There's a Reason this Hits Home

[Francisco Ferrer]

If Mother Teresa really and truly loathed walking through the streets of Calcutta then she would have commanded first her left foot and then her right foot to leave the city and find fulfillment elsewhere. As in the case of accountant Bill, words speak louder than actions.

If Galt loved Dagny to the degree that it would not be a self-sacrifice to lose his life to save her, then why couldn't Mother Teresa love the poor of Calcutta to the degree that it would not be a self-sacrifice to lose her life to save them?

See the video in Post #1.

I didn't mention that Teresa's words came over as having not the least love for the poor and diseased, rather, disgust. That's the effects of servitude and self-sacrifice for you. Of course you might argue she was getting something out of it (um, "selfishly"). Perhaps beneath her humble exterior, she rather enjoyed the adulation she received from people all over, feteing her for her sacrificial humility, as the pinnacle in morality. And it's a good bet she believed this was what God wanted her to do. So there's a 'good' and 'selfish' reason right there.

All that is why it's called *rational* selfishness, FF. Not by second hand esteem by millions of others, or supernatural- based.

By Kant's and other moralists' lights, receiving any benefit or pleasure from an altruist action can't be completely moral.

If, following Kant, she acted in a way strictly to avoid any personal benefit, then she acted to satisfy the part of her self that required such moral purity. In that respect she was serving herself.

[Selene]

Just doesn't miss a beat...

[Brant Gaede]

He's a grindstone and we are wheat.

--Brant

and no, not even Greg can escape--in you go, Greg!--but is doesn't matter for Francisco doesn't grind fine enough to actually grind us

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So sayeth FF: Self destruction equals selfishness.

At least we know his opinion has little correspondence to reality since it is fundamentally word-based, not observation-based.

The only other person in O-Land I have seen use Argument by Repetition so heavily was James Valliant in calling Nathaniel and Barbara "immoral."

It's like a comedian with a roaring drunk heckling him during a stand-up routine. No matter what the comedian says, no matter how cleverly he makes a zinger response to the drunk, no matter how hard the people around laugh, the drunk still says: "Awww... mrshhfftssng... goddamm not funny... fuck you..."

And the drunk always responds and it's always the same message.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Okay. Francisco Ferrer was a real historical person who died in 1909 and OL's FF is using his picture as his avatar.

Could it be his real name? He says it is in his profile.

What is going on?

Is his sandwich made of phoney baloney? If it is Greg can't touch him for FF already knows Greg is basically right so he basically ignores Greg and keeps right on rolling along. Somebody is playing a libertarian game with us using logic impervious to both logic and ad hominem assault.

Reason is not in play. No problem for Greg who went right for the throat but he only snapped at air.

No real person called Francisco Ferrer has presented himself here so far. It's all a bunch of libertarian words dressed in real world ignorance.

Maybe he's on the lam.

--Brant

does FF post elsewhere?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Periodically we get attacked by goofballs from Atlanta, Georgia (under diverse pseudonyms). One is particularly annoying when he/she shows up, the academic name dropper with a serious case of ADD and antisocial personality disorder. Remember Eva and sockpuppets?

I don't believe FF is this person (at least I hope not), but guess where FF is from?

Maybe it's time to burn down that damn city again.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Folks:

I have sparingly communicated with Frank in the "back channel."

That's interesting. Who opened the channel, you or Francisco?

One real problem, other than his sophistic selfishness, is him being "mysterious" at a significantly high level.

I am not going to say evasive because I have no facts to make the judgment.

Greg notes it and then "spins" it his fresh way.

What do you mean by being mysterious at a high level, Adam (or should I say "Adam"?) -- is it that he hasn't filled out a questionnaire, given his real name, age, tax bracket, profession, education, etc?

I can respect anonymity, however, the sophistic crap just started to smell too rancid for me.

I have seen you indulge yourself in cheap ad hominem remarks directed Francisco's way. And here I sense that you want him to be more upfront with details from his personal life. So ... is there something you haven't had answered that you put to him 'backstage'?

Okay. Francisco Ferrer was a real historical person who died in 1909 and OL's FF is using his picture as his avatar.

