AS influences on phlosophy

Post Reply New Topic

I cannot support systems of thought that are otherwise logical but could be detrimental to my people (le aspies), in an a-Jew-can't-be-a-Nazi sort of way.

For instance, objectivism (the Ayn Rand one) makes sense on the surface, especially to a nonconformist like me. However, autistic people would suffer in an objectivist society. The lower-functioning would be considered completely worthless idiots deserving no human rights, as they lack the capacity to assert themselves in the Adam Smith manner. The higher-functioning would languish in a sink-or-swim culture where asking for help is the deepest dishonor. Our ability to do complex math problems would be valued, but our tendency to flee from loud noises would be snickered at. Being autistic in a society based on Rand's principles would be hell. Thus, I am suspicious of Randians on the grounds of self-preservation.

Does AS influence your philosophical views in similar ways?

Hmm.... I mostly tend to be rationalist with a tendency to see everything in terms of black and white or in my case true and false. Perhaps the isolation caused by aspieness has lent me towards a very cynical, individualistic, and amoral view of the world at times. Those are my major philosophical changes due to aspieness from what I can gather.

I don't have very many issues in terms of thinking of "my people". I don't identify as an aspie as on some level I hate having the diagnosis and see it as something to be overcome and toughed out, but more often I identify with ideological or philosophical groups, or for most of my life as an individual due to my isolation. I am pretty sure I have believed things which would have probably hurt other people with AS because of my cynical views on society and mankind in general. Objectivism, the Ayn Rand kind, actually makes a lot of sense to me and if I did not find ethical views conflicting with it I might actually be somewhat Objectivist because I see the fundamental problem not as one of my people but rather as person with me vs a world that hates me for what I am. Really, I don't see the problems you do as that major in some ways as I hate pity and might like an Objectivist society because at least if I succeed then I can claim it as my own success. My dislike of pity and cynicism of people are why I don't tell people about my diagnosis though.

One of the outstanding problems with a prejudgment of any class of people in regard to specific ends is that nature keeps presenting any species with unanticipated problems which the chosen ends do not consider and chance is one method of living creatures to innovate solutions for these unexpected problems. Stephen Hawking is a prime example of a physically incapable individual being of high value for unusual mental characteristics. Rand is particularly offensive for being totally smug about what characteristics are most desired, as are many stupid social systems like Nazism.

Well, ok, no group of people is being prejudged. Innovation is something that Rand would approve of.

Rand's major idea on desirable is that people should be egoistic individuals who live by reason. That is all. She does not automatically condemn anyone to death or misery, her ideals very well may though as she is against altruism so those who do not serve others in a capitalist framework do not get served themselves. Note, the reason why it was stated that Aspies would suffer isn't because we would be judged out but rather because we would not necessarily make it on our merit and fit in without the mercy of others according to the OP. Rand is cold, ruthless, and callous and perhaps proud of the fact, but she is not a Nazi. She did hate homosexuals due to the values of the time, but still, there is a distinction.

I was (and still am) an Objectivist before I found out I had autism. It was actually in an Objectivist discussion that I first found out about Autism (and what it actually was). Everything that I have subsequently found out about autism, and myself, has never once put me at odds or made me feel unwelcome by Objectivists and find no reason why I would ever be made to feel unwelcome.

I would suggest you read Ayn Rand again and integrate her ideas before reaching too many conclusions.

As for people snickering, I have never had a bad experience with Objectivists. Those that I know tend to be a logical and tolerant lot (we have to be based on the amount of unwarranted crap we have to take based on peoples unfounded assumptions.) Ideal for an autistic (or any man) in my opinion.

Reason is a very tricky business. I am not religious and find most formal religion highly hypocritical and totally unable to face reality all to the profit of a rather cynical hierarchy. But each of us is granted a small time to stay alive and ordinary decency in a communal society should dictate that the best is done for all of us where it is possible and opportunities should be opened up for as many people as the community can economically support. The USA today is typical of a society of dog eat dog and the devil take the hindmost and educationally, health wise, environmentally and economically it is disintegrating at a rapid rate to the benefit of China which also is not a society I am particularly partial to. The selfish rich are selling out the country at a rapid rate for quick profit and destroying the basis for a decent society instead of understanding that the society rises or falls as a whole. That is where Rand's philosophy leads and it is inherently inhumane and stupid.

The entire lot of that is patently false if you are attributing current American society to Ayn Rand's views. If you are not aware Ayn Rand only died in 1982. Her ideas have hardly had enough time to shape a society.

