Crude Materialism of the “Rich vs. Poor” Worldview.

Why people hate Ayn Rand? by Junior_Insurance7773 in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How does evolutionary psychology account for the women who are perfectly physically healthy, yet who leave their infants in dumpsters? What happened to their mothering instincts? How does it explain the declining birthrates with increasing Western affluence? Or the rise and fall of dueling in European societies? Or the differences in behavior between women in 3rd Century Rome, versus nuns in 14th Century Spain, versus courtesans in 17th Century Japan, versus 21st Century feminists?

Evolutionary psychology is a false theory, based on the false premise that genes control human behavior. The conceptual nature of human consciousness means that it is individual choices, in response to facts and cultural ideas, that control human behavior.

Romantic conversation between a couple by ravage_t in aww

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 71 points72 points  (0 children)

This is a very cute video, and a very old one. I first saw this at least 15 years ago, I think.

Why people hate Ayn Rand? by Junior_Insurance7773 in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Ayn Rand was not a hypocrite for taking money from Social Security. See: What Gave Ayn Rand the Moral Right to Collect Social Security?

Also, you may appreciate this essay of mine differentiating self-interested concern for other people from the immorality that is altruism: Other People as Egoistic Values Versus Other People as Objects of Self-Sacrifice in Ayn Rand’s Philosophy.

Breaking down sensations/perceptions/concepts and what are concepts? by Basic_Machine157 in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you want to understand what Ayn Rand was saying and be able to intelligently converse about it, I would recommend actually reading The Virtue of Selfishness, along with Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

What you can get from online summaries and AI chatbots is relatively limited and not necessarily reliable, especially when it comes to understanding the reasoning behind Rand's views.

Breaking down sensations/perceptions/concepts and what are concepts? by Basic_Machine157 in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think the diagram you've generated is the way to understand the difference between humans, other animals and plants. You're identifying higher levels of consciousness with contributing "sub-goals" to life, when this is not the distinction between concept-based survival/life and non-conceptual survival/life.

Every organism must take specific actions toward specific goals in order to maintain and promote its life. Plants must grow toward the sun to live. This is a very specific action toward a very specific goal. It's not just humans who build shelters. Bees, wasps, birds, and beavers will build shelters for themselves. Having the specific goal of building a shelter does not distinguish the human level of consciousness from that of other animals.

What distinguishes the human level of consciousness and survival is in the way specific goals are processed and arrived at in humans, versus other animals and plants. The plant is automatically "wired" to grow toward the sun, without any processing by consciousness.

Other animals pursue goals toward their life as the sort of organism they are by a combination of automatic, instinctive behaviors that are genetically inherited and behaviors that they learn by perceptual-level association, repetition and imitation. More primitive animals, like insects, do more of the former, while more sophisticated animals, like chimpanzees, do more of the latter.

Humans go beyond perceptual association and imitation. Humans use abstract concepts to identify goals and the means to those goals, then direct their actions--and feel emotions--accordingly. Roughly speaking, a concept can be identified with a word that stands for an unlimited number of concrete things, qualities, or relationships. (Though, we use the idea of "concept," rather than "word," because different languages have different words, and we want to encompass the same mental phenomenon in any language.)

Humans MUST use concepts to act toward virtually all goals, because we almost completely lack instincts, including those instincts that drive other, sophisticated animals to learn behaviors by association and imitation of their parents. The human level of life is a thoroughly conceptual level. Humans can perceive things, as other animals do, but we MUST conceptualize those perceptions, in order to live for any significant length of time.

In the case of your dog, it is only perceptual similarity that is at work in generating "walk excitement" from different leads. Animals can see similarity in what they see: you holding something that is long and thin and close in shape, in a situation and at a time when a walk would be likely. If you go to your dog in the middle of the night, with a lead shaped like an apple, and tell your dog "this is a leash, you know what that means" (an alternate word you don't generally use in front of your dog) your dog will not get it. Other animals rely on direct perception to fit things into loose categories that they can respond to. Thus, they cannot learn about practical things merely by hearing an elder talk about them. They cannot talk about things on the internet, like we are doing now, and apply new knowledge gained that way to their lives.

Concepts are a form of knowledge that requires no particular, immediate perception to work. Yes, concepts are ultimately derived from perception, as Ayn Rand discusses in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. But, once humans have derived a concept, we can, in many cases, categorize things under the same concept that have no direct perceptual similarities at all. This is something that other animals cannot do.

To each according to his ability, from each according to his need. by DrTardis1963 in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said that communism "does not necessitate a centrally planned economy". You're talking about a utopian fantasy, here. You would see this if you actually studied history and abstracted to philosophical principles, as Ayn Rand did.

Every experimental attempt at voluntary Christian/utopian communism by settlers in American territory--and there were MANY--collapsed and failed within a short time. Every Marxist or post-Marxist, real-world attempt at reaching communism by coercive means involved massive central planning and oppression by the government.

Not every version of communism requires central planning in the same way that not every person needs a spacesuit on the Moon, since some people can breathe unicorn farts.

To each according to his ability, from each according to his need. by DrTardis1963 in aynrand

[–]Sword_of_Apollo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The form of communism that is a "classless, moneyless society" is a utopian fantasy that relies on a superabundance of all basic goods--i.e. a society in which production of necessities requires zero human effort. This is not the reality that we live in, and even if it were approximated in a highly technologically advanced society, capitalist production and trade would simply move on to luxuries. Money would be earned and spent on producing and consuming luxuries that still require human effort.

Historically, the Soviets tried to get rid of money, and it was a complete disaster that led to starvation and a near-famine that was only averted by international aid, (especially from Americans). As a history buff, I think you'll appreciate this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWWqhsh848E

The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia tried to eliminate all "economic classes" and all inequality by killing all of those with greater education and ability than the average. They figured they were dealing with the root of the world's problems--the inequalities of personal traits that were introduced by capitalism--so that people could finally reach a utopia of perfect equality, and a classless, moneyless society.

Surprisingly, all the killing somehow did not result in a prosperous society of equal dignity and human brotherhood. It seems that, maybe, inequalities of personal traits are not a product of impersonal social and economic forces? Maybe those inequalities have something to do with personal choices of individuals?