Could it be his real name? He says it is in his profile.

What is going on?

Is his sandwich made of phoney baloney?

Do you really care to learn the real name? Adam doesn't use his real name or show his face. What is the difference?

If it is Greg can't touch him for FF already knows Greg is basically right so he basically ignores Greg and keeps right on rolling along. Somebody is playing a libertarian game with us using logic impervious to both logic and ad hominem assault.

Reason is not in play. No problem for Greg who went right for the throat but he only snapped at air.

Greg has, variously, speculated that Francisco is some kind of government-educated member of a profession that Greg does not approve of. It serves Greg's game of ugly, ignorant personal put-downs, but it neither adds nor detracts from Francisco's arguments ...

No real person called Francisco Ferrer has presented himself here so far. It's all a bunch of libertarian words dressed in real world ignorance.

Maybe he's on the lam.

Is the problem that OL does not need any more intelligent-if-deluded libertarian/sophist commenters, or what? If this is a place of reason, why cannot applied reason do the job of outing and dismissing unreasonable or irrational opinions and beliefs? Or, if the mysterious entity is doing OL incremental damage, to its standing and integrity, moderate or ban him outright, for the good of the group ... as was done with the old nutter Janet and the youngish brat Naomi Ludenberg (or "Naomi Ludenberg").

If this is a five-minute hate on for FF, I want to note ,my non-allegiance. I don't always understand Francisco's arguments or care to engage with his points, but he shows willing -- he never lashes out, he never abuses personalities. I would take a chunk of libertarian boilerplate over a scattershot of ad hom any day.

Smarten up and fly right, "Frank." Folks don't some of them like your arguments or your style, and they won't put you on Ignore as they do with other people they think are twits or timewasters or bigots.

The best thing you could do, Frank, is lay out your personal life for inspection. Don't skimp. If you do choose to keep your business private, I can't blame you -- our friend "Adam" here was once outed (by the mysterious Ninth Doctor, how's that for a name?) and it was uncomfortable for almost everyone, but your self-unveiling need not carry such freight.

At the very least it would let Greg hang his malice on some facts rather than intuition.

[Selene]

William, as you will understand, I have communicated with him through the private path provided to us by the program.

That is all that will be disclosed.

Secondly, I could care less who he is.

Finally, William, satire is the price of passionate debate.

I make no apologies for my posts and when I do, you see it..

A...

[moralist]

William...

I always know I'm onto something whenever you come prancing in waxing poetic with a feminized liberal third person monologue!

Frank...

You've amply revealed the values by which you live... because they are the genesis of your view. I merely take your oft expressed view and use basic moral principles to reverse engineer it to know your values. You've also demonstrated again and again that you have no real world personal experience with business. Your expressed view that you're a victim of government economic oppression is that of a failure who produces nothing.

And lastly, the most obvious demonstration of the difference in our two views and the values which give rise to them:

You need to hide...

...while I don't.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Periodically we get attacked by goofballs from Atlanta, Georgia (under diverse pseudonyms). One is particularly annoying when he/she shows up, the academic name dropper with a serious case of ADD and antisocial personality disorder. Remember Eva and sockpuppets?

I don't believe FF is this person (at least I hope not), but guess where FF is from?

Maybe it's time to burn down that damn city again.

Michael

Francisco is much too smart and narrowly focused to match up with those others. Every extensive poster reveals him or her self. If I were to adopt a new OL ID, how long could I pretend not to be Brant and get away with it? Francisco has a rock-hard world political-moral view. That's who he is. He's really legit for that. He has chosen not to share a whit more except a little indirectly. I suspect he's very well to do but have no idea why he is. The only other thing I can infer, and this is weaker, is he hasn't lived much of a life and that's why he has so little to share about himself, and to hide that paucity he doesn't.

Francisco could post another 1000 times and impart no more value to one who has read the first thousand or even last four score and seven. You can say the same about Greg, but he can be pleasant if you ignore his more basic unpleasantness he dishes out. Francisco sticks to the subject at hand. For me it's too much of a brain freeze either way.

