There's a Reason this Hits Home


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 236
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Adam,

There is no arguing with the faith-based about their faith.

:smile:

Besides, from observing Francisco's posts for a while, in my judgement, he shows a great deal of the characteristics identified in the following 2005 article by a magnificent young thinker, Scott Berkun:

Why smart people defend bad ideas

Michael

Well worth the read.

The reason for this is simple. Smart people, or at least those whose brains have good first gears, use their speed in thought to overpower others. They’ll jump between assumptions quickly, throwing out jargon, bits of logic, or rules of thumb at a rate of fire fast enough to cause most people to become rattled, and give in. When that doesn’t work, the arrogant or the pompous will throw in some belittlement and use whatever snide or manipulative tactics they have at their disposal to further discourage you from dissecting their ideas.

So your best defense starts by breaking an argument down into pieces. When they say “it’s obvious we need to execute plan A now.” You say, “hold on. You’re way ahead of me. For me to follow I need to break this down into pieces.” And without waiting for permission, you should go ahead and do so.

His pool analogy is solid.

Additionally, the Sandler "Selling" System which you have seen me mention, really screws folks like Frank up because it relies on both visual and aural pattern interruptions.

Additionally, giving a "voice" like Frank's the room to accelerate early in a discussion/argument is something he viscerally cannot resist. It is kinda cute.

Good article.

Queens boy also...

The Ghost of My Father is about his failed relationship with his father, and how his family was torn apart in 2012. Through intimate personal stories the book explores the meaning of family and how he worked to understand himself as an adult in the wake of a distant parent and a broken family. With thoughtful stories about the meaning of Darth Vader, the mystery of Frankenstein and the family stories of Bruce Springsteen, Berkun combines themes from his own life with famous films and legends, to help readers ask universal questions about the first adults we know in our lives.

This is an achingly personal memoir of loss, love and the hope of transformation by understanding the past. This story is for anyone struggling with their identity in their family and seeking a bright path through dark times.

50% of the profits from this edition will be donated to Big Brothers Big Sisters, a non-profit that helps children in need find supportive adult mentors.

Nice touch.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an accountant friend of mine who every spring works 18-hour days and curses his way through the great stacks of forms that have to move across his desk. He's quite wealthy and well past the standard retirement age. He could be enjoying these first warm days in the pool in his backyard or playing golf at his private club. Yet he grumbles and drags himself to work every day as if under a death threat.

I ask him often why he doesn't just quit, and he tells me he'd hate not doing it more.

I've come to the conclusion that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's best to assume that people do what makes them happy (or happier). As Mises says, "Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory."

Perhaps we should not care about any objective differences between a man selfishly devoting himself to others and a man selflessly devoting himself to others.

Perhaps there are none.

Perhaps there is no objective reason for assuming that anyone acts unselfishly.

Your friend is hardly selfish, is he? It is a skin-deep idea of selfishness which you apparently hold, as do many, perceived from a man's outward show, perceived status and his amount of money. So first the prudent predator, and now 'selfish service' to others. To me, it looks like the friend is marking time, going through the paces in a joyless work. Maybe it excited him once, and like a lot of people is too fearful to change. Not golf (for god's sake) and an existence of doing nothing creative, but with his means he could be starting another venture in an interesting field - or returning to university to study astronomy, or something.

Your version of "selfish", you seem to consider comes easily without effort, by which everyone is superficially selfish. But that's not possible, when most lack true "concern for oneself". I think firstly being self-knowledgeable - without obsessive navel-gazing - is a prerequisite for rational selfishness: Why did I feel this, not feel that, why did I think and do, that, and could I do it differently next time?

Mostly, a person becomes what he regularly thinks and acts. Selfishness takes thinking, resolve and awareness.

Is it a determinist thing, that you won't recognize cause and effect in oneself - personal causality, so to speak? A man's condition evolves from his premises, consciously admired or unconsciously borrowed.

A man "selfishly devoting himself to others" represents a contradiction in terms. What does he consider the nature of man to be, that they constantly demand and need his devotion? Nothing fine, I'd guess. Which indicates what he thinks of himself, and it's not selfish.

