TTI Forums

Ayn Rand has given us some great insights about the Objectivist character and mind set. She has also related many situations in which the Objectivist and Collectivist cross paths. Do you think that to be an Objectivist is to be antisocial?

IMO no. The Objectivist socializes a great deal, with people that can help him meet his objectives. In fact I think Rand has pointed out several times that the true relationship to be cherished is one between fair and equal partners.

If my opinion is valid and has legs, how does it influence the way we play EVE? Is our solo productivity more important than developing partnerships in accordance with our objectives?

What if relationships with fair and equal partners ARE one of the objectives, how does this change the way you play the game?

Doesn't change the way I play at all. For me, relationships are the primary objective!

I think objectivists are more often than not depicted as hermits, even self-depicted as such, simply because there is an abundance of lazy and incompetent folk in the world today, who do not follow rational logic as their prime guide.

Where there are so many incompetent people around the objectivist, he/she would be right to feel or appear antisocial, since, and in the words of Hank Rearden - "I cannot descend to an existence where my brain will explode under the pressure of forcing itself not to outdistance incompetence."

By the very nature of it, socialising with mindless hulks and enjoying their activities of watching 'Oprah' 24/7 would be contrary to what the objectivist believes in, imo.

yep, too many stupid people in the world.... ive always tried to be around people at my level or better, and i have been left with few friends.

Yes there seems to be a global epidemic of irrationality. I mean, we kicked the commies out of Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, and what do we have now? a 90% socialist governed EU... great. And even Putin is building the Red Bear up again... sheeesh.

Max Delorian wrote: Where there are so many incompetent people around the objectivist, he/she would be right to feel or appear antisocial, since, and in the words of Hank Rearden - "I cannot descend to an existence where my brain will explode under the pressure of forcing itself not to outdistance incompetence."

Great quote Max, and completely valid IMO. Why force yourself to comply and conform with the ignorant teaming masses. How many times can you watch survivor only to realize that it reinforces and rewards the lowest common denominator in human relations? It is difficult to envision a more soiling situation.

But to add depth to the question, people of distinction and quality swim in this broth of incompetence every day. Should the Objectivist choose to swim alone? Or band together with like minded souls?

musashi.... you're asking a question the wrong way.

i think its up to the objectivist to do as they wish.....

its the philosophy of dagny vs galt.....

DagnyTaggart wrote:musashi.... you're asking a question the wrong way.

I think its up to the objectivist to do as they wish.....

its the philosophy of dagny vs galt.....

Now to me DT, this sounds like you are describing an Individualist. And certainly this type of person is an antithesis of the mob mentality of the Collectivist.

Is the Objectivist different than the Individualist? Certainly they are similar, but to me an Objectivist further has a focused approach towards achieving their goal. Napoleon Hill called it a “Master Mind” plan for success and definiteness of purpose.

In my mind this is added distinction is what gives the Objectivist an upper hand to succeed in spite of negative social pressure. We are not merely rebelling against the machine. We are working to a different plan, and passionately focused upon making the plan work!

nietzschian egoism vs randian egoism....

[ the anarchist vs the objectivist] vs the collectivist


i would say that my vision of an individualist includes both realms....

but does the individualist have the same purpose as the objectivist? i mean the individualist seems to _want_ to be alone rather then do whats best for himself _in all_ circimstances.

I define individualism in these (granted, crude) but very effective terms:

An individualist believes in social order(ie. law) that protects individuals from *other* individuals.

An individualist does not belive in the law protecting him/her from him/herself.

Of course, this is a gross simplification. Individualism is, like "fascism", a funny word and a hard one to coin. Especially since we all have different opinions about what it entails; especially people between the Great Pond.

Nonetheless, a fair argument would be that individuals want the right to pick & choose FOR themselves, without social restraint ON themselves. This conforms pretty well with most people's ideas of moral thinking(ie., don't steal or kill - or suffer the consequences).

Not sure of the time table but I wonder if Rand preceded Game Theory?

At any rate my point is this Objectivism should not be confused with blind ISKism. I think what Rand is trying to get across is richness in life of all the finest things. This would include company.