--Brant

Diogenes searched for truth and all I want is an expert

[Brant Gaede]

William, Adam isn't hiding--that is, he shares a lot just not his true ID. I think it was/is for legal and professional reasons. Someone here found out his real name but I forgot it and we all went back to Adam. He even stopped posting for 6 - 9 months to deal with his personal and legal situation and came back better than before. I remarked at the time his posts had improved. I think someone once said the same about me. I forget who. As I think all my posts are like diamonds, I had to take it as a left-handed complement. Maybe it was you. Maybe a false memory. (I hope it was one of those for I have so few to treasure unless that's one of them.) As for Francisco generally, he gets what he does not sow in these sundry speculations, but If I am right about him it's water off a duck's back.

--Brant

I'm not a quack--quack, quack

[Francisco Ferrer]

So sayeth FF: Self destruction equals selfishness.

At least we know his opinion has little correspondence to reality since it is fundamentally word-based, not observation-based.

What would we call suicide if not self-destruction? And didn't Galt threaten to kill himself in order to spare Dagny being tortured? (p. 1091) But if we must rule out the possibility of selfishness in taking one's own life, then we would have to declare that the hero of Atlas Shrugged was having a momentary lapse of unselfishness.

Then again perhaps Galt's threat was just "word-based" and not reality-based.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What would we call suicide if not self-destruction? And didn't Galt threaten to kill himself in order to spare Dagny being tortured? (p. 1091) But if we must rule out the possibility of selfishness in taking one's own life, then we would have to declare that the hero of Atlas Shrugged was having a momentary lapse of unselfishness.

Then again perhaps Galt's threat was just "word-based" and not reality-based.

Nah...

This post is a perfect example of being word-based and not concept-based. The whole approach is gotcha on words without a minimum attempt to understand what is going on. (Above, I called trying to understand using one's eyes.)

By committing suicide, Galt would merely be completing the destruction of himself imposed by others. He was already destroyed in his projected future. He would not be seeking self-destruction in order to serve anyone. He would be refusing to serve others.

Other people commit self-destruction for other reasons. And even then, they are not always consistent.

But then, I'm not the one claiming that all acts are selfish.

Everywhere else, except for FF-Land, people realize that humans can commit the same act for different reasons at different times. And that one person can have a different underlying reason than another person.

I suspect even in FF-Land they realize this half the time. But there's that commitment to a double standard, winning word games, teaching what one doesn't know, and God knows what else to keep from thinking conceptually.

In FF-Land, self-destruction equals selfishness. Period. And he'll teach it to you to in a condescending manner all day if you like.

But everywhere else, it's more complicated than that. Most everybody realizes some people commit suicide because they believe it is best for others, not themselves. They believe they are worthless.

But not in FF-Land word-games.

I bet he will come back trying to rationalize that feeling worthless is selfish.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Using a novel and its characters as a primary referent in a discussion--in this case about the possibility of suicide--is one or more degrees of reality separation. What is proper is referring to a real something then using the fiction as an illustration. The using of an artistic contrivance as a primary is equivalent to using metaphorical reasoning. Metaphors are illustrations. Usually when you try to logically extend them in an argument the argument falls apart. The sequence is fact-based argument to metaphor back to the fact-based argument leaving the metaphor where you found it for now the argument is better understood by those to whom it is being addressed. The proper sequence is not fact-based argument to metaphor to a stronger argument for the metaphor brings in no new facts. Also, you don't start with Dagny and end up with your mother-in-law. You can start with your mother-in-law, go to Dagny then back to your mother-in-law BUT NOT MY MOTHER-IN-LAW.

--Brant

I may have gotten carried away--which I love--I live to get carried away (or carry away to my cave [fact (I love it) to metaphor (my cave)])

note how I get carried away (this is blatantly obvious) with my over use use of "(" and "[" and how I can't seem to stop (just the way I am [i am] for I gotta be meeeee)

[Selene]

Just stumbled across this today:

October 10 marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of Ayn Rand's best-selling novel, Atlas Shrugged. It is an epic story that has changed the lives of millions around the globe, including mine. Today, Atlas still sells about 150,000 copies a year in the United States. Rand once wrote a book entitled The Virtue of Selfishness, which critics on both the left and the right cite to demonstrate how hopelessly rigid and inappropriate was her philosophy.

