It makes sense to me because -Ti/+Te and +Fi/-Fe is about freedom from rules, and -Ne/+Ne +Se/-Si is about absolutes.
It makes sense to me because -Ti/+Te and +Fi/-Fe is about freedom from rules, and -Ne/+Ne +Se/-Si is about absolutes.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Are we speaking of holding everybody to someone's personal standard of valuation on an institutional level (objective in that sense), or Ayn Rand's Objectivism (capital O)? The latter I say no, not very likely. The former I say not if you understand people or the world they inhabit.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
I think Objectivism is a Beta philosophy. Various Betas I know are always telling me I need to read Ayn Rand's books and how her books were very life-changing for them lol. But her writing style always seemed intolerably dense and I couldn't stand her long, excessive prosing about things which seemed too obvious to go into such detail over. So I will never read her of course.
The whole philosophy itself seems like a steretotypical 'Ti gone bad' system of thought.
I remember reading this essay by Murray Rothbard (ENTj) that likened Objectivism to a cult following lol.
ENTj ~**~ 7w6
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
It's beta or gamma. Lots of Se + logic. I think many people are quick to assume things about Objectivism without fully understanding it bothering to learn a lot about it. I'm not saying it doesn't have its problems, but there's a lot of practical aspects to it.
Pretty soon we're going to start having threads about what style of underwear is alpha beta gamma or delta
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Objectivism's politico-economic framework is contradictory in this regard. They do give lip service to individualism and laissez-faire, by extolling the virtues of capitalism as the most effective and efficient method of production and distribution of scarce resources, and praising man's capacity for reason. Rand contradicts herself by endorsing a minimal State for the ostensible purpose of national defense and the maintenance of law and order. In other words, a monopoly on the use of force.
If you (correctly) dismiss the concept of a "public good" as a myth (as Objectivists do), then there is no logical reason to stop at the privatization of monopolized services such as police, fire rescue, or even the courts.
The essay linked by Elena is very compelling in demonstrating the "groupthink" mentality of Objectivism under Ayn Rand.
This is I think a great article about the benefits and dangers of Objectivism, written by Nathaniel Branden, a very close associate of Rand.
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/rand.php#
I happen to love her writings and at one point almost joined an Objectivism school. I know her philosophy isn't the answer to everything, but sometimes it feels like it. The above article opened my eyes to a lot of things I had missed in her philosophy.
I think Objectivism is beta. I think the words pay great service to individualism, but Rand's practices were cult-like. And I think she exhibited some Ne PoLR tendencies, as I think Branden mentions in his article. Also, Ellsworth Toohey, the villain in Rand's The Fountainhead is clearly a maniacal, manipulative version of delta values. (Please, deltans, don't be offended.)
Thanks for that good link. Here is an excerpt:
"I don’t know of any other philosopher who has had her ideas quite so shamelessly misrepresented in the media. I was fairly young during the early years of my association with Ayn Rand and objectivism, and seeing this phenomenon in action was a shocking and dismaying experience. Here was a philosopher who taught that the highest virtue is thinking—and she was commonly denounced as a materialist. Here was a philosopher who taught the supremacy and inviolability of individual rights—and she was accused of advocating a dog-eat-dog world. Here was the most passionate champion in the Twentieth century of the rights of the individual against the state—and her statist opponents smeared her as being a fascist."
Another quote:
"The message she has brought runs counter not only to the dominant teachings of religion and philosophy for many centuries past, but, no less important, it runs counter to the teachings of most of our parents. Our parents, who said, “So who’s happy?”; who said, “Don’t get too big for your britches”; who said, “Pride goeth before a fall”; who said, “Enjoy yourself while you’re young, because when you grow up, life is not fun, life is grim, life is a burden”; who said, “Adventure is for the comic strips; real life is learning to make your peace with boredom”; who said, “Life is not about exaltation, life is about duty.”