To which must be added the obvious, that being of "service" to ones you love, respect or like is distinctly selfish (acting with integrity to your values) while temporarily helping other unknown people out, can indeed also be selfish. Any human suffering should not sit well with a rational person. And I hardly need add that the medical scientist (e.g.) who's struggled for a cancer cure all his life, is highly selfish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your friend is hardly selfish, is he? It is a skin-deep idea of selfishness which you apparently hold, as do many, perceived from a man's outward show, perceived status and his amount of money. So first the prudent predator, and now 'selfish service' to others. To me, it looks like the friend is marking time, going through the paces in a joyless work. Maybe it excited him once, and like a lot of people is too fearful to change. Not golf (for god's sake) and an existence of doing nothing creative, but with his means he could be starting another venture in an interesting field - or returning to university to study astronomy, or something.

Your version of "selfish", you seem to consider comes easily without effort, by which everyone is superficially selfish. But that's not possible, when most lack true "concern for oneself". I think firstly being self-knowledgeable - without obsessive navel-gazing - is a prerequisite for rational selfishness: Why did I feel this, not feel that, why did I think and do, that, and could I do it differently next time?

Mostly, a person becomes what he regularly thinks and acts. Selfishness takes thinking, resolve and awareness.

Is it a determinist thing, that you won't recognize cause and effect in oneself - personal causality, so to speak? A man's condition evolves from his premises, consciously admired or unconsciously borrowed.

A man "selfishly devoting himself to others" represents a contradiction in terms. What does he consider the nature of man to be, that they constantly demand and need his devotion? Nothing fine, I'd guess. Which indicates what he thinks of himself, and it's not selfish.

To which must be added the obvious, that being of "service" to ones you love, respect or like is distinctly selfish (acting with integrity to your values) while temporarily helping other unknown people out, can indeed also be selfish. Any human suffering should not sit well with a rational person. And I hardly need add that the medical scientist (e.g.) who's struggled for a cancer cure all his life, is highly selfish.

I disagree. My friend is selfish. The ex-POW in the video in Post #1 is selfish. Mother Teresa was selfish. Everyone acts to enhance enhance personal satisfaction and thus self-fulfillment.

Can an outside observer know that one person's selfishness runs to the core, while another's is only skin-deep? How? What instrument is used to take that measure?

Now you say that my accountant friend Bill could increase his selfishness factor by "starting another venture in an interesting field - or returning to university to study astronomy, or something." Perhaps he could also marry a better wife, read better books, eat better food. But if any of those changes resulted in a lower level of satisfaction, he would hardly be acting selfishly, would he? I think he has atrocious taste in music (Richard Clayderman, for example). By the same token he cannot understand why I like the Goldberg Variations. Why should he make himself unhappy by listening to what others say is "better" music?

So if studying astronomy would make Bill happier than working as an accountant, why hasn't he taken up astronomy? Obviously, it is because he prefers what he is doing now to any alternative. A person who acts to realize his preferences is acting selfishly.

Am I ignoring cause and effect? I think not. Despite his complaints, doing other people's quarterly reports and income tax forms fulfills a need in Bill at some fundamental level. He crunches numbers, he complains, and he crunches numbers again. If he derived greater satisfaction from not doing it or doing something else, there is nothing that would prevent him from quitting.

You write, "A man 'selfishly devoting himself to others' represents a contradiction in terms." Really? Then surely Rand made a serious philosophical error in having John Galt tell Dagny that he would kill himself if she is tortured to make him talk. (Atlas, Chapter 28) Wouldn't a truly selfish may say, "Go ahead and kill her. I'm looking out for number one"?

As was discussed in the first few posts at the top of this thread, there need not be a contradiction between serving others and self-fulfillment. Here's what Galt said, "By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose."

If it make you happy to serve others, then you are serving yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You write, "A man 'selfishly devoting himself to others' represents a contradiction in terms." Really? Then surely Rand made a serious philosophical error in having John Galt tell Dagny that he would kill himself if she is tortured to make him talk. (Atlas, Chapter 28) Wouldn't a truly selfish may say, "Go ahead and kill her. I'm looking out for number one"?

As was discussed in the first few posts at the top of this thread, there need not be a contradiction between serving others and self-fulfillment. Here's what Galt said, "By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose."

First gear moving-sports-car-smiley-emoticon.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot say a man is selfless unless you can objectify selflessness both to the human organism and to that man specifically. It has to be an integrated package. The natural default for any living organism is selfishness. To say someone acts selflessly is saying he's not honoring values, but all valuing is subjective. He's simply not honoring someone else's values. Now we can objectify optionality for a human being qua species, but that's only a small part of the package. Selflessness/selfishness can only be objective about that part of it. Even then these moral concepts are quite aside from that for they were thought into existence. When choice enters the picture--free will--everything goes all over the map. The whole idea is simply to make the best choices possible. There is little need for the moral labeling.

Morality is an essential part of philosophy and is all about control and direction--self control and existentially rendered control. The last may be merely social or that plus political. The political violation of individual rights requires the moral palaver of "selflessness." If it's not selfless then everything else is "selfish" used as a smear by those who want a world of political selflessness to serve their own, hidden--albeit not very well--selfishness subjectively experienced. Tyranny's great con job.

These paragraphs are best criticized by referencing the old Ojectivist Newsletter article "Isn't Everybody Selffish?" which I haven't had time to read before shooting off my mouth here.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just an age-old game of semantics.

When Rand said selfless, she was talking about values, not existence.

If you define selfish as having a self, all actions by a self involve the self, so nothing is "selfless."

If you define selfish as concerned with oneself's own interests as opposed to the interests of others, which is a lot closer to what Rand meant, her statements become clear and are perfectly logical.

The algorithm of the argument (in O-Land) of those who claim no one does anything selflessly goes basically as follows:

1. Start with the switcharooney in meaning. Since it's the same word, this is easy to set up and pretend Rand meant the bogus meaning.

2. Lay out some kinds of examples based on the new meaning that result in a contradiction, make logical arguments based on it, criticize the statements of Rand and others based on it, yada yada yada, all the while ignoring and sidestepping any attempt to get at the real meaning Rand used.

3. Claim Rand was wrong, foolish, naive, etc.

4. Congratulate oneself on being so much smarter than everybody else, especially Rand (poor thing) and bask in the sound of one hand clapping.

This is an old racket that's been around O-Land ever since I have been posting online. I have little doubt it's been around much longer.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you define selfish as concerned with oneself's own interests as opposed to the interests of others, which is a lot closer to what Rand meant, her statements become clear and are perfectly logical.

Spot on, Michael. :smile:

It's in my own selfish interest to further the selfish interests of others. This approach makes win/win business transactions possible, and those are of the highest ethical order.

Win/win is the key to success in business as well as in life.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your friend is hardly selfish, is he? It is a skin-deep idea of selfishness which you apparently hold, as do many, perceived from a man's outward show, perceived status and his amount of money. So first the prudent predator, and now 'selfish service' to others. To me, it looks like the friend is marking time, going through the paces in a joyless work. Maybe it excited him once, and like a lot of people is too fearful to change. Not golf (for god's sake) and an existence of doing nothing creative, but with his means he could be starting another venture in an interesting field - or returning to university to study astronomy, or something.

Your version of "selfish", you seem to consider comes easily without effort, by which everyone is superficially selfish. But that's not possible, when most lack true "concern for oneself". I think firstly being self-knowledgeable - without obsessive navel-gazing - is a prerequisite for rational selfishness: Why did I feel this, not feel that, why did I think and do, that, and could I do it differently next time?

Mostly, a person becomes what he regularly thinks and acts. Selfishness takes thinking, resolve and awareness.

Is it a determinist thing, that you won't recognize cause and effect in oneself - personal causality, so to speak? A man's condition evolves from his premises, consciously admired or unconsciously borrowed.

A man "selfishly devoting himself to others" represents a contradiction in terms. What does he consider the nature of man to be, that they constantly demand and need his devotion? Nothing fine, I'd guess. Which indicates what he thinks of himself, and it's not selfish.