But they misunderstand what she was talking about. "Selfishness" in Rand's lexicon simply meant being true to your own values. The challenge, in her view, was to adopt rational values — ones that I believe include a concern for those who need help through circumstances that are no fault of their own. The main virtue of selfishness, however, comes from a clear-eyed pursuit of your own purpose in life, your own productive drive for achievement. That is why Rand so loved America. The concept of our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was the political expression of her philosophy.

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/novemberdecember-2007/ayn-rand-was-right

[Selene]

Stephen: See footnote #6 - I was not aware of the Hillary nexus, wouldn't it have been much better if she had an Alinsky phase!Forgot my manners, "Goddess of the Market" by Burns.

 

 

 

Among the many admirers of Ayn Rand's novels are such luminaries as Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and former President Ronald Reagan. Other celebrities who cite Ayn Rand as an influence include actress Sharon Stone, Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers, rock musician Neil Peart of Rush, comedian Jerry Lewis, football star Adam Vinatieri, India's first woman astronaut Kalpana Chawla (who died in the explosion of space shuttle Columbia), celebrity golfer David Duval, ABC News Correspondent John Stossel ... the list goes on and on. Even Hillary Clinton admitted to going through "a Rand phase."

http://www.theatlasphere.com/about-ayn-rand

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just stumbled across this today:

October 10 marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of Ayn Rand's best-selling novel, Atlas Shrugged. It is an epic story that has changed the lives of millions around the globe, including mine. Today, Atlas still sells about 150,000 copies a year in the United States. Rand once wrote a book entitled The Virtue of Selfishness, which critics on both the left and the right cite to demonstrate how hopelessly rigid and inappropriate was her philosophy.

But they misunderstand what she was talking about. "Selfishness" in Rand's lexicon simply meant being true to your own values. The challenge, in her view, was to adopt rational values — ones that I believe include a concern for those who need help through circumstances that are no fault of their own. The main virtue of selfishness, however, comes from a clear-eyed pursuit of your own purpose in life, your own productive drive for achievement. That is why Rand so loved America. The concept of our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was the political expression of her philosophy.

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/novemberdecember-2007/ayn-rand-was-right

Adam,

That quote couldn't be more spot on to the point I am making between the two epistemological approaches.

Ed Crane looked at Rand and tried to see what she saw. And his observations actually add to the understanding of a reader who tries to do the same.

So far, FF has looked at Rand's words, isolated a quote here and there and tried to play gotcha (or worse, tried to bolster incorrect statements) by shifting meanings around at will.

Ed Crane sought wisdom.

FF has sought some kind of dominance over others.

Ed Crane sought the reality behind Rand's words.

FF has been playing a racket with concepts and loosey-goosey with Rand's words.

Not to worry, though. FF does it with others, too. At least he's consistent in the error for whatever that's worth.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Stephen: See footnote #6 - I was not aware of the Hillary nexus, wouldn't it have been much better if she had an Alinsky phase! Forgot my manners, "Goddess of the Market" by Burns.

I think you meant footnote #4 ...

-- I'll try to find the Post article for the exact quote that may be hiding.

Edited May 13, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Stephen: See footnote #6 - I was not aware of the Hillary nexus, wouldn't it have been much better if she had an Alinsky phase! Forgot my manners, "Goddess of the Market" by Burns.

I think you meant footnote #4 ...

-- I'll try to find the Post article for the exact quote that may be hiding.

Yes, thanks Bill, I should have enlarged the damn page.

[william.scherk]

I fount the Post article, but not at the Post site (argh). Here it is behind a paywall ... with only the first paragraphs free to view:

William Powers. "Ayn Rand Was Wrong; It Turns Out There Is An Afterlife After All. Fourteen Years After Her Death, Her Cult of Self Is Alive and Well." The Washington Post. Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive. 1996. Retrieved May 13, 2015 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-798919.html

I am tempted, but: Try an annual subscription at the special introductory rate of only $199.95 for the first year (normally $299.95).

