<p>Among those with thought, the complexity of the general philosophical question is like analyzing a chess position: If you look 7-moves deep, then suddenly you’re an objectivist… but you have to look 8-moves deep - black forces a very subtle stalemate using the 50-ply rule.</p>
<p>Ugh, I hate Ann Rand fanboys.</p>
<p>Ayn Rand has some valid points. I do think, however, that they are based on an intensity of transition. Ayn Rand fell in love with the possibilities of a new world. Beyond that I will not speculate of her. Only, it is sometimes valuable to let the mind fathom the possibilities, even the destructive ones.</p>
<p>Not to kill the philosophical discussion, but I’d like to address two things the OP said.
1- His friend didn’t get rejected because he didn’t do volunteer work. I’m sure it didn’t help him, but I hadn’t done an hour of official community service before coming to MIT. (something I regret now that I’ve discovered how rewarding community service really is)
2-after the first post clearly implies that the OP is a high school student, he probably shouldn’t publicly admit to drinking. The internet is less anonymous than one would think.</p>
<p>I usually rank Ayn Rand high on my “authors that have changed my adolescent life” list (what a list that would be!) not because her books changed me for the better, but because they made realize what kind of person I don’t want to be.</p>
<p>I learned that things that make sense aren’t necessarily correct. Reaping the benefits for personal gain makes sense. Compassion doesn’t make sense. Yet I will always always still be drawn to the latter. Your friend seems like someone who is a logical thinker, so will often associate theories by how practical they are. I really don’t know what you can do to change his mind.</p>
<p>I just had to reply to this thread because I think its the saddest thing when a person so young loves systems more than people.</p>
<p>Hey hey hey!!
I ve read Anthem!! It like a very interesting book. It’s powerful, although not as strrong as 1984 by George Orwell. Anthem was pretty annoying, this single guy’s name is like Equality something something. He doesn;t refer himself to “I” but to “we”</p>
<p>But its message is strong, although Orwell’s political thoughts are much more complex, well-thought, and interesting.
^^Yeah! her female character in Anthem (Liberty something something??) does the craziest stuff. Unbelievable. Really stupid compared to the 1984 Julia.</p>
<p>I once logically concluded that compassion was far more important than logic by observing that only faulty individuals lack compassion, and many fewer–and then only the arrogant of them–act wholly on logic.</p>
<p>Something tells me that if evolution–the most logical explanation for how things are–and natural selection–an observable fact; also, the root of evolution–came together to give us all compassion but left logic to the wind, compassion might just be very, very important. And so, I function on an odd mix of logic and compassion, and I have fun doing it (somewhere along the way, I also decided that having fun is important, if somewhat arbitrarily).</p>
<p>LonelyFishbowl – I’m sympathetic to your point but your way of looking at this issue seems very misguided. It is not a conflict between sense and compassion. It’s a competition between two sets of values – ones that place some weight on others and ones that don’t. NEITHER set of values can be defended rationally (just try to rationally defend egoism and I will show you the argument doesn’t stand a chance). Different people choose different ones for reasons of taste – there is no “sensible” answer.</p>
<p>Yeah, when I read the topic my first thought was Rand too. But I think I see it differently…</p>
<p>I’ve only ever read Fountainhead, but I actually loved it. It’s true that at times, she does beat the point to a pulp – and yet the fundamental principle behind it still appeals to me. I don’t feel as though it’s a “I’m superior to you and I owe you nothing” ideal as much as a “I am my own Self and I won’t let you change that about me.” I’ve never really studied Objectivism or Rand beyond just reading Fountainhead, but the integrity that she brings out with Howard Roark seems to make sense.</p>
<p>Though she does go much further than other authors have, it’s still not an uncommon theme. Death of a Salesman has a type of Peter Keating, where Willy goes after some vague image of “success” and allows what other people classify as “happiness” to control his actions (I think…it’s been a while since I read that). But isn’t that related to the roommate who prompted this post? It bothers me to see so many high schoolers use college acceptance as the reason to do things. According to what I saw in Rand, that’s not what life is supposed to be about. A person should live for themselves, for what they want to do and who they want to be - not for college (or any other institution-type-thing. ok and this is starting to sound very “down-with-the-MAN-rebel-teenager”-esque). </p>