If you would read Rand and understand her ideas before blaming her with outcomes that are actually based on the very antithesis of her ideas, I will greatly appreciate it.

Not really, every human being inherently uses it. I use reason to ascertain the meaning of your post.

Not really, it has very little in common with Ayn Rand's society to be honest. In fact, many of the problems with the US could actually be solved by a more libertarian approach as a major factor in our problems is a stupid government rather than capitalism. This can be seen in uncompetitive schooling that is marked by union activity and inefficiency, a dog eat dog society would at least allow us to fire incompetent folks and set up pay structures geared towards progress. This can be seen in our healthcare system where most folks really aren't paying directly for our healthcare and thus its costs are ballooning out of control in a system bastardized by pay issues from WW2 and various other government schemes. Economically we suffer a lot from the fact that we have a large deficit, the fact that we have such a large trade imbalance with China and other nations is a result of our large national deficit but beyond that the US is just another nation that suffers from the business cycle and one that tends to have large amounts of economic growth compared to the rest of the world and that is relatively significant economically and largely due to the innovations of a free market.

No, the government is selling out the country at a rapid rate for foolishness. Society is an artificial construct anyway and invoking it really is a step away from rationality. Society is merely a large grouping of individual decision makers, there are usually and supposedly some interconnections within society such as cultural influence(there are many subcultures and I hate to say that those are even necessarily well-linked to the major culture) and things like that but there can easily be separation from society by switching societies or simply making choices to isolate oneself from the undesirable elements, which is merely a matter of self-interest in dealing with the externalities left by other individuals.

You have to be blind, deaf and dumb to not see that the USA is largely driven and corrupted by huge corporations and the current administration is doing its best to see to it that business is interfered with less and less. The current housing debacle is entirely due to a lack of government oversight on the swindling instincts of the lending community that either persuaded inexperienced people to borrow more than their circumstances could cover or just outright lie about the circumstances of an offered loan.
If the government got out of subsidizing the very fat oil companies perhaps a touch of Rand might help there.
But the idiotic concept that the whole system got that way because of Rand indicates that there is very little understanding of the system. Rand merely advocated a system that accentuated the more vicious aspects of unregulated capitalism and the dynamics have been there for couple of centuries.
Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex and the hundreds of billions of dollars that are sucking the wealth out of the nation to the profit of a few corporations producing unusable military hardware leaving the US infrastructure, health, education, and many of the other basics that the country needs to remain viable in a total mess is the end result of a Randian world.

Argument form intimidation, argument ignored.

(edit: cleaned up)

Last edited by Izaak on 23 Dec 2007, 5:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.

If you feel intimidated by my saying you are not aware of the current situation then you are far too sensitive for normal intellectual inter-reaction. Calm down. I was merely trying to point out an obvious situation. The USA is in terrible trouble at this point and it is very important you feel the full force of the problem. And the main direction of the problem is that the government has been divested of important regulatory powers. There are regular re-occurrances of diseased food and poisonous and dangerous products offered on the market because proper government regulation has been disabled. The parks are in a terrible condition for lack of proper funding, over 40 million people have no health insurance because the insurance companies greedy for profit have priced this basic service out of reach, and of course the unregulated lending industries hav screwed millions of home owners forcing many out of their homes. These are major problems of the lack of proper government. You have only to look at the mess in New Orleans where the real estate people are destroying the city. That's what you should feel intimidated by, not my statements about paying attention to reality.

The government is the only reason I have been granted a healthy school environment. In competitive schooling I would be sent to the worst institutions possible because of my income bracket (NOT my fault- I'm friggin' 15), special needs status, and type-B tendencies.

Japan has competitive schooling. Japan also has one of the highest teen suicide rates in the world. A certain amount of competition makes one strong, but every-man-for-himself is not good news for 95% of people on the planet, autistics not least among them.

I shall re-appropriate a quote of Bertrand Russel's: In zoos there are lions and sheep.
lions are beautiful in cages. The Randian wishes to free the animals and watch in awe as the majestic lion devours the sheep.

No, I am not intimated. I stated you used the "argument from intimidation."

It is in the form of "You have to be blind, deaf and dumb to not see that..." If one argues about the rest, one must accept tat one is blind, deaf, and dumb. So I chose to accept your terms and not argue with you. Those who can understand the arguments you use will be extra skeptical of your claims (not to say that they may not come to agree with you.) Those that don't, I don't care to try and convince otherwise. So I leave the debate.