To which must be added the obvious, that being of "service" to ones you love, respect or like is distinctly selfish (acting with integrity to your values) while temporarily helping other unknown people out, can indeed also be selfish. Any human suffering should not sit well with a rational person. And I hardly need add that the medical scientist (e.g.) who's struggled for a cancer cure all his life, is highly selfish.

I disagree. My friend is selfish. The ex-POW in the video in Post #1 is selfish. Mother Teresa was selfish. Everyone acts to enhance enhance personal satisfaction and thus self-fulfillment.

Can an outside observer know that one person's selfishness runs to the core, while another's is only skin-deep? How? What instrument is used to take that measure?

Now you say that my accountant friend Bill could increase his selfishness factor by "starting another venture in an interesting field - or returning to university to study astronomy, or something." Perhaps he could also marry a better wife, read better books, eat better food. But if any of those changes resulted in a lower level of satisfaction, he would hardly be acting selfishly, would he? I think he has atrocious taste in music (Richard Clayderman, for example). By the same token he cannot understand why I like the Goldberg Variations. Why should he make himself unhappy by listening to what others say is "better" music?

So if studying astronomy would make Bill happier than working as an accountant, why hasn't he taken up astronomy? Obviously, it is because he prefers what he is doing now to any alternative. A person who acts to realize his preferences is acting selfishly.

Am I ignoring cause and effect? I think not. Despite his complaints, doing other people's quarterly reports and income tax forms fulfills a need in Bill at some fundamental level. He crunches numbers, he complains, and he crunches numbers again. If he derived greater satisfaction from not doing it or doing something else, there is nothing that would prevent him from quitting.

You write, "A man 'selfishly devoting himself to others' represents a contradiction in terms." Really? Then surely Rand made a serious philosophical error in having John Galt tell Dagny that he would kill himself if she is tortured to make him talk. (Atlas, Chapter 28) Wouldn't a truly selfish may say, "Go ahead and kill her. I'm looking out for number one"?

As was discussed in the first few posts at the top of this thread, there need not be a contradiction between serving others and self-fulfillment. Here's what Galt said, "By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose."

If it make you happy to serve others, then you are serving yourself.

I think you've made a mistake here in assuming that what people do is automatically in pursuit of the life they would prefer.

You say there is nothing stopping people from changing what their lives are like. And in a real sense, you're very right -- we are perfectly free to change things. Nothing is forcing us to remain in the state we are in.

But fear of the unknown, laziness, a lack of confidence in one's abilities -- these are all impediments toward achieving the life you desire.

An analogy of activation energy comes to mind, if you have a rudimentary understanding of chemistry. (Which is all I have till school starts up again, anyways.) Specifically for endothermic reactions, which makes sense if you think of the internal energy of the system being analogous to one's joy (internal psychological energy, if that doesn't sound too mystical [ba'al may yell at me for this -- suit yourself, man.])

The graphs of these things look like little hills. You end up at a higher place than you start off (that's what makes it endothermic), but you have to go even higher before you get there. The top of that little hill is the activation energy. It's analogous to one's motivation to succeed -- or, perhaps, anti-analogous (is that a word?) to one's fears and anxieties. The more anxious you are to get there, the stranger that end state is, the less self-esteem you have, the harder it is to motivate yourself to work.

The point is, we don't automatically act to make ourselves happier. So you can't assume that wherever a person is in life is where they really wish to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you define selfish as concerned with oneself's own interests as opposed to the interests of others, which is a lot closer to what Rand meant, her statements become clear and are perfectly logical.

Spot on, Michael. :smile:

It's in my own selfish interest to further the selfish interests of others. This approach makes win/win business transactions possible, and those are of the highest ethical order.

Win/win is the key to success in business as well as in life.

Greg

You mean lose/lose doesn't make a win?

--Brant

gotta try another approach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you define selfish as concerned with oneself's own interests as opposed to the interests of others, which is a lot closer to what Rand meant, her statements become clear and are perfectly logical.

Spot on, Michael. :smile:

It's in my own selfish interest to further the selfish interests of others. This approach makes win/win business transactions possible, and those are of the highest ethical order.

Win/win is the key to success in business as well as in life.

Greg

You mean lose/lose doesn't make a win?

