Philosophies...

[Demetz]

I'll start it out with one that seems to make a lot of people's heads implode.... Rand. There are many areas of Ayn Rand's philosophy, particularly as espoused in the book Atlas Shrugged that I admire. Especially concerning a little essay on money...

 

Many people say that money is the root of all evil, or barring that, they often will say the love of money is the root of all evil. Rand points out the severe error in these statements. How can money be the root of all evil when what it represents is the value of a person's productivity? Those who are very productive get more money. What is wrong with that? As for the love of money being the root of all evil... the problem with such a statement is that to love money would require an understanding of what it is and what it represents and there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with loving productivity. After all, it is through productivity that our society advances.

 

Another point she makes is concerning the attitudes that some people will express. Many will complain when someone inherits a bunch of money, for example... as though they somehow deserved it more than the heir did. But... if the heir is fit to administer the estate, the same heir could have built his own anyway. Alternatively, if the heir is not capable, then all the money handed to him will dissolve anyway. Why should you feel jealous? If you are capable, then you will make the fortune yourself without the need for one to be handed to you, and if you are incapable, then you would just as surely fail as the pampered air-headed heir.

[Tiger]

Money can be good, but it can also be bad. Let us take blood diamonds as an example of the bad. In Africa, there is a huge diamond trade. In fact, most of the world's diamonds come from Africa. There have been thousands of deaths due to wars over diamonds. As for good, philanthropists often spend large sums of money helping the poor. It is their way of giving back to the community. Also, I agree that, without money, people have no reason to be productive members of society. Without the concept of money, we would still be a bunch of hunter/gatherers.

[Demetz]

Thats an interesting point you made about the philanthropists... I'm reminded of Andrew Carnegie's essay concerning what is best to be done with an ammassed fortune. He argued very strongly against leaving fortunes to heirs, rather, he advocated, essentially, for the formation of charitable trusts to be administered by trusted and capable persons, and leaving the heir enough to start their own business, but not more. That actually makes a great deal of sense to me

 

As for the diamonds... is it really that the diamonds are bad, or simply the excessive greed that leads so many to do terrible things to others? I have a feeling Aristotle's theories concerning staying between excess and deficiency would be pertinent here... I do have to say I think diamonds are severely over-valued. Amusingly enough, they are artificially growing diamonds in a "factory" of sorts not too far from here... they are grown to be a "perfect" as can be... except the company is required to mark them as having been grown, which reduces their market value... frankly, I don't think that's right......

[jfalkon]

I think the saying that "money is the root of all evil" is a misstatement of "greed is the root of all evil." Money evolved as a way to simplify trading. If you have money it just means that you have given something and not yet decided what you want in exchange for it. It is like saying "I will give you that bag of candy you want but when I want something to eat tomorrow you will give me what I want." I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

The problem is when people collect money just for the sake of having it. If you let any activity become a pointless obsesion you are likely to have trouble. I think that's why greed can lead to so much evil. It is human nature pushed to an unhealthy extreme.

[JamesSavik]

Money is good when it brings out the best in some motivating them to use their intelligence and energy to better their condition.

 

It can also have the oppisite effect when greedy people want something for nothing and are willing to do anything to get it.

 

You can only give money the label of neutral. Any good or bad is a matter of personal motives.

[myself_i_must_remake]

regarding rand though, it's always go to be a good critical theorist and look at WHY she is so capitalist.

 

and oh jee, a quick wikipedia search reveals that she was born in russia during all that ugliness with the bolsheviks and communism.

 

is it surprising she backs capitalism so much then?

 

it's not like she was born and saw all the facts in front of her and then from her godlike, unbiased viewpoint, decided that capitalism was the best of all systems, all of which she had fairly evaluated.

 

oh no. she'd been grinding an axe from as early as she could know enough to.

 

i also have another bone to pick with rand. i feel like the size of her books, literally, i don't know which version you have, but many editions of her novels are HUGE, but i feel like making them so large was an editorial decision because it makes the reader feel more intelligent, reading something that large.

 

though that i have no back up for.

 

still. something to think about.

[GaryK]

I'm not sure if you're into audiobooks. The unabridged version of Atlas Shrugged is 52 hours and 9 minutes. The abridged version of Atlas Shrugged is a mere 11 hours and 33 minutes.

 

I read the unabridged version in high school. I listened to the abridged version a few years ago. IMO you don't miss anything essential by listening to the abridged version.

Edited March 25, 2008 by GaryInMiami

[sumbloke]

I don't find Rand shocking, just...wrong.

 

Many people say that money is the root of all evil, or barring that, they often will say the love of money is the root of all evil. Rand points out the severe error in these statements. How can money be the root of all evil when what it represents is the value of a person's productivity?

 

Those who are very productive get more money. What is wrong with that?

 

Of course, the issue is does money represent the valuel of a person's productivity and if it does, is that all it represents?

 

Is it possible for someone to be very productive and not gain monetarily? If money were a simple representation of productivity then one would expect that people who are similarly productive would be similarly recompensed in monetary terms (A = A as Rand likes to so often remind us). But it's not so. In different places for example people whose work is similarly productive don't receive the same monetary reward. Similarly it appears that money can represent things other than productivity (unless one takes the invidious step of making productive = getting money). The simple fact is that crime pays and so does usury. I think Rand's analysis fails because she misrepresents money.

 

 

Another point she makes is concerning the attitudes that some people will express. Many will complain when someone inherits a bunch of money, for example... as though they somehow deserved it more than the heir did. But... if the heir is fit to administer the estate, the same heir could have built his own anyway. Alternatively, if the heir is not capable, then all the money handed to him will dissolve anyway. Why should you feel jealous? If you are capable, then you will make the fortune yourself without the need for one to be handed to you, and if you are incapable, then you would just as surely fail as the pampered air-headed heir.

 

A neat defense of inherited wealth but it also reveals Rand's most basic assumption, that material accumulation is the real measure of a man's worth. Capability is capability to accrue money (she is quite explicity elsewhere that gold is the proper measure of a man's worth). But it's perfectly possible to believe that someone might be utterly uninterested and perhaps lacking any talent for making money but be deserving. Rand is naive as to the real origins of wealth. She sets up an ideal situation for capital accumulation - that all wealth is achieved through honest exchange - and then forgets that it is an ideal: in the real world capital always involves gangsters and robber barons; corrupt politics and dispossession. In her ideal world all you need is native talent and hard work and you will receive your worth in money and if you don't receive your monetary reward, why, then you obviously just aren't worth it.

 

Thats an interesting point you made about the philanthropists... I'm reminded of Andrew Carnegie's essay concerning what is best to be done with an ammassed fortune. He argued very strongly against leaving fortunes to heirs, rather, he advocated, essentially, for the formation of charitable trusts to be administered by trusted and capable persons, and leaving the heir enough to start their own business, but not more. That actually makes a great deal of sense to me

 

But you are aware it made no sense to Rand? She had utter contempt for the charitable impulse.

 

I suspect that most people are like me, I think money is just a tool and of itself quite neutral. Money itself counts for nothing morally but what you do with it does.

 

Jakob

[Demetz]

I guess now would be a good time to point out I do not mirror my own personal philosophy off of Rand, but merely find some of the things she has to say to be of value. And I do have to agree that she can be damned long-winded... By the time I got to part 3 of Atlas shrugged there was so much reiteration going on i skipped through a good portion of it.

 

Her ideas concerning romance... well, i agree to the extent tha you should encourage someone's talents rather than their flaws... but the interplay she has some of her characters doing....

 

MILD SPOILERS AHEAD

.

.

.

.

 

I can understand perfectly well why Dagny would go after Rearden after her first love disappeared into the scheme of the book, but why she dropped Rearden for Galt... I just don't see it. If I remember right, Dagny's reason was that Galt was just the better man. That assessment aside (since I disagree with it anyway) to forsake all emotional closeness attained with someone just because someone perceived as in some way "better" comes along? It just runs contrary to my internalized conception of what committment means between two people.

