|
|
Post by Merceditas on Apr 22, 2006 8:44:00 GMT -8
Sgt. Ah, comparing what in general, we 'conservatives' believe about personal responsibility with the leftist/liberal views of it is surely a different ball game.  I just had a few shocking run-ins with Rand followers that made me have to go research some of her Objectionist theories. We had a few discussions on thegulch about this topic. In the end I found her most ardent but (what I believe) are extreme followers to hold to her views that I believe do tend to go too far at the expense of humanity. I'm not the only one to agree with some of her ideas yet see some serious problems with it. Perhaps like all ideas, theories, none are perfect. But I certainly do not claim to be any expert on it all. Oh, and I do tend to go a little to the left (in some areas) of many of our good friends here.   And you didn't sound 'preachy' to me. I enjoy reading and discussing other people's views, disagreement over ideas is understandable and expected. I don't get offended over that, like you said, I get a bit upset (grrrrrrr........ESB/Cheesedoodle and Tankey/Lepid) to run into others who use dishonesty in their attempts to push their point. |
|
|
|
Post by sgt0311usmc on Apr 22, 2006 15:09:56 GMT -8
Sgt. Ah, comparing what in general, we 'conservatives' believe about personal responsibility with the leftist/liberal views of it is surely a different ball game. I just had a few shocking run-ins with Rand followers that made me have to go research some of her Objectionist theories. We had a few discussions on thegulch about this topic. In the end I found her most ardent but (what I believe) are extreme followers to hold to her views that I believe do tend to go too far at the expense of humanity. I'm not the only one to agree with some of her ideas yet see some serious problems with it. Perhaps like all ideas, theories, none are perfect. But I certainly do not claim to be any expert on it all. Oh, and I do tend to go a little to the left (in some areas) of many of our good friends here. And you didn't sound 'preachy' to me. I enjoy reading and discussing other people's views, disagreement over ideas is understandable and expected. I don't get offended over that, like you said, I get a bit upset (grrrrrrr........ESB/Cheesedoodle and Tankey/Lepid) to run into others who use dishonesty in their attempts to push their point. I know what you're saying there ("extremist views"). And, I don't "buy into" everything in the books. I got into (the edge of) a Rand group in college, and have looked at some of the on-line boards for some for it too. My initial (knee-jerk) response was a desire to join in & address some of what I felt were gross mis-interpretations. Then, I sort of had an epiphany, if you will, that her books SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. If you read them, not only do you not need others to explain them, but - it's contradictory to her point of self-reliance. Discussion can lead to re-reading, but should not lead to "following". I hate to use this analogy but, it's kinda like the Bible. If you focus too much on the big-picture, you miss key lessons & points. If you focus too much on each verse, not only will you be overwhelmed, but you'll never see the big-picture. And, if you just select (YOUR interpretation of) the key verses, you'll get a different opinion from the person next to you. And, it has it's various "priests" & certainly it's detractors. In the end - it's up to you what you get from it; and too much attempt at interpretation in a group, at least to me, is exactly contrary to the points she makes. Personally, I eventually just found re-affirmation of my own thought process, and some inspiration. You say that, "I do tend to go a little to the left (in some areas) of many of our good friends here." That may be (or, you might find yourself surprised by some of us). That's fine. I don't think you would have stayed, had you not seen some kindred spirit here. I believe that TRUE "Empowerment", like "Pride" & "self-esteem", is generated from within the individual - and comes from accomplishment. When you face, and surmount, your own obstacles, demons, whatever - you gain something that no one can ever take from you. Yes, they might throw more obstacles your way, but, when you are TRULY "empowered", many times you realize that you can just ignore, or side-step them. (Which is why the Lib's now focus on the media, family & kids). One other thing - "Excellence", to me, means just that - in whatever you do. If you're a pianist - be the best that YOU can be. If you're a mother, the same. If you're a florist - the same. If you're a physicist - the same. You might NOT be the best in the world - but be the best that YOU can be. Reach YOUR potential - (and only YOU know where that is) - and find true joy in life. A funny thing is - if you remember who got into "Galt's Gulch" (in the story); and how they were chosen, this board reminds me of it. BTW - And how is it that Daphney can be so strong, and a pargon of excellence; yet ... (I assume that you know where that was going); I mean - OK, there can be an "Alpha" & a "Beta" in a relationship, but - THAT was kinda rough - AND, from a female author ...  I don't get that! (Maybe that was Ayn giving us a peek into her own .... idiosynchracies...)  |
|
|
|
Post by Merceditas on Apr 24, 2006 6:16:01 GMT -8
I haven't read in depth any of her writings. Have you read her works on her philosophy? Her writings on Objectivism? It seems to me most of us here tend to have more in common with each other than not. I didn't read the book, so I'm not sure. (mmmmm........but now you make me curious) |