--Brant

gotta try another approach

No... and neither do two wrongs make a right. :laugh:

Only the singularity of win/win creates value for everyone involved... also known as Paradise.

All of the other myriad variations are just versions of zero sum predator/prey... also known as Hell.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You write, "A man 'selfishly devoting himself to others' represents a contradiction in terms." Really? Then surely Rand made a serious philosophical error in having John Galt tell Dagny that he would kill himself if she is tortured to make him talk. (Atlas, Chapter 28) Wouldn't a truly selfish may say, "Go ahead and kill her. I'm looking out for number one"?

As was discussed in the first few posts at the top of this thread, there need not be a contradiction between serving others and self-fulfillment. Here's what Galt said, "By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose."

If it make you happy to serve others, then you are serving yourself.

Most individuals I've ever known - I include myself- have lived at least for a while, and sometimes wholly, in a state of penance, or self-sacrifice. Always, they have felt not good enough and insufficient, in the eyes of parents, their God, or society at large - or something. Maybe for just being alive. One doesn't need to be Catholic to do penance. These are basically good and honest people, who somehow assumed a heavy load of guilt for some tiny 'wrong', in its many forms ("impure thoughts" is a Catholic one). From there on, most everything they did was a consequence of that self-judgment.

Although it is also psychological in cause and effects, the basic fallacy is philosophical, and self-sacrifice of one's mind and body in that "service" to people (as you insist on putting it) comes by accepting a generic "others" as the standard of existence (as distinct from "man's life") - and "others", as the standard of morality.

Rational selfishness is first and last, for the good people in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just an age-old game of semantics.

When Rand said selfless, she was talking about values, not existence.

If you define selfish as having a self, all actions by a self involve the self, so nothing is "selfless."

If you define selfish as concerned with oneself's own interests as opposed to the interests of others, which is a lot closer to what Rand meant, her statements become clear and are perfectly logical.

I'm defining it in the same terms Rand used: "Man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose."

In the video you posted, a man dedicates his life to helping others live. His happiness is based on the achievement of the happiness of others. Is that selfless? On the contrary, his actions are perfectly selfish. As you wrote, "He mostly did charity work . . . I see this as a very selfish decision that brought him great happiness."

In attaining his goal, the humanitarian aid worker reaches a level of satisfaction that is just as rewarding as the architect who sees his building completed or the geologist who finds an undiscovered reservoir of oil or the entrepreneur who successfully launches a new product. All actions are directed toward the goal of increasing one's contentment, gratification, pride or comfort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've made a mistake here in assuming that what people do is automatically in pursuit of the life they would prefer.

You say there is nothing stopping people from changing what their lives are like. And in a real sense, you're very right -- we are perfectly free to change things. Nothing is forcing us to remain in the state we are in.

But fear of the unknown, laziness, a lack of confidence in one's abilities -- these are all impediments toward achieving the life you desire.

An analogy of activation energy comes to mind, if you have a rudimentary understanding of chemistry. (Which is all I have till school starts up again, anyways.) Specifically for endothermic reactions, which makes sense if you think of the internal energy of the system being analogous to one's joy (internal psychological energy, if that doesn't sound too mystical [ba'al may yell at me for this -- suit yourself, man.])

The graphs of these things look like little hills. You end up at a higher place than you start off (that's what makes it endothermic), but you have to go even higher before you get there. The top of that little hill is the activation energy. It's analogous to one's motivation to succeed -- or, perhaps, anti-analogous (is that a word?) to one's fears and anxieties. The more anxious you are to get there, the stranger that end state is, the less self-esteem you have, the harder it is to motivate yourself to work.

The point is, we don't automatically act to make ourselves happier. So you can't assume that wherever a person is in life is where they really wish to be.

No, we don't automatically act to make ourselves happier. Sometimes we make serious errors that we live to regret. However, all actions are aimed at increasing happiness. And we all act on the basis of the knowledge that we have.

Obviously, smokers in the 1700's did not know the damage their habit was doing to their lungs. If they did, many of them would have given up tobacco. Yet there are people today who smoke despite the well-documented and well-publized dangers of nicotine.

I have no doubt that there are things I'd do differently if my level of knowledge about my work, my hobbies and my health were to increase dramatically.