 

[clumber]

Well, with regards to money I think that it is fair to say that money used to be as representation of productivity and nothing more. However, people are naturally innovative and have a tendency to consider things that don't exist. Its a big part of what makes us human. This means that money is much more dynamic and fluid than mere goods could ever be.

 

There are people who make their living by trading in goods that do not yet exist, or by selling things they don't own. This is because people are quite willing to consider the possibilities of the future and make their decisions accordingly. Money does not necessarily equal present worth, but it may equal a possible future worth, or a perceived worth. People do not have a given standard of 'worth' and idea's of 'worth' can change over time, or from one person to another.

 

As such, this abstract idea of 'worth' is impossible to quantify in any truly standardized and stable way. Money is an attempt at measuring worth and value, but is in itself just another abstract perception to ease navigation through this boundary between perceived worth and physical products.

 

Money itself often complicates matters by existing. People need a way to keep track of how much money they possess, and so coins and the like are created. Products are created to allow us to physically move around the perceived worth of other products. And the creation of these products adds yet more distortion. Does a

Edited March 26, 2008 by clumber

[Tiger]

Well, there are other controversial philosophical issues other than money. I am what most would call a high-mach. Machiavellianism by definition is the political theory of Machiavelli; especially : the view that politics is amoral and that any means however unscrupulous can justifiably be used in achieving political power. Those who believe in this particular philosophy tend to be cunning, deceptive, and manipulative. At the other end, we have those who are vulnerable and easily manipulated or controlled.

 

I rate high upon the scale mostly because I truly believe there is a sucker born every minute. While my beliefs and skills could make me potentially dangerous, I choose not to use them unless I have to do so. There is a test to find out how high or low you are on the Machiavellian test. I scored a 78. The website says to think of someone like Rupert Murdoch or Bill Clinton as high-machs. I may be high mostly because I happen to be cynical and lacking in the trust department. I'm not an egomaniacal, manipulative b*****d.

[Demetz]

Clumber, that was a very insightful post and very well written with many very good points

 

Machiavellianism, particularly that philosophy which is espoused in The Prince, which can be found online since its been in the public domain for centuries, is a theory I take to very well. Similar theories collectively referred to as Realism can be found in texts as ancient as Sun Tzu, or as recent as Bismarck's writings.

 

The saying that is most generally attributed to Machiavelli is "The ends justify the means" and this is essentially accurate, but it is important to point out which ends justify using the means as well as something key to why the means are justifiable. The "ends" in this case are the formation of a stronger, more stable state, which is on the whole very beneficial for the people. A powerful stable state does not get invaded and have its people slaughtered, for instance. Additionally, a strong, stable state allows trade to flourish, strengthening the state even further as well as improving the condition of the people. What means are acceptable to achieve this end? Any means necessary, as the saying goes, but think about that statement... it does not mean that you do whatever you want. It means you do what is necessary to achieve it, and the means to achieve an end are judged by their effectiveness in doing so.

 

Consider the example Machiavelli uses of Agathocles, as a man who uses cruelty well. Agathocles deceived a large number of political opponents, who could arguably have been considered representatives of a corrupt oligarchy, into putting themselves out into the open, he then had them all murdered. This had several beneficial effects. He was hailed as a hero by all those who hated the deceased, resulting in a gain in political authority. This was backed up by an aura of fear amongst the people that they ought not cross him, further solidifying his position as their leader. Finally, having removed all those who openly dissented his power, the people were unified under him and far better able to withstand the wars to come with Carthage. It is important to point out that Agathocles was not cruel to the people throughout his reign. Rather, the cruelty took place quickly in the beginning and through the rest he was relatively benign. This is how Machiavelli praises the use of cruelty, and for good reason. The people can shake off the shock of cruelty that does not last long, especially if it delivers beneficial results, but prolong the cruelty over a long period of time, and the people will come to resent and eventually dissent the one responsible for it, which would lead to unrest that would weaken the state.