"Freedom" thread or something

JJLehto wrote: zumacraig wrote: Capitalism makes us miserable...aside from basic consciousness. So a critique of capitalism itself? Fine, what is our alternative? Communism? THAT is really an environment conductive to happiness. The feudal system? That was a barrel of fun. No over arching system can make us happy or miserable, we are all individuals! How can such a massive, broad way of doing things cause such a general feeling as you say? There's so much that has happened in our individual lives, we make ourselves happy or miserable. I really do see more and more that some people have lost that basic idea, that we are individual people Not a collective body. We have say over our lives...right?

zumacraig wrote: JJLehto wrote: zumacraig wrote: Capitalism makes us miserable...aside from basic consciousness. So a critique of capitalism itself? Fine, what is our alternative? Communism? THAT is really an environment conductive to happiness. The feudal system? That was a barrel of fun. No over arching system can make us happy or miserable, we are all individuals! How can such a massive, broad way of doing things cause such a general feeling as you say? There's so much that has happened in our individual lives, we make ourselves happy or miserable. I really do see more and more that some people have lost that basic idea, that we are individual people Not a collective body. We have say over our lives...right? I don't have a solution, but that doesn't mean that we can't critique capitalism or Marxism, for that matter.  Dialectical thinking is in order here.   As far as us being individuals, that's not true.  We have no self or soul.  We are body's with preferences and conventional ways of being to 'live' in the world, but our mind is a collective of symbolism and language.  A radical sea change of this system could definitely lead to less suffering of humanity.  This change occurs with ideological awareness and dialog characterized by rigor and immanent critique.

Since ya don't know me I'll let it go but rational thought is how I live my life and try to keep emotion out of important decisions/thoughts.
Ah well just getting too philosophical for me, I try to stay grounded in reality.
Soul? Who knows, we almost certainly don't but sorry...I have to disagree, we are individuals. If not...what are we? Yes, I know of universal/collective mindsets (Jung) but just from the small sample of the world I've seen, we are very diverse in mind. We are individuals, and have control of our lives, if you disagree I can't really argue, but this is all very unrealistic. Even if in you apparent mighty intellect are 100% correct, well...good luck bringing this sea of change to the populace!

zumacraig wrote: King of Loss wrote: The T wrote: When comparisons are made between drugs and religion I just realize the discussion might lead nowehere. For one thing, religious sometimes make some people be more productive and really content in life. Quite the opposite of drugs. Even opiates. The Marxian (if it was really him) confusion of opium and religion is old and always effective in some people. Even in my activist(kind of)atheist times I found it somewhat suspicious. I honestly think man has and will always have the desire to believe in something. Whether it is science or god or God or whomever. I agree, but Marxists believe in something like religion, but it's not really religion. I think the main criticism of Marx was towards the oppressive nature of religion, just like the observations in the oppressive nature of most man-made things. Marx seemed to be pointing to the fact that with religion, many times reason goes out the window and delusion prevails.   We've seen this with extremists in Islam and Christianity.  At the same time, I think one can intentionally use a 'higher power' to aid in drudgery of life. It works for a small percentage of addicts.   My issue with religion as an atheist is that people devote their lives to doctrines that have a genocidal endgame and take no responsibility for it.  In fact, they talk about their religion in terms of love and compassion.  Delusion. As with anything, there are extremist Marxists as well as Libertarians.  Marxist critique has some helpful tools in looking at work, in particular.  Work is for the most part alienating and exploitive.  We're all caught up in it, even if we love our jobs.  And capitalism did not start with a level playing field.  In fact, there's an argument to be made that much of the initial wealth that started the industrial revolution was stolen or on the backs of slaves.

I haven't read Fountainhead but I read some book called Essays on Capitalism (or was it Objectivism) and I couldn't make it beyond 20 or so pages of that.   Of course, I don't think mainstream is crap nor do I celebrate pretension as an ideal.  I recognise that man needs to be given some space to establish his individuality but at the same time, we are also social animals.  Maybe to a lesser or greater degree depending on our personalities but ultimately, we are social.  Man by himself solitary and unarmed is a weak animal incapable of defending himself against great danger.   We derive strength in numbers and sometimes this makes some compromises of self interest necessary.  I don't subscribe to the use of force to coerce people into following a group, but I don't also celebrate self interest as the only and most important ideal.   There are times when some vision and foresight is required and failure of individuals/businesses/economies to exhibit these qualities ultimately harms their self interest.  The feeling I got from what I read of Rand was that it seemed to indiscriminately promote self interest as the only worthy goal and if that is a correct interpretation of her stance, then I cannot fully agree with it.  Men are, whether we like it or not, very much like the monkeys they have descended from though they may find it fashionable to think of themselves as tigers.


Edited by rogerthat - April 16 2013 at 10:54

Yeah Brian, I kind of feel the same way. I wouldn't really say I'm fully agnostic anymore. I mean, I believe in a higher power but my main issue is that I'm anti-organized religion. Because I believe that people can easily corrupt religion to mean whatever they want it to mean. And to me, religion is something that is based off an inter-personal interpretation. If some people enjoy worshiping in a communal setting or going to a weekly service, and it makes them moral and more productive members of society, then more power to them. But I don't personally feel like I need any of those things.

Oh her writing is not very good at all. It's certainly overly verbose and cluttered with unnecessary stuff...and while I get the intent, her characters can be unrealistic. Like Roark, no human behaves this way, and it can be a turn off. Deff it'd be nice to see his ideals in a more, well human like person

But yeah, that's more or less my take Pat. We all are entitled to an opinion and for several reasons I get we need to use other people/sources/even straw men at times...but it does make me value an opinion less. Can't truly form your own educated opinion if you don't read it.

Well that's the thing rogerthat...Rand is the liberal anti christ because as you said, shes 100% "selfish" and "self interested" buuuuuuuuuut at least from reading Fountainhead like I said the main guy chooses a life of little money, and takes an unnaturally difficult road to stay dedicated to his ideals. It's self interest and uncompromising, but it doesn't need to be a in "screw you all I'll kill anyone to climb to the top way" honestly, it made me think of an underground prog band choosing to stay true and not sell out or accept any musical compromise. And many prog musicians really are a****les that are "selfish" about their music and way, even if it means being distant to us who support them. They put their vision, creativity and work out there and if we choose to support it great, if not well f**k us it's their music, and they live in poverty from it well at least they aren't sell outs. Many proggers have this attitude and it's very prominent in Fountainhead! Ironic eh?

Edit: oh and Keating for example. He takes the cliche route to success that liberals hate, but while he finds huge success...he's never truly happy. He gets his truest happiness from the girl he likes, and Roark the one guy he truly respects. That being said, yes it is quite unrealistic to expect society to run this way, obviously we have a sense of community even if its just to our loved ones/family. IDK if she went over the top to make the point or truly believes it but yeah her rigidity in the characters hurt the good ideals.


Edited by JJLehto - April 16 2013 at 20:13

Anthem is a great little short book. I don't really care what the literary geniuses say. I haven't tried her long books though. They might suck. But Anthem is good.

Anthem was pretty good and far more accessible, buuuuut it was a lot like "We" which came first and is better so yeah
I can say Fountainhead has been pretty good and pretty non political honestly. It's more of a personal struggle thing. I havn't tried to tackle the beast Atlas Shrugged yet, and I still have Human Action by Mises to read which seems like a task as well.





Edited by JJLehto - April 16 2013 at 20:55

I just find it ironic is all. And one can hate the results of her work in reality, but the book itself...well no need to repeat. Its just full of the prog attitude I see and its funny that she's so hated. Especially since many of us embody Roark and it'd be a turn off the general public, but we are turned off by it as well...at least when put in a political context.

Like I said I agree....no need to really get into how her message is poor. Save a few true nuts, no one lives the way she expresses. Obviously we are communal and even a society of individualists is still a society. We're not going to a state of nature, nor would anyone want it so don't fret over her worship of "I"    (Again without having read it I have to use generals with you, it'd be easy to communicate if you have read)
And IDK...fashionable to believe "I" is all that matters and everyone else is an obstacle?

Sounds like a straw man. Few live that way, and honestly they seem hated. The people who do that are big time CEOs, really wealthy people, even athletes...the most hated ones are often the most successful, and they always are the most driven. Look right now with Tiger Woods. By being to driven and not "respecting the ways of golf" he's been despised, and people are fuming he didn't eject himself from a major tournament. Which is quite nutty to me.
So yeah man, I think the most "I" focused, success driven, screw you all people are pretty despised not fashionable.

I agree btw, I'd never want that life and wanna be shot if I get that way, you can do it even.


Edited by JJLehto - April 16 2013 at 21:12

I think it depends on up to what point people feel comfortable with his pursuit of self interest.   Until the news about Woods's extra-marital affairs came out, they celebrated his sporting achievements.  After, they suddenly feel uncomfortable about everything that concerns Woods (which is strange as his golf has nothing to do with his personal choices).  You could probably put down as the meltdown as a watershed moment.  Since then, maybe people feel a bit uncomfortable about hugely successful people who have a reputation for selfishness (there was hue and cry over fond eulogies pouring out on Jobs' death because he was supposed to be just a selfish billionaire).  But before the meltdown, they were the heroes and the role models for a whole generation.  Once the wheels of the world economy start rolling again, there may be a reversal of this guilt-complex.  

Edited by rogerthat - April 16 2013 at 21:27