I have no wish to further debate the outcomes and results of Objectivist ideas, or justify the fact that Objectivism is NOT the culprit for the state of America's current culture. The original post was about how AS influenced the formation of your philosophy. My first contribution to the thread was merely to point out that the blame attributed to Ms. Rand, and Objectivists, was misplaced and incorrect.

And Miss Pickwikian, appeals to emotion based on the fact that you are autistic is probably a little out of place in an autistic forum... WE ALL ARE!

EDIT: Rather than spoil the thread by adding another post in case anyone else wants to join in, I just adding in a pre-emptive *sigh* for the post that follows. That is all.

Last edited by Izaak on 23 Dec 2007, 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I understand. Appeal to emotion yeah yeah.

I am logical, but I believe in basic rights and basic ethics. Part of that is the chivalric ideal of protecting the weak. Think of Kant: if everyone in the world abandoned everyone else to their fate, the result would be a little less Anthem and a little more Lord of the Flies, because without basic rights and basic ethics we are brutes.

By the way, wanting to protect myself as an autistic person by not joining a movement that could hurt me is called self-preservation. You may want to reread Ayn Rand again yourself.

Last edited by MissPickwickian on 23 Dec 2007, 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh, and how has AS influenced everybody's philosophy?

I actually live in the US. You don't. Why would I be the blind one? I don't see the influence of corporations to be corrupting necessarily so much as just is. The current administration is really doing nothing of the sort. It is a political pawn of corporations but not a defender of free markets and any intelligent observer knows that. Even democratic economists have said that Bush is an abomination from the libertarian economics standpoint. The housing debacle is the result of many things, however, like I said, there is a business cycle, ours lasted a while and now it is ending. That isn't that big of a deal and although it will hurt some issues, part of that is because of how our laws were set up so that people could be shielded from the risk of these high risk loans. Really though, it also allowed for an extension of housing to lower income families, some will suffer from these changes, but they still made their decisions as well.

Rand hates the government. A Randian society would not subsidize oil companies because everyone would hate the government for taxing us.

Hunh? The system is this way because of the more vicious elements of government gone awry, not of unregulated capitalism. Our capitalism is more regulated than it has been historically and there is a very good case from even a left-wing perspective that it is overregulated as regulations are passed on weak bases for industries and this actually makes capitalism worse as regulation is a often way to help increase monopolization.

HUNH??? The military-industrial complex has NOTHING to do with Rand. You seem to confuse Rand with neoconservatism even though the 2 ideologies have very very little in common. Rand is a libertarian. Her ideas are libertarian. Her stance on reducing the government is central to her philosophy meaning little to NO military industrial complex. Have you studied libertarian philosophy, or libertarian economics ideas, or political theory or anything of that nature? You don't sound as if you do but rather as if some fool takes offense to something and wants to trumpet off on it.
It really isn't or it always has been from its inception until now. Let's just be honest here, the US has always had economic fluctuations, it has almost always had debts and worries about paying these debts, it has had many things to worry about over time. Right now we just have a reasonably large deficit and some concerns over stagflation, this will be somewhat ugly but not that big of a deal. There is a chance that we will have the worst recession we have had in 25 years, but still I don't think most people view it as the most likely scenario.

Nope. Regulatory industries could hardly protect us from a lot of this crap anyway without being very very massive. Really, regulation has a tendency of lagging behind on these issues anyway. In fact, I don't think that most economists actually blame Bush or a lack of government for the issues happening, but rather simply accept these as regular matters of life. I know that some such a Krugman are going around pointing fingers, but it seems undeniable to me that Americans are on average living better lives than their ancestors so I am not worried.

The number is actually artificially high given that this also includes illegal immigrants and the very young as well. As well, it ignores the fact that the reason insurance is so high is because insurance provides too much services on average due to the fact that most people seek insurance through their employers due to tax laws from WW2 that prevented regular wage increases. This means that the entire health care market is distorted because these insurers are paying for health care expenditures that are not matters of necessity or high expense which leads to overpayment for services.

Ok, so what? We had a bubble and now a recession. This happens. Should we have regulated the internet to the extreme as well because of the tech crash around 2000 and all of the dot com companies with a lack of solid foundation? No, crap happens, people get up after the mess, correct things and get on with life. Certainly we don't want this to happen all of the time, but to say that we could safeguard ourselves from every threat is mostly hindsight bias given the fact that the costs probably wouldn't be worth it.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 23 Dec 2007, 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.