Definitely not in this case. I decided to break it up into individual parts, so that I would have more time to think about the content between parts... and perhaps even change my view by the end of it. I am currently in the middle of season 3... and Walter has been displaying too much altruism for my taste of late.
Diamondhead, I agree re:Jessie - partially. Though I am a fan of black and white, I think Walt is simply not so cut and dry. It is my opinion that Walt's character is sympathetic to Jessie from the very beginning. Even towards the middle of season 3, when Walt finds himself needing to protect himself from Jessie, he still has more than just protection in mind. He really does care for Jessie. What else would explain him not deciding to outright have him murdered? Saul, after all, does mention the possibility of having to explore "other options." At that suggestion, Walt scoffs at Saul and instead proceeds to offer Jessie the partnership. Granted, I question some of the altruistic tendencies in Walt - though mostly he is out for himself and his family.
I had decided to break this up into parts, because it will allow me to think about what I will write more carefully. At the same time, I had wanted to publish what I prepared in my mind, while it was still fresh.
Thank you for your feedback. I will be following this up with part 2 tomorrow.
No, this is not for ad impressions. I have zero ads on my blog. There's a reason I quit the world of advertising after a year at an advertising agency.
And he was an adopted child, whom wasn't exactly born into a super-privileged family:
"Jobs was adopted by the family of Paul Jobs and Clara Jobs (née Hagopian) who moved to Mountain View, California when he was five years old.[1][2] Paul and Clara later adopted a daughter, Patti. Paul Jobs, a machinist for a company that made lasers, taught his son rudimentary electronics and how to work with his hands.[1] His adoptive mother was an accountant.[18] Asked in a 1995 interview what he wanted to pass on to his children, Jobs replied, "Just to try to be as good a father to them as my father was to me. I think about that every day of my life." When asked about his "adoptive parents," Jobs replied emphatically that Paul and Clara Jobs "were my parents." [18]"
-From the Wikipedia article on S. Jobs
>Most "objectivists" are intellectually unoriginal. They've taken Ayn Rand's philosophy literally because it sounds good to an adolescent mind and is illustrated with reasonably well-crafted stories, not on any actual merits.
Do you realize that some of the leading Objectivist philosophers have studied all other schools of philosophy, can speak about it freely, and understand it deeply? Would you posit that said Objectivist philosophers have adolescent minds?
Are you familiar with Mr. John Allison IV? He is an Objectivist and former CEO of BB&T (BB&T Corporation (Branch Banking & Trust) (NYSE: BBT) is an American bank with assets of $157 billion (March 2011)).
"Reasonably well crafted stories, with no actual merits"?
>Yet objectivism as usually deployed is nothing more than apologism for the existing, status quo, corporate elite: one that houses few intellectuals and no artists
You are absolutely wrong and have said nothing factual. No true Objectivist apologizes for the corporate elite - especially if said corporate elite earned its elite status through pandering to government and the status quo.
As for artists, are you familiar with, for example: http://www.cordair.com/? Would you not call that art?
>I would actually prefer socialism to corporate capitalism driven by private-sector social-climbing and bureaucracy. Socialism may tax the most productive in order to feed mediocrities.
I would prefer neither - because neither system protects the individual. Both systems eventually fail - one being far more nefarious in its crony and duplicitous ways. At least the Socialists didn't hide what they were after.
> I don't think his "philosophy of life" is very practical for average people.
I think that the notion of people as "average" is the root of the problem. There are no average people. There are individuals, whom may choose to become average by leading an average life. There are other individuals, whom may choose or be coerced into being less than average. And on the other side of average, you have those who by virtue of their choices and the guidance they receive from their mentors, choose to live a better than average life - and follow all or part of the "philosophy of life" that Jobs espoused.
>My point is that what worked for him doesn't work for most people.
It can work, if people choose to live life based on such a philosophy.
>If you are a person like Steve Jobs in an average position, you're looking at a string of 6- to 12-month jobs and eventual unemployment once your CV looks like Ypres.
There are two issues with this statement: average by whose measure, and whether one chooses to be average.
>otherwise, you'll be mired in mediocrity because that's what most people like and want. But if you're a normal person who has to pay the bills, to throw all of that social stupidity to the wind is putting the cart a bit before the horse.
I despise mediocrity with a passion. I hire people based on the best that they offer, and fire them based on what they don't. And I know plenty of people who think similarly. It is how I've lived my life.
