I have not read anything by A.Rand. What I know of "Objectivism" is essentially what I have read on this forum.
Some of what I read from Dinwar's early posts in the thread make sense to me, some I'm less happy with.
For instance, I have long viewed morality as individual survival behaviour in a herd context. This seems very like what Dinwar is saying about some human concepts applying to individuals and others to the group.
I disagree with Pixymisa that rights are inherent. In fact I don't think they are features of individuals at all. I think they are group features, in effect, concessions granted by the mob- the tolerance necessary between the individual gears , for the machine to run smoothly.
(Note- I don't say this is right. I say I think it's real.)
Humans are naturally pack hunter /scavengers. A long time in Africa seems to have fitted both our character as individuals and our collective behaviour to a mobile existence in groups of 30 or so individuals. But it is many years since our numbers precluded that as a viable way of life.
Our culture has had to evolve to compensate for the pressures of mass living. We ourselves have probably not evolved significantly in the last 70,000 years, except in resistance to parasites and disease. Our world has changed beyond recognition, climatically and in terms of population. Our environment now essentially is other humans, in huge numbers, most of whom we cannot ever know at first hand. Nature has not fitted us to that environment and our culture is struggling to catch up.
For example-The enemy I am required to fear by my government and the media, is a composite individual I have never met and probably never will. He is an Islamic terrorist, with ebola, who wants to come to my country , take my job and rape white children.
That's this week. Next week, who knows?
In reality, the person most likely to actually kill me may be the elderly lady up the road, who has to drive her car despite failing eyesight and a heart condition, because there is no worthwhile public transport in the area.
How do I "properly" respond?
Well, I might nuke the entire middle east from end to end, to be sure.
(And I might, if I had the tools, which is why it's a jolly good thing that I don't).
A wiser solution might be to lobby my local government for a better bus system and worry about the mad Arab some other time. (I've known many Arabs and never noticed any particular proneness to lunacy, but old ladies can be very odd...)
I don't actually think there is a single "correct" system of dealing with the complications of life, or even a "best" one.
So far, what seems to work for me is;-
Be polite.
Help people when you can, but remember charity starts at home.
Expect most people to be reasonably honest, most of the time, but keep a wary eye open for trickery, lies and double dealing.
And when physically threatened, respond with a degree of systematic applied violence adequate to guarantee my physical integrity.
The latter has not been required often, but it has been necessary a couple of times.
Walk softly and carry a stick , in short.
Some of what I read from Dinwar's early posts in the thread make sense to me, some I'm less happy with.
For instance, I have long viewed morality as individual survival behaviour in a herd context. This seems very like what Dinwar is saying about some human concepts applying to individuals and others to the group.
I disagree with Pixymisa that rights are inherent. In fact I don't think they are features of individuals at all. I think they are group features, in effect, concessions granted by the mob- the tolerance necessary between the individual gears , for the machine to run smoothly.
(Note- I don't say this is right. I say I think it's real.)
Humans are naturally pack hunter /scavengers. A long time in Africa seems to have fitted both our character as individuals and our collective behaviour to a mobile existence in groups of 30 or so individuals. But it is many years since our numbers precluded that as a viable way of life.
Our culture has had to evolve to compensate for the pressures of mass living. We ourselves have probably not evolved significantly in the last 70,000 years, except in resistance to parasites and disease. Our world has changed beyond recognition, climatically and in terms of population. Our environment now essentially is other humans, in huge numbers, most of whom we cannot ever know at first hand. Nature has not fitted us to that environment and our culture is struggling to catch up.
For example-The enemy I am required to fear by my government and the media, is a composite individual I have never met and probably never will. He is an Islamic terrorist, with ebola, who wants to come to my country , take my job and rape white children.
That's this week. Next week, who knows?
In reality, the person most likely to actually kill me may be the elderly lady up the road, who has to drive her car despite failing eyesight and a heart condition, because there is no worthwhile public transport in the area.
How do I "properly" respond?
Well, I might nuke the entire middle east from end to end, to be sure.
(And I might, if I had the tools, which is why it's a jolly good thing that I don't).
A wiser solution might be to lobby my local government for a better bus system and worry about the mad Arab some other time. (I've known many Arabs and never noticed any particular proneness to lunacy, but old ladies can be very odd...)
I don't actually think there is a single "correct" system of dealing with the complications of life, or even a "best" one.
So far, what seems to work for me is;-
Be polite.
Help people when you can, but remember charity starts at home.
Expect most people to be reasonably honest, most of the time, but keep a wary eye open for trickery, lies and double dealing.
And when physically threatened, respond with a degree of systematic applied violence adequate to guarantee my physical integrity.
The latter has not been required often, but it has been necessary a couple of times.
Walk softly and carry a stick , in short.
