Atlas Shrugged movie coming April 15

Originally posted by Seitse
What ideas?

Rand was an eternal sniveling, whining teenager championing
selfishness. By far a producer of a bit of original thought.

Does this post qualify as an own goal?

Originally posted by kmax87
Does this post qualify as an own goal?

Does this post qualify as an own goal?

Originally posted by Seitse
Does this post qualify as an own goal?

Does this post qualify as an own goal?

Originally posted by kmax87
Does this post qualify as an own goal?

Does this post qualify as an own goal?

Originally posted by Seitse
Does this post qualify as an own goal?

Does this post qualify as ayn own goal?

Originally posted by Wajoma
You're not shy in making one or two judgments yourself no1, making judgments then feeling justified in backing those judgements with force and threats of force. That is the difference. I will judge whether a hermit lifestyle is in a persons best interest, but that judgment will not be on it's 'legitimacy', you're being a little bit sneeky trying to slip tha ...[text shortened]... e one half that you are fixated on. Do you think that is in a persons best interest no1?

What difference does it make what you or I think about someone else? It is only their assessment of their rational self-interest that matters. As the Great One said:

To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.

If a hermit acheives the highest level of his own happiness by eschewing all contact with the rest of humanity and building a toaster, then he has acted in accordance with Objectivist ethics. After all, he has engaged in "productive work" which "is the central purpose of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work – pride is the result."

Originally posted by no1marauder
What difference does it make what you or I think about someone else? It is only their assessment of their rational self-interest that matters.

Didn't Wajoma answer that already? It's right there.

"...making judgments then feeling justified in backing those judgements with force and threats of force. That is the difference."

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Didn't Wajoma answer that already? It's right there.

"...making judgments then feeling justified in [b]backing those judgements with force and threats of force. That is the difference."[/b]

Yep. Wajoma envisages a non-forceful way to circumvent the democratic decision-making process and implement a libertarian system. He just hasn't told us yet how exactly he plans to do this.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Didn't Wajoma answer that already? It's right there.

"...making judgments then feeling justified in [b]backing those judgements with force and threats of force. That is the difference."[/b]

Wajoma: Do you think that is in a persons best interest no1?

I was answering that specific question. Please try to follow.

I am unaware of any society that doesn't enforce its laws. Wajoma's statement is nonsensical; even a laissez faire capitalist system must, eventually, enforce even something as basic as contracts between parties with "force and threats of force" against those who refuse to abide by their agreements.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What difference does it make what you or I think about someone else? It is only their assessment of their rational self-interest that matters. As the Great One said:

To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.

If a hermit acheives the highest level of his ...[text shortened]... lues. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work – pride is the result."

And in Atlas Shrugged it would become stolen by the Man who would then mass produce it and give everyone an incredible toaster because the Man is EVIL! 😠

And the Hermit would bring down the system by...umm...becoming a hermit.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What difference does it make what you or I think about someone else? It is only their assessment of their rational self-interest that matters. As the Great One said:

To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.

If a hermit acheives the highest level of his ...[text shortened]... lues. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work – pride is the result."

We're going in circles here. Let's take a closer look at this term "their rational self-interest" Now just because a person chooses to be a hermit does not make that decision 'rational' and just because a person claims to be happy being a hermit does not make the decision rational either. There are people that claim to be happy doing drugs or throwing their life away by cowering before some imaginary super being, or playing WoW 15 hours a day. All of theses people may claim that their decision is rational because it makes them happy, but Rand had more to say on what is a rational life than can be summed in a few out of context quotes.

A rational man, a selfish man concerned with his own welfare is propelled into society precisely because he is selfish and concerned with his own welfare. This is not to say a selfless man who doesn't care about his own welfare that only thinks of others is not also propelled into society by his desire to serve. He is.

I assert that it is impossible to be a hermit and selfish i.e. concerned with ones own welfare, not in a rational sense anyway. There is so much to be gained and experienced by dealing with other men (and women :^P) I will allow that out of the truly tiny percentage of persons that choose to live as hermits a few of them may be aware of objectivism, and even fewer of that number might claim (rightly or wrongly) to be objectivists, a number so miniscule that we've already wasted far too many words on them.

The important thing is: Being selfish does not preclude one from being social.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I will do nothing whatsoever for you but what I deem to be in my own selfish interest. I regard achievement of my own happiness as the highest moral purpose and will never do anything for anyone's else benefit except if I deem it in my own self-interest to do so.

I suspect that anyone making such a statement to their "loved" ones would be regarded as a lunatic or a prick.[/b]

I think the 'hermit' thing is as settled as it can be, it has been shown that the best course of action for the rational man, the man acting in his own best interests i.e. selfishly, is to go forth and deal with other men on mutually agreed terms. No1 would like to call our attention to the small percentage of a small percentage of another small percentage of people that choose to be hermits. Noted.

So now to answer this question. I am fine with that statement, but there is something extra when it comes to romantic love, and I do not profess a great understanding of why it happens but when it does happen Robert Heinlein's quote sums it best:

"Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own."

When this feeling is mutual in a relationship, (and I would say it is similar but to a lesser degree in a friendship) then that truly is something special, an incredible experience. And if the person you have feelings for said one day that they were getting nothing from the relationship anymore, if they were only there with you as a chore, as some kind of self imposed duty, (in effect they would be speaking the quote from your post no1, the one you thought might trip me up) then if you really did love them, if your own happiness were really conditional on them being happy then it is for the best that they say so, as painful as it might be at the time.

But on the other hand if the feeling is mutual and continues to be, isn't that to be taken as a great compliment that the other person is getting so much from the relationship with you, that you are the source of great happiness to them?

"The way you make me feel..." the lyric from a corny pop song, but words I'd be happy to hear from a loved one.

Originally posted by Wajoma
... And if the person you have feelings for said one day that they were getting nothing from the relationship anymore, if they were only there with you as a chore, as some kind of self imposed duty, (in effect they would be speaking the quote from your post no1, the one you thought might trip me up) then if you really did love them, if your own happiness were ...[text shortened]... hem being happy then it is for the best that they say so, as painful as it might be at the time.

So when they started showing signs of breaking up with you, you would beat them to the punch with a its not you baby its me kinda break up line, because in the moment that you worked out that your inability to make them happy was not doing your selfish best interest any favors, you had to deny your short term self interested attachments , like she's hot or she's good in bed, or its just good being in a relationship with her, to now sever the relationship because you realised that in the long run you would be miserable when you worked out that you were no longer making her happy and your noble self interest in associating with this person was no longer being served.

Now call me crazy, but putting your long term self interest over your short term self interest smacks of....gasp.....altruism....even selflessness.......shock horror.....back to the drawing board mate. Your logic is tying your self interest up in knots. How can that be freedom?

btw...'Hey pretty baby with the high heels on.....' It had a great riff.

Originally posted by kmax87
So when they started showing signs of breaking up with you, you would beat them to the punch with a its not you baby its me kinda break up line, because in the moment that you worked out that your inability to make them happy was not doing your selfish best interest any favors, you had to deny your short term self interested attachments , like she's hot or sh ...[text shortened]... hat be freedom?

btw...'Hey pretty baby with the high heels on.....' It had a great riff.

You do realise mate is an Australian slang?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Wajoma: Do you think that is in a persons best interest no1?

I was answering that specific question. Please try to follow.

I am unaware of any society that doesn't enforce its laws. Wajoma's statement is nonsensical; even a laissez faire capitalist system must, eventually, enforce even something as basic as contracts bet ...[text shortened]... ies with "force and threats of force" against those who refuse to abide by their agreements.

I don't know of any libertarian or objectivist who argues for anarchy, the lack of force to protect basic human rights.