<p>So if the roommate doesn’t feel the need to do community service, or doesn’t gain anything from it, then doing it just to get into MIT would be wrong (in the sense that he’s not acting as himself, and so lacks integrity).</p>
<p>Or maybe I’m just being one of those really annoying “nerdy” adolescents, and I’ll look back and laugh at this in a few weeks/months/years. Who knows?</p>
<p>naw soo, I undrstand wat u mean, and im totaly for the whole “be yourself and dont let anyone dictate who you are” sort of thing (even if its a bit cliche, but still true) but, i mean, look at wat the OP is saying… hes basically saying that his friend believes that compassion is stupid… i mean, sure, if comunity service isnt for you then, alright… dont do it, but its another thing to condemn it in its entirety…
besides, compassion isnt just about community service… suppose your at a door and a guy with a 10 ton box (yes, exageration, but you get it) is coming in. would you: a. hold the door out of COMPASSION, or b. ignore him so that you can get to an appointment quicker?.. i mean, its just little acts like that which include doing something for ur fellow man, and your not giving up who you are, just a few seconds of your time and a litle effort…</p>
<p>(and please save urself the comment of “if ud spend a litle more time getting to know the english language…” thats not the point…</p>
<p>This topic’s pretty old but I still want to respond. </p>
<p>Think about if no one had ever read Ayn Rand. What if she had been completely dismissed as a lunatic or totally stupid. Then we obviously wouldn’t have this topic today. But her ideas did catch on because they either appealed to other people’s arrogance as others have said, or some people truly felt her ideas really made sense. </p>
<p>This just goes to show that all our ideas, theories, and values are validated by society. I think this seems to imply that people need others in order to really do anything. It’s in our best interest to work together and cooperate. Now this in itself may sound selfish, but it’s something you can’t escape. It all depends on how you view it. So while one person may consider helping others a mostly selfless act, another can say it is completely a selfish act because of the satisfaction it can bring. This is what I believe people who have these “selfish” paradigms fail to incorporate. So if those people did think that way, there would be nothing to distinguish them from other normal people except in the way they define their actions (as being selfless or selfish). Another argument they can make is that it may make things inefficient economically but I would respond by saying it’s something that cannot be changed. I think the reality is is that people desire human contact. That’s how human beings have always lived (at least most of them anyways), identifying with and living with groups. I’m pretty sure all of us to some extent desire relationships with others and the only reasons some people may deny it is because they’re bitter or just too cowardly to interact with others. Even hotshot arrogant people are nothing if society deems him or her irrelevant (unfortunately arrogance seems to breed value in the eyes of others). So while one person may think he is an ideal “superman,” if society doesn’t agree, then history will just write him off as a psychopath, a deluded individual or he’ll be forgotten altogether.</p>
<p>i think some people on this thread are being way too hard on objectivists. saying that it’s just a silly phase people go through and what not. it’s a perfectly respectable philosophy to live by. if that’s what you’re into. it doesn’t say never help anyone. it just says people should have the right to do what they want to. they should never be forced to help someone. i’ve read every single one of ayn rand’s fiction books. i read atlas shrugged in a single weekend cuz i was grounded. i only left my room to eat and go to the bathroom. i swear. and in the end, i believe her as logically correct in the points she makes. saying that, i don’t think about objectivism much. i don’t live by it or anything. although i am libertarian and do have alot of unconventional moral beliefs. but that would have happened regardless of ayn rand.</p>
<p>Back to the original post, which states that an applicant left the “volunteer” section blank and didn’t get into MIT. The MIT application doesn’t include a “volunteer” section. So I’m not quite sure what the applicant’s philosophical position has to do with failing to gain admission to MIT, unless the original poster meant that his friend left the entire extra-curricular activities section blank.</p>
<p>what a great video…Although, the pro-Randian rant could be taken done a notch. She’s not that great of a writer… <prepares for=“” attack=“” by=“” anti-=“” and=“” pro-randians=“”></prepares></p>
<h1>2 math olympiad? as in in the world?</h1>
<p>I believe in social Darwinism.
I believe people who don’t work to their potential should suffer the consequences.
I believe in people are doing stuff for their own need, which can be beneficial. Like, helping people just make them self feel better…
I believe humans are just machines. complex machines
let’s say… if I program a computer… input something, it also outputs something. does that computer try to help us or it just following itself? it’s own rules?
I believe it’s the 2nd one.
I think with views like this would get me no where in finding good colleges to accept me.</p>
<p>I kinda think your friend have the same idea as me… but I never read Ayn Rand’s work, I had the belief just by observing this world…</p>
<p>and, selfishness are really important to this world…it’s selfishness made great advances in the world… each person have their own wants, so they have to pay and generate values so they can buy what they wants…figuratively speaking.</p>
<p>I don’t like a lot of things in this world, so I want to change them, it’s for my own selfish reasons. For example, I don’t like the current Chinese government’s restriction on people’s freedom. I want to change it, but this is selfish, because it’s <em>I</em> who don’t like it… maybe 99% of the population in the world also don’t like it, but if I want to change it, it’s not because of the 99% of the people, but for me, myself only.</p>
<p>If admission sees this… they might not let me in MIT…
In my entire life, I never tried to hurt anyone, and helped a lot of people, I believe I’m a great person…selfish or not.</p>
<p>If you are selfish, I ask you how do you help people? Or do we got to the trite argument that the “good-feel” which you experience is the cause of your apparent altruism?</p>
<p>selfish=arising from concern with one’s own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
I disregard of others.
I contribute to economy because I’m a selfish person, because I know if I encourage the economy, economy gets better, it will benefit me(and everyone else, but that’s not my concern) If I make the world a better place, I will live in a better world. I do this for my own selfish reasons. if I make the world a better place but will sacrifice my own well being, I won’t do it. It’s just long time investment. I pay for some poor Chinese student to go to expensive tests because it’s an investment, because I know these students are more superior than me at many fields, they will be one day become useful to the world(cure cancer…?) and eventually benefit me.
if I help people, because I obey the usual ethics, and I like to help people, because that is one of my interest, I do that for myself. And seeing other people getting better at something is an enjoyment. I love to teach people. But seriously, if I’m don’t like to teach people, why do I teach people? if I don’t like to help people, why do I help them? This is a selfish like I have…
By making the entire world better, will eventually reflect on me and improve my own condition, it’s like karma. So I like to be selfish and gain more karma and improve the standard of the entire world.</p>
<p>cruz…
just to let you know, i don’t consider myself an objectivist. i am a libertarian, but that does not necessarily dictate my status as an ethical egoist or objectivist. the previously posted video and anthem-esque rant were mostly meant to be humorous, and not meant to be taken completely seriously (i’m sure you are aware of this). the only reason i did initially post in this thread was because i was legitimately offended by one poster’s insolence as to reduce rand’s values to a mere stage of intellectual development, and to not take her philosophies as legitimate. </p>
<p>with that said, i’m sort of happy that you resurrected this thread: i can see that at least someone can see the value in objectivism - i’m referring to you, Mgccl. (although i am not an objectivist, i recognize its value in the development of modern political and individualist philosophy)</p>
<p>nalydylan…
I was aware of this…sorry if i offended you in any way. (seriously).
but the video was rather funny. I think you have told me that you’re a libertarian at some point. Is it sad that I was discussing what a libertarian was in contrary to a republican on my Sonora camp trip-with k-rad’s dad no less?</p>