Edited May 13, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

That's so funny. I was one of those filing by the Ayn Rand corpse and 6' dollar sign. I was also there when she was buried in Valhalla, NY. Man, I could write rings about that around this joker.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

What would we call suicide if not self-destruction? And didn't Galt threaten to kill himself in order to spare Dagny being tortured? (p. 1091) But if we must rule out the possibility of selfishness in taking one's own life, then we would have to declare that the hero of Atlas Shrugged was having a momentary lapse of unselfishness.

Then again perhaps Galt's threat was just "word-based" and not reality-based.

Nah...

This post is a perfect example of being word-based and not concept-based. The whole approach is gotcha on words without a minimum attempt to understand what is going on. (Above, I called trying to understand using one's eyes.)

By committing suicide, Galt would merely be completing the destruction of himself imposed by others. He was already destroyed in his projected future. He would not be seeking self-destruction in order to serve anyone. He would be refusing to serve others.

Michael

"Galt would merely be completing the destruction of himself imposed by others," you say.

The alternative would be not to complete what others imposed. Yet Galt's happiness depended on completing his destruction rather than impeding the destruction. His happiness, his self-fulfillment depended on self-destruction.

Thus clearly in this example, "Self destruction equals selfishness."

Other people commit self-destruction for other reasons. And even then, they are not always consistent.

But then, I'm not the one claiming that all acts are selfish.

Everywhere else, except for FF-Land, people realize that humans can commit the same act for different reasons at different times. And that one person can have a different underlying reason than another person.

Of course, other people commit suicide for reasons other than to complete the destruction of oneself imposed by others. Some people, for example, find life physically or mentally painful. Robin Williams is one such example.

If I were Robin Williams would I have ended my life? I cannot imagine doing so. But then I've never lived in Robin Williams's skin.

You built an excellent argument against those who deny that humans can commit the same act for different reasons at different times. Now all you have to do is find someone who has expressed such a denial.

I suspect even in FF-Land they realize this half the time. But there's that commitment to a double standard, winning word games, teaching what one doesn't know, and God knows what else to keep from thinking conceptually.

In FF-Land, self-destruction equals selfishness. Period. And he'll teach it to you to in a condescending manner all day if you like.

But everywhere else, it's more complicated than that. Most everybody realizes some people commit suicide because they believe it is best for others, not themselves. They believe they are worthless.

But not in FF-Land word-games.

I bet he will come back trying to rationalize that feeling worthless is selfish.

When Galt said that he would kill himself before allowing Dagny to be tortured, how is that not an act on behalf of what is best for another? As we saw in the video at the top of this thread, acting on behalf of another may be one and the same as self-fulfillment.

Even if a person does view himself as worthless, it hardly follows that his suicide is selfless. The pain of not having attained a goal may be too overwhelming to continue with life.

The vice-principal of a South Korean high school who accompanied hundreds of pupils on a ferry that capsized has committed suicide, police said on Friday, as hopes faded of finding any of the 274 missing alive.

I do not say that feeling worthless is selfish. Specifically, my argument is that people act selfishly to move themselves from a less satisfactory state to a more satisfactory state.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You built an excellent argument against those who deny that humans can commit the same act for different reasons at different times.

The hell I did.

The only way someone could imagine that is with word games.

Now all you have to do is find someone who has expressed such a denial.

For you to play more word games?

The hell I do.

EDIT: Even if I were interested in convincing you of anything (which I am not), I would never make light of someone's deep suffering, meaning bring it into a discussion with you just so you could play word games with it.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

Your words, Post #88:

"Everywhere else, except for FF-Land, people realize that humans can commit the same act for different reasons at different time."

I have never said that people cannot. So I do not know whom the comment is directed towards.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Your words, Post #88:

"Everywhere else, except for FF-Land, people realize that humans can commit the same act for different reasons at different time."

I have never said that people cannot. So I do not know whom the comment is directed towards.

Now you're lying.

All actions are directed toward the goal of increasing one's contentment, gratification, pride or comfort.

Why? FF says so.

... all actions are aimed at increasing happiness.

Why? FF says so.

People will not continue to perform an activity if it produces only misery.

Michael