|
|
|
Post by sgt0311usmc on Apr 24, 2006 20:20:40 GMT -8
I haven't read in depth any of her writings. Have you read her works on her philosophy? Her writings on Objectivism? It seems to me most of us here tend to have more in common with each other than not. Mercidatas; I've read pretty much most of her stuff ... kinda dropped out of it due to it being pretty redundant - I may have one or 2 here (at home) that I skimmed, instead of reading. That (redundancy) is part of what led me to the belief that that it didn't realy NEED to be discussed & taught further by others. The other part was my realization that it's not advocating cruelty - but it does advocate fighting "The Looters" of society - those non-producers (i.e. - "advocates", Lib's, Dem's, etc) that would demand not only the work, intelligence and products of the productive, but even have the nerve to demand that the productive AGREE WITH THEM as they stole. It's funny but, George Orwell's 1984 & Animal Farm (despite what we learned in school about them being "Anti-Right") are really just plagiarisms, or analogies, of her works. I didn't read the book, so I'm not sure. (mmmmm........but now you make me curious) Well, essentially, in "Atlas Shrugged", there happens to be about 5 "uninitiated" "Strong" characters. These are the productive people - the ones who see obstacles (strikes, an oppressive "liberal" gov't, industrial accidents, etc) & simply DEAL WITH THEM - & keep business going. One is Dagny Taggart - a sharp, driven, intelligent business lady. She tolerates no nonesense when it comes to business (YES, she has a sense of humor), and - she has no sense of fear, or subservience. She treats others with the respect that they deserve (earn), but takes second seat to no one. Yet, when she finds a man that she can respect enough to love - well, it can get a little rough, and she apparently likes being on the receiving end. I just don't get that from a woman author, especially one who extols the virtue of self-excellence. So, like I said, maybe there's a little of old Ayn "showing through" there. If you do decide to read her; I'd suggest "The Fountainhead", followed by "Atlas Shrugged". It's really all there in those 2 books. The good thing about that order is that "fountainhead" reads like any other novel, and it gives you a pretty good insight into her writing style. It's like a primer for "Atlas Shrugged". "Atlas Shrugged" takes a little effort to get through. My first time, I finally just started speed-reading the parts that seemed to go on. Then, when I'd hit the end of that (section, speech, monologue), I'd stop, make sure I "got" the points being made, then move on. I was glad that I did - it was worth it. They're 2 of the books that I re-read every 3 - 5 years, just for fun. During clintons "peak", I would read it in the living room, with the news on, in amazement at how prescient her writing was. I hope that you'll give "Fountainhead" a shot (If I knew where, I'd send you a copy).  Falcon - I wish that I had good news for you, but, it continues uphill - even in the service. In many units, they're only as squared-away as the leader (of whatever rank) with the biggest cajones (make sure you know the rules, if you decide it's gonna be you). |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 25, 2006 1:19:52 GMT -8
Falcon - I wish that I had good news for you, but, it continues uphill - even in the service. In many units, they're only as squared-away as the leader (of whatever rank) with the biggest cajones (make sure you know the rules, if you decide it's gonna be you). I think the biggest problem I am going to have (and its the biggest problem I have right now) is not expecting the troops under my command to have the same desire for perfection that I do. I've gotten into countless debates with my Cadre and fellow cadets about this. To me, anything less than perfect is unacceptable. If your uniform looks really nice but you are missing a button, then you don't meet standards. There's something wrong so how could you? Or if you hand in a report that's really spot-on but with a few mistakes, then its still wrong. Does that mean you're a bad Airman? No, but I also won't rank you as a "5" unless you go above and beyond what I expect of you. I already know that a lot of the Enlisted under me are going to hate me when it comes time for Enlisted Performance Reports but I really don't care. I'm not going to betray my beliefs just to help someone's career. If you are worthy of a 5 I'll give it to you but only if you deserve it. The Fountainhead confirmed much of what I believe in but ever since I read it I have really given in towards my Idealistic side. I used to be torn between being an Idealist and a Pragmatist. Now the battle is over - I'm a committed Idealist. |
|
|
|
Post by Merceditas on Apr 25, 2006 13:02:55 GMT -8
Mercidatas; I've read pretty much most of her stuff ... kinda dropped out of it due to it being pretty redundant - I may have one or 2 here (at home) that I skimmed, instead of reading. That (redundancy) is part of what led me to the belief that that it didn't realy NEED to be discussed & taught further by others. The other part was my realization that it's not advocating cruelty - but it does advocate fighting "The Looters" of society - those non-producers (i.e. - "advocates", Lib's, Dem's, etc) that would demand not only the work, intelligence and products of the productive, but even have the nerve to demand that the productive AGREE WITH THEM as they stole. You sound like you've taken the basic philosophy with common sense and a natural sense of justice. I'm sure some have told you that you have to be an athiest to be a true Objectionist. Perhaps some people just tend to need those hard lines on their left and right because they think they might crash otherwise or maybe it's just the extremist tendency to linear thinking? Anti-right? I always took both of them as being anti-communist. They're not? You mean she takes physical abuse from him? If so, that certainly doesn't make any sense to me. Esp being with one of the points she was trying to make there. "One is sexually attracted to those who embody one's values. Those who have base values will be attracted to baseness, to those who also have ignoble values. Those who lack any clear purpose will find sex devoid of meaning. People of high values will respond sexually to those who embody high values." Unless her hero and heroine both haven't high values. (if any man raised his hand to me, it would be the last time he ever did anything with that hand.........) Aww, thank you. I might consider reading it sometime. My little local library should have a copy. |
|
|
|
Post by sgt0311usmc on Apr 25, 2006 14:42:35 GMT -8
You sound like you've taken the basic philosophy with common sense and a natural sense of justice. I'm sure some have told you that you have to be an athiest to be a true Objectionist. Perhaps some people just tend to need those hard lines on their left and right because they think they might crash otherwise or maybe it's just the extremist tendency to linear thinking? Maybe it's lack of introspection on my part, or a hypocracy that I'm comfortable with - But, I certainly see no conflict from my Christian upbringing to striving for excellence, refusing to bow to or participate in lies or letting people learn from "tough love". If it (Christianity) conflicts with objectivism, then, guess which one loses? Then again, it may be a hollow argument - You can PRACTICE Zen, without having to subscribe to Bhuddism. Anti-right? I always took both of them as being anti-communist. They're not? YES, in fact they are. But, that doesn't stop the revisionists on the left from trying to change the meaning. Don't you remember all the left-wing "Horrors - 1984 was right - look what Reagan's doing!!!" nonesense, abck in '82-'85? I had read all 4 of them (Orwells & Rands) by the time that I was in 11th grade. In short, 3 HS English teachers, and later, 6 different college Lit prof's all claimed that they (Orwell's) were "Anti-right" ("despite the the attempts by right-wing fascists to claim that they are "anti-communist; but that's just right-wing fear-mongering"). (Get it?) Here's a funny example. I saw The Who in NYC 6 times. They were in a little off-broadway place, seated about 1000 (?). Every time that they did, "Won't get fooled again", they would stop before hand, and Roger or Pete would ask the crowd to "actually LISTEN for once". Afterward, they'd go, "REVOLUTION! RIGHT?" & the crowd would go crazy. They'd let the crowd die down, then say - "IF you had listened - that was one of the most direct ANTI-REVOLUTION songs ever....20 years later, people STILL don't get it." (I howled with laughter, because that's what I used to argue with my friends about...) You mean she takes physical abuse from him? If so, that certainly doesn't make any sense to me. Esp being with one of the points she was trying to make there. Yes, (as a sort of foreplay). MY POINT EXACTLY! "One is sexually attracted to those who embody one's values. Those who have base values will be attracted to baseness, to those who also have ignoble values. Those who lack any clear purpose will find sex devoid of meaning. People of high values will respond sexually to those who embody high values." Unless her hero and heroine both haven't high values. They do, and I kind of get her point about "total submission only to someone that she can respect", but, to me, it's not in character for her, Hank, or john. But, it's meant as some sort of object lesson ABOUT high values. Ulimately - it's the one part that makes no sense to me. (Unless, like I said, Ol' Ayn maybe wanted to find a guy worthy of giveng her a few rap's to the cheek (whichever.... ). (if any man raised his hand to me, it would be the last time he ever did anything with that hand.........) And rightly so. You have no argument here. Aww, thank you. I might consider reading it sometime. My little local library should have a copy. Later, I thought about editting that to ensure no misunderstanding, but - I said what I said, and it meant just that. I have a habit of giving a good book to someone that I get the idea willactually get something out of. If they don't have it, I wouldn't be surprised. I sat next to an eco-whacko on a flight once that (seeing my copy of Atlas Shrugged) spent half the flight trying to talk me out of "reading that propaganda trash novel", and how, whenever she found a copy of "anything Rand" in her local library - she "took action against it" (smug wink). It's funny the things about the real inner-workings of the "Liberal" left that you can find out, just by acting like you're a wavering conservative & that they might be able to convince you to switch .... Did you know that it's OK for them to promulgate blatant lies in order to convince us to vote along with them, because we don't know what's good for us - but they do? They know it. ;D (I know - 'cause they've told me). |
|
