Any hints at how to modify my formulation as to solve for this circular logic? — OscarTheGrouch

She was too poor to do anything. So she sees money as the first cause, and capitalism as the bringer of money.

Freedom is predicated on the idea that there is more good in people than bad. So a society based on freedom will be successful. Freedom doesn't need perfection to win, it only needs 51% goodness.

I have read a few Rand books recently — OscarTheGrouch

I read one once, but I have almost completely recovered. There is still hope for you, but try not to talk about it so much.

Rand is not a popular philosopher here on the forum. You may have trouble getting a helpful response, for example:

I read one once, but I have almost completely recovered. There is still hope for you, but try not to talk about it so much. — unenlightened

I have read three of her books, all fiction - "Atlas Shrugged," "The Fountainhead," and "Anthem." All are badly written. I find the philosophy woven into the story distasteful, unconvincing. I have also read a bit about her philosophy and life. For me, a little bit of illogical reasoning is the least of her problems. I think her complete misunderstanding of and contempt for human values is hard to get past.

Sorry I can't help. Welcome to the forum.

Happiness is one’s ability to freely pursue his values.

values are generated based on promoting one’s wealth — OscarTheGrouch

Wealth is one’s means to happiness.

Happiness is one’s ability to freely pursue his values.

Back to square one. The problem lies in those descriptions of happiness, values, and wealth, respectively.

The problem emerges from my description of values, wealth and happiness. Man values things that bring him wealth, wealth brings him happiness because it allows him to more freely pursue his values? — OscarTheGrouch

Happiness leads to values. Values lead to wealth. Wealth leads to happiness. Happiness leads to values. Thus we have a vicious circle.

Edit: I'm pretty sure I got the ordering wrong. But at least you get the idea.

I understand her philosophy is quite controversial so lets stick to defining her objective claims and avoid critiquing it.
— OscarTheGrouch
FYI: There are no rules about obeying the wishes of the OP. — Wheatley

Re you response to @OscarTheGrouch

I strongly disagree with your statement about the requirement to follow the OP. For that reason, I copied it to the Shoutbox and asked the moderators to respond.

I edited it.

I edited it. — Wheatley

Thanks.

Happiness leads to values. Values lead to wealth. Wealth leads to happiness. Happiness leads to values. Thus we have a vicious circle. — -Wheatley

Is it a vicious circle or is it a merry-go-round? :D

Is there a chance you can expound a bit on this?

A few questions I can think of immediately:

• Is this derived from Randian theory or elsewhere?
• Does happiness first occur through experimentation and then your values are instantiated in order to reinforce behavior that lead to happiness?

values are generated based on promoting one’s wealth,

:lol: I like a lot of what Rand said but she’s very simplistic indeed. Imagine equating with values and happiness with wealth creation. No wonder she was a capitalist. That and a negative experience in Russia, I suppose. What a pity.

Thought is used to make values manifest in action.

Again, way too simple and formulaic. This is far from how we function as human beings most of the time — it rarely happens, if at all.

Where exactly are these quotes from? Please cite the source.

Is it a vicious circle or is it a merry-go-round? :D — OscarTheGrouch

I was just working with the information you gave me in the OP. I am not an expert philosopher who can give you professional advice. I thought it could be useful to order these sentences in that way. Perhaps you don't think it's useful, that's fine.

Is there a chance you can expound a bit on this?

A few questions I can think of immediately:

Is this derived from Randian theory or elsewhere?
Does happiness first occur through experimentation and then your values are instantiated in order to reinforce behavior that lead to happiness? — OscarTheGrouch

It's a lot of work to answer these questions. I wish I could help you.

A wise man once said, and keeps saying:

Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion.

Amen to that.

I wrote this stuff (as I sort of explain in the initial question) in order to try and work through my understanding of the philosophy. I wrote quite a few things down but this is just a particular concept where I noticed a circular definition. The concept being Rand's definition of goodness. I am asking for help modifying my formulations! Please help :D

p.s. my initial post should probably be modified so that GOODNESS is a main heading and thought, values, etc are sub headings

Am I wrong to try and understand her philosophy? Is there no wisdom within it?

Objectivism is attractive to me given the current state of the world. It is empowering to internalize some of her concepts like: "money being a manifestation of ones best efforts", "action without thought is mindlessness, and thought without action is hypocritical", "celebration is for those who have earned it", etc.. Objectivism has empowered my individuality. It has helped me organize my thoughts and default to reason whenever I feel overwhelmed or exhausted.

This is me explaining a bit of what I have gained from objectivism not as a defense of it but as a statement about why I have appreciated my first foray into philosophy. I understand many of you may think of objectivism as blasphemy so please give me the next logical step in my philosophical journey. I would greatly appreciate thoughtful recommendations on texts to begin reading.

Am I wrong to try and understand her philosophy? Is there no wisdom within it? — OscarTheGrouch

Well, I think there are better uses of your time, but by all means try to understand it if you would like to do so. As to wisdom, I think you'll find that much of her thought is derivative, especially of Aristotle, and in the nature of a reaction against communism as it came to develop. One can be an individual without being wealthy and primarily concerned with self-gratification or glorification.

I suppose that, like Catholicism, Rand might serve as an introduction to doing philosophy. Freeing oneself from such nonsense as an introduction to critical thinking.

SO the test will be what Oscar does next - read more widely and wisely, or join the Republicans or Liberals.

If I enter one of these cults please find me and destroy me.

I appreciate this comment. She directly mentions Aristotle in the "About the author" section of Atlas Shrugged. I guess Ancient Greece is my next stop. Shall I begin with Plato or Aristotle?

Will do.

A wise man once said, and keeps saying:

Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion. — Ciceronianus

Nah, she had some thought provoking stuff. Who talked about the ins and outs of victim blaming before her?

I've always preferred Aristotle to Plato, if only because Aristotle was less mystical, less totalitarian.

Not seconded! It's precisely because Plato is more prosaic it stimulates more to think and wonder about it by yourself. What does he mean? What do you think he means? Why? How? etc. Aristotle is too dry for my taste.

Also, can't help with the OP. I did delve into her at some point. The only thing that stuck was a teleological basis for her ethics (which is Aristotlean). Apparently she missed Darwin as proof a teleological basis is wrong.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I also recall she was very negative about Kant. Turned out she never read him though. So there's the lies too.

Roger Ebert's take on Ayn Rand's philosophy: ""I’m on board; pull up the lifeline."

To me it seems the reason her philosophy is "unpractical" (she is rolling over in her grave as I use that term) is because it expects too much out of humans.

She would want everyone to say (and fully mean) simultaneously: "I'm on board; pull up the lifeline."

She might argue that the reason that is impossible now-a-days is because of coddling, hand outs, and subscribing to another person's reasoning over one's own reasoning.

What is a good starting text from Plato? It seems sensible to start with Plato then move to Aristotle.

Do the pre-Socratics and then Plato, then Aristotle. The SEP is a good introduction, or Wikipedia.

The Republic is a good starting point for philosophy in general. You don't need to read the pre-socratics per se. My philosophy professor swore by Eric Vögelin's work as a secondary account of Plato and Aristotle in his third volume of Order and History.

I am very fond of physical books. I appreciate the advice.

Thank you.

I like audible books. I'm listening to The Road to Serfdom.