"Who is John Galt?"

[blackbeard]

OH by the way. About 5 years ago, I got this. I passed it along. When I got it it tripped me out. Love whoever did it.

 

[skraps]

I think that people read the idea of objectivism too literally in Rand's writing. If you read the quote that Tyler has shared, and shared earlier, and dissect it, it can make perfect sense.

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Break it down by the words and their definitions if you must.
"live for": (phrasal verb of live)

1: regard as the purpose or most important aspect of one's life.
"sake": - noun ˈsāk 2

a : the good, advantage, or enhancement of some entity (as an ideal)
So, the "purpose or most important aspect" of my life is not going to be "the good, advantage, or enhancement" of another man, nor will I expect him to make the "purpose or most important aspect" of his life, "the good, advantage, or enhancement" of me.
What this says to me does not imply selfishness. It implies that "the most important aspect" of my life should be my own health, success and prosperity. Only then can I ever hope to be of good to others. Further, I will not expect another man to sacrifice his health, success and prosperity simply because I have no concern for my own. It doesn't say that I'm not going to care for or help my fellow man.
You can read it as selfish, but I think it's realistic. It is no different than the old adage of not being able to love others until you love yourself. Many people prescribe to that belief, but it seems when it is viewed as a psychological concept vs. a societal concept it is more accepted.
Just goes to show how interpretation can vary.

 

[perdurabo]

Ayn Rand and her men?
I think her men were to blame for their circumstances, instead of Rand. Shame on them, I highly doubt they had a gun pointed to their temple.
Lenin was an egomaniac, in a society that crushed the ego. I don't read Rand and get fields full of Tyranny, which book was that? Of course, we could point to the dystopia in Atlas Shrugged, Thompson being the tyrant of the book. Oh Well! To each his own, true individual liberty and personal responsibility, is a plate most turn their nose up at in disgust. Accepting that is hard for the individual and may be a fight the Individual will have to lose.

 

[mso489]

How you treat others is pretty much who you are, whatever your talents may be. If we were jungle cats living nearly entirely alone except for mamas and cubs, that would be one story, but we're social animals and define ourselves at least half through/with/and by others. Being an introvert, I don't always feel that is the case, but I think and know that it is. I observe that it is. Objectively -- ho, ho.

 

[misterlowercase]

While it certainly should not be followed as doctrine, it is much more valuable than "Alice in Wonderland." Just my observation.

My observations differ.
I much prefer Lewis Carroll...

Linguistics and Philosophy
I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all"
(Lewis Carroll Through the Looking Glass)
Alice and Humpty Dumpty are arguing about semantics, the study of meaning, and one of the principal concerns of linguistics and of the philosophy of language.
How do we understand the meaning of sentences such as:
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
We understand such sentences partly because we know what it would take, in the real world, for such a sentence to be true. Of course we need to know the meanings of the words, and what they mean in combination with one another. Ultimately we can build a model of meaning that relies on word meanings and 'truth conditions'. We can build representations of utterance meaning using the tools of formal logic.
Linguistics, the general study of language in the Western tradition, has its roots in the study of rhetoric in Ancient Greece - the analysis of argument. Modern linguistics studies the structure of human languages, their sound systems, grammatical systems, their history and the social context in which they are used. But underlying all of this is the recognition that the primary function of language is communication -- how we convey knowledge about the world, and our states of mind, to other human beings.
The connection between linguistics and philosophy is to be found most clearly in our study of meaning. How is it that we represent the world as it is using the tools of language? Does the language we speak, the words and meanings we use, direct our thinking along particular paths, or does the language we use simply reflect our thought processes? How distinct are language and thought? What is the nature of human reasoning and human perception, as revealed in language? What is the nature of the mind as revealed through the nature of our languages and the uses to which we put them? Given what we know about the mind, can we build artificial minds, artificial intelligences?
"Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

"Would you tell me please," said Alice, "what that means?"

"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. "I meant by 'impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."
"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."

see also:

http://www.lewiscarroll.org/2011/07/28/new-scientist-some-words-really-do-evoke-humptys-handsome-rotundity/
The search term "humpty dumpty" linguistics at googbooks gets about 6,380 results.
A rich field of discourse cracking thru all those eggshells falling off a wall.

 

[perdurabo]

mso489

 

[perdurabo]

Etymology solves the semantics problem.

 

[conlejm]

This discussion reminds me of the Aesop Fable The Ant and the Grasshopper. You know, with the objectivist ant and the collectivist grasshopper.

 

[deathmetal]

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Interesting quotation. I see your Rand, and raise you Sepultura:

WALKING THESE DIRTY STREETS

WITH HATE IN MY MIND

FEELING THE SCORN OF THE WORLD

I WON'T FOLLOW YOUR RULES

BLAME AND LIES, CONTRADICTIONS ARISE

BLAME AND LIES, CONTRADICTIONS ARISE

NONCONFORMITY IN MY INNER SELF

ONLY I GUIDE MY INNER SELF

I WON'T CHANGE MY WAY

IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY

I LIVE MY LIFE FOR MYSELF

FORGET YOUR FILTHY WAYS

BLAME AND LIES, CONTRADICTIONS ARISE
http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/sepultura/beneaththeremains.html#2

It's in all caps because that lyric sheet has been floating around since BBS days. Copy-paste.

 

[misterlowercase]

...pretty fun looking up

"ayn rand" meme...

 

[skraps]

This discussion reminds me of the Aesop Fable The Ant and the Grasshopper. You know, with the objectivist ant and the collectivist grasshopper.

Good show.

 

[deathmetal]

A wise man once said, there are two types of people in the world: leaders and followers.
I think this is true, and I never want to hamper the leaders by obligating them to take care of the followers.
The basic problem of subsidy systems is that they reward mere participation, instead of contribution... and so, over time, quality declines.

 

[tuold]

deathmetal opined:

The basic problem of subsidy systems is that they reward mere participation, instead of contribution... and so, over time, quality declines.

I agree with that. Subsidy systems also tend to inflate the costs of services and goods as well, which is usually why the subsidies are put in place. That supports another Ayn Rand claim that government is great at creating terrible solutions for problems it created or at least help create.