Selfishness , a student's question
MIKE
give me some advice on current thinking on the subject of
"selfishness".
My understanding of this concept is that to be selfish in the sence
that one only does what is in the long term self interest of that
individual and that the "common good" is subsevient to this goal.
For example we have enough oil in the world to last for 20-60 years on
the industry's own estimates.
In 1985 we generated the the maximum amount of co2 that the
environment could cope with today we generate 25% more CO2 than the
all the photosynthesis in the world can cope with which is then
compounded to the green house effect each suceeding year.
Do we have as individuals the right to consume as much fuel we
want?, concidering that we won't be around as individuals,( esp if we
were to remain childless before anyone goes down that path ) to suffer
the concequences of such behaviour.
In the nineteen forties one could exploit the environment with no
decernable ill effect to that environment.
If one measures a life in terms of it's own span then in Randian
philosophy what obligation does one have to future generations?.
To this I add Ayn Rand's claim that an unborn child is not a life but
only a potential life with therefore no inherent rights.
Does a government have obligations to the unborn ? Does it have an
obligation to step beyond it's 3 Randian roles?
Could what was right for Objectivism in the 1940s be quite wrong in
the 21 st century.Is Ayn Rand's philosophy about reaching rational
conclusions using the the reality with in which we live? Or to be
counted as an Objectivist does one have to believe all the dogma?.
Is objectivism being strangled by 60 year old conclusions ?
Is it possible that rational self interest should be reviewed in terms
of not only us as individuals but also as a society and ultimately as
a species.
Is Ayn Rand's work a bible or a starting point for modern Objectivism?
I am not pushing a barrow ,I am trying to understand what modern
Objectivism is.
Ps If your wondering; my ISP went bust and I was forced to read
Mike H
tom neville
c1...@posting.google.com>...
> As some one who is new to to the study of Objectivism, could some one
> give me some advice on current thinking on the subject of
> "selfishness".
Why should I, Im' selfish !!!!
>
> My understanding of this concept
Is Selfish!
> Do we have as individuals the right to consume as much fuel we
> want?, concidering that we won't be around as individuals,( esp if we
> were to remain childless before anyone goes down that path ) to suffer
> the concequences of such behaviour.
Huh?
>
> In the nineteen forties one could exploit the environment with no
> decernable ill effect to that environment.
Hey I was 6yrs old then... eat your heart out!
>
> If one measures a life in terms of it's own span then in Randian
> philosophy what obligation does one have to future generations?.
Stuff randian bro.. De answer is no bro!
>
> To this I add Ayn Rand's claim that an unborn child is not a life but
> only a potential life with therefore no inherent rights.
I was sprayed on da window and hatched in da sun bro Yahoo!
>
> Does a government have obligations to the unborn ? Does it have an
> obligation to step beyond it's 3 Randian roles?
Sorry bro, what is govowmunt?
Michael Bernstein
c1...@posting.google.com>...
> give me some advice on current thinking on the subject of
> "selfishness".
>
> My understanding of this concept is that to be selfish in the sence
> that one only does what is in the long term self interest of that
> individual and that the "common good" is subsevient to this goal.
>
That's right, but you have to be reasonable about it. You can't
engage in thuggish activity even if you can get away with it. You
can't be a prudent predator. That's why we speak of Objectivist
ethics as being "rational self-interest." Because prudent predators
are irrational.
> For example we have enough oil in the world to last for 20-60 years on
> the industry's own estimates.
> In 1985 we generated the the maximum amount of co2 that the
> environment could cope with today we generate 25% more CO2 than the
> all the photosynthesis in the world can cope with which is then
> compounded to the green house effect each suceeding year.
>
> Do we have as individuals the right to consume as much fuel we
> want?, concidering that we won't be around as individuals,( esp if we
> were to remain childless before anyone goes down that path ) to suffer
> the concequences of such behaviour.
>
Yep. Why should we sacrifice ourselves to our grandchildren? Or even
to our children? If some snot-nose kid needs shoes, let him get a job
in Kathie Lee's factory and earn the money to buy them.
> In the nineteen forties one could exploit the environment with no
> decernable ill effect to that environment.
>
> If one measures a life in terms of it's own span then in Randian
> philosophy what obligation does one have to future generations?.
>
Zip.
> To this I add Ayn Rand's claim that an unborn child is not a life but
> only a potential life with therefore no inherent rights.
>
> Does a government have obligations to the unborn ? Does it have an
> obligation to step beyond it's 3 Randian roles?
>
Any entity occupying a pelvic cavity becomes the exclusive property of
the owner of such cavity to use and dispose of as she sees fit. The
government has no more obligation to a fetus than it does to your ear
wax.
> Could what was right for Objectivism in the 1940s be quite wrong in
> the 21 st century.Is Ayn Rand's philosophy about reaching rational
> conclusions using the the reality with in which we live? Or to be
> counted as an Objectivist does one have to believe all the dogma?.
>
> Is objectivism being strangled by 60 year old conclusions ?
>
Objectivism is a philosphy of absolute, unchanging, and everlasting
universal truths. It doesn't matter whether Ayn Rand wrote in 1940
A.D. or in 1940 B.C. She will always be right, and those that speak
against her will always be wrong.
> Is it possible that rational self interest should be reviewed in terms
> of not only us as individuals but also as a society and ultimately as
> a species.
>
That is collectivist nonsense. The individual (that would be me) is
the only thing that matters in this life.
> Is Ayn Rand's work a bible or a starting point for modern Objectivism?
>
Ayn Rand is the alpha and the omega of all philosophy. We Objectivists
need no other mentors.
_____________
Michael Bernstein, M.A. candidate in philosophy, recently read the
complete works of Ayn Rand on CD-ROM and also recently attended a
campus seminar sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute.
____
___
__
_
__
___
____
HPO JURY = Malenor
<objec...@mail.com> wrote:
>MIKE <mdho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<f2b5b5f0.0304241612.157b
>c1...@posting.google.com>...
>> As some one who is new to to the study of Objectivism, could some one
>> give me some advice on current thinking on the subject of
>> "selfishness".
>> My understanding of this concept is that to be selfish in the sence
>> that one only does what is in the long term self interest of that
>> individual and that the "common good" is subsevient to this goal.
>That's right, but you have to be reasonable about it. You can't
>engage in thuggish activity even if you can get away with it. You
>can't be a prudent predator. That's why we speak of Objectivist
>ethics as being "rational self-interest." Because prudent predators
>are irrational.
Not if the rational is equivalent to the prudent. If you can get away
with it, why not go for it?
>> For example we have enough oil in the world to last for 20-60 years on
>> the industry's own estimates.
>> In 1985 we generated the the maximum amount of co2 that the
>> environment could cope with today we generate 25% more CO2 than the
>> all the photosynthesis in the world can cope with which is then
>> compounded to the green house effect each suceeding year.
>> Do we have as individuals the right to consume as much fuel we
>> want?, concidering that we won't be around as individuals,( esp if we
>> were to remain childless before anyone goes down that path ) to suffer
>> the concequences of such behaviour.
>Yep. Why should we sacrifice ourselves to our grandchildren? Or even
>to our children? If some snot-nose kid needs shoes, let him get a job
>in Kathie Lee's factory and earn the money to buy them.
That's right. "Rational," selfish prudence takes no heed of anybody
else. If you can get away with using up all the fuel sources, to hell
with your progeny's needs.
>> In the nineteen forties one could exploit the environment with no
>> decernable ill effect to that environment.
>> If one measures a life in terms of it's own span then in Randian
>> philosophy what obligation does one have to future generations?.
>Zip.
About time you fixed your fly, Burnsteam.
>> To this I add Ayn Rand's claim that an unborn child is not a life but
>> only a potential life with therefore no inherent rights.
>> Does a government have obligations to the unborn ? Does it have an
>> obligation to step beyond it's 3 Randian roles?
>Any entity occupying a pelvic cavity becomes the exclusive property of
>the owner of such cavity to use and dispose of as she sees fit. The
>government has no more obligation to a fetus than it does to your ear
>wax.
Tell that to the creature in Alien.
>> Could what was right for Objectivism in the 1940s be quite wrong in
>> the 21 st century.Is Ayn Rand's philosophy about reaching rational
>> conclusions using the the reality with in which we live? Or to be
>> counted as an Objectivist does one have to believe all the dogma?.
>> Is objectivism being strangled by 60 year old conclusions ?
>Objectivism is a philosphy of absolute, unchanging, and everlasting
>universal truths. It doesn't matter whether Ayn Rand wrote in 1940
>A.D. or in 1940 B.C. She will always be right, and those that speak
>against her will always be wrong.
That's what David Koresh's followers believed about him.
>> Is it possible that rational self interest should be reviewed in terms
>> of not only us as individuals but also as a society and ultimately as
>> a species.
>That is collectivist nonsense. The individual (that would be me) is
>the only thing that matters in this life.
No. "The individual" means every individual, not just you. I am an
individual too, and so is the starter of this thread.
>> Is Ayn Rand's work a bible or a starting point for modern Objectivism?
>Ayn Rand is the alpha and the omega of all philosophy. We Objectivists
>need no other mentors.
You didn't answer his question.
---------------
"I want you to know that this will go down on your permanent record!"
"Oh yeahhhh? Well don't get so distressed. Did I happen to mention
that I am impressed?"
Violent Femmes
Tom Blackstone
c1...@posting.google.com>...
> give me some advice on current thinking on the subject of
> "selfishness".
>
> My understanding of this concept is that to be selfish in the sence
> that one only does what is in the long term self interest of that
> individual and that the "common good" is subsevient to this goal.
>
> For example we have enough oil in the world to last for 20-60 years on
> the industry's own estimates.
> In 1985 we generated the the maximum amount of co2 that the
> environment could cope with today we generate 25% more CO2 than the
> all the photosynthesis in the world can cope with which is then
> compounded to the green house effect each suceeding year.
My best advice to you would be to be careful about accepting what you
hear from environmentalists. The environmentalists believe industrial
civilization is immoral because it requires disrupting the living
conditions of lower life forms. They support a return to a more
primitive state of society. Unfortunately for them, no one agrees with
their philosophy. As a result, they have to fall back on the argument
that industrial civilization is bad for PEOPLE. But the facts just
don't support this view, so they resort to propaganda and
misinformation campaigns in order to get their message across.
As for the global warming example:
First, Last I checked human beings produce less than 1/10 of 1% of all
co2 in the world. If co2 is causing global warming, then it's mother
nature that's doing it, not us.
Second, the data to support global warming is inconclusive. NASA
satellites show the earth cooling over the last 20 or 30 years.
Third, there are many positive benefits of the earth getting warmer.
So if it is getting warmer that's not neccessarily a bad thing.
Winter's are already too cold as it is.
As for your second question:
> Do we have as individuals the right to consume as much fuel we
> want?, concidering that we won't be around as individuals,( esp if we
> were to remain childless before anyone goes down that path ) to suffer
> the concequences of such behaviour.
You're assuming that we can't mine more oil or develop alternative
fuel sources. This is a common trick of environmentalists. They always
talk about natural resources as if there is only a static amount of
them that is going to run out any minute. But that's just simply not
true.
--------------Tom Blackstone
Michael Bernstein
v36seuufn1d...@4ax.com>...
.
>
> Not if the rational is equivalent to the prudent. If you can get away
> with it, why not go for it?
>
Because Objectivists do not approve of prudent predators. Therefore,
they are evil.
> >> For example we have enough oil in the world to last for 20-60 years on
> >> the industry's own estimates.
> >> In 1985 we generated the the maximum amount of co2 that the
> >> environment could cope with today we generate 25% more CO2 than the
> >> all the photosynthesis in the world can cope with which is then
> >> compounded to the green house effect each suceeding year.
>
> >> Do we have as individuals the right to consume as much fuel we
> >> want?, concidering that we won't be around as individuals,( esp if we
> >> were to remain childless before anyone goes down that path ) to suffer
> >> the concequences of such behaviour.
>
> >Yep. Why should we sacrifice ourselves to our grandchildren? Or even
> >to our children? If some snot-nose kid needs shoes, let him get a job
> >in Kathie Lee's factory and earn the money to buy them.
>
> That's right. "Rational," selfish prudence takes no heed of anybody
> else. If you can get away with using up all the fuel sources, to hell
> with your progeny's needs.
>
I cannot think of a more rational philosophy.
> >> In the nineteen forties one could exploit the environment with no
> >> decernable ill effect to that environment.
>
> >> If one measures a life in terms of it's own span then in Randian
> >> philosophy what obligation does one have to future generations?.
>
> >Zip.
>
> About time you fixed your fly, Burnsteam.
>
Flies play as much a role in my ethical philosophy as other human
beings.
> >> To this I add Ayn Rand's claim that an unborn child is not a life but
> >> only a potential life with therefore no inherent rights.
>
> >> Does a government have obligations to the unborn ? Does it have an
> >> obligation to step beyond it's 3 Randian roles?
>
> >Any entity occupying a pelvic cavity becomes the exclusive property of
> >the owner of such cavity to use and dispose of as she sees fit. The
> >government has no more obligation to a fetus than it does to your ear
> >wax.
>
> Tell that to the creature in Alien.
>
To the owner of the pelvic cavity in Alien, I recommend full and
immediate abortion.
> >> Could what was right for Objectivism in the 1940s be quite wrong in
> >> the 21 st century.Is Ayn Rand's philosophy about reaching rational
> >> conclusions using the the reality with in which we live? Or to be
> >> counted as an Objectivist does one have to believe all the dogma?.
>
> >> Is objectivism being strangled by 60 year old conclusions ?
>
> >Objectivism is a philosphy of absolute, unchanging, and everlasting
> >universal truths. It doesn't matter whether Ayn Rand wrote in 1940
> >A.D. or in 1940 B.C. She will always be right, and those that speak
> >against her will always be wrong.
>
>
> That's what David Koresh's followers believed about him.
>
Well, they are wrong, and ARI is right.
> >> Is it possible that rational self interest should be reviewed in terms
> >> of not only us as individuals but also as a society and ultimately as
> >> a species.
>
> >That is collectivist nonsense. The individual (that would be me) is
> >the only thing that matters in this life.
>
> No. "The individual" means every individual, not just you. I am an
> individual too, and so is the starter of this thread.
>
But you are irrational and therefore do not count. As Ayn Rand said,
rights come from man's rational nature. No rationality, no rights.
> >> Is Ayn Rand's work a bible or a starting point for modern Objectivism?
>
> >Ayn Rand is the alpha and the omega of all philosophy. We Objectivists
> >need no other mentors.
>
> You didn't answer his question.
Yes, I did.
MIKE
04250616...@posting.google.com>...
> MIKE <mdho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<f2b5b5f0.0304241612.157b
> c1...@posting.google.com>...
>
> That's right, but you have to be reasonable about it. You can't
> engage in thuggish activity even if you can get away with it. You
> can't be a prudent predator. That's why we speak of Objectivist
> ethics as being "rational self-interest." Because prudent predators
> are irrational.
Why should we sacrifice ourselves to our grandchildren? Or even
> to our children? If some snot-nose kid needs shoes, let him get a job
> in Kathie Lee's factory and earn the money to buy them.
