Ayn Rand and Selfishness as a Virtue

[Walker]

Walker wrote:
I thought it was interesting at the end, when the word wont turned up.

In this case the apostrophe doesn’t alter the definition.

You won't answer henry's appropriate philosophical question, as is your wont.

The answer to your question about cobbling was merely an appropriate response to wontless participation, and after all, it's participation and not mere reading that defines existence under these conditions.

Aww muffin. You weren't happy with your own response?

Well since I’m obviously a man and you’re looking for a muffin, talk to Hobbes there. Choice is not my confusion.

Yeah. Buster Brown.

[Dalek Prime]

Are you still here, Walker? Trust me when I say, I'd much rather talk to Hobbes than a single-minded cultist.

[Walker]

Are you still here, Walker? Trust me when I say, I'd much rather talk to Hobbes than a single-minded cultist.

Why yes, I'll answer this time. I just happen to be here right now.

No kidding about Hobbes, as if your world with its judgements and definitions has any serious, rational relevance to the topic. But what else should one expect from the admitted clown.

'Fire burns.'

Is this an objective or subjective statement?


'if you touch that hot stove with your nekkid hand, you'll get burned.'

Is this an objective or subjective statement?

Yes. That’s objective. Flesh burns.

So in the nutshell that was the reference, Rand’s first statement remains unchallenged, though dealing with the sideshow was entertaining for those participants who get more out of life (life which is the measure, etc.)

[Dalek Prime]

Are you still here, Walker? Trust me when I say, I'd much rather talk to Hobbes than a single-minded cultist.

Why yes, I'll answer this time. I just happen to be here right now.

No kidding about Hobbes, as if your world with its judgements and definitions has any serious, rational relevance to the topic. But what else should one expect from the admitted clown.

'Fire burns.'

Is this an objective or subjective statement?


'if you touch that hot stove with your nekkid hand, you'll get burned.'

Is this an objective or subjective statement?

Yes. That’s objective. Flesh burns.

So in the nutshell that was the reference, Rand’s first statement remains unchallenged, though dealing with the sideshow was entertaining for those participants who get more out of life (life which is the measure, etc.)

Rand didn't originate hot stoves, fire, or crispy hands. And that miniscule observation proves nothing except fire burns. It's not 'Fire burns, ergo Ayn Rand's convoluted system is correct'.

Continental philosophy, as well as analytic, takes issue with her. Russell himself said in his first book that, after consciousness, we have to make a certain leap of faith, though a safe one, that external objects persist in reality. Ayn Rand is no Russell.

Btw, you're blocked now, so don't expect a reply. At least the 'Prophet' Bob puts a little effort into making his own shit up.

[Walker]

That’s too bad. I won’t hold you to it.

Blocking indicates resentment as armoring indicates defensiveness. Resentment clouds understanding, it can rob a life. A session of unconsciousness resets the accustomed program and then everything’s just ducky again.


A modern-day yogi:


If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans - Ultra Spiritual Life episode 35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8

[henry quirk]

"miniscule observation proves nothing except fire burns"

I disagree. 'Fire burns' (despite what any one thinks or feels about it) is sayin' 'reality exists, and it exists independent of you and me and him and her'.

Not a miniscule observation but a broad, comprehensive, one, one not limited to Rand, by the way.

[Dalek Prime]

"miniscule observation proves nothing except fire burns"

I disagree. 'Fire burns' (despite what any one thinks or feels about it) is sayin' 'reality exists, and it exists independent of you and me and him and her'.

Not a miniscule observation but a broad, comprehensive, one, one not limited to Rand, by the way.

Henry, did you actually read my last post you responded to? You are not saying anything I didn't say in it. The only difference is, you and Objectivists believe you can perceive reality in its entirety. All other philosophical schools believe you can only perceive through the filter of your consciousness and senses, aka subjectivism. And Continental philosophy believes it is wholely subjective, though I'm not pushing that one.

As an aside, why is it you always delete the header, and not use the quoting system? No one is alerted to your responses, and no one knows which thread you are responding to.

[henry quirk]

"you and Objectivists believe you can perceive reality in its entirety"

Speaking only for me: not true...not seein' where you get 'that' silly notion...to be clear: my senses only apprehend a portion of the information, my brain is an imperfect processor of information, the approximation of the world I cobble together is just that, 'approximate'.

Here's the thing: this 'approximation' of mine is accurate enough, stable enough, coherent enough, for me, in my day-to-day, to stay alive, navigate multiple obstacles, communicate accurately across multiple circumstances and so on...this seems to say the world outside of me, the world I apprehend from day-to-day is, itself, stable and coherent and exists independent of me or what I think of it.

#

"You are not saying anything I didn't say in it."

Doesn't seem that way to me.

#

And: I delete the headers cuz they're redundant; I don't use the quote system cuz I prefer to do things my way.

[Dalek Prime]

"you and Objectivists believe you can perceive reality in its entirety"

Speaking only for me: not true...not seein' where you get 'that' silly notion From Objectivist beliefs....to be clear: my senses only apprehend a portion of the information, my brain is an imperfect processor of information, the approximation of the world I cobble together is just that, 'approximate'. And that's a reasonable attitude, Henry. But that's not what Objectivists believe.

Here's the thing: this 'approximation' of mine is accurate enough, stable enough, coherent enough, for me, in my day-to-day, to stay alive, navigate multiple obstacles, communicate accurately across multiple circumstances and so on...this seems to say the world outside of me, the world I apprehend from day-to-day is, itself, stable and coherent and exists independent of me or what I think of it. Yes, and I'm not contradicting you on this, or disagreeing. Again, that is reasonable. But Objectivism believes you can reason from an objective viewpoint, denying they are being subjective, when clearly we are all subjective.

#

"You are not saying anything I didn't say in it."

Doesn't seem that way to me. I can't do anything about how you interpret what I write.

#

And: I delete the headers cuz they're redundant; I don't use the quote system cuz I prefer to do things my way.There's a song in there somewhere, Mr. Sinatra.

[henry quirk]

"From Objectivist beliefs"

Well and fine, but you lumped me in with 'em...I may be an objectivist but I'm not an Objectivist.

#

"Objectivism believes you can reason from an objective viewpoint, denying they are being subjective..."

Not sure that's an accurate assessment.

#

"...clearly we are all subjective."

You seem to deny the possibility of a body being objective even in the slightest way...if so, I disagree.

#

"I can't do anything about how you interpret what I write."

Likewise, I'm sure.

[Dalek Prime]

"From Objectivist beliefs"

Well and fine, but you lumped me in with 'em...I may be an objectivist but I'm not an Objectivist. Okay, but is there a difference? I'm going by your defense of Objectivism, and don't know how you define your version.

#

"Objectivism believes you can reason from an objective viewpoint, denying they are being subjective..."

Not sure that's an accurate assessment. That's the distinct impression they give.
#

"...clearly we are all subjective."

You seem to deny the possibility of a body being objective even in the slightest way...if so, I disagree. Through the subjective veil of our consciousness, we parse externality. So it can't be completely objective, although it can still be a fairly accurate assessment. And so we'll continue to disagree on this point.
#

"I can't do anything about how you interpret what I write."

Likewise, I'm sure. Absolutely. That's our subjective filtering at work.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"selfish [sel-fish]
adjective
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself:
selfish motives." --Dictionary.com--

The above is quoted from the dictionary, I've only colored the important distinction in red.

Now lets imagine everyone doing the same thing, in every instance of every difference between peoples; chaos, anarchy! Sounds like human evolution regression to me.

Hi, Spheres

Yes, I agree with your observation.

Selfishness is to be avoided if one knows his/her ethics. As good dictionaries define the terms, one cannot be selfish and considerate at the same time.

Ayn Rand, in her bitterness toward the Soviet Communist experience she escaped from, did us all a disservice in teaching that selfishness = self-concern. It was a "loss in translation" from Russian to English on her part.

Thanks for the clarification, I'm not an Ayn Rand scholar. I never really considered her 'that' important.

Nice to see you again Prof, you always have something great to consider, the epitome of equality, good job my friend! I hope this finds you and yours, healthy happy and wise.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"selfish [sel-fish]
adjective
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself:
selfish motives." --Dictionary.com--

The above is quoted from the dictionary, I've only colored the important distinction in red.

Now lets imagine everyone doing the same thing, in every instance of every difference between peoples; chaos, anarchy! Sounds like human evolution regression to me.

Hi, Spheres

Yes, I agree with your observation.

Selfishness is to be avoided if one knows his/her ethics. As good dictionaries define the terms, one cannot be selfish and considerate at the same time.

Ayn Rand, in her bitterness toward the Soviet Communist experience she escaped from, did us all a disservice in teaching that selfishness = self-concern. It was a "loss in translation" from Russian to English on her part.

Geeze.

Rand is not that difficult. Here’s a real situation. Two grandkid cousins, tug-o-war over a new toy.

One owns the new toy. She wants to play with it.

The other one has been taught that she must share her toys. She expects others to share with her, on demand.

So grandpa explains it, age appropriate to capacity.
The owner gets to play with the toy as long as she wants, with no pressure.
Sharing does not mean borrowing.
When you share, you first offer.
When you borrow, you first ask.
Asking to borrow does not obligate the owner.
If the owner wants to share the toy, fine.
If the owner doesn’t want to share, fine.

I’m pretty sure Ayn Rand would agree with grandpa’s reasoning.

Selfishness and altruism are emotional issues, as these four-year olds know. We were all once four years old.

The fighting stopped. The owner played with her new toy. The one taught to share thought it over, because these instructions from authority were contrary to the world view that had already begun to cure like concrete in her noggin, and concrete cures for decades. And I could tell that she agreed with the reasoning, even though she wasn't playing with the toy. Maybe when she grows up she won't be conflicted about refusing to loan her beemer to anyone who asks.

Awhile later, for her own reasons, the owner decided to share. She was not required to explain her reasons. Maybe she felt pity. Maybe she realized the future implications of not sharing now. But whatever, the pair of fours reasoned out their subsequent actions within context of emotional upheaval which included tears and toy-cherishing attachment, where the lessons that are repeated throughout life are learned.

Sure it's a virtue. No one has an ethical claim to your mind and what it produces.

Just because the hero wants the toy does not make the owner of the toy a villain.

No one owns anything Walker, they only ever rent it, yes their very lives! Your story and Rands, a smoke screen, to cover up the inevitable truth of the matter. (Earnest Becker, (Pulitzer prize winner): "The Denial of Death," unlocks this truth! Your things you own, your thumb sucking; your pacifying in the face of the storm!)

It would seem you're better at music appreciation.

[Walker]

No idea what you’re talking about. You should haul that on down to the garage and get the spheres balanced.

Ayn Rand was an atheist, you know.

She created atheist heroes in her fiction.

[SpheresOfBalance]

No idea what you’re talking about. You should haul that on down to the garage and get the spheres balanced.

Ayn Rand was an atheist, you know.

She created atheist heroes in her fiction.

Walker I've noticed that you seem to 'try' to obfuscate your meaning. When someone doesn't have to 'try,' it speaks more of the others ignorance, less of ones protection-fear racket. Of course ignorance is no crime at all, unless of course one chooses to ignore trying to understand another's meaning. Then the crime could be self defeating; ignorance perpetuation. No one knows it all, though some profess to, as their Protection-fear racket becomes apparent. You should read Ernest Beckers book, I believe it would behoove you.