Seek out the best and make it yours. Blind aquisition without appreciation is foolhardy. I will do more reaserch nut I think this is the main idea.


Cheers.

alaphforce wrote:Not sure of the time table but I wonder if Rand preceded Game Theory?

At any rate my point is this Objectivism should not be confused with blind ISKism. I think what Rand is trying to get across is richness in life of all the finest things. This would include company.

Seek out the best and make it yours. Blind aquisition without appreciation is foolhardy. I will do more reaserch nut I think this is the main idea.


Cheers.

Well, from what I know, Rand herself was married -- so if the founder of Objectivism is not a hermit, then who is to say the rest of us [should be/are].

the public view of value is measured in money.

the private view of value is up to the individual.

i havent expressly seen this from rand or peikoff.... but seems reasonable heh

I’d like to expand my position on this question. If we look at Atlas, the industrialists did not go their separate ways. They banded together, specifically Ragnar - John – and Francisco, but also Midas Muligan. They withdrew their support from a hostile society, albeit that the hostility was sublime. And gave their support to the gulch, a community which they felt provided more support for them, and like minded people. The characters were not running away from the collective society, as much as they were running to the gulch.

Interesting that once the gulch came into existence, the characters still went back out into the cruel world to salvage worthy people. This missionary action might seem altruistic. Yet it served a purpose, it expanded their community. So even a concept much maligned within the book was used by it’s characters. Altruism is a tool. Like any tool altruism can be used for good or evil. Further the interpretation of altruism’s effects, are a matter of perspective. I like Eliyahu Goldratt’s conception of perspective. There really is no good or evil circumstance, rather valid or invalid perspectives. If a perspective can be shown to be invalid, the mere acceptance of its invalidity dissolves and dissipates our attachment to the incorrect position.

Community is not a bad thing. I’ve just finished reading about Buddha, Siddhartha had a choice to pursue enlightenment through asceticism and hermitage (the common forms that predated him). He chose the middle path and found nirvana. And his main point is that community (family, friends, and the myriad of social arrangements) is what living is all about. And this living in society with compassion and understanding helping our worthy fellows is within my definition of community.

The Collectivists really seized the high ground when they managed to steal the word Communism; it is so close to community. Redefining terms is a powerful tactic. The common perception follows that if community is good (which it is) communism must be good too. The association makes Communism a shiny box, who cares what is in side?

The truth is Communism is not about community it is about coercion. Communism is about exploiting the laws and morays to consolidate and centralize power.

I prefer the community we have here in TTI. We have independent players. Our members do come together with compassion and assistance for each other. It is also good to see us working to expand our community.

harnessing meanings words have to further a political agenda is brilliant. I think one of the most impressive examples of this is communism and community. Another not so impressive example is the term 'pro-choice'. the use of the term pro-choice to link pro-abortion stance in the US was brilliant. after all everyone is pro-choice, no one wants to enslave anyone else. of course we want ppl to have choices. .... looking back over history this idea has been practiced quiet often...

Shazam0 wrote:harnessing meanings words have to further a political agenda is brilliant.

Another one that has great weight in the US is President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program. At face value the program it appears to guarantee that education will leave no one’s child behind. The reality is that many more students dropped out of the education system under NCLB. And by all appearances NCLB appears to be a union breaking scheme.

Actually, even with all it's faults, I like the NCLB policy.

Finally, these useless school systems that are hopelessly broken will stop being funded.

Yes, it is unfair that there are broken school systems. Unfortunately, as long as the money continues to flow into them, nothing will change.

This program is also necessary if you are going to fund alternative education alternatives. You must evaluate that they are working otherwise you are again just spending tax payer money with no checks and balances.

It's easy to just keep taking the money for both a "new alternative" and the old failing systems. There needs to be some check and balance method to say. STOP! What you are doing isn't working.

No way will this first effort work well. The established school systems are heavily supported by all those with vested interest. The new "alternative" programs similarly have their supporters. We all know that there are people with agenda's. What we want is to have our children educated.

Testing! Well we all hated standard tests, but continueing to fund schools with woeful graduations rates and inadequate test scores be they new or old must be stopped.