>
If our activity is prudently pedatory on our unborn , is that because
they have no rights or because they have no power?
>
> > Could what was right for Objectivism in the 1940s be quite wrong in
> > the 21 st century.Is Ayn Rand's philosophy about reaching rational
> > conclusions using the the reality with in which we live? Or to be
> > counted as an Objectivist does one have to believe all the dogma?.
> > Is objectivism being strangled by 60 year old conclusions ?
> >
> Objectivism is a philosphy of absolute, unchanging, and everlasting
> universal truths. It doesn't matter whether Ayn Rand wrote in 1940
> A.D. or in 1940 B.C. She will always be right, and those that speak
> against her will always be wrong.
I must have blinked , Did I miss the second coming ?
A philosophy based on rational thought; and you treat it as a recipe
book ?
>
> > Is Ayn Rand's work a bible or a starting point for modern Objectivism?
> >
Ayn Rand is the alpha and the omega of all philosophy. We
Objectivists
> need no other mentors.
My only thought is that this IS America so there is a distinct
possibility that you are real.However I thank you for taking the time
to to treat my post seriously even if it was only for an opportunity
to be your straight man.
MIKE
20...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >
> > For example we have enough oil in the world to last for 20-60 years on
> > the industry's own estimates.
>
No accuracy ,but you know which side the figure lies . The OPEC
nations have a formula that allows them to produce a percentage of
oil based on their proven reserves so it is generaly agknowledged that
these estimates are generous
> > Do we have as individuals the right to consume as much fuel we
> > want?, concidering that we won't be around as individuals,( esp if we
> > were to remain childless before anyone goes down that path ) to suffer
> > the concequences of such behaviour.
>
> Yes, but this is not an example of *rational* self interest.
but If I as an individual will not be around when it runs out ,why is
it not rational self interest?
>
> > Could what was right for Objectivism in the 1940s be quite wrong in
> > the 21 st century.Is Ayn Rand's philosophy about reaching rational
> > conclusions using the the reality with in which we live? Or to be
> > counted as an Objectivist does one have to believe all the dogma?.
> >
> > Is objectivism being strangled by 60 year old conclusions ?
>
> I wasn't aware man's nature had altered during the past sixty years.
It hasn't but te consequences of individual behavoiur on the earth's
environment has.
>
> > Is it possible that rational self interest should be reviewed in terms
> > of not only us as individuals but also as a society and ultimately as
> > a species.
>
> Viewed, yes, reviewed, no; the interests of society must not be valued
> as higher than those of the individuals, otherwise we just end up with
> another variant of statism.
Are all interests to be protected ? Are there certain ones that can
be compromised and others that cannot?
>
> Oh, and ignore MB. He's not an objectivist, he's just a troll.
But a troll very well versed in Objectivism ,I guess that's why his (
or her ) lures work so well.
Mike H
HPO JURY = Malenor
<objec...@mail.com> wrote:
>HPO JURY = Malenor <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<hnviav0unp4
>v36seuufn1d...@4ax.com>...
>.
>>
>> Not if the rational is equivalent to the prudent. If you can get away
>> with it, why not go for it?
>>
>
>Because Objectivists do not approve of prudent predators. Therefore,
>they are evil.
Do you realize what you sound like there? Do I have to point it out to
you?
>> >Yep. Why should we sacrifice ourselves to our grandchildren? Or even
>> >to our children? If some snot-nose kid needs shoes, let him get a job
>> >in Kathie Lee's factory and earn the money to buy them.
>>
>> That's right. "Rational," selfish prudence takes no heed of anybody
>> else. If you can get away with using up all the fuel sources, to hell
>> with your progeny's needs.
>>
>
>I cannot think of a more rational philosophy.
I doubt if you tried, and you really should.
>> >Zip.
>>
>> About time you fixed your fly, Burnsteam.
>>
>
>Flies play as much a role in my ethical philosophy as other human
>beings.
Yes, other human beings are being reduced to flies. And to think
Objectivism professes great adoration for mankind.
>> >> To this I add Ayn Rand's claim that an unborn child is not a life but
>> >> only a potential life with therefore no inherent rights.
>>
>> >> Does a government have obligations to the unborn ? Does it have an
>> >> obligation to step beyond it's 3 Randian roles?
>>
>> >Any entity occupying a pelvic cavity becomes the exclusive property of
>> >the owner of such cavity to use and dispose of as she sees fit. The
>> >government has no more obligation to a fetus than it does to your ear
>> >wax.
>>
>> Tell that to the creature in Alien.
>>
>
>To the owner of the pelvic cavity in Alien, I recommend full and
>immediate abortion.
It was the chest cavity, but its the same idea.
How about asking for my take on abortion rights? Never mind, I'll just
give it: abortion is not a good thing, but I don't believe there is
any legal solution to the problem. Those ultra-conservatives who
believe in outlawing abortion apparently think there is a legal answer
for every moral problem, at least where they think a problem exists.
You will reply that you don't see any problem. However, abortion can
have devastating psychological consequences.
>> That's what David Koresh's followers believed about him.
>>
>
>Well, they are wrong, and ARI is right.
So you claim.
>> No. "The individual" means every individual, not just you. I am an
>> individual too, and so is the starter of this thread.
>>
>
>But you are irrational and therefore do not count. As Ayn Rand said,
>rights come from man's rational nature. No rationality, no rights.
How do you know I'm irrational? You don't know me. Even irrational
people in insane asylums should be treated with a modicum of respect.
But I suppose you would just lead them all into gas chambers so they
won't be a burden on society. After all, they're not individuals, just
animals which cannot even take care of themselves, correct?
>> >> Is Ayn Rand's work a bible or a starting point for modern Objectivism?
>>
>> >Ayn Rand is the alpha and the omega of all philosophy. We Objectivists
>> >need no other mentors.
>>
>> You didn't answer his question.
>
>Yes, I did.
The interesting connection you make in your response between Rand the
Jewish Yawveh from the Old Testament doesn't answer it. He asked about
Rand's work, not Rand herself.
HPO JURY = Malenor
NASA satellites show the polar ice caps decreasing and glaciers
disappearing. Look at this interesting, interactive chart at
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/ .Wherever you find
above-average climate temperatures (seen in red on the chart), you
also find polar ice caps and many of the world's glaciers.
Rising ccean temperatures are also a factor to be considered in
"global warming": http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s399.htm .
"It is possible that ocean heat content may be an early indicator of
the warming of surface, air and sea surface temperatures more than a
decade in advance," said Levitus. "For example, we found that the
increase in subsurface ocean temperatures preceded the observed
warming of surface air and sea surface temperatures, which began in
the 1970's."
Global warming may not be a problem for you personally, but other
people's livelihoods are being devastated by the changing climate.
http://www.ee/lists/infoterra/1998/11/0031.html
It may or may not be "global warming," but it is affecting them
nevertheless.
Edward L. Scheiderer
> My understanding of this concept is that to be selfish in the sence
> that one only does what is in the long term self interest of that
> individual and that the "common good" is subsevient to this goal.
One only does what is _rationally_ identified to be in one's _integrated_
interest; with short-term interests that will not contradict long-term ones.
You evaluate _both_ short and long term interests and reconcile them without
contradiction.
You don't do something today that will make it impossible to achieve your
values tomorrow - no matter how far (within evaluative sight) that tomorrow
is. This requires constant thought -- continous identification of the
relation between your values and your actions, so that no short-term action
destroys a longer-term goal.
Concretely, it's similar to not going down the wrong road when you want to
get to somewhere at some specific time, or to going down a road that will
take you off a cliff instead of further to your destination.
The concept of "common good" has no place in Objectivism. Objectivism is a
morality for _individual_ living. What is _generally_ (if that can be
interpreted as "common") good for every individual is to live the best life
they can by making the proper choices according to objective evaluation.
[...Environmentalist nonsense]
> If one measures a life in terms of it's own span then in Randian
> philosophy what obligation does one have to future generations?.
None. You have no "obligation" to live your life for the sake of any "future
generations".
That's like Bentham's Utilitarianism; read what Ayn Rand has said about him
in her "Textbook on Americanism".
[...]
> Does a government have obligations to the unborn ? Does it have an
> obligation to step beyond it's 3 Randian roles?
There are no "3 Randian roles"; there are only the legitimate,
philosophically validated functions of government.
> Could what was right for Objectivism in the 1940s be quite wrong in
> the 21 st century.Is Ayn Rand's philosophy about reaching rational
> conclusions using the the reality with in which we live? Or to be
> counted as an Objectivist does one have to believe all the dogma?.
"The the reality with in which we live" (relative to the 1940's) comes from
_causality_.
The _philosophic principles_ from one historical period to the next do not
change; the whole history of the human species shows this (otherwise, there
is no relationship between Greek insights and modern man; a clearly false
assumption).
You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word "dogma", especially
in relation to Objectivism.
_Actual_ Objectivists do not accept Ayn Rand's ideas _because_ she_
promulgates them, they accept them because they, as individual minds looking
at reality , grasp that she is correct in her identifications. Where we
think she has made a mistake, we offer evidence and logical argument --
which accords with _her own philosophic fundamentals_ (i.e., Objectivism).
[more nonsense..]
> Is Ayn Rand's work a bible or a starting point for modern Objectivism?
It is _has_ to be a "starting point", in the sense that "Objectivism" _is_
"the philosophy of Ayn Rand".
To answer the broader implication: Ayn Rand's work is neither a "bible" --
to be accepted "dogmatically" on faith --
nor a "starting point for modern Objectivism" -- if the idea is to _revise_
what she has laid down as _her_ philosophy.
There is no "modern" Aristotelianism, or "modern" Kantianism; there is only
what those philosophers wrote -- which _is__ Aristotelianism or Kantianism.
Modern commentaries are secondary sources to the primary works.
> I am not pushing a barrow ,I am trying to understand what modern
> Objectivism is.
So, "modern" Objectivism is what Ayn Rand wrote _as_ her philosophy.
Read and think; then ask questions!
ELScheiderer
Acar
You must ask first and foremost "What is in it for me?". That is the moral
thing to do. If you need your coat but take it off your back to give it to
someone who needs it more, you are not a kind person, you are an immoral,
evil person.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Scott Stephens
news:f2b5b5f0.03042...@posting.google.com...
> As some one who is new to to the study of Objectivism, could some one
> give me some advice on current thinking on the subject of
> "selfishness".
I'm new also,
> Do we have as individuals the right to consume as much fuel we
> want?, considering that we won't be around as individuals,( esp if we
> were to remain childless before anyone goes down that path ) to suffer
> the concequences of such behaviour.
....
> If one measures a life in terms of it's own span then in Randian
> philosophy what obligation does one have to future generations?.
Do you love your children? Do you love your country? Do you love the person
you see in the mirror? Do you want to be lovable, honorable and esteem-able,
or a rapacious predator that leaves the world worse off when you leave it
rather than better?
> To this I add Ayn Rand's claim that an unborn child is not a life but
> only a potential life with therefore no inherent rights.
I like the metaphor of an aircraft or ship. I have the right to invite you
on board my aircraft or ship, and I have the right to evict you from my
property. Do I have the right to evict you at 30,000 feet, or in a North Sea
gale, if I find you offensive? I won't get into the issues of defining life
and dependency. Other than to say some pro-abortionists could justify your
murder in your sleep because you are not sentient, or allowing you to starve
or asphyxiate, because they own the air in their property.
For me its about respect for life, freedom and rights, the ends justifying
the means, and the presumptions predators make for their excesses.
> Does a government have obligations to the unborn ? Does it have an
> obligation to step beyond it's 3 Randian roles?
Libertarians have a problem with confrontation and intervention, and
initiating just violence. You can't reason with predators. If you let your
neighbor abuse his children, you will pay a price, sooner or later. But that
is no excuse to tax and enslave the foolish and weak, in the name of virtue,
as Republicans and Christians are so fond of.
> Is it possible that rational self interest should be reviewed in terms
> of not only us as individuals but also as a society and ultimately as
> a species.
I guess I am a either not or am a bad objectivist. Rand would probably call
me a mystic. I see organizing principles in nature - particles are
wave-modes in the 'vacuum', particles make atoms, atoms make molecules,
molecules make cells, cells make organisms, some animals for families,
packs, tribes, cultures, nations, the biosphere. And it, IMHO, is far more
than time + chance. Until physics gives us a unified field theory, the
universe is a mystery to our ignorance.
And the rules and dynamics governing the behavior of nature at different
levels is significantly different! I find history an excellent teacher of
the folly of sacrificing individual rights for a collective held together by
force, by and for a predatory aristocracy to the detriment of the
collective!
> Is Ayn Rand's work a bible or a starting point for modern Objectivism?
IMHO Rand would be offended if her work, which glorifies reason,
independence and living for oneself, were taught to be accepted on blind
faith like the Bible. A society that does not honor individual rights and
dignity, that demands, degrades and brainwashes the individual to live for
the collective, is not worthy of the respect of an individual.
A problem I have with Rand is she worships reason holding it to be
inviolate. My own experience tells me human reason is recent and flawed.
Just as the body exists to perpetuate DNA, and not DNA to perpetuate the
body, the mind exists to perpetuate the body, not the body for the mind. Now
when you understand that, you find primitive superstition a quite rational
phenomena.
We don't know what it was like, to see the world through the eyes of
primitives, to believe in spirits and magic. Often I wish I could see a TV,
computer, rocket or star and feel wonder. We learn and study and reason,
analyze and practice science. Consequently, we forget, even hide from
ourselves, how pleasure and pain bend our reason. Yet any analysis of
politics, any night of news media, demonstrates people find excuses to
believe what makes them (or their cult) feel good.
Scott
--
*********************************************
Nature is reciprocal. Those paid with love of kindness repay with love and
kindness,
those paid with hate and meanness repay with hate and meanness,
those paid with hate and meanness wise guys call love and kindness,
repay with the hate and meanness they believe is love and kindness.
*********************************************
Scott Stephens
news:32f79364.0304...@posting.google.com...
> MIKE <mdho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<f2b5b5f0.0304241612.157b
> c1...@posting.google.com>...
> My best advice to you would be to be careful about accepting what you
> hear from environmentalists. The environmentalists believe industrial
> civilization is immoral because it requires disrupting the living
> conditions of lower life forms.
Part of it, I think, is a kind of self-loathing. Liberals can't fix the sick
human condition, they see the evil and greed of predatory people contrasted
with the beauty of nature (out of context! they repress the predation and
anarchy of the jungle), and they think that if only there were fewer humans,
fewer people to compete against them, there would be fewer troubles. But
that isn't so, fewer people would be fewer people with more problems due to
the decrease in the natural talent available.
> Unfortunately for them, no one agrees with
> their philosophy.
Plenty do! The Europeans would love us to throttle our oil consumption! More
for them! Your SUV, your anti-bacterial soap, your gun, your children, et.
are all evil. But not those of the liberal elite!
I think global warming is a conspiracy, a kind of tax on energy by global
predator aristocracy desiring to degrade the working classes.
> You're assuming that we can't mine more oil or develop alternative
> fuel sources. This is a common trick of environmentalists. They always
> talk about natural resources as if there is only a static amount of
> them that is going to run out any minute. But that's just simply not
> true.
There is an immense amount of energy in matter. If we knew a method of
un-twisting leptons or hadrons into photons, there would be no energy
shortage, perhaps no shortage of nuclear weapons either.
Scott
--
*********************************************
Republican Morality:
Lying, cheating and stealing from the ignoble and the under-class
to profit government, corporate and religious interests is OK
Democrat Morality:
Lying, cheating and stealing from wealthy individuals
to profit government, corporate and academic interests is OK,
as long as you share a few crumbs with the poor
*********************************************
tom neville
cb...@posting.google.com>...
MB wrote:
> > Objectivism is a philosphy of absolute, unchanging, and everlasting
> > universal truths. It doesn't matter whether Ayn Rand wrote in 1940
> > A.D. or in 1940 B.C. She will always be right, and those that speak
> > against her will always be wrong.
>
> I must have blinked , Did I miss the second coming ?
No my son, you just did not recognise Me, I the only One
who immediatly sussed your brilliant troll and spoke in
tongues in reply.
> Ayn Rand is the alpha and the omega of all philosophy. We
> Objectivists need no other mentors.
Beware of sheep in human clothing(and women without).
Bless you My son.
The humble One.
MIKE
> The concept of "common good" has no place in Objectivism. Objectivism is a
> morality for _individual_ living. What is _generally_ (if that can be
> interpreted as "common") good for every individual is to live the best life
> they can by making the proper choices according to objective evaluation.
snip>
> There are no "3 Randian roles"; there are only the legitimate,
> philosophically validated functions of government.
snip>
> The _philosophic principles_ from one historical period to the next do not
> change; the whole history of the human species shows this (otherwise, there
> is no relationship between Greek insights and modern man; a clearly false
> assumption).
An all or nothing argument, surely ,what are your views on slavery ,
role of women in society or the essential humors.
> You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word "dogma", especially
> in relation to Objectivism
.
I only used dogma in referring to the way a sizeable percetage of
her followers seem to treat her work.
> _Actual_ Objectivists do not accept Ayn Rand's ideas _because_ she_
> promulgates them, they accept them because they, as individual minds looking
> at reality , grasp that she is correct in her identifications. Where we
> think she has made a mistake, we offer evidence and logical argument --
> which accords with _her own philosophic fundamentals_ (i.e., Objectivism).
>
Mike says
Edward thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting.
I leave the environmental issue to lay dormant as I seem to be reading
different books to those of my respondents. As it was only an example
it is not central to my main question.
I am not an academic rather someone looking for a rational basis on
which to live a life.I did read and I thought I thought.My problem is
that I find the concept of rational self interest appealing but to me
it seems very narrowly applied in this group and in Ayn Rand's writing
( the little I have done to date does include Fountainhead and OPAR )
For example I may regard the government giving an unemployed persons
a minimal payment is in my best long term interest as it means that I
am less likely to get robbed or even killed for my money.
I cold also regard government funding for schools for all to mean
that because the opportunity to succeed is open to every one and that
the brightest of every generation becomes part of our elite, rather
than plotting revolution ,these elite make our society stronger and
cleverer. Again belonging to a powerful and wealthy country ,is in my
best long term interests.
Is this type of thinking heresy? If one deviates from the applied
precepts of her "teachings" whilst holding onto the essential.
Where there are arguments against the narrowly used concept of of
self interest in this group it seems that they are by people who are
not promulgating what I would regard as Objectivist positions.
That is why I asked the question.
Don Matt
> > For example we have enough oil in the world to last for 20-60 years on
> > the industry's own estimates.
> > In 1985 we generated the the maximum amount of co2 that the
> > environment could cope with today we generate 25% more CO2 than the
> > all the photosynthesis in the world can cope with which is then
> > compounded to the green house effect each suceeding year.
>
> My best advice to you would be to be careful about accepting what you
> hear from environmentalists. The environmentalists believe industrial
> civilization is immoral because it requires disrupting the living
> conditions of lower life forms. They support a return to a more
> primitive state of society.
It's not the first time on this group that I read arguments
questioning environmentalists claims. As I've done a time consuming
search on the net trying to find the different sources that make you
conclude that the "ecos" are wrong, and my search didn't show me
nothing different, I need to ask you to give your sources. Also seems
wrong your concept that environmentalists believe industrial
civilization is immoral. Seems to me they believe the industrial
civilization can be prosperous in many forms, some are ecologically
ethical, some are not.
Unfortunately for them, no one agrees with
> their philosophy. As a result, they have to fall back on the argument
> that industrial civilization is bad for PEOPLE. But the facts just
> don't support this view, so they resort to propaganda and
> misinformation campaigns in order to get their message across.
>
> As for the global warming example:
> First, Last I checked human beings produce less than 1/10 of 1% of all
> co2 in the world. If co2 is causing global warming, then it's mother
> nature that's doing it, not us.
> Second, the data to support global warming is inconclusive. NASA
> satellites show the earth cooling over the last 20 or 30 years.
> Third, there are many positive benefits of the earth getting warmer.
> So if it is getting warmer that's not neccessarily a bad thing.
> Winter's are already too cold as it is.
>
Let me quote from US Environment Protection Agency that:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateUncertainties.html
"What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the
composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse
gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since
pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this
atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is
largely the result of human activities.
It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in
the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the
levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are
strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse
gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods
ranging from decades to centuries.
A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th
century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern
hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global
warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow
cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground."
Don.
Tom Blackstone
f0...@posting.google.com>...
> I am not an academic rather someone looking for a rational basis on
> which to live a life.I did read and I thought I thought.My problem is
> that I find the concept of rational self interest appealing but to me
> it seems very narrowly applied in this group and in Ayn Rand's writing
> ( the little I have done to date does include Fountainhead and OPAR )
>
> For example I may regard the government giving an unemployed persons
> a minimal payment is in my best long term interest as it means that I
> am less likely to get robbed or even killed for my money.
> I cold also regard government funding for schools for all to mean
> that because the opportunity to succeed is open to every one and that
> the brightest of every generation becomes part of our elite, rather
> than plotting revolution ,these elite make our society stronger and
> cleverer. Again belonging to a powerful and wealthy country ,is in my
> best long term interests.
But if you think those things are in your long-term self-interest than
why do you think the government needs to force you to do it? Someone
once asked Barbara Branden what would happen to all of the poor people
in an Objectivist society, and she gave what I thought was a very good
answer: "No one would stop YOU from helping them".
This is the essence of the issue. If you want to know what is in your
own self-interest you must rely on reason, not on the authority of
politicians.
------------Tom Blackstone
MIKE
>
> But if you think those things are in your long-term self-interest than
> why do you think the government needs to force you to do it? Someone
> once asked Barbara Branden what would happen to all of the poor people
> in an Objectivist society, and she gave what I thought was a very good
> answer: "No one would stop YOU from helping them".
>
> This is the essence of the issue. If you want to know what is in your
> own self-interest you must rely on reason, not on the authority of
> politicians.
>
> ------------Tom Blackstone
>
This is not about helping them it is about making a safe envirom=nment
and a robust economy in which we take benefit.
The burden of paying a small tithe to seek those advantages I have
suggested is reasonable but if enough people said no , I don't want
to pay but I will enjoy the advantages of living in a "safe" society
paid for by others then the cost for those who do pay will out weigh
the advantage to them.The group who thinkss like this are more in a
mentality of what ever of what ever I can get for nothing , not the
objectivist rational self interest.In an objectivist ideal society
what you say would be correct.
Even if this payment were voluntary and equally paid the government
would be a reasonable organisation to distribute money to individuals
or schools.
Michael Bernstein
egssokfpl3v...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:50:56 +0000 (UTC), Michael Bernstein
> <objec...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >HPO JURY = Malenor <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<hnviav0unp4
> >v36seuufn1d...@4ax.com>...
> >.
> >>
> >> Not if the rational is equivalent to the prudent. If you can get away
> >> with it, why not go for it?
> >>
> >
> >Because Objectivists do not approve of prudent predators. Therefore,
> >they are evil.
>
> Do you realize what you sound like there? Do I have to point it out to
> you?
No, it is not necessary for you to point out that I sound like the
Voice of Reason.
>
> >> >Yep. Why should we sacrifice ourselves to our grandchildren? Or even
> >> >to our children? If some snot-nose kid needs shoes, let him get a job
> >> >in Kathie Lee's factory and earn the money to buy them.
> >>
> >> That's right. "Rational," selfish prudence takes no heed of anybody
> >> else. If you can get away with using up all the fuel sources, to hell
> >> with your progeny's needs.
> >>
> >
> >I cannot think of a more rational philosophy.
>
> I doubt if you tried, and you really should.
>
Wishing and hoping will not produce a more rational philosophy than
Objectivism.
> >> >Zip.
> >>
> >> About time you fixed your fly, Burnsteam.
> >>
> >
> >Flies play as much a role in my ethical philosophy as other human
> >beings.
>
> Yes, other human beings are being reduced to flies. And to think
> Objectivism professes great adoration for mankind.
>
Mankind in its perfect form -- which, of course, would omit you and
other detractors from Objectivism.
> >> >> To this I add Ayn Rand's claim that an unborn child is not a life but
> >> >> only a potential life with therefore no inherent rights.
>
> >> >> Does a government have obligations to the unborn ? Does it have an
> >> >> obligation to step beyond it's 3 Randian roles?
>
> >> >Any entity occupying a pelvic cavity becomes the exclusive property of
> >> >the owner of such cavity to use and dispose of as she sees fit. The
> >> >government has no more obligation to a fetus than it does to your ear
> >> >wax.
> >>
> >> Tell that to the creature in Alien.
> >>
> >
> >To the owner of the pelvic cavity in Alien, I recommend full and
> >immediate abortion.
>
> It was the chest cavity, but its the same idea.
>
> How about asking for my take on abortion rights? Never mind, I'll just
> give it: abortion is not a good thing, but I don't believe there is
> any legal solution to the problem. Those ultra-conservatives who
> believe in outlawing abortion apparently think there is a legal answer
> for every moral problem, at least where they think a problem exists.
>
Abortion is good if the owner of the pelvic cavity says it is good.
> You will reply that you don't see any problem. However, abortion can
> have devastating psychological consequences.
>
Some people assert that life-long bachelorhood can have devastating
psychological consequences. Do when then force all men to marry by
the age of 30?
> >> That's what David Koresh's followers believed about him.
> >>
> >
> >Well, they are wrong, and ARI is right.
>
> So you claim.
>
So I know.
>
> >> No. "The individual" means every individual, not just you. I am an
> >> individual too, and so is the starter of this thread.
> >>
> >
> >But you are irrational and therefore do not count. As Ayn Rand said,
> >rights come from man's rational nature. No rationality, no rights.
>
> How do you know I'm irrational? You don't know me.
Your disagreement with Objectivism is ipso facto proof.
> Even irrational
> people in insane asylums should be treated with a modicum of respect.
Why should I? I believe in the virtue of selfishness.
> But I suppose you would just lead them all into gas chambers so they
> won't be a burden on society. After all, they're not individuals, just
> animals which cannot even take care of themselves, correct?
>
I have a right to use pre-emptive force against anyone who constitutes
a potential threat to me.
> >> >> Is Ayn Rand's work a bible or a starting point for modern Objectivism?
>
> >> >Ayn Rand is the alpha and the omega of all philosophy. We Objectivists
> >> >need no other mentors.
> >>
> >> You didn't answer his question.
> >
> >Yes, I did.
>
> The interesting connection you make in your response between Rand the
> Jewish Yawveh from the Old Testament doesn't answer it. He asked about
> Rand's work, not Rand herself.
Ayn Rand's greatest work is herself.
Michael Bernstein
cb...@posting.google.com>...
> Michael Bernstein <objec...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<b5511a6c.03
> 04250616...@posting.google.com>...
> > MIKE <mdho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<f2b5b5f0.0304241612.157b
> > c1...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> >
> > That's right, but you have to be reasonable about it. You can't
> > engage in thuggish activity even if you can get away with it. You
> > can't be a prudent predator. That's why we speak of Objectivist
> > ethics as being "rational self-interest." Because prudent predators
> > are irrational.
>
> Why should we sacrifice ourselves to our grandchildren? Or even
> > to our children? If some snot-nose kid needs shoes, let him get a job
> > in Kathie Lee's factory and earn the money to buy them.
> >
> If our activity is prudently pedatory on our unborn , is that because
> they have no rights or because they have no power?
>
No rights.
>
> >
> > > Could what was right for Objectivism in the 1940s be quite wrong in
> > > the 21 st century.Is Ayn Rand's philosophy about reaching rational
> > > conclusions using the the reality with in which we live? Or to be
> > > counted as an Objectivist does one have to believe all the dogma?.
> > > Is objectivism being strangled by 60 year old conclusions ?
> > >
> > Objectivism is a philosphy of absolute, unchanging, and everlasting
> > universal truths. It doesn't matter whether Ayn Rand wrote in 1940
> > A.D. or in 1940 B.C. She will always be right, and those that speak
> > against her will always be wrong.
>
> I must have blinked , Did I miss the second coming ?
> A philosophy based on rational thought; and you treat it as a recipe
> book ?
If you wish to create water you must combine hydrogen with oxygen.
There is no other way. If you wish to lead a rational life, you must
follow Ayn Rand. There is no other way.
> >
> > > Is Ayn Rand's work a bible or a starting point for modern Objectivism?
> > >
> Ayn Rand is the alpha and the omega of all philosophy. We
> Objectivists
> > need no other mentors.
>
HPO JURY = Malenor
<objec...@mail.com> wrote:
>HPO JURY = Malenor <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<qkpjavcjbic
>egssokfpl3v...@4ax.com>...
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:50:56 +0000 (UTC), Michael Bernstein
>> <objec...@mail.com> wrote:
>> Do you realize what you sound like there? Do I have to point it out to
>> you?
>
>No, it is not necessary for you to point out that I sound like the
>Voice of Reason.
LMAO! Yeah, ok...
>> >I cannot think of a more rational philosophy.
>>
>> I doubt if you tried, and you really should.
>>
>
>Wishing and hoping will not produce a more rational philosophy than
>Objectivism.
Who said anything about wishing and hoping?
>> >> >Zip.
>> >>
>> >> About time you fixed your fly, Burnsteam.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Flies play as much a role in my ethical philosophy as other human
>> >beings.
>>
>> Yes, other human beings are being reduced to flies. And to think
>> Objectivism professes great adoration for mankind.
>>
>
>Mankind in its perfect form -- which, of course, would omit you and
>other detractors from Objectivism.
Michael, do you know why the Randroids on this forum seek to deny that
you are really who you claim to be? Have you worked that one out yet?
Don't you find it strange that your compadres accuse you of being, of
all people, Chris Cathcart (whether or not you recognize them as your
compadres)? Why would they do this? Answer that if you can.
>> >
>> >To the owner of the pelvic cavity in Alien, I recommend full and
>> >immediate abortion.
>>
>> It was the chest cavity, but its the same idea.
>>
>> How about asking for my take on abortion rights? Never mind, I'll just
>> give it: abortion is not a good thing, but I don't believe there is
>> any legal solution to the problem. Those ultra-conservatives who
>> believe in outlawing abortion apparently think there is a legal answer
>> for every moral problem, at least where they think a problem exists.