On the other hand, there are only so many hours in a day. My decision to take a nap or watch TV or stare out the window instead of reading up on the financial markets is rational. Laziness is a valid choice. So is smoking, for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most individuals I've ever known - I include myself- have lived at least for a while, and sometimes wholly, in a state of penance, or self-sacrifice. Always, they have felt not good enough and insufficient, in the eyes of parents, their God, or society at large - or something. Maybe for just being alive. One doesn't need to be Catholic to do penance. These are basically good and honest people, who somehow assumed a heavy load of guilt for some tiny 'wrong', in its many forms ("impure thoughts" is a Catholic one). From there on, most everything they did was a consequence of that self-judgment.

Although it is also psychological in cause and effects, the basic fallacy is philosophical, and self-sacrifice of one's mind and body in that "service" to people (as you insist on putting it) comes by accepting a generic "others" as the standard of existence (as distinct from "man's life") - and "others", as the standard of morality.

Rational selfishness is first and last, for the good people in particular.

Yes, there are people who have felt guilty, inferior or unworthy for not achieving a prescribed goal or value. When I was a boy, masturbation and even sex in general were treated as sins by the adults in my devoutly religious community.

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Matt 5:28-29

But penance is only one aspect of the religious life. Faith in God has been a source of strength and joy for billions of humans past and present.

People will not continue to perform an activity if it produces only misery. If a particular belief system demands penance and self-denial, it usually makes up for it through feelings of certainty, harmony and brotherhood. Thus demands for self-sacrifice are followed only if there are compensating psychic benefits.

Yes, even the flagellant monk acts selfishly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, we can do better than that (my bold):

The algorithm of the argument (in O-Land) of those who claim no one does anything selflessly goes basically as follows:

1. Start with the switcharooney in meaning. Since it's the same word, this is easy to set up and pretend Rand meant the bogus meaning.

2. Lay out some kinds of examples based on the new meaning that result in a contradiction, make logical arguments based on it, criticize the statements of Rand and others based on it, yada yada yada, all the while ignoring and sidestepping any attempt to get at the real meaning Rand used.

3. Claim Rand was wrong, foolish, naive, etc.

4. Congratulate oneself on being so much smarter than everybody else, especially Rand (poor thing) and bask in the sound of one hand clapping.


This is an old racket that's been around O-Land ever since I have been posting online. I have little doubt it's been around much longer.

Michael

It didn't take long:

I'm defining it in the same terms Rand used...

And it never gets any better.

Rand was a conceptual thinker who used words as tokens for concepts. FF's approach is to use works to muddy concepts and play gotcha.

Whatever rings your ding-a-ling.

(I wonder if FF is the intellectual superior of Ayn Rand. He definitely is of me and everyone else who ever posted on OL and who ever will post. Hmmmmm... Come to think of it, he does trump Rand. In fact, she could never hold a candle to his shining light. :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A selfless act or orientation seems to be someone else's observation of another acting to the effect if the observer were to do that it would not be in the observer's self interest so QED it's selfless.

Consider Francisco giving up Dagny to go on strike for the sake of a greater, common good. In a real life situation I'd consider it to be selfless enough to call it "nuts." The whole novel, however, is built on many arbitrary suppositions which ironically make it a work of true art if you don't think naturalism is true art.

(There is also a kind of determinism in that once Dagny sees the light and goes on strike--which is the effective end of the novel except for the clean up--she and John would naturally flow together with no more friction romantically as the top-of-the-heapers. Their relationship was much more interesting when they first met but couldn't yet bed then when they could in there's-not-even-a-mattress-in-that-stupid-tunnel in spite of the novel's supposition they shouldn't yet except for love's "exception making." [Dagny and Eddie was a toned down version of Ayn and Nathaniel without the romantic, sexual relationship or brains which might have worked for real people not a paint-by-the-numbers story. There's no reason why these two as real people couldn't be having sex twice a day and four times on Sunday except sex in Rand land frequently needs to be preceded by conversation laying out the ground rules. I once tried to get it on with an Objectivish lady who indicated she might have the hots for me and she replied we'd have to talk about it creating instant and permanent impotence in me about her. I simply bluntly asked her (how romantic!) if she wanted to sleep with me in a letter and she didn't answer yes or no then or ever. Either answer could have had the same effect of us eventually getting it on but my admiration of her for admiring me turning her on went out the window.])

