Please Help Me Prove A Point To My Roommate

Colleges & Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1

<p>Heres the situation...
my roommate somehow is so deep into philosophy that he has confused himself into thinking that the world would be further along in progress and better off in general if no one would help each other...</p>

<p>so as a point i asked what he put on the "volunteer hours" section of his applications...to which he said he just plain left blank...</p>

<p>he did not get into MIT even though he is the number 2 math olympiad in the world and he is nominated for amateur scientist of the year</p>

<p>please help me make a point to him about the importance of helping people by helping me rub in the fact that he really just plain should have volunteered...please?</p>

2

<p>What on earth is his reasoning???</p>

3

<p>what? no, people shouldn’t have to volunteer if they don’t want to. defeats the point of volunteerism I think.</p>

4

<p>ha… yah i hav a friend like that too… he’s obsessed w/ philosophy and even plays recordings of philosophy books in his car… he said that all ppl should be selfish and only think of themselves… even when they are helping others it should be for some higher purpose.. like getting volunteer hours for college… he is now at princeton…
thers just nothing u can do with him… eventually, society will turn on him for being such a selfish, arrogant fool, and hell learn his lesson…</p>

5

<p>well hes really into “ann Rand” and apparently the thought is that people should look out for themselves because the world would just function better…</p>

<p>so i tried to convince him that he as a person does things just to help people…</p>

<p>and he says no I always do things to get something out of it for myself</p>

<p>so I brought up the fact that he always helps me at math and my other buddy at chem even though he doesnt have to</p>

<p>so he says that he does it because he just likes teaching and that he isnt doing it to help out friends</p>

<p>so then my buddy countered with the fact that he helped all of us get back to our rooms when we were drunk…because clearly he got nothing outta that</p>

<p>and he says …</p>

<p>oh btw… he doesn’t like Gahndi and mother teresa..!!!</p>

6

<p>I almost agree with him: I do not believe in altruism as simply helping for no benefit. We never help others to help others. Even the so-called altruists are just doing it to sate their urges: It’s nothing of their own doing that they’re wired to help!</p>

<p>Of course, I help people all the time (that looked good on my MIT App, right!?), and it makes me feel good about myself; the higher goal and thing I get out of it is personal satisfaction. I am, in fact, looking after myself when I help people. Sort of paradoxical, in that by looking out for one’s self, one is in fact helping others.</p>

<p>Throw that at your friend and watch his mind wrestle for it. At that point, you can answer a question that has no doubt plagued you since he got all genius-like in math: Is he a human, or just the only robot that could really destroy the Turing test? If he freezes and needs to sleep and wake up before he can function again, he’s a robot; if he blows it off and goes on his way or changes his opinion, he’s human.</p>

7

<p>I think people should volunteer if they have the time to. I enjoying doing what i can for others, its my way of giving back to the community for all the people that have helped me. perhaps that is just my community, however, things seems to go much more smoothly both for me and others if we just all help each other. but then i guess i also like seeing others doing/understanding the things I like. it’s also fun. I was volunteering at this summer robotics program for middle school kids; where else would you have kids blurting out the gear ratio of the solar car they just built was 720: 0. or have a servo poke a hole through your thumb while you were programming some robot… xP
it totally beats studying for SATs… =)
i</p>

8

<p>Your friend is going through a very typical phase for smart adolescents in the US – an obsession with [Ayn</a> Rand](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand"]Ayn”>Ayn Rand - Wikipedia)'s philosophy of Objectivism, which holds, roughly, that the pursuit of selfish ends guided by reason is the ultimate virtue in life, and that laissez-faire capitalism is the only morally defensible social and economic system.</p>

<p>While there are philosophical arguments to be made against this position, psychology is much more important than philosophy in understanding and talking with your friend. Let me explain. Rand’s writing is epitomized by a seething contempt for the stupid, unwashed, greedy mob, which represses and robs the productive, creative geniuses within it and defends this activity with tripe about altruism. Her work could be summed up, without losing much, in this sentence: “I am better than you; I owe you nothing except what you can buy from me; and, by the way, this sentence expresses the epitome of virtue in life.”</p>

