Originally posted by no1marauder
😠

Yuck it up; I probably would have grown up to be a nice moderate Republican like sh76 if I hadn't been forced to read such crap extolling the virtues of complete selfishness. I almost became a Shaker because of it.

Now you have to just settle for mover, eh🙂

Originally posted by Wajoma
The point being? That you blokes are so desperate to find a flaw that out of the many thousands of pages she wrote to publish

Okay. Here's the first mistake in objectivism:

Human beings act rationally.

END OF STORY.
They don't. Basing any half-witted theory on the rational behaviour of human beings is as dim-witted as basing an economy on the greedy gambling of stockholders and bankers.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Okay. Here's the first mistake in objectivism:

[b]Human beings act rationally.

END OF STORY.
They don't. Basing any half-witted theory on the rational behaviour of human beings is as dim-witted as basing an economy on the greedy gambling of stockholders and bankers.[/b]

They have that ability shav, you don't have to look far for irrational humans, just re-read some of your posts.

Talk about stating the frickin obvious there is untold irrational behaviour, that doesn't mean humans must act irrationally or that they can't act rationally. This leaves your buds like No1 and KN in an awkward position, humans can't act rationally so they need other humans to tell them how to act, in fact they need more than telling they need a big stick waved at them.

Originally posted by Wajoma
They have that ability shav, you don't have to look far for irrational humans, just re-read some of your posts.

Talk about stating the frickin obvious there is untold irrational behaviour, that doesn't mean humans must act irrationally or that they can't act rationally. This leaves your buds like No1 and KN in an awkward position, humans can't act rationa ...[text shortened]... ll them how to act, in fact they need more than telling they need a big stick waved at them.

How do you define a "rational act"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How do you define a "rational act"?

Acting in a life affirming or life improving way.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Acting in a life affirming or life improving way.

If by "life improving" you mean utility, then people in general are not rational. People generally are focused on the short term and are awful at judging risks.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If by "life improving" you mean utility, then people in general are not rational. People generally are focused on the short term and are awful at judging risks.

I know you feel that way, and that for some reason you see yourself as being super-rational or hyper-rational or in some way superior to your fellow man, you see yourself as more qualified at running his life.


You're not.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I know you feel that way, and that for some reason you see yourself as being super-rational or hyper-rational or in some way superior to your fellow man, you see yourself as more qualified at running his life.


You're not.

Not at all, even if people were rational laissez faire capitalism would be a terrible idea.

Originally posted by Wajoma
They have that ability shav, you don't have to look far for irrational humans, just re-read some of your posts.

Talk about stating the frickin obvious there is untold irrational behaviour, that doesn't mean humans must act irrationally or that they can't act rationally. This leaves your buds like No1 and KN in an awkward position, humans can't act rationa ...[text shortened]... ll them how to act, in fact they need more than telling they need a big stick waved at them.

The whole point is that you can't think up a philosophy to defend something, basing it upon rational behaviour as the norm and expect anybody outside of inbred Mississippi to take it seriously.

Originally posted by Wajoma
They have that ability shav, you don't have to look far for irrational humans, just re-read some of your posts.

Talk about stating the frickin obvious there is untold irrational behaviour, that doesn't mean humans must act irrationally or that they can't act rationally. This leaves your buds like No1 and KN in an awkward position, humans can't act rationa ...[text shortened]... ll them how to act, in fact they need more than telling they need a big stick waved at them.

Your argument is a strawman as directed at me; I do believe that humans act rationally the great majority of the time. That is why they adopt social systems that are mutually beneficial for their members. Selfishness is not a rational choice for empathic, social animals which is why Objectivism is a crank philosophy and laissez faire capitalism is unworkable in practice over the long run.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Roark is not seeking fame or admiration, he does not look for approval from others, IMO the purpose of this character is to exemplify the importance of being true to oneself, an aspect of selfishness.

No doubt Roark is not seeking fame nor admiration.

Yet his character gains admiration in a way that would not likely happen in real life. Also he gains a good deal of attention from people who would probably not pay attention to such men in real life. My point is that the author clearly intends for us to admire Roark, and I don't find him quite as worthy of admiration as the author seemingly intends.

Being true to oneself is only a virtue if "oneself" already holds virtue. If I'm a lazy dialect who cares for no one but myself, my only admirable course would be to seek to become different.

Originally posted by techsouth
Being true to oneself is only a virtue if "oneself" already holds virtue. If I'm a lazy dialect who cares for no one but myself, my only admirable course would be to seek to become different.

Good point, but would ,being lazy, really be caring for no one but yourself?

I would say no, people that are lazy have basically given up caring for anyone at all, even themselves. They are not selfish, they have given up on themselves. That is why being true to oneself is the road to morality and virtue.

Originally posted by Wajoma
That is why being true to oneself is the road to morality and virtue.

The bible suggests otherwise (being true to God is the road to morality and virtue).

Being true to oneself alone cannot lead to morality and virtue, for morality and virtue are judged in the context of how one behaves (and this in itself is a comparison to one's peers, environment and/or history).

A psycopath can be true to oneself. However, dissecting living children will almost never be judged moral or virtuose.

Morality and virtue are nothing but fashion statements.

Need I go on?

Originally posted by shavixmir
Okay. Here's the first mistake in objectivism:

[b]Human beings act rationally.

END OF STORY.
They don't. Basing any half-witted theory on the rational behaviour of human beings is as dim-witted as basing an economy on the greedy gambling of stockholders and bankers.[/b]

Shav showing his ignorance. Again.

Objectivism sucks donkey balls, but Rand doesn't assume human beings act rationally. She views rationality as a virtue to pursue, not as a description of human behaviour.

no1 pretty much nailed it, though.

Originally posted by Palynka
Shav showing his ignorance. Again.

Objectivism sucks donkey balls, but Rand doesn't assume human beings act rationally. She views rationality as a virtue to pursue, not as a description of human behaviour.

no1 pretty much nailed it, though.

Answer the question, stop avoiding my points by directly attacking me.

You really are an arse-wipe.

PS
Rand's Objectivism is based upon the rational-inclination of human beings.
See: The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism