[MD] Flying Spaghetti Monsters

[ian glendinning]

Micah, not being an objectivist myself, I may be unable to provide the
answer you want.

Greater good of the greater number, net increase in happiness, net
progress up the MoQ hierarchy. Some good utilitarian (pragmatic)
measure.

Hate is a bit strong, but I found her style painful, I actually fely
disappointed and sad for her. It didn't stop me searching for her
arguments though, but I just couldn't find any, and nor could anybody
I asked on here.

I'd be interested in an example I could either agree with or refute
(other than the implicit one I already gave ... about bad public
interference in free economy somehow inferring that public
interference was ispo-facto bad.)

I'd also be interested in an example of where you see my style as
mimicking hers, It's quite possible, a kind of catch-22 of finding any
credible way of breaking out of the objectivist style of
argumentation.

Ian

On 9/26/06, Micah <micah at roarkplumbing.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> As an Objectivist, I would be interested in your definition of the "public
> interest".
>
> As for writing style, Ayn fits her philosophy - which is the mark of a good
> writer. Characters are good or bad, etc. Ayn is either loved or hated.
> Objectivism - either/or - good/bad. You even mimic her style in review.
>
> Which of her arguments can you logically refute?
>
> I totally agree that MOQ and Objectivism are tight.
>
> Micah
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:13 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters
>
>
> Hi Ben, You said
> I've read Atlas, which I thought was a brilliant book.  Rand condemns
> altrusim, which I thought was the weakest part of her argument, although she
> may be defining altruism differently than how I would.  Rand condemns
> certain behaviors that are justified as being altruistic (such as wealth
> redistribution) but I believe her to be quite an altruist herself.  The
> whole point of her book is that by disrespecting the industrialists--the
> movers and the shakers--politicans and bureaucrats destroy society.
>
> I've read it too. I thought it was brilliant idea for a book, but I
> found her thin on actual arguments generally, and mind-numbingly
> pedestrian in style.
>
> The behaviors she condemns, that were justified as altruistic, were in
> fact so obviously fictional, misguided, misconceived and corruptly
> applied legislation etc, that I found her pointing out the folly as
> just too simplistic. No way did she have any arguments against well
> devised "public interest" incentives.
>
> This industrialist is good, this law is bad, these law makers are
> corrupt, therefore any and all public intervention is bad. Some
> argument.
>
> Disrespecting anybody is bad for society, not just industrialists.
> (She just saw the US in contrast to her troubled Soviet motherland at
> the time, and made too simple a conclusion. McArthyist I said several
> times) I did find that in summary her philosophy, despite being
> descibed as "objectivism", was remarkably close to evolutionary
> psychology and MoQ in practice.
>
> Ian
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>