>But if you're a normal person who has to pay the bills, to throw all of that social stupidity to the wind is putting the cart a bit before the horse.
I completely agree that it is "social stupidity" - and that is why I spend hours rooting it out by sharing posts like these :)
What is a philosophy? What makes Objectivists second handers? You are pointing fingers and spouting hyperbole, without an iota of a substantive argument.
> Not everyone who makes stuff and cares about quality control is an "ethical egoist," or whatever you call it.
I agree. But, Steve Jobs was indeed an ethical egoist in words and in actions. I think this statement alone, supported by his entire life's work, testifies to his having been an "ethical egoist":
“Don’t be trapped by dogma—which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice.” -Steve Jobs (2005 Stanford Commencement Address)
or this:
"Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle." -Steve Jobs, Stanford Address
I think that Craig Biddle's conclusions are correct - whether or not Jobs himself ever said he was or wasn't an Objectivist.
FYI, have you seen this interview with Woz:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/74391682/#ooid=8xMWJyMjoT9XMT...
Around 9:00:
"STEVE WOZNIAK: …And he did want to have a successful company, and he had a lot of ideas. He must’ve read some books that really were his guide in life, you know, and I think… Well, Atlas Shrugged might’ve been one of them that he mentioned back then. But they were his guides in life as to how you make a difference in the world. And it starts with a company. You build products and you gotta make your profit, and that allows you to invest the profit and then make better products that make more profit. I would say, how good a company is, it’s fair to measure it by its profitability."
I won't even begin to quote the Think Different(tm) commercial or Jobs' line of reasoning for why Apple did that entire campaign.
I am not a libertarian. I am also neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. I've already apologized for the mistake of posting something that doesn't have attribution and is baseless. Still, I appreciate your input.
FYI: Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
"Karl Heinrich Marx (5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) was a German philosopher, sociologist, economic historian, journalist, and revolutionary socialist who developed the socio-political theory of Marxism. " -Wikipedia article
If you tell me that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for the above information, shall I point you to 10 other sources that will corroborate the above??
First of all, thank you for staying on point and keeping your rational train of thought. You have been the only one to realize the purpose of my post: stirring rational discussion about a very difficult issue that deserves attention from entrepreneurs. Also, thank you for calling me out on the Socratic run-around and lack of direct statements. Here are my counter-arguments (and notes of agreement, where possible), one by one.
> I explained, there are more drivers than 'success' in the real world, that are not simulated by grades.
Of course. Everyone has a set of values that they follow through virtuous action or otherwise, whether they realize it or not. Some seek the values that ultimately lead them to their demise, others to their success. This does not, however, preclude that some values are good and others bad for a given individual. So if achieving good grades were the standard of value in a school system, then it follows that the driver of success in that context were the grades. Yes, in the real world, there are other factors (and if grades were analogous to currency, then the acquisition of wealth is not the only thing I'd be after - and I'd certainly not be accumulating in fiat currency).
> The example in the OP illustrates a 'crash' of a socialist system, by saying everyone gets Fs, if you convert that into money, you are talking about a complete crash of equity (i.e there is no money to share around). Meaning there is no welfare, meaning they all starve, with their families. You don't die, if you get a bad grade, you do die, if you don't eat.
Of course in a crash of an economic system, wealth allocated
by individuals in worthless financial instruments (made worthless because their worth had been sanctioned by fiat) would be wiped out. Those individuals whom will have invested in other stores of value prior to such a crash would prosper, while others would live in squalor or perish (with some room for those in other parts in the middle of the spectrum). Such collapses have happened in the past, and are likely to happen again. Look at what is going in Europe for some early warning signs. There's no true socialism anywhere, but there are very serious attempts at implementing some of the philosophy of socialism. In places where the attempts are the most honest, the crashes shall be the most drastic. The places where they are the most honest, are the places most analogous to the classroom example in the OP piece.
> At less extreme cases people will always want to improve their living situation, and thus will strive to generate more capital (or more directly, contributing value to their community).
Yes of course in less extreme cases of socialist-like socio-economic systems (as in the US), those who see the writing on the wall will attempt to improve their situation - at any cost - and some without even realizing that they are doing so. I think that many entrepreneurs are in this class.
Now as to the reality of the failures of socialism... and its various interpretations... is the analogy of the OP piece I posted clear? Does it make sense, given what I've written above?