<p>You now will find it easy to see why Rand’s views are so captivating for many nerdy adolescents in America. Many of them are deeply frustrated with an aggressively stupid adolescent (usually high school) culture which doesn’t respect them or their accomplishments. They identify with the creative, productive heroes of Rand’s novels; they want, like them, to assert their superiority and independence without feeling guilty, and Rand provides exactly the right framework for this. The elation one experiences at having one’s ego stroked like this is hard to describe, and that is the one and only thing that accounts for your friend’s fascination with these books and this philosophy.</p>

<p>But it may be best not to say this outright to your friend, because he won’t admit it. It should help you, however, to understand him.</p>

<p>It may not be worth trying to dissuade your friend – almost everyone grows out of this phase. If he says volunteering has never improved the world, he is clearly wrong: when charities help a destroyed town recover after a storm, the victims’ lives improve and the givers feel good about giving. How is the world hurt by this? If he says he personally does things only for selfish reasons, there is really no strong philosophical argument for that. Just say “that’s a nice piece of autobiography” and let him grow out of it.</p>

<p>Indeed, everyone grows up. As smart people mature and interact with people they like as opposed to the generic high school social environment, they feel less tension and more harmony with their fellow people. They don’t have to feel contempt for the stupid mob because it is not a real factor in their lives anymore. They don’t need Rand’s primitive ego-stroking either. And, fortunately, this usually happens pretty quickly in college, so you shouldn’t have long to wait.</p>

9

<p>I never read Ayn Rand- maybe I should. Do you think I would hate her book(s), ben?</p>

10

<p>Yes, pebbles, I think you would be fairly upset with her books. the writing, despite being technically competent, is pretty bad, though often in an amusing way. the philosophy is primitive and delivered in long impromptu sermons, which come regularly, in case you miss the first few dozen. HOWEVER, i think everyone would benefit from having some idea of her ideas, since they have had some influence. Anthem, her first novel, takes less than an hour to read; her subsequent books do not add much except thousands of pages.</p>

11

<p>ethical egoism made sense to me, though i may not take that as my personal view. ayn rand is on my list to read (i.e. fountainhead).
i dont see a point in trying to convince another as to which one is the “right” philosophy. lets leave that to each individual to explore his- or herself through reading and interacting with the society.</p>

12

<p>Hey Ben 7-3523, we believe that it is perfectly acceptable to write such a slanted post. It will show us that all objectivists are evil remnants of the forgotten world, whose philosophy is whispered in the House of the Elders. It is obvious we should work for nothing but the collective, and for the well-being of our brothers. We put our faith in the Council of Vocations, and believe their decision to make us a scholar will benefit us and the collective. Once again, we would just like to thank you for being so biased, and discrediting all Randians with one swift post.</p>

13

<p>Here is a video we enjoy, and think all our brothers would like: [YouTube</a> - The Ant Bully: Introduction to Anthill Socialism](<a href=“http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hh4Pu00fA44]YouTube”>http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hh4Pu00fA44)</p>

14

<p>I thought Anthem was much worse than The Fountainhead. I did not necessarily agree with all of her ideas (in particular the never helping people idea), but I am quite drawn to the idea of working for the sake of the work itself. (LOL Ben Golub - haha is it bad that I put this book as one of the three asked for on the Caltech app? Are they going to think I am superselfish?? Lol. I do volunteer, and I found her feelings on not helping others could be interpreted wrongly, but I think that she was not against any helping others - after all Howard Roark did help Mallory - but more against the way that people lose themselves to “charity” and “volunteering” that they are not interested in for the sake of the charity, but rather more for the glory of having “helped people” - kind of like how people gather volunteer hours just to get into college. I really liked her ideas on being authentic, and working for what one loves and admires, not for what one feels will bring glory and power <em>shrug</em>. I do agree, however, that her writing is laughably bad sometimes - those sermons can drive you crazy… lol)</p>

15

<p>I thought Anthem was much worse than The Fountainhead. I did not necessarily agree with all of her ideas (in particular the never helping people idea), but I am quite drawn to the idea of working for the sake of the work itself. (LOL Ben Golub - haha is it bad that I put this book as one of the three asked for on the Caltech app? Are they going to think I am superselfish?? Lol. I do volunteer, and I found her feelings on not helping others could be interpreted wrongly, but I think that she was not against any helping others - after all Howard Roark did help Mallory - but more against the way that people lose themselves to “charity” and “volunteering” that they are not interested in for the sake of the charity, but rather more for the glory of having “helped people” - kind of like how people gather volunteer hours just to get into college. I really liked her ideas on being authentic, and working for what one loves and admires, not for what one feels will bring glory and power <em>shrug</em>. I do agree, however, that her writing is laughably bad sometimes - those sermons can drive you crazy… lol)</p>

<p>Also, Ayn Rand’s female characters suck. That makes me mad. her ideal man is great; her ideal female doesnt do crap.</p>

16

<p>sorry for the double-post; was having some problems posting..</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>Ben, how true. If I had a dollar for every really smart teen or twenty-something I know who went through an Objectivist phase at some point during their adolescence (myself included), I’d have a lot of dollars. For most of them it’s temporary (I know a few who are socialists now), for a few it becomes an enduring life/political philosophy. I actually have a friend whose parents are Objectivists - I don’t think she quite reaches that herself, but as you might guess, she’s a pretty strong libertarian.</p>

<p>I have to wonder what it says about the childhood experience of smart kids in the US that so many are attracted to the philosophy at some point. Among most such people I know (including myself), there was some heavy alienation/repressed anger involved in the attraction.</p>

<p>In my case, reading Atlas Shrugged (as opposed to Anthem or The Fountainhead) was actually what started to turn me off. It was one thing when the books were all about the Oppressed Misunderstood Smart Person Who Sees Through Society’s Bulls**t, but Atlas Shrugged had a lot more general political/economic philosophy, and the cognitive dissonance got to be too much to handle.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Wouldn’t have any dollars from my end. I don’t understand how people can go that route: It isn’t fun! Objectivism is like being a pinball glued to the glass on the machine; holding a basic respect for everybody is like being the free pinball: All over, bouncing, spinning–having fun!</p>

<p>I’m going to go back to playing Space Cadet now.</p>

19

<p>lalaloo6 – first, putting down that you like the book on your Caltech app won’t hurt. Indeed, it’ll probably help! If I find out that somebody had a Rand phase, that suggests pretty strongly that she is unusually smart and dealt with the same things that most smart American high school kids dealt with.</p>

<p>I do agree with you that the OP’s roommate misunderstands Objectivism to some degree. Rand does not categorically claim that the world would be better if nobody ever helped anybody for free. The real problem with Rand is that she claimed her preferred moral system, under which the ultimate value is one’s own life and its preservation, is an objectively correct system of values, and that to value anything else above that is just a mistake. </p>

<p>However, it is not really possible to deduce from objective principles a “correct” system of values – at least, nobody has succeeded. (This is David Hume’s famous [is-ought</a> problem](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem"]is-ought”>Is–ought problem - Wikipedia) in moral philosophy – and Hume was a lot smarter than Rand.) Rand’s philosophical arguments to the contrary (in her nonfiction writing) have freshman-philosophy mistakes in them. This is the reason that she isn’t taken seriously, for the most part, by moral or political philosophers. (An exception to the scant attention she gets in academic circles is an essay by Robert Nozick, the famous – and extremely libertarian – political philosopher. It is called ‘On the Randian Argument’ and appears in his collection Socratic Puzzles. Nozick agreed strongly with Rand’s political conclusions about laissez-faire capitalism, but thought her moral arguments in their defense were complete junk. The essay offers a concise, careful, and remarkably evenhanded exposition of the errors.)</p>

<p>A more philosophically careful person sympathetic to Objectivism might just claim: “I value my own welfare above all else and am unwilling to make altruistic sacrifices in the name of duty, etc. I claim that you cannot prove this moral system to be defective from objective first principles; nor can I prove to you from objective first principles that duty-based altruism is unethical. However, casual empiricism and some overly long novels suggest that most such altruists are sad, empty people.” One may dispute the empirical claim of the last sentence, but otherwise there is nothing philosophically wrong with this view. It is just an autobiographical claim about what the speaker considers valuable, but also contains the recognition that, as with any religion, these values are not amenable to a rational proof.</p>

20

<p>jessie – that is amusing. My Rand phase had exactly the same trajectory. I managed to swallow Fountainhead with difficulty, but really couldn’t take Atlas Shrugged, with its much grander ambitions. I think the straw that broke the camel’s back for me was Rand’s insistence on the deep moral rightness, in some circumstances, of cheating on your wife.</p>