Where was I? Oh, never mind. My enough is too much already.

--Brant

to keep things going, throw in some sex (works for me)

(Hypocrisy time or I wrote a long letter for I didn't have time to write a short one? One reason Francisco went on strike was the idea the looters could exist for a long time off his copper mines so he had to accelerate the destruction of d'Anconia Copper with the hide-in-plain-sight playboy routine. Another AS arbitrary assumption. In fact, a collapsing economy would collapse demand for commodities economically crushing their producers so Francisco didn't have to do anything.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a subjective 'selfishness', FF, out of context of one's life and reality. It's whatever you want it to be, and many people would proudly call themselves "unselfish" for doing such service to others as you list. They are right.

Your version is much to say:

I'm doing something, it gives me reward, pleasure or gain in the moment - therefore, whatever I do is selfish.

My dogs know as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, we can do better than that (my bold):

The algorithm of the argument (in O-Land) of those who claim no one does anything selflessly goes basically as follows:

1. Start with the switcharooney in meaning. Since it's the same word, this is easy to set up and pretend Rand meant the bogus meaning.

2. Lay out some kinds of examples based on the new meaning that result in a contradiction, make logical arguments based on it, criticize the statements of Rand and others based on it, yada yada yada, all the while ignoring and sidestepping any attempt to get at the real meaning Rand used.

3. Claim Rand was wrong, foolish, naive, etc.

4. Congratulate oneself on being so much smarter than everybody else, especially Rand (poor thing) and bask in the sound of one hand clapping.

This is an old racket that's been around O-Land ever since I have been posting online. I have little doubt it's been around much longer.

Michael

It didn't take long:

I'm defining it in the same terms Rand used...

And it never gets any better.

Rand was a conceptual thinker who used words as tokens for concepts. FF's approach is to use works to muddy concepts and play gotcha.

Whatever rings your ding-a-ling.

(I wonder if FF is the intellectual superior of Ayn Rand. He definitely is of me and everyone else who ever posted on OL and who ever will post. Hmmmmm... Come to think of it, he does trump Rand. In fact, she could never hold a candle to his shining light. :smile: )

Michael

In what way have I sidestepped the issue? I have accepted Rand's definition of selfish ("the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose"). In applying the word "selfish" to the humanitarian aid worker in the video in your post I followed your own lead. You wrote, "I see this as a very selfish decision that brought him great happiness." I was quick to endorse that comment.

In Post #34 you wrote, "If you define selfish as concerned with oneself's own interests as opposed to the interests of others, which is a lot closer to what Rand meant, her statements become clear and are perfectly logical."

I did not disagree. I am willing to accept that definition, as well, provided that we see pursuit of one's own interests as distinct from but not necessarily in opposition to the interests of others.

Such an interpretation would allow us to view as selfish the humanitarian efforts of the character in the video you posted. It would also allow us to see why Galt would have killed himself to spare Dagny physical torture.

Now if that is not the "real meaning Rand used," then it appears that both you and I are both in opposition to Rand. It would not follow, however, that such opposition makes us the "intellectual superior of Ayn Rand."

"Claim Rand was wrong, foolish, naive, etc." Where in this thread was such a claim made?

"Congratulate oneself on being so much smarter than everybody else." Where was this done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a subjective 'selfishness', FF, out of context of one's life and reality. It's whatever you want it to be, and many people would proudly call themselves "unselfish" for doing such service to others as you list. They are right.

Your version is much to say:

I'm doing something, it gives me reward, pleasure or gain in the moment - therefore, whatever I do is selfish.

My dogs know as much.

"Out of context of one's life and reality"? Who would be in a better position to know the full context of a man's life than that man himself? Why is my friend's preference to continue working as an accountant any more subjective than John Galt's decision to take his own life to spare Dagny physical pain?

If a man cannot trust his own preferences as being right, proper or objective, to whom should he turn? You?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now