3 ms·

> This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully No, I did. And I re-read it before my second response. I don't think what you liste

by javert 13y ago

> This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully No, I did. And I re-read it before my second response. I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either actionable or useful. I was hoping you would clarify your thoughts on that point. I was disappointed by your last comment, because I think it was made in poor faith. Your accusations that I didn't read your comment carefully or may be goading you are in poor faith. Furthermore, I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it. > for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive. I think it's a pretty appropriate response when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective. Pointing out that that is what it is, is a substantive criticism.

javajosh 13y ago
> I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either actionable or useful. Shortly after, I mentioned two examples of such: working toward the colonization of other worlds at the large scale, and having children in the small. These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable. > I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it. It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused. Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness. > when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective I defy you to show where I said that or implied it. Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else. Egoism was merely an expression of the acknowledgement of that Truth. I am not an adherent to Objectivism, but I don't believe that even the most fervent Objectivist could blanch at my proposal to work to achieve the stars. Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market? Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught.
- javert 13y ago
  > These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable. Who are they useful for? Future humans? If every generation just lives to make the far future better, instead of enjoying life, I think it's all rather pointless. That's why I question the utility of what you've given. If you claim something is useful, it has to be useful for someone to do something worth doing. Rand wouldn't disagree with going to space, but she would ask, "For whom?" and "to what end?" > Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness. It's maximizing happiness, not pleasure. > Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else. That is absolutely a false characterization of Rand. > Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market? It's a philosophy, not a religion. It doesn't require anything, and it doesn't have adherents. To answer your question, no, it doesn't consider that everything worth doing be framed in terms of economics. > Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught. Rand was not an idealist. She explicitly rejected idealism. Rather, she defined exactly what it means to neither make the mistake of being either idealistic, nor rejecting all abstraction. I can assure you that Rand would not recoil at my (at least) approximately accurate portrayal of her views. I should say that some of the finer details of my point about the pursuit of pleasure/pain and joy/suffering are, I think, my ideas, not hers, but I think they are completely commensurate with what she wrote. > It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused. Thank you for apologizing. However, you do not understand Rand's views well enough to legitimately dismiss someone just because they agree with Rand.
  - javajosh 13y ago
    1. I'm still not seeing backup for your claim that I was asking anyone to sacrifice themselves for the good of others. 2. You should read Objectivist Epistemology, where she connects her ethical system to her metaphysics. It's fairly execrable as philosophy goes, but it does underscore my point that she's fundamentally driven by her idealism, particularly about the nature of truth. (BTW that's why it's called Objectivism and not Selfishism). Anyway, you really do sound like a young Randroid (again). In a few years you'll see that, well, she was wrong. Emotions are not vestigial. Reason is one tool in the box among others. And when self-interest, rather than self-restraint, becomes widely accepted as the criteria for merit, we end up with a system like we have today, where a docile public unable to even articulate a criticism of abuse of power, since there is no such thing as "abuse of power" in a framework that rewards only self-interest. Adieu.

by javert 13y ago

javajosh 13y ago

> I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either actionable or useful. Shortly after, I mentioned two examples of such: working toward the colonization of other worlds at the large scale, and having children in the small. These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable. > I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it. It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused. Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness. > when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective I defy you to show where I said that or implied it. Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else. Egoism was merely an expression of the acknowledgement of that Truth. I am not an adherent to Objectivism, but I don't believe that even the most fervent Objectivist could blanch at my proposal to work to achieve the stars. Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market? Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught.

javert 13y ago
> These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable. Who are they useful for? Future humans? If every generation just lives to make the far future better, instead of enjoying life, I think it's all rather pointless. That's why I question the utility of what you've given. If you claim something is useful, it has to be useful for someone to do something worth doing. Rand wouldn't disagree with going to space, but she would ask, "For whom?" and "to what end?" > Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness. It's maximizing happiness, not pleasure. > Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else. That is absolutely a false characterization of Rand. > Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market? It's a philosophy, not a religion. It doesn't require anything, and it doesn't have adherents. To answer your question, no, it doesn't consider that everything worth doing be framed in terms of economics. > Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught. Rand was not an idealist. She explicitly rejected idealism. Rather, she defined exactly what it means to neither make the mistake of being either idealistic, nor rejecting all abstraction. I can assure you that Rand would not recoil at my (at least) approximately accurate portrayal of her views. I should say that some of the finer details of my point about the pursuit of pleasure/pain and joy/suffering are, I think, my ideas, not hers, but I think they are completely commensurate with what she wrote. > It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused. Thank you for apologizing. However, you do not understand Rand's views well enough to legitimately dismiss someone just because they agree with Rand.
- javajosh 13y ago
  1. I'm still not seeing backup for your claim that I was asking anyone to sacrifice themselves for the good of others. 2. You should read Objectivist Epistemology, where she connects her ethical system to her metaphysics. It's fairly execrable as philosophy goes, but it does underscore my point that she's fundamentally driven by her idealism, particularly about the nature of truth. (BTW that's why it's called Objectivism and not Selfishism). Anyway, you really do sound like a young Randroid (again). In a few years you'll see that, well, she was wrong. Emotions are not vestigial. Reason is one tool in the box among others. And when self-interest, rather than self-restraint, becomes widely accepted as the criteria for merit, we end up with a system like we have today, where a docile public unable to even articulate a criticism of abuse of power, since there is no such thing as "abuse of power" in a framework that rewards only self-interest. Adieu.