>>
>
>Abortion is good if the owner of the pelvic cavity says it is good.
>
>> You will reply that you don't see any problem. However, abortion can
>> have devastating psychological consequences.
>>
>
>Some people assert that life-long bachelorhood can have devastating
>psychological consequences. Do when then force all men to marry by
>the age of 30?
People assert many things, arbitrarily or otherwise. But the
psychological damage to women who have had abortions is clearly in
evidence. If however you live in a sterilized Ivory Tower where your
only contact with the world is through Objectivist propaganda, then
you're not in any position to judge the issue anyway.
>> >> That's what David Koresh's followers believed about him.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Well, they are wrong, and ARI is right.
>>
>> So you claim.
>>
>
>So I know.
Assertion without evidence. What happened to A is A? Don't you really
believe it, or are you just another Objectivist parrot?
>>
>> >> No. "The individual" means every individual, not just you. I am an
>> >> individual too, and so is the starter of this thread.
>> >>
>> >
>> >But you are irrational and therefore do not count. As Ayn Rand said,
>> >rights come from man's rational nature. No rationality, no rights.
>>
>> How do you know I'm irrational? You don't know me.
>
>Your disagreement with Objectivism is ipso facto proof.
Hehe, that's the type of statement which scares even your fellow
Randroids.
>> Even irrational
>> people in insane asylums should be treated with a modicum of respect.
>
>Why should I? I believe in the virtue of selfishness.
Yes, but what you don't realize is that your individualism turns other
people into objects to be used for your own happiness (so long as this
doesn't violate their rights, of course). Therefore your individualism
reduces to parasitism.
>> But I suppose you would just lead them all into gas chambers so they
>> won't be a burden on society. After all, they're not individuals, just
>> animals which cannot even take care of themselves, correct?
>>
>
>I have a right to use pre-emptive force against anyone who constitutes
>a potential threat to me.
In other words, yes you would lead them into the gas chambers.
>> >> >> Is Ayn Rand's work a bible or a starting point for modern Objectivism?
>>
>> >> >Ayn Rand is the alpha and the omega of all philosophy. We Objectivists
>> >> >need no other mentors.
>> >>
>> >> You didn't answer his question.
>> >
>> >Yes, I did.
>>
>> The interesting connection you make in your response between Rand the
>> Jewish Yawveh from the Old Testament doesn't answer it. He asked about
>> Rand's work, not Rand herself.
>
>Ayn Rand's greatest work is herself.
He was referring to Randian literature, obviously. You made a mistake,
Michael, stop trying to evade the issue with your statements of
religious adoration for Rand.
Besides, Rand never asked for your adoration. She made a case for
worhipping mankind, not herself, in her statements concerning the
proper object of religious feelings.
Let me clue you in, Michael. The reason your fellow Randroids want to
believe you are Chris Cathcart is because you do such a great job of
making Objectivism look really BAD.
HPO JURY = Malenor
<objec...@mail.com> wrote:
>MIKE <mdho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<f2b5b5f0.0304251634.64d8
>cb...@posting.google.com>...
>> I must have blinked , Did I miss the second coming ?
>> A philosophy based on rational thought; and you treat it as a recipe
>> book ?
>If you wish to create water you must combine hydrogen with oxygen.
>There is no other way. If you wish to lead a rational life, you must
>follow Ayn Rand. There is no other way.
But wait, Michael. Are you suggesting that true individualism consists
in following Ayn Rand?
Tom Blackstone
4f...@posting.google.com>...
Thank you for your answer Mike. I think your argument is reasonable.
However, I think there are many important issues that you are not
taking into account. The primary issue here is not whether it is in
one's self-interest to support schools or not but rather who should
decide such things. I believe that each individual should decide
according to his own rational judgement whether he should support such
things or not, whereas you believe that politicians should decide such
things and that who becomes a politician should be decided by majority
vote. Now your argument is hard to follow but I will do the best in
interpreting it that I can. You seem to be saying that people should
not be able to make these decisions for themselves because they will
make the wrong decisions. They will compete with others in situations
where cooperation is a better strategy. You give the example of people
who would refuse to contribute to a charity even though they would be
better off by contributing to it. You think this a good enough
argument to justify government forcing them to contribute.
The first thing I would say to this argument is: If citizens are not
to be trusted, why should politicians be? Surely the politicians are
at least as irrational as the citizenry is. After all, the citizens
are the ones who voted the politicians into office. Why do you not
worry about politicians making bad decisions? For example, why don't
you worry about them making inefficient school systems that do not
teach children very well? If citizens are so irrational, I see no
reason why we should trust politicians more.
However, the second thing I would say to the argument is: people are
not as irrational as you think. You have certain causes that you think
people should support, and because you think they would not support
them if they weren't forced to you think they must be irrational. But
isn't it possible that they have simply rationally accepted different
values than you have? You seem to think that if people have different
priorities than you then they must want "something for nothing". But
that's not neccessarily the case, they may understand that charity
schools are beneficial to them for example but they only have so much
money and they think contributing to neurological research is more
important, or supporting a manned flight to Mars, or contributing to
the spread of a new psychotherapy technique, or putting their children
through college, or supporting their relative who has come under hard
times, etc. There are a myriad number of things in this world that are
beneficial to human beings, but each person has to decide for himself
which ones he spends his limited funds on. Just because someone
disagrees with you over which causes to support does not mean that he
is acting irrationally or self-destructively.
It can be very hard to accept this. When we find something that we
care passionately about it is easy to start to believe that everyone
else should care as much about it as we should. Sometimes it can be
very tempting to think that we could solve the problem by simply
forcing people to do what we want them to. However, attempts like
these always backfire. When you try to force people to do things
instead of dealing with them through the trader principle all kinds of
negative consequences follow.
For one thing, the people you are forcing will attempt to avoid the
force and this will sometimes make things worse than they were to
begin with. Minumum wage laws are a good example of this, the idea
behind them is to force employers to pay employees higher wages, but
it is nearly universally recognized by economists now that the
employers respond by laying off workers in order to avoid paying them
more, causing unemployment and thus making the workers worse off than
they were before.
For another thing, people who are forced to do things quickly learn
that what is being done to them can be done to others. Thus while you
may want to force people to contribute to schools, they may want to
take money away from you that you would have spent on schools and
spend it on some program you disagree with.
I would bet that there are many federal programs like this that you
disagree with and yet because of them you are prevented from
supporting the causes you most care about.
This is why we must always resist the temptation to initiate force
against others.
----------------------Tom Blackstone
Helen
20...@posting.google.com>...
> of junk science involving the greenhouse effect being thrown around by
> the media. Just like the one about those heavier-than-air CFC's which
> are "somehow" reaching the upper atmosphere and detroying the ozone
> layer.
[Laughing...] So, you are saying that there are no CFCs in the upper
atmosphere? That all those measurements that are reported are
fraudulent? That the scientists and agencies involved are liars or,
worse, stupid? Because J. Hall "knows" that CFCs cannot "somehow"
reach the upper atmosphere, but nobody else has the brains to
understand that? If they had only asked J. Hall, they never would have
had to waste the millions of dollars that were invested in studies of
the effects of CFCs in the upper atmosphere?
Here, I'll give you something to think about, honey: Oxygen is about
14% heavier than nitrogen. You'll notice that, nevertheless, 70% of
the air you breathe is nitrogen. How come? How in the world does the
lighter-than-air nitrogen "somehow" reach the lower atmosphere? That
must be "junk science", too, eh? Do you suddenly feel some
light-headedness gripping you? That's the effect of too much oxygen on
the brain, I hear. Of course, "objectivism" is known to cause
brain-rot, too.
-- Helen.
Scott Stephens
> > mentality of what ever of what ever I can get for nothing , not the
> > objectivist rational self interest.
> However, I think there are many important issues that you are not
> taking into account. The primary issue here is not whether it is in
> one's self-interest to support schools or not but rather who should
> decide such things.
Not merely who should decide, but the character, the motives and reason, of
the people and government.
> The first thing I would say to this argument is: If citizens are not
> to be trusted, why should politicians be? Surely the politicians are
> at least as irrational as the citizenry is. After all, the citizens
> are the ones who voted the politicians into office. Why do you not
> worry about politicians making bad decisions? For example, why don't
> you worry about them making inefficient school systems that do not
> teach children very well? If citizens are so irrational, I see no
> reason why we should trust politicians more.
Indeed, if people are not free to chose folly and learn from their mistakes,
they are not free to grow in virtue. So their benificent government must lie
to them, treating them like children, growing in contempt and corruption
towards them and in the end farming 'sheeple'.
Isn't it the people that want government to pay, aren't they the people who
want something for nothing? Because they feel entitled by their pathos and
need? And who can love a leech?
> these always backfire. When you try to force people to do things
> instead of dealing with them through the trader principle all kinds of
> negative consequences follow.
Rand illustrated this brilliantly in the accounts given by her Mark Allen
(the tramp Dagny listens to in here rail-car) and Catharine (Peter Keating's
jilted, altuist lover) characters in Atlas and Fountainhead.
> For another thing, people who are forced to do things quickly learn
> that what is being done to them can be done to others. Thus while you
> may want to force people to contribute to schools, they may want to
> take money away from you that you would have spent on schools and
> spend it on some program you disagree with.
And in the end, its the politicians that chose who gets whos money, who is
to be the sheep the mob votes on to be sacrificed for dinner. Politicians
grow in power, the system grows in corruption and oppression until it
disintegrates as faction devours faction in the name of altruistic good
intentions.
Scott
--
*********************************************
Nature is reciprocal. Those paid with love of kindness repay with love and
kindness,
those paid with hate and meanness repay with hate and meanness,
those paid with hate and meanness wise guys call love and kindness,
eventually repay with the hate and meanness they believe is love and
kindness.
*********************************************
Scott Stephens
> Even if this payment were voluntary and equally paid the government
> would be a reasonable organisation to distribute money to individuals
> or schools.
Who do you think should get, and who should be banned, from distributing
government welfare grants to the needy and homeless?
Christians? Muslims? Jews? Scientologists? Moonies? Athiests?
Members of near all of those groups have problems with all the others. In
government, we know who will get the grants, get to build the church
additions, and who will get to evangelize and recruit tithe-payers - those
with the gold make the rules.
Government turns love and charity into resentment, bitterness, hatred,
fighting and corruption, government catalyzes factional disintegration.
I was taught many fine things, technically, in the public schools I
graduated from. I wasn't taught self-esteem, dignity, honor and
consequently, respect for the institution that breaks the hearts, minds and
wills of peasants. Government schools robbed my family in the name of
altruism, are destroying America, and the aristocracy won't escape the
consequences.
Michael Bernstein
e3q58hresib...@4ax.com>...
> >No, it is not necessary for you to point out that I sound like the
> >Voice of Reason.
>
> LMAO! Yeah, ok...
LMAO! Yeah, ok...
>
> >> >I cannot think of a more rational philosophy.
> >>
> >> I doubt if you tried, and you really should.
> >>
> >
> >Wishing and hoping will not produce a more rational philosophy than
> >Objectivism.
>
> Who said anything about wishing and hoping?
>
Your attempt to disparage Objectivism is just another form of wishing
and hoping for a better (more altruistic-collectivist) reality.
> >> Yes, other human beings are being reduced to flies. And to think
> >> Objectivism professes great adoration for mankind.
> >>
> >
> >Mankind in its perfect form -- which, of course, would omit you and
> >other detractors from Objectivism.
>
> Michael, do you know why the Randroids on this forum seek to deny that
> you are really who you claim to be? Have you worked that one out yet?
> Don't you find it strange that your compadres accuse you of being, of
> all people, Chris Cathcart (whether or not you recognize them as your
> compadres)? Why would they do this? Answer that if you can.
>
Dr. Leonard Peikoff and the Ayn Rand Institute have never sought to
deny me. My only detractors on this web site have been those like
yourself who have already declared yourselves haters of Ayn Rand and
all rational thought.
> >Some people assert that life-long bachelorhood can have devastating
> >psychological consequences. Do when then force all men to marry by
> >the age of 30?
>
> People assert many things, arbitrarily or otherwise. But the
> psychological damage to women who have had abortions is clearly . . .
I reject the evidence of all women who are not knowledgeable
Objectivists. Once they become true Objectivists, then they will be
able to render truly rationally human judgments.
> If however you live in a sterilized Ivory Tower where your
> only contact with the world is through Objectivist propaganda, then
> you're not in any position to judge the issue anyway.
>
Anyone who lives without Objectivism is the one who lives in a
closed-off Ivory Tower.
> >So I know.
>
> Assertion without evidence. What happened to A is A? Don't you really
> believe it, or are you just another Objectivist parrot?
>
The evidence is all around you. If you dispute it, then you are
clearly a denier of reality.
> >> How do you know I'm irrational? You don't know me.
> >
> >Your disagreement with Objectivism is ipso facto proof.
>
> Hehe, that's the type of statement which scares even your fellow
> Randroids.
>
I'm sure I don't know what you are talking about.
> >Why should I? I believe in the virtue of selfishness.
>
> Yes, but what you don't realize is that your individualism turns other
> people into objects to be used for your own happiness (so long as this
> doesn't violate their rights, of course). Therefore your individualism
> reduces to parasitism.
>
Their irrationality is the cause of the fact that they must be the
fertilizer for others' blooming. The most rational are at the top of
the dung heap.
> >
> >I have a right to use pre-emptive force against anyone who constitutes
> >a potential threat to me.
>
> In other words, yes you would lead them into the gas chambers.
>
Only a bin Laden sympathizer would oppose the death penalty for
terrorists.
> >
> >Ayn Rand's greatest work is herself.
>
> He was referring to Randian literature, obviously. You made a mistake,
> Michael, stop trying to evade the issue with your statements of
> religious adoration for Rand.
>
My adoration of Miss Rand is rational. It is YOUR hatred of Miss Rand
that is religious.
> Besides, Rand never asked for your adoration. She made a case for
> worhipping mankind, not herself, in her statements concerning the
> proper object of religious feelings.
>
Miss Rand was an unapologetic man-worshipper. As for me, I worship
mankind and Miss Rand and Leonard Peikoff as its highest exemplars.
> Let me clue you in, Michael. The reason your fellow Randroids want to
> believe you are Chris Cathcart is because you do such a great job of
> making Objectivism look really BAD.>
If you object to my making Objectivism look bad, why don't you try to
make it look good?
HPO JURY = Malenor
<objec...@mail.com> wrote:
>HPO JURY = Malenor <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<nklqavs3079
>e3q58hresib...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >No, it is not necessary for you to point out that I sound like the
>> >Voice of Reason.
>>
>> LMAO! Yeah, ok...
>
>LMAO! Yeah, ok...
Parrot-like as usual, Michael, or perhaps you have a sense of humor, a
bit of humanity which you rarely reveal.
>>
>> >> >I cannot think of a more rational philosophy.
>> >>
>> >> I doubt if you tried, and you really should.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Wishing and hoping will not produce a more rational philosophy than
>> >Objectivism.
>>
>> Who said anything about wishing and hoping?
>>
>
>Your attempt to disparage Objectivism is just another form of wishing
>and hoping for a better (more altruistic-collectivist) reality.
I don't believe in altruism or collectivism. You are assuming without
the benefit of facts that an anti-Objectivist is an
altruist-collectivist by default.
I agree with many things Rand said. Unfortunately, she couldn't back
them up reasonably. Her arguments fail to make her case.
>
>> >> Yes, other human beings are being reduced to flies. And to think
>> >> Objectivism professes great adoration for mankind.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Mankind in its perfect form -- which, of course, would omit you and
>> >other detractors from Objectivism.
>>
>> Michael, do you know why the Randroids on this forum seek to deny that
>> you are really who you claim to be? Have you worked that one out yet?
>> Don't you find it strange that your compadres accuse you of being, of
>> all people, Chris Cathcart (whether or not you recognize them as your
>> compadres)? Why would they do this? Answer that if you can.
>>
>
>Dr. Leonard Peikoff and the Ayn Rand Institute have never sought to
>deny me. My only detractors on this web site have been those like
>yourself who have already declared yourselves haters of Ayn Rand and
>all rational thought.
Not so. For instance, A <nex...@lycos.com>, who is an Objectivist and
likely a Randroid, wrote: "We may discount the ravings of 'Michael
Bernstein'."
Kevin Hill <r_kevi...@yahoo.com> wrote: "What I don't understand is
where he gets the *energy*. And the knowledge required suggests
unhealthy fascination, perhaps even the disaffection of a former
cultist. As weird as it may sound, MB seems too knowledgeable to be an
outsider, which suggests to me that he may be closer to his
self-description than you think. The animus may be
embarrassment turned outward."
J. Hall (jif...@supanet.com) wrote: "Following Michael Bernstein's
trolling brings us to another question : Why are *you* here ?"
Russell Hanneken <rhan...@pobox.com> wrote: "This is an interesting
methodology (quoting out of context) for misrepresenting objectivism.
It is surprising that Michael Bernstein has not latched onto it yet."
Gordon Sollars (gsol...@pobox.com) wrote: "You make "Michael
Bernstein's" work so difficult - who, after all, could possibly parody
views such as yours?"
In other words, your friends are few and far between even on this
forum, and they don't include Objectivists or even libertarians who at
least wouldn't necessarily oppose you.
>
>> >Some people assert that life-long bachelorhood can have devastating
>> >psychological consequences. Do when then force all men to marry by
>> >the age of 30?
>>
>> People assert many things, arbitrarily or otherwise. But the
>> psychological damage to women who have had abortions is clearly . . .
>
>I reject the evidence of all women who are not knowledgeable
>Objectivists. Once they become true Objectivists, then they will be
>able to render truly rationally human judgments.
Let's say you are correct about that. Nevertheless, the odds of every
woman becoming an Objectivist are extremely low, and so the
psychological damage caused to some women (not all) by abortion will
continue.
But I don't consider Objectivists to be making truly rational, human
judgments anyway. They have only been taught that X is rational and
then believe it because the group consists in followers like yourself.
>> If however you live in a sterilized Ivory Tower where your
>> only contact with the world is through Objectivist propaganda, then
>> you're not in any position to judge the issue anyway.
>>
>
>Anyone who lives without Objectivism is the one who lives in a
>closed-off Ivory Tower.
That is a blanket statement which lacks foundation in reality.
>
>> >So I know.
>>
>> Assertion without evidence. What happened to A is A? Don't you really
>> believe it, or are you just another Objectivist parrot?
>>
>
>The evidence is all around you. If you dispute it, then you are
>clearly a denier of reality.
Hmm, your original claim was, "Well, they are wrong, and ARI is
right." Now you are saying that the evidence that ARI is right is all
around me? Clearly a non sequitur. The world gives evidence of many
things but not that "ARI is right."
>> >> How do you know I'm irrational? You don't know me.
>> >
>> >Your disagreement with Objectivism is ipso facto proof.
>>
>> Hehe, that's the type of statement which scares even your fellow
>> Randroids.
>>
>
>I'm sure I don't know what you are talking about.
Then why are they accusing you of being someone else doing a parody?
>
>> >Why should I? I believe in the virtue of selfishness.
>>
>> Yes, but what you don't realize is that your individualism turns other
>> people into objects to be used for your own happiness (so long as this
>> doesn't violate their rights, of course). Therefore your individualism
>> reduces to parasitism.
>>
>
>Their irrationality is the cause of the fact that they must be the
>fertilizer for others' blooming. The most rational are at the top of
>the dung heap.
See my thread on Objectivism's equivocation on "reason." A man is a
rational being whether or not he makes a bad decisions or acts on
whim. These factors are irrelevant when considering him from the
perspective of his rational essence. He should be treated like a
rational being, with the same rights shared by you people at the top
of your self-made dung heap. Just being human garners a certain amount
of respect, no matter how rational you may judge him to be.
>
>> >
>> >I have a right to use pre-emptive force against anyone who constitutes
>> >a potential threat to me.
>>
>> In other words, yes you would lead them into the gas chambers.
>>
>
>Only a bin Laden sympathizer would oppose the death penalty for
>terrorists.
I don't oppose the death penalty for terrorists, that's for sure. I
would promote killing them on sight -- or at least, waiting until any
useful information has been extracted from them by whatever means.
But you forget, the issue was not terrorists, but those in insane
asylums. Stop dropping the context.
>> >
>> >Ayn Rand's greatest work is herself.
>>
>> He was referring to Randian literature, obviously. You made a mistake,
>> Michael, stop trying to evade the issue with your statements of
>> religious adoration for Rand.
>>
>
>My adoration of Miss Rand is rational. It is YOUR hatred of Miss Rand
>that is religious.
You are a follower, which goes directly against your individualism. Is
that rational? No. Did Howard Roark ever follow anybody, dance to
their tune? He admired some, but he did not follow them.
This is straight out of the movie "Life of Brian" in which Brian, the
movie's travesty on Jesus, said to his followers, "You are all
individuals!" to which they replied, in unison and monotone like they
were in a trance, "Yes, we are all individuals." You are a member of
that crowd, Bernstein, except the leader is not Brian, or Jesus, but
Rand.
>> Besides, Rand never asked for your adoration. She made a case for
>> worhipping mankind, not herself, in her statements concerning the
>> proper object of religious feelings.
>>
>
>Miss Rand was an unapologetic man-worshipper. As for me, I worship
>mankind and Miss Rand and Leonard Peikoff as its highest exemplars.
Did you ask them whether or not they wanted it your adoration?
>
>> Let me clue you in, Michael. The reason your fellow Randroids want to
>> believe you are Chris Cathcart is because you do such a great job of
>> making Objectivism look really BAD.>
>
>If you object to my making Objectivism look bad, why don't you try to
>make it look good?
I don't object to your methods at all. More power to you!
Michael Bernstein
v5ge99lq07c...@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:37:34 +0000 (UTC), Michael Bernstein
> <objec...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >I cannot think of a more rational philosophy.
> >> >>
> >> >> I doubt if you tried, and you really should.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Wishing and hoping will not produce a more rational philosophy than
> >> >Objectivism.
> >>
> >> Who said anything about wishing and hoping?
> >>
> >
> >Your attempt to disparage Objectivism is just another form of wishing
> >and hoping for a better (more altruistic-collectivist) reality.
>
> I don't believe in altruism or collectivism.
At least Ayn Rand convinced you of that much.
> You are assuming without
> the benefit of facts that an anti-Objectivist is an
> altruist-collectivist by default.
>
Those who conspire against the Objectivist movement play right into
the hands of Ayn Rand's greatest enemies.
> I agree with many things Rand said. Unfortunately, she couldn't back
> them up reasonably. Her arguments fail to make her case.
>
Objectivism is a philosphy of absolute, unchanging, and everlasting
universal truths. Your failure to "get" Objectivism is a symptom of
your own reality-avaoidance.
> >
> >> >> Yes, other human beings are being reduced to flies. And to think
> >> >> Objectivism professes great adoration for mankind.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Mankind in its perfect form -- which, of course, would omit you and
> >> >other detractors from Objectivism.
> >>
> >> Michael, do you know why the Randroids on this forum seek to deny that
> >> you are really who you claim to be? Have you worked that one out yet?
> >> Don't you find it strange that your compadres accuse you of being, of
> >> all people, Chris Cathcart (whether or not you recognize them as your
> >> compadres)? Why would they do this? Answer that if you can.
> >>
> >
> >Dr. Leonard Peikoff and the Ayn Rand Institute have never sought to
> >deny me. My only detractors on this web site have been those like
> >yourself who have already declared yourselves haters of Ayn Rand and
> >all rational thought.
>
> Not so. For instance, A <nex...@lycos.com>, who is an Objectivist and
> likely a Randroid, wrote: "We may discount the ravings of 'Michael
> Bernstein'."
>
I have encountered a few people who would like to think of themseleves
as Objectivists but who failed to overcome certain personal
philosophical and psychological contradictions. As a result, they are
only partial Objectivists (a contradiction in terms), embracing a few
slogans from Atlas Shrugged but refusing to carry Miss Rand's premises
to their logical conclusion.
> Kevin Hill <r_kevi...@yahoo.com> wrote: "What I don't understand is
> where he gets the *energy*. And the knowledge required suggests
> unhealthy fascination, perhaps even the disaffection of a former
> cultist. As weird as it may sound, MB seems too knowledgeable to be an
> outsider, which suggests to me that he may be closer to his
> self-description than you think. The animus may be
> embarrassment turned outward."
>
If you understood Objectivism even slightly you would know that
quoting people in order to prove a point is futile. Opinions are not
reality. Rand identified this faulty thinking as "social metaphysics."
>
> In other words, your friends are few and far between even on this
> forum, and they don't include Objectivists or even libertarians who at
> least wouldn't necessarily oppose you.
>
There are a number of self-identified "Objectivists" on this board and
in the world at large who imagine that they can achieve some sort of
intellectual independence by disparaging Dr. Leonard Peikoff, the Ayn
Rand Institute and even Ayn Rand herself. Anyone with an ounce of
integrity recognizes this lashing out as a despicable act of betrayal
and self-loathing. But I am not interested in what these cowards have
to say. As Ayn Rand said in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, "A rational
mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp
of reality to anyone's orders, directives, or controls; it does not
sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone's opinions,
threats, wishes, plans, or 'welfare'."
> >
> >> >Some people assert that life-long bachelorhood can have devastating
> >> >psychological consequences. Do when then force all men to marry by
> >> >the age of 30?
> >>
> >> People assert many things, arbitrarily or otherwise. But the
> >> psychological damage to women who have had abortions is clearly . . .
> >
> >I reject the evidence of all women who are not knowledgeable
> >Objectivists. Once they become true Objectivists, then they will be
> >able to render truly rationally human judgments.
>
> Let's say you are correct about that. Nevertheless, the odds of every
> woman becoming an Objectivist are extremely low, and so the
> psychological damage caused to some women (not all) by abortion will
> continue.
>
I am not interested in the welfare of non-Objectivist women. They are
no more important to me than ants.
> But I don't consider Objectivists to be making truly rational, human
> judgments anyway. They have only been taught that X is rational and
> then believe it because the group consists in followers like yourself.
>
Another of your confessions of reality-avoidance.
> >> If however you live in a sterilized Ivory Tower where your
> >> only contact with the world is through Objectivist propaganda, then
> >> you're not in any position to judge the issue anyway.
> >>
> >
> >Anyone who lives without Objectivism is the one who lives in a
> >closed-off Ivory Tower.
>
> That is a blanket statement which lacks foundation in reality.
>
Objectivism is the philosophy of A is A. If you choose to reject that
idea, have fun living in your own fantasies, disconnected from the
real world.
> >
> >> >So I know.
> >>
> >> Assertion without evidence. What happened to A is A? Don't you really
> >> believe it, or are you just another Objectivist parrot?
> >>
> >
> >The evidence is all around you. If you dispute it, then you are
> >clearly a denier of reality.
>
> Hmm, your original claim was, "Well, they are wrong, and ARI is
> right." Now you are saying that the evidence that ARI is right is all
> around me? Clearly a non sequitur. The world gives evidence of many
> things but not that "ARI is right."
>
A is A, and ARI is right.
> >> >> How do you know I'm irrational? You don't know me.
> >> >
> >> >Your disagreement with Objectivism is ipso facto proof.
> >>
> >> Hehe, that's the type of statement which scares even your fellow
> >> Randroids.
> >>
> >
> >I'm sure I don't know what you are talking about.
>
> Then why are they accusing you of being someone else doing a parody?
>
They are themselves frauds. Those who know Objectivism and fearlessly
follow its arguments to its final conclusion recognize that I am
right.
> >
> >> >Why should I? I believe in the virtue of selfishness.
> >>
> >> Yes, but what you don't realize is that your individualism turns other
> >> people into objects to be used for your own happiness (so long as this
> >> doesn't violate their rights, of course). Therefore your individualism
> >> reduces to parasitism.
> >>
> >
> >Their irrationality is the cause of the fact that they must be the
> >fertilizer for others' blooming. The most rational are at the top of
> >the dung heap.
>
> See my thread on Objectivism's equivocation on "reason." A man is a
> rational being whether or not he makes a bad decisions or acts on
> whim. These factors are irrelevant when considering him from the
> perspective of his rational essence. He should be treated like a
> rational being, with the same rights shared by you people at the top
> of your self-made dung heap. Just being human garners a certain amount
> of respect, no matter how rational you may judge him to be.
>
You can respect human filth like Saddam and the human shields he
surrounds himself with if you like. My respect is too precious. I
save it for truly great human beings like Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff,
and Marilyn Monroe.
> >
> >> >
> >> >I have a right to use pre-emptive force against anyone who constitutes
> >> >a potential threat to me.
> >>
> >> In other words, yes you would lead them into the gas chambers.
> >>
> >
> >Only a bin Laden sympathizer would oppose the death penalty for
> >terrorists.
>
> I don't oppose the death penalty for terrorists, that's for sure. I
> would promote killing them on sight -- or at least, waiting until any
> useful information has been extracted from them by whatever means.
>
Perhaps we should have interrogators riding atop our cruise missiles
to wrench confessions from the evil-doers in the split second before
the warhead detonates. LOL!
> But you forget, the issue was not terrorists, but those in insane
> asylums. Stop dropping the context.
>
If you want to spend your money providing room and board for lunatics,
fine. But I warn you, if those crazies wander onto my property,
they'll be picking buckshot out of their hides.
> >> >
> >> >Ayn Rand's greatest work is herself.
> >>
> >> He was referring to Randian literature, obviously. You made a mistake,
> >> Michael, stop trying to evade the issue with your statements of
> >> religious adoration for Rand.
> >>
> >
> >My adoration of Miss Rand is rational. It is YOUR hatred of Miss Rand
> >that is religious.
>
> You are a follower, which goes directly against your individualism.
I am an individualist who follows reality. Apparently you believe
that only a lunatic can be a true individualist.
> Is
> that rational? No. Did Howard Roark ever follow anybody, dance to
> their tune? He admired some, but he did not follow them.
>
Howard Roark believed deeply in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Of
course, you'll probably argue that Roark was a Kantian or a Marxist.
LOL!
> This is straight out of the movie "Life of Brian" in which Brian, the
> movie's travesty on Jesus, said to his followers, "You are all
> individuals!" to which they replied, in unison and monotone like they
> were in a trance, "Yes, we are all individuals." You are a member of
> that crowd, Bernstein, except the leader is not Brian, or Jesus, but
> Rand.
>
Not interested in trash entertainment.
> >> Besides, Rand never asked for your adoration. She made a case for
> >> worhipping mankind, not herself, in her statements concerning the
> >> proper object of religious feelings.
> >>
> >
> >Miss Rand was an unapologetic man-worshipper. As for me, I worship
> >mankind and Miss Rand and Leonard Peikoff as its highest exemplars.
>
> Did you ask them whether or not they wanted it your adoration?
>
Don't need to.
> >
> >> Let me clue you in, Michael. The reason your fellow Randroids want to
> >> believe you are Chris Cathcart is because you do such a great job of
> >> making Objectivism look really BAD.>
> >
> >If you object to my making Objectivism look bad, why don't you try to
> >make it look good?
>
> I don't object to your methods at all. More power to you!
Good-bye.
Michael Bernstein
9e...@posting.google.com>...
> Look, Malenor, it's obvious he's only pretending to be an objectivist,
> so why don't you just ignore him ?
No, you are the one who is pretending to be an Objectivist and who
deserves to be ignored.
HPO JURY = Malenor
<jif...@supanet.com> wrote:
>Look, Malenor, it's obvious he's only pretending to be an objectivist,
>so why don't you just ignore him ?
I believe everything he claims to be unless you can prove otherwise.
Tom Blackstone
I responded to your post about government welfare, but somehow it
just vanished. It looks like alot of HPO posts have dissapeared. I
noticed that "David Ross & the arbitrary" has only 1 post on it now. I
sent an e-mail to the moderator asking him if he could restore them
but that's probabely not possible. If I don't get a reply from him
soon I'll go ahead and re-reply to your post.
-------------Tom Blackstone
Tom Blackstone
Oops, scratch that. It was just a problem with Google. You can still see
the post if you use a news reader.
--------------Tom Blackstone
HPO JURY = Malenor
<objec...@mail.com> wrote:
>HPO JURY = Malenor <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<mgiravkl0db
>v5ge99lq07c...@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:37:34 +0000 (UTC), Michael Bernstein
>> <objec...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >I cannot think of a more rational philosophy.
>> >> >> I doubt if you tried, and you really should.
>> >> >Wishing and hoping will not produce a more rational philosophy than
>> >> >Objectivism.
>> >> Who said anything about wishing and hoping?
>> >Your attempt to disparage Objectivism is just another form of wishing
>> >and hoping for a better (more altruistic-collectivist) reality.
>> I don't believe in altruism or collectivism.
>At least Ayn Rand convinced you of that much.
Collectivism is as wrong as political individualism. I don't buy into
either alternative for various reasons which I've stated here over the
years. Altruism is a different problem. Rand tended to paint all
"altruists" with broad strokes as evil con-men who wanted to be on
the receiving end of the altruism. Marx made the same type of error in
his criticisms of Christianity. On the contrary, there is a place for
altruism in the world, but altruism per se I would never consider a
moral primary.
And in fact, that is much the same as Rand's view in which she states
that altruism, e.g., giving to charity, should not be forced. But
voluntarily donating to charity is still altruism, so Rand wasn't
against it. Her criticisms against altruism only involved its
political implications for building an all-giving society such as
communistic utopianism. So when she seems to be opposing one,
she is also opposing the other by implication. I don't believe that
men should be politically forced to fit some moral ideal, whether the
ideal comes from the left or the right. The attempt literally destroys
morality, and eventually produces social anarchy.
>> You are assuming without
>> the benefit of facts that an anti-Objectivist is an
>> altruist-collectivist by default.
>Those who conspire against the Objectivist movement play right into
>the hands of Ayn Rand's greatest enemies.
Argument by false alternatives. Besides, I don't know of anybody who
takes Objectivism seriously enough to conspire against it.
Your false alternative can be summed up in the famous saying, "Either
you're for us, or you're against us." But if I sincerely thought that
being on your side would prevent any social ills, I would join you
lock, stock and barrel.
In fact, Objectivism is a superficial philosophy that smacks too much
of theology. Turn Objectivism over and you will find Leibniz -- who
leads back to Spinoza. The Leibnizian aspect of Objectivism can be
most readily seen in its atomistic individualism, in which each
individual in a society is comparable in principle to a Leibnizian
monad. Take that idea a little further, and you have monism, in this
case, society in general, in which all the individual monads are
combined to produce one Platonic super-entity united under a single
principle. The only way Objectivism can avoid this ultimate conclusion
is by not taking its principles too deeply.
If you don't believe this Spinoza-Leibniz-Rand connection, in fact the
three readily unite under a single principle -- the necessary
intelligibility of the universe, existence, as a whole, which was held
by all three philosophers. This is the idea, at least for the Randian
interpretation, that in order to be considered objectively real, a
thing must be methodologically reducible to concept.
>> I agree with many things Rand said. Unfortunately, she couldn't back
>> them up reasonably. Her arguments fail to make her case.
>Objectivism is a philosphy of absolute, unchanging, and everlasting
>universal truths. Your failure to "get" Objectivism is a symptom of
>your own reality-avaoidance.
...More of your wishful thinking...
I am not claiming that these posters have proven anything, I am only
discussing their opinions about you, which was the point to prove. You
seem to be oblivious to their comments about you, and so now I've
filled you in. Even Fred Weiss recently referred to you in quotes as
if you weren't the legitimate Michael. None of your compadres here
apparently believes you are who you say you are, they believe you are
someone else, e.g., "Chris Cathcart," parodying Randroidism -- that is
their *opinion* -- and there is a good reason for this: your posts
obliterate all their attempts to paint a non-Randroid face on
Objectivism.
>> In other words, your friends are few and far between even on this
>> forum, and they don't include Objectivists or even libertarians who at
>> least wouldn't necessarily oppose you.
>There are a number of self-identified "Objectivists" on this board and
>in the world at large who imagine that they can achieve some sort of
>intellectual independence by disparaging Dr. Leonard Peikoff, the Ayn
>Rand Institute and even Ayn Rand herself. Anyone with an ounce of
>integrity recognizes this lashing out as a despicable act of betrayal
>and self-loathing. But I am not interested in what these cowards have
>to say. As Ayn Rand said in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, "A rational
>mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp
>of reality to anyone's orders, directives, or controls; it does not
>sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone's opinions,
>threats, wishes, plans, or 'welfare'."
I haven't seen them disparaging Peikoff or Rand. Weiss is the biggest
Peikoffian here. At one point he even claimed that Peikoff is a god.
>> >> >Some people assert that life-long bachelorhood can have devastating
>> >> >psychological consequences. Do when then force all men to marry by
>> >> >the age of 30?
>> >> People assert many things, arbitrarily or otherwise. But the
>> >> psychological damage to women who have had abortions is clearly . . .
>> >I reject the evidence of all women who are not knowledgeable
>> >Objectivists. Once they become true Objectivists, then they will be
>> >able to render truly rationally human judgments.
>> Let's say you are correct about that. Nevertheless, the odds of every
>> woman becoming an Objectivist are extremely low, and so the
>> psychological damage caused to some women (not all) by abortion will
>> continue.
>I am not interested in the welfare of non-Objectivist women. They are
>no more important to me than ants.
That's quite the ivory-tower attitude you have going there, Michael.
>> But I don't consider Objectivists to be making truly rational, human
>> judgments anyway. They have only been taught that X is rational and
>> then believe it because the group consists in followers like yourself.
>Another of your confessions of reality-avoidance.
Except for the fact that you yourself have advised here that everybody
should become Rand "followers."
>> >> If however you live in a sterilized Ivory Tower where your
>> >> only contact with the world is through Objectivist propaganda, then
>> >> you're not in any position to judge the issue anyway.
>> >Anyone who lives without Objectivism is the one who lives in a
>> >closed-off Ivory Tower.
>> That is a blanket statement which lacks foundation in reality.
>Objectivism is the philosophy of A is A. If you choose to reject that
>idea, have fun living in your own fantasies, disconnected from the
>real world.
Aristotelianism is also "the philosophy of A is A." So is
Parmenideism. Why should I follow Rand?
Besides, Hegel demolished your identity axiom by showing that Identity
cannot be an axiom because it has an opposite: difference.
Now you can fire ad homs at Hegel all day if you like, but it will not
erase the fact that he was right at least about that one point.
>> >> >So I know.
>> >> Assertion without evidence. What happened to A is A? Don't you really
>> >> believe it, or are you just another Objectivist parrot?
>> >The evidence is all around you. If you dispute it, then you are
>> >clearly a denier of reality.
>> Hmm, your original claim was, "Well, they are wrong, and ARI is
>> right." Now you are saying that the evidence that ARI is right is all
>> around me? Clearly a non sequitur. The world gives evidence of many
>> things but not that "ARI is right."
>A is A, and ARI is right.
Prove it by using discursive argumentation, not by asking me to use
the irrationalist, intuitive method of looking at the world around me.
>> >> >> How do you know I'm irrational? You don't know me.
>> >> >Your disagreement with Objectivism is ipso facto proof.
>> >> Hehe, that's the type of statement which scares even your fellow
>> >> Randroids.
>> >I'm sure I don't know what you are talking about.
>> Then why are they accusing you of being someone else doing a parody?
>They are themselves frauds. Those who know Objectivism and fearlessly
>follow its arguments to its final conclusion recognize that I am
>right.
Recognize? By what standard? By what method?
>> >> >Why should I? I believe in the virtue of selfishness.
>> >> Yes, but what you don't realize is that your individualism turns other
>> >> people into objects to be used for your own happiness (so long as this
>> >> doesn't violate their rights, of course). Therefore your individualism
>> >> reduces to parasitism.
>> >Their irrationality is the cause of the fact that they must be the
>> >fertilizer for others' blooming. The most rational are at the top of
>> >the dung heap.
>> See my thread on Objectivism's equivocation on "reason." A man is a
>> rational being whether or not he makes a bad decisions or acts on
>> whim. These factors are irrelevant when considering him from the
>> perspective of his rational essence. He should be treated like a
>> rational being, with the same rights shared by you people at the top
>> of your self-made dung heap. Just being human garners a certain amount
>> of respect, no matter how rational you may judge him to be.
>You can respect human filth like Saddam and the human shields he
>surrounds himself with if you like. My respect is too precious. I
>save it for truly great human beings like Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff,
>and Marilyn Monroe.
There is a point where I declare certain individuals, special cases,
to be not human. These are the murderers who need to be shot down like
dogs -- not the poor, unfortunate individuals in insane asylums who
cannot have helped their predicament.
>> >> >I have a right to use pre-emptive force against anyone who constitutes
>> >> >a potential threat to me.
>> >> In other words, yes you would lead them into the gas chambers.
>> >Only a bin Laden sympathizer would oppose the death penalty for
>> >terrorists.
>> I don't oppose the death penalty for terrorists, that's for sure. I
>> would promote killing them on sight -- or at least, waiting until any
>> useful information has been extracted from them by whatever means.
>Perhaps we should have interrogators riding atop our cruise missiles
>to wrench confessions from the evil-doers in the split second before
>the warhead detonates. LOL!
If that works for you...
>> But you forget, the issue was not terrorists, but those in insane
>> asylums. Stop dropping the context.
>If you want to spend your money providing room and board for lunatics,
>fine. But I warn you, if those crazies wander onto my property,
>they'll be picking buckshot out of their hides.
This is wandering into a different topic altogether. But here's the
point: It could also very well be that one of those crazies will avoid
detection, enter your home, and kill you. That's why I oppose
releasing them into society where the state picks up the tab for their
care anyway -- and I oppose putting them to death for humanitarian
reasons (I don't believe using Hitler's methods will get you any
further than it did him). There is no good solution, I don't believe
that every social problem has a perfect solution, only better and
worse solutions. The best solution is to keep them locked up, cared
for, and possibly cured.
I saw an incident recently on one of those news magazine shows in
which a young woman, who had been diagnosed as mentally ill since the
age of 12 and incarcerated in an institution, was released into
society and had a child whom she eventually killed while bathing her.
From her self-description and from the analysis of a trained
psychiatrist, she was clearly delusional, her thought-processes were
disorganized, she had an extremely precarious sense of self and was
not in control of her actions. Her actions were not from her own
free-will, therefore she should not have been living in society.
If society had put her to death at the age of 12, as you would advise,
that would make us as bad as Hitler. She should have remained in an
institution. Not the best solution, just the humane solution.
>> >> >Ayn Rand's greatest work is herself.
>> >> He was referring to Randian literature, obviously. You made a mistake,
>> >> Michael, stop trying to evade the issue with your statements of
>> >> religious adoration for Rand.
>> >My adoration of Miss Rand is rational. It is YOUR hatred of Miss Rand
>> >that is religious.
>> You are a follower, which goes directly against your individualism.
>I am an individualist who follows reality. Apparently you believe
>that only a lunatic can be a true individualist.
You yourself have claimed to be a follower of Rand, and have advised
others here to be followers of Rand. Some individualist...
>> Is
>> that rational? No. Did Howard Roark ever follow anybody, dance to
>> their tune? He admired some, but he did not follow them.
>Howard Roark believed deeply in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Of
>course, you'll probably argue that Roark was a Kantian or a Marxist.
>LOL!
He didn't follow anybody, that's my point which you ignored. He did
not believe in the philosophy of Ayn Rand because there was no such
person in the story. Or perhaps you believe that Roark was a real
person, and that The Fountainhead is biographical?
>> This is straight out of the movie "Life of Brian" in which Brian, the
>> movie's travesty on Jesus, said to his followers, "You are all
>> individuals!" to which they replied, in unison and monotone like they
>> were in a trance, "Yes, we are all individuals." You are a member of
>> that crowd, Bernstein, except the leader is not Brian, or Jesus, but
>> Rand.
>Not interested in trash entertainment.
Nevertheless, the example fits you well.
>> >> Besides, Rand never asked for your adoration. She made a case for
>> >> worhipping mankind, not herself, in her statements concerning the
>> >> proper object of religious feelings.
>> >Miss Rand was an unapologetic man-worshipper. As for me, I worship
>> >mankind and Miss Rand and Leonard Peikoff as its highest exemplars.
>> Did you ask them whether or not they wanted it your adoration?
>Don't need to.
By the way, what is this "mankind" you worship? Isn't it that an
example of the super-monadic monism which Spinoza believed? Thanks for
making my point through your example, Bernstein.
>> >> Let me clue you in, Michael. The reason your fellow Randroids want to
>> >> believe you are Chris Cathcart is because you do such a great job of
>> >> making Objectivism look really BAD.>
>> >If you object to my making Objectivism look bad, why don't you try to
>> >make it look good?
>> I don't object to your methods at all. More power to you!
>Good-bye.
Later, troll.
Ralph Hertle
Your pompous promotions parallel the morally vindictive attitudes of
quite a number of Objectivists. That attitude is a rationalistic
approach that intends that particular human action must be a result of
proper conclusions from universal premises. That approach says that if
the universals are right then the conclusion is right. Objectivism is,
however, an inductive philosophy.
Michael Bernstein wrote:
> HPO JURY = Malenor <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<mgiravkl0db
> v5ge99lq07c...@4ax.com>...
[ clip ]
>>You are assuming without
>>the benefit of facts that an anti-Objectivist is an
>>altruist-collectivist by default.
>
>
> Those who conspire against the Objectivist movement play right into
> the hands of Ayn Rand's greatest enemies.
>
>
>>I agree with many things Rand said. Unfortunately, she couldn't back
>>them up reasonably. Her arguments fail to make her case.
That, coming from Malenor, would be expected. He doesn't accept the
necessity of an objective reality nor the precise use of inductive and
deductive logic. Nothing can be persuasive to him.
> Objectivism is a philosphy of absolute, unchanging, and everlasting
> universal truths. Your failure to "get" Objectivism is a symptom of
> your own reality-avaoidance.
Quite the reverse, Michael. Ayn Rand herself said, to the effect, that
one should test the fundamental axioms and precepts in one's own life to
determine their validity and appropriateness to reality for one's own life.
Regarding the "....absolute, unchanging, and everlasting universal
truths...", Rand said, in effect, that one must always write one's own
ticket in philosophy, and to challenge all ideas for one's self. She,
herself, did so. She was remarkably (Whoops, that may now be a Post
Modernist submariner's and religionist interventionist's term.)
persistent regarding that point, and she tested all the ideas that she
dealt with. She wanted everyone to do the same, and to test what others
have said, in the same light.
Michael, for you to challenge the idea that reason is the only absolute
belies any interest in yours in the fundamentals of Objectivism.
My take on this, so far, is that either you are a Trojan Horse that
brings destruction or harassment in the guise of the familiar or the
desired, or that you are a poseur with some sincere ideas and a lot of
incredibly faulty ideas regarding the fundamentals.
> I have encountered a few people who would like to think of themseleves
> as Objectivists but who failed to overcome certain personal
> philosophical and psychological contradictions.
That statement to a psychotherapist would alert them to being watchful
for your psychological projections. In other words what you claim to be
true of others is possibly also true of your own ideas.
> As a result, they are
> only partial Objectivists (a contradiction in terms), embracing a few
> slogans from Atlas Shrugged but refusing to carry Miss Rand's premises
> to their logical conclusion.
The key phrase of yours, there, is, "logical conclusion". Objectivism,
however, is an inductive philosophy, and that means that every advocate
or student should re-evaluate everything. By your use of the phrase,
"logical conclusion", you imply that the correctness of ideas is a
matter of deductive conclusions, only. That is simply not true, and to
hold to such an idea is to perpetuate a lie. Objectivism is a closed
scientific system in that all tests of inductive logic and deductive
logic are the rule. Deduction only, on the other hand, would imply the
acceptance of an open approach in that any inductive ideas whatever, and
however untested, could that be used in Objectivism, e.g., that the
rights of property owners are superior to the general concept of a
protected liberty for all citizens, for example.
Your deductive-only approach appears to be rationalistic, and I would
ordinarily think that your ideational approach is that of many Post
Modernist religionists, who, save for determinism, have no other argument.
[ clip ]
> There are a number of self-identified "Objectivists" on this board and
> in the world at large who imagine that they can achieve some sort of
> intellectual independence by disparaging Dr. Leonard Peikoff, the Ayn
> Rand Institute and even Ayn Rand herself. Anyone with an ounce of
> integrity recognizes this lashing out as a despicable act of betrayal
> and self-loathing. But I am not interested in what these cowards have
> to say. As Ayn Rand said in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, "A rational
> mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp
> of reality to anyone's orders, directives, or controls; it does not
> sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone's opinions,
> threats, wishes, plans, or 'welfare'."
I guess that is safe to say, however, so what? My thought is that your
seemingly paranoid approach...read obsessively moralistic...will
ultimately lead you to the viewpoint that you disparage.
There should be an entire chapter of philosophy that is devoted to the
types of fallacies that stem from an overly moralizing approach. That
would also deal with psychology and etiquette. The holier than though
attitude is so worn out that it is reprehensible.
[ clip ]
> I am not interested in the welfare of non-Objectivist women. They are
> no more important to me than ants.
A more Platonic statement has not been made. Not that Plato was gay, and
that the center of his ideas rests upon a hatred of romantic love
between individual man and woman. That is also a mini-racist remark -
here, reference, Rand. Platonism? There are probably more wonderful
women out there than there are male Objectivists, gays, Catholic or
Jewish Platonists, or even sullen Post-Modernists. There are probably a
huge number of Platonic pseudo-heteros out there as well.
[ clip ]
> Objectivism is the philosophy of A is A. If you choose to reject that
> idea, have fun living in your own fantasies, disconnected from the
> real world.
Baloney. A is A, in the sense of a prescribed rule, is a mystery
statement to most people. It has no meaning to most people, and,
possibly, only a little more to persons who have done some reading in
Objectivism. A is A is a highly specialized nickname for a philosophical
concept -- no more. It is not a rule to guide one's life.
[ clip ]
> A is A, and ARI is right.
Banner bromides.
You posture as an expert, and yet you fail to understand the meaning of
the concept of, "existence is existing", that has the nickname, "A is A".
Who is ARI? They are a bunch of people with largely common interests,
and they, as a number of individuals, have no monolithic common policies.
The firm, ARI, may have some official policies, however, they are not
entirely consistent in their viewpoints. For example they endorse Harry
Binswanger's rejection of the science and geometry of the Ancient Greek
geometers without question. They are wrong in that endorsement. They go
along with Dr. Lewis' QM theories in terms of TEWLIP, and that reject
the use of classical logic in those conclusions. ARI also promoted the
rather rash advocacy of the use of the atomic bomb in opposition to
certain evil Islamic countries, but not all, rather than to review a
panoply of expert military and social options. They were rash in that
judgment.
And, you say that they were right? In every way? in all contexts? At
all times? You are wrong. ARI's policies are mostly right and they
should be mulled over most carefully by all students of Objectivism.
Michael, you have given Objectivism the back of your hand.
[ clip ]
> They are themselves frauds. Those who know Objectivism and fearlessly
> follow its arguments to its final conclusion recognize that I am
> right.
There is no "final conclusion" of Objectivism. In that statement you lie.
You have not referred to Aristotle's or Rand's technical uses of the
term, "final", and, I suspect that you intend to sour anyone else's
ideas and to direct them to you.
But, you are not right. You produce only a pastiche of words that seem
to be similar to Objectivism, but that are in reality opposed to the
fundamental concepts of Objectivism. Your paranoia is wrong.
[ clip ]
> You can respect human filth like Saddam and the human shields he
> surrounds himself with if you like. My respect is too precious. I
> save it for truly great human beings like Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff,
> and Marilyn Monroe.
How glorious you are insofar as your imposition of imitations. That is a
probable example of the fallacy of the Appeal to a Higher Authority.
[ clip ]
> If you want to spend your money providing room and board for lunatics,
> fine. But I warn you, if those crazies wander onto my property,
> they'll be picking buckshot out of their hides.
That is pure A-C. I prefer calling the FBI to do the work, myself. They
know what they are doing, and they know why they are doing what they do.
[ clip ]
> Howard Roark believed deeply in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Of
> course, you'll probably argue that Roark was a Kantian or a Marxist.
> LOL!
Total lies. HR is not a real person, kiddo. HR is a fictional
character who as an idea cast in print cannot possibly believe in
anything, let alone believe in the author who created the character.
That is a clear example of you whitewashing of the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
It isn't possible that you are an advocate of Objectivism based upon
statements of that type.
Then, you proceed to lie about the supposed, and unproved, views of your
opponent. I forget just which fallacy that is just plain lying.....
[ clip ]
> _____________
>
> Michael Bernstein, M.A. candidate in philosophy, recently read the
> complete works of Ayn Rand on CD-ROM and also recently attended a
> campus seminar sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute.
[ clip ]
Michael, why do you use the Christian sounding name, Michael? Is the
name, Bernstein, a German or a Jewish name? If German, are you a
Christian? If Jewish, are you a Christianized Jewish religionist? It all
seems quite confusing. Why not get a better and more philosophically
confusing name, for example, Hyman Frank, or something?
Why do you use your college courses as credentials, and then you
badmouth and misrepresent Objectivist fundamentals some fifty percent of
the time? How many courses in Objectivism are you taking at your
college? None? Outside of college, is there just the one at ARI? And,
why do you misrepresent ARI?
To tell you the truth, it is easier to discern the ideas and
predilections of Malenor and Cathcart than it is yours. You oppose a
lot, and yet you have no constructive program of your own. They at least
promote Kant, Pragmatism, God, Empiricism, Pragmatism, and other stuff,
where you have nothing except misrepresentations of Objectivism. Anyone
who has read a book on Objectivism knows that you are a fraud insofar as
your distortions of the concepts of Objectivism or what was set forth in
print by Ayn Rand.
What's your goal?
Ralph Hertle
.................................
Adam Lein
>
> ...
>
> As for the global warming example:
> First, Last I checked human beings produce less than 1/10 of 1% of all
> co2 in the world. If co2 is causing global warming, then it's mother
> nature that's doing it, not us.
This is true. However, the idea is that a very small changes in CO2
levels cause very large changes in temperature. I have no scholarship
in this area, so I can't say whether or not it's true; I just think
that that's the line of reasoning. For one thing, CO2 has a large
effect on the atmosphere since it resides for a very long time in
the atmosphere in comparison to some other greenhouse gases.
On the other hand, I have also read that even if we were to burn all the
fossil fuels on the planet, the atmosphere would still (eventually)
reach temperature equilibrium. So there's no worry of Earth going
the Venus route.
> Second, the data to support global warming is inconclusive. NASA
> satellites show the earth cooling over the last 20 or 30 years.
I believe other studies have shown the opposite; interpreting data
concerning climate change requires taking into account many
variables, not all of which I'm sure we're aware.
>
> You're assuming that we can't mine more oil or develop alternative
> fuel sources. This is a common trick of environmentalists. They always
> talk about natural resources as if there is only a static amount of
> them that is going to run out any minute. But that's just simply not
> true.
Actually, this is a fair assumption. Human use of resources works on
the scale of decades; new fossil fuels are formed on the scale of
thousands of millenia. So for all intents and purposes, we can assume
that the amount of fossil fuels in the crust is fixed and will not
grow in the lifetime of the human race as we know it.
-Adam
--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Fred Weiss
"J. Hall" <jif...@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:291db02.03042...@posting.google.com...
> Look, Malenor, it's obvious he's only pretending to be an objectivist,
> so why don't you just ignore him ?
Malenoid only pretends to understand Objectivism so they make a good pair.
Fred Weiss
Adam Lein
>
> ...
>
> Do we have as individuals the right to consume as much fuel we
> want?, concidering that we won't be around as individuals,( esp if we
> were to remain childless before anyone goes down that path ) to suffer
> the concequences of such behaviour.
Maybe a better question is: according to Objectivism, is it even
necessary to have children? Reproduction is a serious expense in
a human's life. It takes several years and thousands of dollars
which a person could use to his own benefit much more readily. The
sexual instinct could still be satisfied using birth control. The
only problem I could forsee is a psychological one; both men and
women may actually *want* children; however, if we are assuming
(a) Objectivism is "correct" and (b) Objectivism implies that
children are not in an individual's best interest, then this
psychological urge would be an improper holdover from primitive
times, merely a freak product of evolution.
You might say that not having children would in a few decades cause
a serious labor shortage. However, this problem could easily be
solved by using the world's homeless and unemployed and by increasing
the use of automation.
> If one measures a life in terms of it's own span then in Randian
> philosophy what obligation does one have to future generations?.
In the end I'd say that human beings are evolutionarily programmed
to feel that procreation is important even if not to their own survival
(and survival of individual man is the basis of Rand's logic). So
maybe selfishness isn't everything.
Fred Weiss
"Adam Lein" <al...@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:3EAE772B...@sfu.ca...
> Tom Blackstone wrote:
>... Human use of resources works on
> the scale of decades; new fossil fuels are formed on the scale of
> thousands of millenia. So for all intents and purposes, we can assume
> that the amount of fossil fuels in the crust is fixed and will not
> grow in the lifetime of the human race as we know it.
Yet, it is a curious thing but proven oil reserves have not changed for
decades, despite our huge consumption. We keep discovering more of it. I've
seen estimates that the Baku oil fields have as much oil in the ground as
all of the Mideast and we've barely begun to tap it.
What's also always overlooked in the "commodity depletion" arguments is
advances in technology which makes their discovery, extraction, and
processing much more efficient.
There are also still huge amounts of coal in the ground, the use of much of
which environmentalists have stopped. In this country they also succeeded in
effectively shutting down the nuclear power industry. There is also I
understand a great deal of oil trapped in shale and tar sands which is not
now cost effective but could be in the future.
And finally, there is future technology which may decrease our need for
fossil fuels.
Go out and buy an SUV and enjoy it. In fact buy two. One just because you
want it, the other to piss off your environmentalist friends and neighbors.
Fred Weiss
HPO JURY = Malenor
<ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>I agree with many things Rand said. Unfortunately, she couldn't back
>>>them up reasonably. Her arguments fail to make her case.
>That, coming from Malenor, would be expected. He doesn't accept the
>necessity of an objective reality
Yes, I do. I just don't believe that swinging one's arm around at
reality constitutes proof. That is not philosophy. It's what I meant
when I wrote that she couldn't back them up reasonably. Swinging
one's arm in a circle is not reason.
>nor the precise use of inductive and deductive logic. Nothing can be persu
>asive to him.
No matter how precisely it's used, induction won't prove necessity.
Hume was right about that. As for deduction, it depends on the
context. If you are proving the necessity of laws of nature, then a
transcendental deduction is required.
>Ralph Hertle
To Michael: It would be the height of evasion for you to claim, after
Ralph's post, that he is not an Objectivist.
HPO JURY = Malenor
<jif...@supanet.com> wrote:
>> I believe everything he claims to be unless you can prove otherwise.
>
>Spare me the Popperisms; he thinks the US economy is "laissez faire".
I haven't seen that reference. Are you referring to the recent parody
post in which the US is referred to as having a "laissez-faire
parlez-vous" economy? I haven't seen any proof that that poster was
Michael Bernstein aka whoever.
Michael Bernstein
0...@verizon.net>...
> Michael Bernstein:
>
> Your pompous promotions parallel the morally vindictive attitudes of
> quite a number of Objectivists. That attitude is a rationalistic
> approach that intends that particular human action must be a result of
> proper conclusions from universal premises. That approach says that if
> the universals are right then the conclusion is right. Objectivism is,
> however, an inductive philosophy.
>
We know that A is A by induction?
>
>
>
> Michael Bernstein wrote:
> > HPO JURY = Malenor <Mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<mgiravkl0db
> > v5ge99lq07c...@4ax.com>...
>
>
> > Those who conspire against the Objectivist movement play right into
> > the hands of Ayn Rand's greatest enemies.
> >
> >
> >>I agree with many things Rand said. Unfortunately, she couldn't back
> >>them up reasonably. Her arguments fail to make her case.
>
>
> That, coming from Malenor, would be expected. He doesn't accept the
> necessity of an objective reality nor the precise use of inductive and
> deductive logic. Nothing can be persuasive to him.
>
As if I cared.
>
> > Objectivism is a philosphy of absolute, unchanging, and everlasting
> > universal truths. Your failure to "get" Objectivism is a symptom of
> > your own reality-avaoidance.
>
>
> Quite the reverse, Michael. Ayn Rand herself said, to the effect, that
> one should test the fundamental axioms and precepts in one's own life to
> determine their validity and appropriateness to reality for one's own life.
>
I must have missed the essay in which Miss Rand said she approved of
those who chose subjecivism, altruism, collectivism and dictatorship
as being valid and appropriate to the reality of their lives.
> Regarding the "....absolute, unchanging, and everlasting universal
> truths...", Rand said, in effect, that one must always write one's own
> ticket in philosophy, and to challenge all ideas for one's self. She,
> herself, did so. She was remarkably (Whoops, that may now be a Post
> Modernist submariner's and religionist interventionist's term.)
> persistent regarding that point, and she tested all the ideas that she
> dealt with. She wanted everyone to do the same, and to test what others
> have said, in the same light.
>
From what I remember, Miss Rand cancelled the tickets that Plato,
Kant, Hegel and Marx wrote for themselves.
> Michael, for you to challenge the idea that reason is the only absolute
> belies any interest in yours in the fundamentals of Objectivism.
>
What means would I have other than reason to measure the validity of
that stratement?
> My take on this, so far, is that either you are a Trojan Horse that
> brings destruction or harassment in the guise of the familiar or the
> desired, or that you are a poseur with some sincere ideas and a lot of
> incredibly faulty ideas regarding the fundamentals.
>
My take on you is that you are too timid to follow Ayn Rand's
uncompromising philosophy to its startling conclusions.
>
>
> > I have encountered a few people who would like to think of themseleves
> > as Objectivists but who failed to overcome certain personal
> > philosophical and psychological contradictions.
>
>
>
> That statement to a psychotherapist would alert them to being watchful
> for your psychological projections. In other words what you claim to be
> true of others is possibly also true of your own ideas.
>
I think you are psychologically projecting my alleged psychological
projections.
>
> > As a result, they are
> > only partial Objectivists (a contradiction in terms), embracing a few
> > slogans from Atlas Shrugged but refusing to carry Miss Rand's premises
> > to their logical conclusion.
>
>
> The key phrase of yours, there, is, "logical conclusion". Objectivism,
> however, is an inductive philosophy, and that means that every advocate
> or student should re-evaluate everything.
Okay, I just did that. A is still A. Existence still exists. I am
still an end in myself. Capitalism is still great. And America still
rules.
> By your use of the phrase,
> "logical conclusion", you imply that the correctness of ideas is a
> matter of deductive conclusions, only. That is simply not true, and to
> hold to such an idea is to perpetuate a lie. Objectivism is a closed
> scientific system in that all tests of inductive logic and deductive
> logic are the rule. Deduction only, on the other hand, would imply the
> acceptance of an open approach in that any inductive ideas whatever, and
> however untested, could that be used in Objectivism, e.g., that the
> rights of property owners are superior to the general concept of a
> protected liberty for all citizens, for example.
>
Well, they are superior.
> Your deductive-only approach appears to be rationalistic, and I would
> ordinarily think that your ideational approach is that of many Post
> Modernist religionists, who, save for determinism, have no other argument.
>
>
Those are my principles, if you don't like them I have others.
>
>
>
> > There are a number of self-identified "Objectivists" on this board and
> > in the world at large who imagine that they can achieve some sort of
> > intellectual independence by disparaging Dr. Leonard Peikoff, the Ayn
> > Rand Institute and even Ayn Rand herself. Anyone with an ounce of
> > integrity recognizes this lashing out as a despicable act of betrayal
> > and self-loathing. But I am not interested in what these cowards have
> > to say. As Ayn Rand said in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, "A rational
> > mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp
> > of reality to anyone's orders, directives, or controls; it does not
> > sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone's opinions,
> > threats, wishes, plans, or 'welfare'."
>
>
>
> I guess that is safe to say, however, so what? My thought is that your
> seemingly paranoid approach...read obsessively moralistic...will
> ultimately lead you to the viewpoint that you disparage.
>
Obsessive egoism leads to altruism?
> There should be an entire chapter of philosophy that is devoted to the
> types of fallacies that stem from an overly moralizing approach. That
> would also deal with psychology and etiquette. The holier than though
> attitude is so worn out that it is reprehensible.
>
How dare you call my attitude "reprehensible"! What makes you holier
than thou?
>
> [ clip ]
>
>
>
> > I am not interested in the welfare of non-Objectivist women. They are
> > no more important to me than ants.
>
>
> A more Platonic statement has not been made. Not that Plato was gay, and
> that the center of his ideas rests upon a hatred of romantic love
> between individual man and woman. That is also a mini-racist remark -
> here, reference, Rand. Platonism? There are probably more wonderful
> women out there than there are male Objectivists, gays, Catholic or
> Jewish Platonists, or even sullen Post-Modernists. There are probably a
> huge number of Platonic pseudo-heteros out there as well.
I'm not interested in your gays and your Catholic and Jewish
Platonists. I'm only interested in getting an attractive Objectivist
woman to do some man-worshipping on me.
>
>
> [ clip ]
>
>
> > Objectivism is the philosophy of A is A. If you choose to reject that
> > idea, have fun living in your own fantasies, disconnected from the
> > real world.
>
>
> Baloney. A is A, in the sense of a prescribed rule, is a mystery
> statement to most people. It has no meaning to most people, and,
> possibly, only a little more to persons who have done some reading in
> Objectivism. A is A is a highly specialized nickname for a philosophical
> concept -- no more. It is not a rule to guide one's life.
It's the premise of my life, and I'm doing just fine, thank you.
>
>
>
>
> [ clip ]
>
> > A is A, and ARI is right.
>
>
> Banner bromides.
>
> You posture as an expert, and yet you fail to understand the meaning of
> the concept of, "existence is existing", that has the nickname, "A is A".
>
I understand it perfectly.
> Who is ARI? They are a bunch of people with largely common interests,
> and they, as a number of individuals, have no monolithic common policies.
>
I'm looking forward to meeting members of ARI's Marxist-Leninist
faction. LOL!
> The firm, ARI, may have some official policies, however, they are not
> entirely consistent in their viewpoints. For example they endorse Harry
> Binswanger's rejection of the science and geometry of the Ancient Greek
> geometers without question. They are wrong in that endorsement.
No, you are wrong to say they are wrong.
> They go
> along with Dr. Lewis' QM theories in terms of TEWLIP, and that reject
> the use of classical logic in those conclusions. ARI also promoted the
> rather rash advocacy of the use of the atomic bomb in opposition to
> certain evil Islamic countries, but not all, rather than to review a
> panoply of expert military and social options. They were rash in that
> judgment.
>
A few well-placed atomic bombs would do wonders for the Islamic world.
Look at the salutary benefit atomic warfare had on the Japs.
> And, you say that they were right? In every way? in all contexts? At
> all times?
Yep.
> You are wrong. ARI's policies are mostly right and they
> should be mulled over most carefully by all students of Objectivism.
>
After mulling their policices over, I decided that ARI is 100%
correct.
> Michael, you have given Objectivism the back of your hand.
>
>
Actually, I've given them over a grand for books and tapes.
>
> > They are themselves frauds. Those who know Objectivism and fearlessly
> > follow its arguments to its final conclusion recognize that I am
> > right.
>
>
>
> There is no "final conclusion" of Objectivism. In that statement you lie.
>
No, you are the liar.
> You have not referred to Aristotle's or Rand's technical uses of the
> term, "final", and, I suspect that you intend to sour anyone else's
> ideas and to direct them to you.
>
My final idea of you is pretty sour.
> But, you are not right. You produce only a pastiche of words that seem
> to be similar to Objectivism, but that are in reality opposed to the
> fundamental concepts of Objectivism. Your paranoia is wrong.
>
>
I'm not paranoid. I just want to annihiliate everyone in the
International Islamo-Fasco Conspiracy aimed at taking over the United
States and making me one of their slaves.
> [ clip ]
>
> > You can respect human filth like Saddam and the human shields he
> > surrounds himself with if you like. My respect is too precious. I
> > save it for truly great human beings like Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff,
> > and Marilyn Monroe.
>
>
> How glorious you are insofar as your imposition of imitations. That is a
> probable example of the fallacy of the Appeal to a Higher Authority.
>
False. My statement that I admire Ayn Rand does not contain any
command that you must admire her too.
>
> > If you want to spend your money providing room and board for lunatics,
> > fine. But I warn you, if those crazies wander onto my property,
> > they'll be picking buckshot out of their hides.
>
>
>
> That is pure A-C. I prefer calling the FBI to do the work, myself. They
> know what they are doing, and they know why they are doing what they do.
>
>
Most states recognize the right of a homeowner or apartment dweller to
use deadly force when in the presence of an imminent threat to life.
Of course, if your in favor of gun control . . .
>
>
> > Howard Roark believed deeply in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Of
> > course, you'll probably argue that Roark was a Kantian or a Marxist.
> > LOL!
>
>
> Total lies. HR is not a real person, kiddo. HR is a fictional
> character who as an idea cast in print cannot possibly believe in
> anything, let alone believe in the author who created the character.
Next you'll be telling us that Howard Roark did not believe in modern
architecture, or that Ellsworth Toohey didn't believe in the pursuit
of power over other men. LOL!
>
> That is a clear example of you whitewashing of the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
>
No, you with your digusting gays and Jewish and Catholic Platonists
are the one who is trying to pervert Objectivism.
> It isn't possible that you are an advocate of Objectivism based upon
> statements of that type.
>
It isn't possible that you know what the hell you are talking about.
> Then, you proceed to lie about the supposed, and unproved, views of your
> opponent. I forget just which fallacy that is just plain lying.....
>
Your lies about me establish clearly who is the Liar in Chief on this
board.
> [ clip ]
> > _____________
> >
> > Michael Bernstein, M.A. candidate in philosophy, recently read the
> > complete works of Ayn Rand on CD-ROM and also recently attended a
> > campus seminar sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute.
>
>
> [ clip ]
>
>
> Michael, why do you use the Christian sounding name, Michael? Is the
> name, Bernstein, a German or a Jewish name?
Why do you ask questions like a Nazi SS officer?
> If German, are you a
> Christian? If Jewish, are you a Christianized Jewish religionist? It all
> seems quite confusing. Why not get a better and more philosophically
> confusing name, for example, Hyman Frank, or something?
Why don't you change your name to something less confusing like Ralph
Schmuck?
>
> Why do you use your college courses as credentials, and then you
> badmouth and misrepresent Objectivist fundamentals some fifty percent of
> the time?
Everything I have said is fully consistent with Objectivism, School of
Rand-Peikoff.
> How many courses in Objectivism are you taking at your
> college? None? Outside of college, is there just the one at ARI?
Yep.
> why do you misrepresent ARI?
>
Why do you misrepresent me?
> To tell you the truth, it is easier to discern the ideas and
> predilections of Malenor and Cathcart than it is yours. You oppose a
> lot, and yet you have no constructive program of your own.
You'll find my program on the ARI website.
> They at least
> promote Kant, Pragmatism, God, Empiricism, Pragmatism, and other stuff,
> where you have nothing except misrepresentations of Objectivism.
I promote Ayn Rand in her purest, 200 proof form.
> Anyone
> who has read a book on Objectivism knows that you are a fraud insofar as
> your distortions of the concepts of Objectivism or what was set forth in
> print by Ayn Rand.
You, with your Catholic gays and Jewish Platonists, are the one who is
a fraud.
>
> What's your goal?
>
Objectivism on earth in my time.
_____________
Michael Bernstein, M.A. candidate in philosophy, recently read the
complete works of Ayn Rand on CD-ROM and also recently attended a
campus seminar sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute.
____
Michael Bernstein
lifss29ttba...@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:23:37 +0000 (UTC), Michael Bernstein
> <objec...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >MIKE <mdho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<f2b5b5f0.0304251634.64d8
> >cb...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >> I must have blinked , Did I miss the second coming ?
> >> A philosophy based on rational thought; and you treat it as a recipe
> >> book ?
>
> >If you wish to create water you must combine hydrogen with oxygen.
> >There is no other way. If you wish to lead a rational life, you must
> >follow Ayn Rand. There is no other way.
>
>
> But wait, Michael. Are you suggesting that true individualism consists
> in following Ayn Rand?
>
I do not say Ayn Rand is right because I follow her. I follow Ayn
Rand because she is right.
HPO JURY = Malenor
<objec...@mail.com> wrote:
>I do not say Ayn Rand is right because I follow her. I follow Ayn
>Rand because she is right.
Irrelevant.
Acar
> I responded to your post about government welfare, but somehow it
> just vanished. It looks like alot of HPO posts have dissapeared. I
> noticed that "David Ross & the arbitrary" has only 1 post on it now. I
> sent an e-mail to the moderator asking him if he could restore them
> but that's probabely not possible. If I don't get a reply from him
> soon I'll go ahead and re-reply to your post.
I read the first paragraph of your essay Kant, Mills, etc.. I stopped when I
found that the rest would be devoted to beat a straw man. This is a result
of a "stolen concept" (fallacy of ignoring an essential antecedent)
compounded by what Objectivists call "evasion". This big theft is based on a
lack of bringing into context the concept of a trade. Nearly all who say
that they are "forced" by law to surrender rights are enormously
appreciative of the benefits of citizenship in the greatest and freest
society in the world. They are understably determined to continue this
relationship which they find so obviously advantageous on balance. In
addition, they clearly understand that, contrary to some authoritarian
societies, citizen is a voluntary choice -- an option that can be
relinquished at any time by any competent adult without the slightest
external pressure to remain under the pressure of the alleged force. The
method of making laws and the requirement to abide by them are conditions of
the trade. Those who make a free choice and then cast themselves as victims
of force are indulging in a contradiction, a logical fallacy and the evil of
evasion in the face of known antecedent facts, IMO.
MIKE
c1...@posting.google.com>...
.Is Ayn Rand's philosophy about reaching rational
> conclusions using the the reality with in which we live? Or to be
> counted as an Objectivist does one have to believe all the dogma?.
> Is objectivism being strangled by 60 year old conclusions ?
> Is Ayn Rand's work a bible or a starting point for modern Objectivism?
> I am not pushing a barrow ,I am trying to understand what modern
> Objectivism is.
I AM pushing a barrow !
Is Objectism a foot note in history, only of use to
a few academics,and assorted rapacious predators ( including the
wanna be's) justifying their behaviour to themselves.
Ayn Rand held that her philosophy was a philosophy by which one lived
.Are there people who are living it? .
Is blindly following a recipe book of teachings as Michael Bernstein
seems to be doing the answer?
or is holding every piece of information we have either from her
thinking or any other source over the fire of intense inquisition of
rational thought( even if we dismissed every conclusion she reached
after the concept of long term rational self interest)