Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objecting to Objectivism

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 7:36:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Anyone have arguments against Objectivism?

Some of the core tenets:

- Axiom of A = A and presuppose existence.
- Objective reality is the only reality and is independent of perception.
- Rational egoism. Pursue in your self interest only. To do otherwise is wrong.
- Reason is the only means to knowledge.

I have yet to find a devastating refutation of Objectivism. Only from leading skeptic, Michael Shermer who said its a cult belief system and the Atheist Experience who said the ethics are unjustified and baseless and that the law of indentity is laughably obvious.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 8:12:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 7:36:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Anyone have arguments against Objectivism?

Some of the core tenets:

- Axiom of A = A and presuppose existence.
- Objective reality is the only reality and is independent of perception.
- Rational egoism. Pursue in your self interest only. To do otherwise is wrong.
- Reason is the only means to knowledge.

I have yet to find a devastating refutation of Objectivism. Only from leading skeptic, Michael Shermer who said its a cult belief system and the Atheist Experience who said the ethics are unjustified and baseless and that the law of indentity is laughably obvious.

What is objectivism could you explain it to me in lay man's terms please
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 8:19:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 8:12:21 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/3/2010 7:36:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Anyone have arguments against Objectivism?

Some of the core tenets:

- Axiom of A = A and presuppose existence.
- Objective reality is the only reality and is independent of perception.
- Rational egoism. Pursue in your self interest only. To do otherwise is wrong.
- Reason is the only means to knowledge.

I have yet to find a devastating refutation of Objectivism. Only from leading skeptic, Michael Shermer who said its a cult belief system and the Atheist Experience who said the ethics are unjustified and baseless and that the law of indentity is laughably obvious.

What is objectivism could you explain it to me in lay man's terms please

I'll let Ayn Rand do it.

http://aynrandlexicon.com...
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 8:43:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've always seen Objectivism as a philosophy based on "survival". If you look at it, it's a "reason driven, sh!t happens; get over it, every man for himself, equal trading and opportunity" mindset. I see it as kind of primal almost in the idea of self-centered but begrudging help for mutual profit. Like when a monkey hordes bananas but gives one to another monkey for space on the tree. The monkey doesn't want to give his banana away, but he realizes he needs shelter. Weird analogy, I know but that's what I thought of.

I can't find a reason to object it though. To be against it based on the complaint of "It has no morals!", is plain stupid. The individual person can still have morals and a sense of right or wrong; it's just not enforced by Objectivism. I like the philosophy but it's not something I'd base my life on...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:04:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To name some of my main concerns:

- Despite Rand and her supporter's claim otherwise, I don't find her attempt at answering the is-ought problem satisfying.

- Someone related to the first point, I find her process at arriving to the conclusion that survival is the ultimate value to be fallacious.

- Her solution to conflicts of interests seems quite shoddy, and needs more furnishing by her supporters until I can find it reasonable.

Obviously, I would have to defend these points. Any takers?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:08:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 7:36:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Michael Shermer who said its a cult belief system and the Atheist Experience who said the ethics are unjustified and baseless

yep.

They reject other things which people care about without any reason at all.

They don't have any argument for WHY "Rational Self Interest" is more important than interests you might have for others well being...

They just reject any cares for others... without reason.

I mean... IF you're a psychopath... I could understand why...

BUT I think most "Objectivists" aren't Psychos... I think most are just silly.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:20:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:08:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 7:36:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Michael Shermer who said its a cult belief system and the Atheist Experience who said the ethics are unjustified and baseless

yep.

They reject other things which people care about without any reason at all.

They don't have any argument for WHY "Rational Self Interest" is more important than interests you might have for others well being...

They just reject any cares for others... without reason.

I mean... IF you're a psychopath... I could understand why...

BUT I think most "Objectivists" aren't Psychos... I think most are just silly.

I don't think that's entirely true.... Ayn Rand does give some reasons about why "rational self interest" is important. She was being interviewed and a man asked her, "Would you ever vote for a female candidate for presidency in the USA?" And she said, "No." Straight-out, just like that. The man asked why, and she responded with, "Women cannot handle that much power. A woman as Commander-in-Chief ? That would not work."

So she does give reasons... They just are rare and... well, utterly confusing at times. It's not that she's rejecting the cares for others with no reason. It's stated quite briefly why: she believes man will be the downfall of mankind. Is that WAY too simplified, cynical, jaded and creepily, almost sociopathic? Probably. But there is a reason to her madness... You just have to read her works to understand them. :D
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:20:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:08:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 7:36:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Michael Shermer who said its a cult belief system and the Atheist Experience who said the ethics are unjustified and baseless

yep.

They reject other things which people care about without any reason at all.

We have our reasons.

They don't have any argument for WHY "Rational Self Interest" is more important than interests you might have for others well being...

If you want to sacrifice everything you own to go help poor African children, be my guest.

They just reject any cares for others... without reason.

No we don't. The care you have for your wife is part of your personal interests.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:22:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:04:54 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
To name some of my main concerns:

- Despite Rand and her supporter's claim otherwise, I don't find her attempt at answering the is-ought problem satisfying.

- Someone related to the first point, I find her process at arriving to the conclusion that survival is the ultimate value to be fallacious.

- Her solution to conflicts of interests seems quite shoddy, and needs more furnishing by her supporters until I can find it reasonable.


Obviously, I would have to defend these points. Any takers?

I don't actually understand what your objections are. Essentially, you're saying that you have objections to these things, without detailing any specifics. I might take you up on it in a couple of weeks (I give that time frame because I have college things to attend to here during that space of time, so there's no time for debating).
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:24:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:20:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The care you have for your wife is part of your personal interests.

lol... enlighten me...

How so... why should I care for my wife... why should I care for myself?

why are such cares different than caring for a dog running in the street which might get hit?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:28:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:24:13 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:20:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The care you have for your wife is part of your personal interests.

lol... enlighten me...

How so... why should I care for my wife... why should I care for myself?

why are such cares different than caring for a dog running in the street which might get hit?

certainly I might care about each thing in different degrees...

BUT objectivists would claim that any kind of "altruistic" notion is essentially of a different sort that "self interest" and is not worthy of attention or pursuit... why? what is the fundamental difference?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:34:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:24:13 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:20:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The care you have for your wife is part of your personal interests.

lol... enlighten me...

How so... why should I care for my wife...
You enjoy her company, share her interests, **** on a regular basis, luurrrvveee her, any number of things.

why should I care for myself?
A meaningless question, "should" presumes you already do care-- and yourself is all there is to experience.

If you don't care, there is nothing you should do. Objectivism does not claim that you "ought to choose to live". But it claims that if you do, that implies certain ethics. And if you don't, you don't have a good reason to speak with Objectivists, or act at all for that matter.


why are such cares different than caring for a dog running in the street which might get hit?
What do you get out of the dog?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:39:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:34:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What do you get out of the dog?

well... If the dog gets hit... I feel bad.

so... I care for it NOT to get hit.... and I'd Act to prevent it getting hit.

and if I didn't I'd know it prolly would get hit... and I'd feel bad.

Same with the wife. I enjoy her presence. so I'd spend time with her and try to keep her from harm.

If the wife got hit by a car I'd feel bad. If the dog got hit by a car I'd feel bad.

Certainly to different degrees... But similar.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:41:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:39:00 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:34:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What do you get out of the dog?

well... If the dog gets hit... I feel bad.

You care because you care?

That's just a psychological flaw without any enjoyable upside Appease it if you must but try to fix it, and don't cloak it in "morality."

Same with the wife. I enjoy her presence.
That's not the same unless you enjoy the dog's presence :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:41:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:39:00 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:34:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What do you get out of the dog?

well... If the dog gets hit... I feel bad.

so... I care for it NOT to get hit.... and I'd Act to prevent it getting hit.

and if I didn't I'd know it prolly would get hit... and I'd feel bad.

Same with the wife. I enjoy her presence. so I'd spend time with her and try to keep her from harm.

If the wife got hit by a car I'd feel bad. If the dog got hit by a car I'd feel bad.

Certainly to different degrees... But similar.

Now you might ask WHY would I feel bad if the dog got hit?

and I might ask WHY would you feel bad if your wife got hit?

the answer is you just would.

with the wife you might be able to say other things... like now you have less entertainment.. BUT why do you care for entertainment???

You just DO.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:44:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:41:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:39:00 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:34:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What do you get out of the dog?

well... If the dog gets hit... I feel bad.

You care because you care?

That's just a psychological flaw without any enjoyable upside Appease it if you must but try to fix it, and don't cloak it in "morality."

I don't do "morality" I do what I what want. I do that which I think would make me happiest. I act according to my cares.

Same with the wife. I enjoy her presence.
That's not the same unless you enjoy the dog's presence :P

sure. BUT the fact stands that the Dogs death would be Unenjoyable... in fact a Negative experience.

IF it's not for you.... and you're ok with it... then that's you.

It would upset me. so I would try to make it so it wouldn't happen.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:46:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:41:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's just a psychological flaw without any enjoyable upside Appease it if you must but try to fix it, and don't cloak it in "morality."

what makes it a psychological flaw?

and... why is acting for "Rational Self Interest" moral?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:49:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Before I post this, I want to make this clear. I do not follow Objectivism and don't intend to. I'm posting this because Objectivism interests me in a, "Wtf? Really?" way. :D

So, I think of it like this, matt. Some people follow their emotions, and find themselves on a quest for someone as their equal, for personal vindication, happiness to be shared with others and the assurance that personal bonds can bring.

Others, like Ayn, follow path in a drier, literal way. They see the world around them as it is. I am not saying that they have no emotions or feelings, but they see no reason in letting that be the driving force.

Now, if an Objectivist saw a dog about to be hit, I would like to think they would save it. Common sense and morality should precede philosophy in those situations. I find myself halfway between these two. I know the importance of emotions but I was taught from age 5 to not show emotions since they're considered a weakness, and to follow life like it is a board game. Plan your strategy early; and never lose.

So this question is directed at anyone. What is smarter? Living with an emotional and morality led mindset or with a reason driven, self protective rationale?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:51:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:20:12 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:08:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 7:36:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Michael Shermer who said its a cult belief system and the Atheist Experience who said the ethics are unjustified and baseless

yep.

They reject other things which people care about without any reason at all.

They don't have any argument for WHY "Rational Self Interest" is more important than interests you might have for others well being...

They just reject any cares for others... without reason.

I mean... IF you're a psychopath... I could understand why...

BUT I think most "Objectivists" aren't Psychos... I think most are just silly.

I don't think that's entirely true.... Ayn Rand does give some reasons about why "rational self interest" is important. She was being interviewed and a man asked her, "Would you ever vote for a female candidate for presidency in the USA?" And she said, "No." Straight-out, just like that. The man asked why, and she responded with, "Women cannot handle that much power. A woman as Commander-in-Chief ? That would not work."

So she does give reasons... They just are rare and... well, utterly confusing at times. It's not that she's rejecting the cares for others with no reason. It's stated quite briefly why: she believes man will be the downfall of mankind. Is that WAY too simplified, cynical, jaded and creepily, almost sociopathic? Probably. But there is a reason to her madness... You just have to read her works to understand them. :D

why does she care if mankind falls?

she's an Objectivist remember?!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:52:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:41:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:39:00 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:34:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What do you get out of the dog?

well... If the dog gets hit... I feel bad.

You care because you care?

That's just a psychological flaw without any enjoyable upside Appease it if you must but try to fix it, and don't cloak it in "morality."

Same with the wife. I enjoy her presence.
That's not the same unless you enjoy the dog's presence :P

Dude, if I saw a dog get hit by a car, then die when I could have saved it; I'd feel like complete sh!t. It's about having respect for other lives outside your own and protecting even the life of a dog when it may not contribute "worth" per say, but it is still important nonetheless. Because it is alive and deserves at least that recognition and the safe keeping of what life entails.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:53:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't actually understand what your objections are. Essentially, you're saying that you have objections to these things, without detailing any specifics. I might take you up on it in a couple of weeks (I give that time frame because I have college things to attend to here during that space of time, so there's no time for debating).

If I were to detail the specifics, I might as well debate it. But yeah, tell me when you're free due to college things (I'm sure I sent you a message concerning this a while ago anyway).
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:54:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
something about objectivism really brings out the crazy in people....
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:54:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:49:26 PM, annhasle wrote:
Before I post this, I want to make this clear. I do not follow Objectivism and don't intend to. I'm posting this because Objectivism interests me in a, "Wtf? Really?" way. :D

So, I think of it like this, matt. Some people follow their emotions, and find themselves on a quest for someone as their equal, for personal vindication, happiness to be shared with others and the assurance that personal bonds can bring.

Others, like Ayn, follow path in a drier, literal way. They see the world around them as it is. I am not saying that they have no emotions or feelings, but they see no reason in letting that be the driving force.

Now, if an Objectivist saw a dog about to be hit, I would like to think they would save it. Common sense and morality should precede philosophy in those situations. I find myself halfway between these two. I know the importance of emotions but I was taught from age 5 to not show emotions since they're considered a weakness, and to follow life like it is a board game. Plan your strategy early; and never lose.

So this question is directed at anyone. What is smarter? Living with an emotional and morality led mindset or with a reason driven, self protective rationale?

There is no reason to act in any way EVER unless it's an emotion/care... And I don't get the relevance of the line drawn between "selfish" emotions and emotions for the well being of others... why is such a distinction important.

I don't get how the one care is fundamentally different from the other.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 9:59:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:51:42 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:20:12 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:08:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 7:36:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Michael Shermer who said its a cult belief system and the Atheist Experience who said the ethics are unjustified and baseless

yep.

They reject other things which people care about without any reason at all.

They don't have any argument for WHY "Rational Self Interest" is more important than interests you might have for others well being...

They just reject any cares for others... without reason.

I mean... IF you're a psychopath... I could understand why...

BUT I think most "Objectivists" aren't Psychos... I think most are just silly.

I don't think that's entirely true.... Ayn Rand does give some reasons about why "rational self interest" is important. She was being interviewed and a man asked her, "Would you ever vote for a female candidate for presidency in the USA?" And she said, "No." Straight-out, just like that. The man asked why, and she responded with, "Women cannot handle that much power. A woman as Commander-in-Chief ? That would not work."

So she does give reasons... They just are rare and... well, utterly confusing at times. It's not that she's rejecting the cares for others with no reason. It's stated quite briefly why: she believes man will be the downfall of mankind. Is that WAY too simplified, cynical, jaded and creepily, almost sociopathic? Probably. But there is a reason to her madness... You just have to read her works to understand them. :D

why does she care if mankind falls?

she's an Objectivist remember?!

It's not that she cares that it fails! She realizes it as inevitable and so, in her mind, the logical thing to do is protect her own life. And so part of the Objectivist philosophy is the realization of the failing mankind and following the mindset of "you gotta do what you gotta do; and do it for yourself". Is that questionable? Yes... But don't get me wrong. I don't think she gives a flying fvck about mankind. She cares about herself. >.<
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 10:02:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:24:13 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:20:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The care you have for your wife is part of your personal interests.

lol... enlighten me...

How so... why should I care for my wife... why should I care for myself?

Because morality doesn't exist just so you can say "I'm being moral, bitches. Suck on that." Rather, the function of an ethical code is so that you can live, and live well. If you don't take care of your own interests, you die.

why are such cares different than caring for a dog running in the street which might get hit?

Because your wife isn't a dog in the street. I hope.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 10:03:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:28:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:24:13 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2010 9:20:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The care you have for your wife is part of your personal interests.

lol... enlighten me...

How so... why should I care for my wife... why should I care for myself?

why are such cares different than caring for a dog running in the street which might get hit?

certainly I might care about each thing in different degrees...

BUT objectivists would claim that any kind of "altruistic" notion is essentially of a different sort that "self interest" and is not worthy of attention or pursuit... why? what is the fundamental difference?

Altruism, by definition, is a code that glorifies self-sacrifice (usually for some kind of "greater good"). That's entirely antithetical to one's rational self-interest.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 10:04:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:59:49 PM, annhasle wrote:
She cares about herself. >.<

that's fine by me.

and it's fine by me if she doesn't care one whit about anyone else.

HOWEVER... others do... and I haven't seen any Randbots give good reason for why they shouldn't.

If you care.... act.

If you don't. Don't.

there's no Reason to care about yourself. And there's no reason to care for others.

You just do (or don't).
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 10:04:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:53:19 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
I don't actually understand what your objections are. Essentially, you're saying that you have objections to these things, without detailing any specifics. I might take you up on it in a couple of weeks (I give that time frame because I have college things to attend to here during that space of time, so there's no time for debating).

If I were to detail the specifics, I might as well debate it. But yeah, tell me when you're free due to college things (I'm sure I sent you a message concerning this a while ago anyway).

I do believe so. I'll make sure to send you a message once all that's through, and we can work out the specifics.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2010 10:07:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/3/2010 9:59:49 PM, annhasle wrote:

It's not that she cares that it fails! She realizes it as inevitable and so, in her mind, the logical thing to do is protect her own life. And so part of the Objectivist philosophy is the realization of the failing mankind and following the mindset of "you gotta do what you gotta do; and do it for yourself". Is that questionable? Yes... But don't get me wrong. I don't think she gives a flying fvck about mankind. She cares about herself. >.<

Uh, no. Objectivist philosophy doesn't say anything about how mankind is failing. It says that our world sucks, but Objectivism, at its core, is the glorification of man's potential.