Reply to: The most dangerous religion

[SpontaneousOrder]

Molyneux does some great videos, but the call in shows can be repetitive and a bit too prone to dramatics. His series on Rand is one of his best.

The trouble with the boards & some of the phone ins is that he deals with a lot of damaged people. And so if you consume those things, you deal with damaged people and people who almost hold him up as some kind of unquestionable messiah (because he's helped them so much).
As it happens I agree with almost everything he says, but it's not fun to engage with people who recite his ideas by rote without the conscious understanding and reasoned acceptance you'd hope to find behind their commitment to supporting him.

The vids are generally good though. I like a lot of Adam Kokesh's content too, but his vids are so casual that you have to watch 2 hours to get 15 minutes of real content. I guess they're a good alternative to Jeremy Kyle for those that don't work

[SpontaneousOrder]

I'll give that some thought. When I picked up "Atlas Shrugged" from the library my heart sank when I saw what a tome it was. I probably got about a third of the way through.

I thought about getting the AS films but I don't think the last part is out yet. "The Fountainhead" is meant to be a classic film or is that junk too?

I listen to all of Stefan Molyneux's podcasts but don't donate. (Unfortunately I see it more as entertainment). Loved his recent one about Ebola.

I've not seen that film, but I would guess that it's not total junk like the atlas shrugged films.
The audiobook on youtube for AS that you find when googling it is decent (obviously it's the whole book word for word, but the American guy reading it has a very easy voice to listen to). It's been long enough to enjoy reading it again, but I might listen to the audiobook on the daily commute rather than invest all of that time again.

[Zero Liability]

Molyneux does some great videos, but the call in shows can be repetitive and a bit too prone to dramatics. His series on Rand is one of his best.

[Cenobite]

If you ever get around to trying again, the story is actually really good - you just have to wait a long time for plots to unfold because it's so big. The genius thing about it, I think, is that given that it's 1100 pages of small print - full of lots of character detail - pretty much every single piece of that detail exists for a reason, as it unfolds.

Don't be tempted to watch the films - they don't even make sense in the context of the book's story. They're junk.

I'll give that some thought. When I picked up "Atlas Shrugged" from the library my heart sank when I saw what a tome it was. I probably got about a third of the way through.

I thought about getting the AS films but I don't think the last part is out yet. "The Fountainhead" is meant to be a classic film or is that junk too?

I listen to all of Stefan Molyneux's podcasts but don't donate. (Unfortunately I see it more as entertainment). Loved his recent one about Ebola.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You're not dull at all. Nice to read posts by a CUKer who can actually think for himself.

Thanks dad.

[xoggoth]

You're not dull at all. Nice to read posts by a CUKer who can actually think for himself.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Nothing.

But someone who talks as much mince as you should have your political expression banned, not for political reasons, because you are dull as ****.

And oddly you feel compelled to spend your time reading it and commenting on it being dull. If I'm dull as tulip, then you must be tragic.

[NotAllThere]

Duller, surely?

[minestrone]

What's that got to do with altruism?

Nothing.

But someone who talks as much mince as you should have your political expression banned, not for political reasons, because you are dull as ****.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I think I'll just stick with representative democracy if that is OK.

What's that got to do with altruism?

[minestrone]

Right, but that's not altruism!!! you can't just keep on insisting that words mean what you want them to mean - when they don't.



Yeah, we did. But Hitchens was wrong - looking at the history of the last century, the cult of altruism is a major cause of much of the cruelty and suffering we've seen.

Re altruism & benevolent impulses - it's when that benevolent impulse is self-sacrificial in nature that it's altruistic. I.e. If you value justice for example, and you give up your time and effort to help someone see justice, then your actions haven't been altruistic ; You've laboured to make the world a better place - for YOU. You recognised and acted to further a virtue, which result's in pride - the root of all real human happiness.

When you see a beggar in the street and you buy him a cup of coffee out of pitty, you don't suffer for that. The cost of the coffee is insignificant. You've indulged your emotions (an essential art of being a man) and have had the rational self-interest to only buy him a coffee - not to give him your house. That isn't altruism.

If you're out on a cold night and you give your coat to a stranger - to relieve his suffering and take it upon yourself instead - then that is altruistic; You've exchanged another's suffering for your own - not to buy some other virtue, as an investment - but because you have valued yourself less than (or equal to) another.
The doctrine of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is altruistic.


Rational self-interest cannot be altruistic - they are exactly opposed. Rand's work on selfishness (rather than self-destruction) as a virtue makes the disctinction clearer.

I think I'll just stick with representative democracy if that is OK.

[pjclarke]

I see Rational Wiki got it right, on this occasion.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Its 'The Fountainhead' and its a novel, its not real, bit like the Bible actually.

What do you mean it's not real? I'm reading it so it must be real.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Cos, as I wrote, she takes it to the extreme. According to her altrusim is not altruism unless it involves 'self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction'.

Personally, I can help an old lady across the street without pouring petrol over myself and getting friendly with a match.

Right, but that's not altruism!!! you can't just keep on insisting that words mean what you want them to mean - when they don't.

She also wrote, when redefining my other example, charity,



which I disagree with; in my view altruistic behaviour is a consequence of the benevolent impulse, not a corruption of it. And, as Chris Hitchens wryly remarked, it takes a strange mind indeed to look around us and conclude that there is just too much altruism (using the usual definition) in the world .....

But we did this one.

Yeah, we did. But Hitchens was wrong - looking at the history of the last century, the cult of altruism is a major cause of much of the cruelty and suffering we've seen.

Re altruism & benevolent impulses - it's when that benevolent impulse is self-sacrificial in nature that it's altruistic. I.e. If you value justice for example, and you give up your time and effort to help someone see justice, then your actions haven't been altruistic ; You've laboured to make the world a better place - for YOU. You recognised and acted to further a virtue, which result's in pride - the root of all real human happiness.

When you see a beggar in the street and you buy him a cup of coffee out of pitty, you don't suffer for that. The cost of the coffee is insignificant. You've indulged your emotions (an essential art of being a man) and have had the rational self-interest to only buy him a coffee - not to give him your house. That isn't altruism.

If you're out on a cold night and you give your coat to a stranger - to relieve his suffering and take it upon yourself instead - then that is altruistic; You've exchanged another's suffering for your own - not to buy some other virtue, as an investment - but because you have valued yourself less than (or equal to) another.
The doctrine of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is altruistic.


Rational self-interest cannot be altruistic - they are exactly opposed. Rand's work on selfishness (rather than self-destruction) as a virtue makes the disctinction clearer.

[darmstadt]

I've just started reading The Fountain Head. People generally say to read that first, to get the most out of Atlas Shrugged. I read AS first, but I'd already read some of her non-fiction.

If you ever get around to trying again, the story is actually really good - you just have to wait a long time for plots to unfold because it's so big. The genius thing about it, I think, is that given that it's 1100 pages of small print - full of lots of character detail - pretty much every single piece of that detail exists for a reason, as it unfolds.

Don't be tempted to watch the films - they don't even make sense in the context of the book's story. They're junk.

On a different topic, Molyneux did a good vid about Emma Watson's (harry potter girl) feminist speech at the UN recently.

Its 'The Fountainhead' and its a novel, its not real, bit like the Bible actually.