Then, this incredible writer, Ayn Rand, comes along and says, in effect, “Oh, really?” and then proceeds to create characters who aren’t in the Middle Ages, who aren’t running around in outer space, but who are of our time and of this earth—who work, struggle, pursue difficult career goals, fall in love, participate in intensely emotional relationships, and for whom life is an incredible adventure because they have made it so. Characters who struggle, who suffer, but who win—who achieve success and happiness.
So, there is a powerful message of hope in her work. A powerful affirmation of the possibilities of existence. Her work represents a glorification not only of the human potential but also of the possibilities of life on earth."
I think the mistake Rand made was that she took a philosophy that fit her and her type well (whatever it was) and said that everyone and all of society should live like that.
I think pretty much any philosophy with the suffix "-ism" can hardly be Delta by definition.
....
I can see a lot of support for the LSI typing of Ayn Rand after reading this article.
Last edited by Rick; 01-19-2008 at 10:02 AM.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
I too have the impression that Objectivism is beta. I don't know much about Ayn Rand, but from what I've read, she's far from ENFp, probably INFp.
For example, I think that Socrates, Aristotle and Plato were all beta STs, probably LSI. That Rand considers Aristotle as her main influence and the best work ever written the Organon proves that she at least values Ti. Also, it seems to me that her initial influence from Nietzche (who I see as delta NF) and later disappointment shows signs of a contrary or quasi identical relationships.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
I don't see how you can just classify all three of them as Beta STs. Sure, they were all similar, but they disagreed over important points. Aristotle said that knowledge was out in the world to be empirically studied. Plato was all about internal reflection and abstract ideals.
And how is Neitzche delta? The superman and the abyss? The will to power? That does not sound delta to me at all.
The people here are usually very big on the Reinin Dichotomies. How about the subjectivist/objectivist dichotomy?
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
As a former 'objectivist' myself, I concur with this view: like most philosophical and political theories, Objectivism is just a rationalization of Rand's own personality.
Now as for her type: I think she's Alpha NT. Maybe I have been projecting my own personality onto her philosophy, but I think two aspects are very essential to her thinking:
1. the emphasis on reason and logic, or, in Socionic terms Ti (not Te, although Rand's characters are usually superhumans capable of everything, which I think is a dead giveaway that Rand privately held grandiose fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience).
2. The rejection of physical force, which is repeated over and over again. "there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—DO YOU HEAR ME? (emphasis mine) no man may start—the use of physical force against others." (Galt's speech). I think this places Se in the super-ego block. My personal idea is that Ne-ego types in particular reject physical force (Se) because they basically do not have the psychology to defend themselves against it, thus rationalize away the validity of Se as a valid biological survival function,and eliminate Se-dominant people in the process (which would probably be sent to concentration camps, which would be funny, since you need Se people to enforce that ;-)). This, btw, also rules out LSI as a type.
I also rule out that she could be Delta NF: another phenomenon we can observe in her works, is the very strong longing for friendship and emotional connection, but not knowing how to accomplish that, so it is accomplished in a very particular way: in her 'view' only types who empahsize Ti (the capacity to reason) and Te (the capacity to competence and the rejection of incompetence) can be capable of true friendship, especially in combination with Ne (the desire to change everything). Thus: Fe in the super-id block. Also, when her literature focuses on situations of friendship, these situations are often very relaxed, people enjoying each others company in a rather inactive fashion, Si, again in the Super-Id block.
Whatever her philosophy, anyone who has studied Rand well enough can see that she herself never reached the mental state of self-esteem (which I think is an Si type of self-esteem) she advocated.
My conclusion: either ILE or LII, typical cerebral narcissistic. Most likely ILE, because her works do not emphasize an Si-hidden agenda, the way we see in LII or EII.
Bottom line: most likely ILE.
(P.S. the same phenomena can be observed in the works of Michel Houellebecq, but in that case it's rather LII instead of ILE)
Last edited by consentingadult; 01-23-2008 at 11:45 AM.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking