audiognostic

I just looked up axiomatic concepts in the lexicon.. This is interesting.. She says "existance" and "identity" are axiomatic concepts.. which is interesting because in my other post about emotion vs. reason.. this is exactly what I came to as the basis of life itself.. However my whole point there that what Nietzche got right, and where Rand I believe was mistaken in a way.. is WHAT is identity? and if identity cannot be broken down then there is no reasoned explanation from it.. And identity in itself as I see it is SEPARATE from existence .. and is defined by more than where one physically stands.. Identity can be part of somebodys emotional process, what they inherently like and dislike, what careers they will prefer to go in or not, what will "vibe" with them and what doesnt.. the essential value decisions they make on how much they value certain people or not, what makes them happy and what doesnt.. I believe that is all under the function of "identity" based on my seeming inability to figure out how it could be broken down into any erason.... or what someone like Nietzche would refer to as "instinct" etc.. for which Rand criticized him as being a mystic and said this statement: Quote Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions. The joke is on ... on them If I am correct in my assertions, this statement, and therefore possibly a large part of her core ideology was wrong on the basis of irony.. that reason comes from identity.. since identity does not come or can be broken down with reason.. and Identity is where a large part of emotions, and personal value judgments actually come from... so therefore a person is almost entirely FUNDAMENTALLY guided by "emotions" or "instinct" or whatever else kind of title you would put on those value-judgement parts of his identity which just ARE and are so far explainable with reason.. For example: how much we contribute to others is based on value judgments, which is where the emotion of how much we love them/care for them comes from.. therefore we contribute to others by how much we value them vs other things.. but the question in this case becomes.. WHERE do those essential value judgments come from? I do not believe it can come from purely physical self interest to ones own life.. such as.. I love my father as long as he provides me money, after which I will not love him anymore.. If I judge somebody based on how much pleasure they bring into my life.. that essential judgement is in itself based on a consciousness-centered EMOTIONAL value.. which is SUBJECTIVE.. And therefore comes my conclusion that people do not live on the basis of reason or rationality ALONE, and that in this statement Quote Quote Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions. The joke is on ... on them the joke might be on her.. If all things are based on value judgments, and value judgments are based on irreducible "emotion" "identity" "instinct" "free will" etc... and all reason stems from value judgments.. Therefore Nietzches claim I believe that no 1 philosopher can be "right" nor can they be "wrong" in the sense of their value judgments and the basis of their philosophies.. since those philosophies come from a set of value judgments themselves, and value judgments are a part of "identity".. As he said: Quote “What provokes one to look at all philosophers half suspiciously, half mockingly, is not that one discovers again and again how innocent they are, how often and how easily they make mistakes and go astray, in short, their childishness and childlikeness, but that they are not honest enough in their work, although they all make a lot of virtuous noise when the problem of truthfulness is touched even remotely. They all pose as if they had discovered and reached their real opinions through the self-development of a cold, pure, divinely unconcerned dialectic (as opposed to the mystics of every rank, who are more honest and doltish, and talk of ‘inspiration’), while at bottom it is an assumption, a hunch, indeed a kind of ‘inspiration’, most often a desire of the heart that has been filtered and made abstract, that they defend with reasons they have sought after the fact” A good analogy for this is the music program which I often work with is called "Reason" as making electronic music is an extremely logical and clinically reasoned procedure.. however the "idea" the "emotion" the "inspiration" aka the "value judgments" which I put in are in essense part of identity and "mystical" in origin.. and then I use reason to achieve them, which I then enjoy when my value judgements are achieved through the process of emotion again.. so all things begin in "identity" "emotion" "free will" and other mystical concepts.. then are achieved through reason.. then are translated back into a more reasoned definition of emotion.. Which is interesting, because if Im right, Rand was wrong in criticizing Nietzche as others as "mystical fools" How does one decide their favorite color is green? how does one decide to like star shapes over triangle shapes? etc..?? For example, my favorite color is black, you could argue that that could have been because I saw something which I liked black as a child, but why did I like it? "black" never came to save my life or feed me.. the only answer I could come to is "I like it because I do".. so.. whats up with that? Irreducible parts of "identity"? "instinct" "mystical origin"?

Hmmm.. Nice.. again I actually agree with 100% of what you say here.. I just looked up axiomatic concepts in the lexicon.. This is interesting.. She says "existance" and "identity" are axiomatic concepts.. which is interesting because in my other post about emotion vs. reason.. this is exactly what I came to as the basis of life itself.. However my whole point there that what Nietzche got right, and where Rand I believe was mistaken in a way.. is WHAT is identity? and if identity cannot be broken down then there is no reasoned explanation from it.. And identity in itself as I see it is SEPARATE from existence .. and is defined by more than where one physically stands.. Identity can be part of somebodys emotional process, what they inherently like and dislike, what careers they will prefer to go in or not, what will "vibe" with them and what doesnt.. the essential value decisions they make on how much they value certain people or not, what makes them happy and what doesnt.. I believe that is all under the function of "identity" based on my seeming inability to figure out how it could be broken down into any reason.... or what someone like Nietzche would refer to as "instinct" etc.. for which Rand criticized him as being a mystic and said this statement: If I am correct in my assertions, this statement, and therefore possibly a large part of her core ideology was wrong on the basis of irony.. that reason comes from identity.. since identity does not come or can be broken down with reason.. and Identity is where a large part of emotions, and personal value judgments actually come from... so therefore a person is almost entirely FUNDAMENTALLY guided by "emotions" or "instinct" or whatever else kind of title you would put on those value-judgement parts of his identity which just ARE and are so far explainable with reason.. For example: how much we contribute to others is based on value judgments, which is where the emotion of how much we love them/care for them comes from.. therefore we contribute to others by how much we value them vs other things.. but the question in this case becomes.. WHERE do those essential value judgments come from? I do not believe it can come from purely physical self interest to ones own life.. such as.. I love my father as long as he provides me money, after which I will not love him anymore.. If I judge somebody based on how much pleasure they bring into my life.. that essential judgement is in itself based on a consciousness-centered EMOTIONAL value.. which is SUBJECTIVE.. And therefore comes my conclusion that people do not live on the basis of reason or rationality ALONE, and that in this statement the joke might be on her.. If all things are based on value judgments, and value judgments are based on irreducible "emotion" "identity" "instinct" "free will" etc... and all reason stems from value judgments.. Therefore Nietzches claim I believe that no 1 philosopher can be "right" nor can they be "wrong" in the sense of their value judgments and the basis of their philosophies.. since those philosophies come from a set of value judgments themselves, and value judgments are a part of "identity".. As he said: A good analogy for this is the music program which I often work with is called "Reason" as making electronic music is an extremely logical and clinically reasoned procedure.. however the "idea" the "emotion" the "inspiration" aka the "value judgments" which I put in are in essense part of identity and "mystical" in origin.. and then I use reason to achieve them, which I then enjoy when my value judgements are achieved through the process of emotion again.. so all things begin in "identity" "emotion" "free will" and other mystical concepts.. then are achieved through reason.. then are translated back into a more reasoned definition of emotion.. Which is interesting, because if Im right, Rand was wrong in criticizing Nietzche as others as "mystical fools" How does one decide their favorite color is green? how does one decide to like star shapes over triangle shapes? etc..?? For example, my favorite color is black, you could argue that that could have been because I saw something which I liked black as a child, but why did I like it? "black" never came to save my life or feed me.. the only answer I could come to is "I like it because I do".. so.. whats up with that? Irreducible parts of "identity"? "instinct" "mystical origin"?

Nice.. I agree with 100% of what you just said.. I would generally come from the same mindset as you then. Because much the theory behind Objectivism is a very valuable life tool in many ways. One thing which is rather silly about Rands personal assertions about objectivism, is that everything she believes she knows which founded the theory of objectivism is the end all -be all. Calling her complete theory "objectivism" calling people who dont believe everything she says essentially fools and irrational.. And calling every philosopher who does not agree with her "wrong".. This is all rather silly and what I believe many people refer to when they call her intolerant etc.. I kind of see Ayn Rand like this: I think the "concept" of objectivism, and the search for rational truth is a great one, and many of the theories which Rand presented are already great and form a very solid foundation for the entire concept.. However, to believe that everything can be explained through reason.. all of life only exists in reason, and Objectivism already knows everything, and Ayn Rand IS objectivism.. is rather silly.. If you get where I'm coming from I believe we know what we know in the context that we know it.. If you do not have the full context, ask all the right questions, and do not know everything.. by definition, not knowing ALL the material facts of a situation, creates the strong possibility of not being able to fully rationalize everything 100% correctly. So the way I take it is kind of like a quote I heard once, apparently it is from the Torah And combine it with this quote And combine it with an element of "screw it you cant take forever, dont always think, just do,"-Risk taking - which comes partially from my philosophy in agreement with Nietzche that Instinct works.. and instinct and a sort of "mystical guidance" is in fact real if properly identified as i have attempted to do in the above posts.. This is how I live my life and why and in which context so far I like objectivism In other words .. dont just believe EVERYTHING you hear.. Or as I also like to say.. dont throw out the baby with the bath water... dont keep the bathwater with the baby.. And the way I think is, in rationality, I believe I know Im right, until I am proven wrong.. This is how I live my life.. and I take calculated risk like that.. If i didnt do that.. I might end up living a pretty insane and confused life like Nietzche himself.... part of my scientific mindset is that i WANT to be proven wrong, because I am less concerned about holding a dogma, but more concerned with finding the truth In the end I believe objectivism goes for a search of rational objective truth.. as far as we can take it.. I dont think the fundamental assertion that ALL things are "objective" and "rational" to be true.. So objectivism gives a great foundational philosophy good for many whos personal values and premises happen to support such an idea.. and gives them a fairly good framework and starting point from where to work it.. So it is a constant search for truth as far as it can be found through reason.. It is not a closed, pre determined system where everything already spoken by Rand is the word of God.. There are still many questions to be asked, and many answers to be said.. Some of which I hope some others may solidly address or take a stab at from my previous posts, as long as they may be. As my personal basic premise as far as I know it to be now.. I believe that not EVERYTHING is objective, and not EVERYTHING is subjective, and not EVERYTHING is necessarily either one.. there may be plenty of stuff which just doesnt make sense and never will..

Yes I am quite aware of that which you speak of.. I have studied some of this brain info for quite a long time. There is the subconscious mind.. which is basically like a machine, computer, only based on simple rational equations.. you plug in the circumstance.. the solution pops out There is also the conscious mind.. that which is known as the free will.. which can also in fact re program some of the equations of the subconscious mind, through a process which is still unknown to us.. even so much as the very physical structure of our minds and bodies My assertion is the conscious mind nor its decisions can be explained through simple determinism, rationality, or reason.. they just ARE.. or at least yet unexplained.. these are quantum processes, and delves into the quantum nature of consciousness it is not easily explained through basic Newtonian rationality therefore that connotates a sort of "mystical" approach to decision making.. which from what I understand, Rand tried to argue against the existence of.. Also I believe there is another "mystical" part of the brain, which is neither purely consciousness, nor purely mathematically unconsciousnesses.. Such as, why does one man wish to be an artist, while another wishes to be an engineer.. These things cannot be explained through simple logarithmic rational programming, nor can be explained through conscious decision making.. They just ARE.. This reminds me of Nietzches statement of "it thinks" Basically there is a whole lot of "mystical origin" to the mind, or as I may refer to it "yet-unexplained quantum origin" which facilitates us in every day decision making, how we plan out our lives, creativity, etc... This is something I think Rand attempted to argue against, placing all thoughts and actions in the realm of simple Newtonian style reason.. This is the main beef I have with her ideologies.. Not in economic theory, or theory of rationally balanced thought, but at the base level theories of epistimology, metaphysics, etc.. Such as.. decisions and emotions are caused by values.. but what are those values caused by... which state of mind, subconscious, conscious or the "supra-conscious" as I may call it.. or "IT THINKS" ... From what I understand, Rand attempted to say that the subconscious - style of basic rationality and reasoning is all that which runs the world and makes decisions.. as evidenced in this statement: From an interview with Playboy regarding emotions: I think in fact the joke may be on her.. Apparently 2/3 of our major thought processes lie in the realm of "mystical" or "irrational" If all thinking, and all the world of the human mind was as easily explained by reason as Rand assumed it to be, I believe there would still not be any mystery left in human consciousness or emotion, or creativity, etc.. science.. the ultimate tool of rationality, would have figured it all out a long time ago.. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am not so much making assertions as I am questioning things.. I will finish that book Meanwhile.. rationalize this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOQ1UgDg5OU

This argument is essentially the same one I'm discussing in my epistemology post of "was Nietzche right.. emotion comes before reason" Im coming to believe he was and that Rand was incorrect in her thinking... First of all I think that free will exists for the very reason that we can choose to cut of our own fingers, whether it is good for us or not.. We can in a way "choose" our values.. such as.. I value my fingers.. but I can choose to stop valuing my fingers as much and choose that my desire to prove free will is higher.. so I can go and cut off my own fingers.. whether any sane man would do that is not anything which matters.. In fact I believe states of insanity might be some of the best to study free will.. That is why I think so much of psychology focuses on studying people with mental disorders.. Also your concept of "one cannot choose to stop valuing water" is true.. Not only water but many things.. if you are an artist and you hate math.. it is reasonable to say that "one cannot choose to start valuing math over art" .. therefore that seems like a proof to me that ultimately man is driven by a combination of random choices and inbred "instinct" of sorts rather than pure reason.. or as Rand would call it "mystical" reasons.. I made an example questioning the idea that all value judgments are basically made of rational self interest.. Such as.. what if I could successfully 100% for sure kidnap a child wandering the streets and get away with it, then 100% successfully sell his organs on the black market to make 50 thousand dollars, take that 50 thousand, come back to America, and start a business from which I become wealthy.. This self interest seems as pure as drinking water.. It is obviously good for me so why not do it? If "mystical" emotions determine nothing.. I would simply just have to switch my thinking.. or find some way I have been unknowingly programmed against killing children.. and switch my thinking.. then I will realize what a wonderful proposition it is, and be able to do it and feel great about it since its good for me and is a rational value judgement. Therefore it is my belief that our value judgement are based off a combination of mystical type instinct, mystical type random choice, socially-programmed values, and pure rational what is good for me sort of judgement.. I think Ayn Rand was wrong to believe that everything originates and ends in reason.. As I made the argument in my previous post.. she was born in an age of Newtonian physics.. where everything seemed cut and dry and rationally simple.. She did not realize the power of quantum physics yet.. where things randomly pop in and out of nowhere, and everything is based on chance, seemingly non-reason, and probabilities, etc.. and those are the forces by which our mind is run, not Newtonian physics.. So in the end.. free will can be proven by me cutting off my own fingers, whether it is good for me or not..I can choose to kill myself or to keep living.. this is not some rational decision based on whats good for me, but rather an "irrational" decision.. so the question becomes where does irrationality come from? Instinct can be proven by me not wanting to sell children's organs whether it is good for me or not.. or not wanting to become a mathematician, but instead an artist whether it is good for me or not.. What is the rational reasons and causes behind this music? behind these sounds and rhythms? other than that of pure emotional content, which is not rational at all when it comes down to it... What is the rational reason for what that man is doing? Is he just subconciosly preparing for battle? Having nothing to do with the emotional decision of how much he enjoys it based on purely emotional reasons? And if so being immoral and irrational? Prove me wrong.. I am beginning to think although Rand had a lot of good ideas on things like capitalism, and the balance of whim with rationality.. she was missing huge parts and was rather silly to assume that the entire world runs on simple Newtonian rationality... That supposedly all choices based on instinct or emotional content or free will which goes against our physical self interest was simply faulty logic. Therefore selling children's organs on the black market to start a business would be a great idea as long as I was rationally sure I could get away with it. I think some say that rationality is the only thing that matters.. other say emotional whim is the only thing that matters.. it is evident to me that both exist in the world.. and both have their purposes.. obviously free will does not exist one only has to watch this man to doubt the assertions against free will and that only rational thinking matters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOQ1UgDg5OU obviously immoral and un-objectivist art

Thats what Im saying about reason and about Nietzhces statements.. That one may think he is "discovering" when one is merely creating.. For example Ayn Rand said :"the lives of other people are not yours to dispose of." for all the reasoning she could have done to come up with that statement.. all one has to do is disagree with it.. and ask.. under what grounds is she right or wrong? If the entirety of objectivism and its ethics is based on a non mystical theory of rational selfishness.. the assumptions are that non-use of force, honesty etc are best for us in the long term.. but there are plenty of examples historically of people being very successful and prosperous through use of force and dishonesty, if only they can get away with it. Therefore my example of if someone kills a little child and sells their organs to start a business and gets away with it and gets wealthy.. were they "morally right" because it was in their rational self interest? and if not.. under what premise? and who cares? If the only thing that matters is whats good qua man.. and not for others? There are big problems with eliminating consciousness .. essentially what I think objectivism is trying to say is we are all computers, and if one only came up with some equations that were good enough one could predict the entire outcomes of our lives, our likes, dislikes, preferences, love interests, etc etc.... because equations are reason.. if it was not so.. then where do these outcomes come from? She did not live in the age of quantum physics and quantum mechanics, she lived in the age of basic reason, and Newtonian physics.. where everything seemed cut and dry and simple, but really our minds are quantum mechanical processes which do not work that way.. she might have thought it "mystical" but really it is just quantum mechanical.. things still work in ways in which we dont understand, and she did not have the entire world figured out.. For example, lets say a man is born, and he enjoys being an architect, but hates being a chemist.. what reasoned processes go behind that? You cant say it is simply because one is better at one than the other.. since personally, I am great at math, but it kills me to do it.. and I prefer to be an artist, which took me much longer to perfect than math.. so according to my rational self interest, I should quit art and become a mathematician or practice literature since that comes much easier to me and is better for me in terms of easy prosperity and that should make me happy? If she said "it is based on how much you enjoy what".. then that would make decisions based off emotions and consciousnesses again.. If all things could be calculated through reason, social political influences etc.. then the communists would be right in their culture.. they could simply "calculate" which career was best for a person by the time they are a child, and send them there.. and like other cultures they could simply "calculate" what kind of person one would fall in love with and pre arrange their marriage.. and everything would be great and dandy.. but it does not work that way.. Thats the whole criticism Nietzche had of "logicians".. that they thought they knew everything through logic.. then he would poke holes in their statements.. The utopian ideal I think that objectivism makes through rationality and by which it judges right or wrong.. is not that of equality, but that of equal opportunity.. Where everybody could have the best lives for themselves, and the best lives for society together in balance.. as long as one played by all the rules.. which are supposedly created purely out of selfishness.. but as I have said.. many historical examples show that by breaking those rules creatively one can effectively prosper more than if one keeps them.. so who is there to keep people playing by the rules? And why? And what gives them the right? by what moral standard? In the end it still comes down to me to be a code of "whats good for the mass of society" as a utopian vision.. even though it claims to be whats good for the self.. if you went into pure self interest you could ditch much of the ethical code and work to become a king through force.. if happiness is prosperity, the kings sure had it back in the day.. living in palaces of gold, doing as they wished, having hundreds of women, partying all the time and having much leisure time.. etc.. through force, coercion and dishonesty, having everybody else serve them, and taking the lives of who they wished.. THAT is true rational self interest..

the nature of man defines that to what standard? and what sets that standard?? to the standard of everybody living in peace? to the standard of one individual dominating over all others? to the standard of one individual sacrificing himself for others? WHAT chooses that standard? explain to me so I dont have to seek through thousands of pages of books btw i believe any philosophy which seeks to explain everything, and create a perfect working order and ideal of some sort.. is by definition a "utopian philosophy" or at least as Nietzche says in this quote: which is technically neither "right" nor "wrong" but understandable since we all seek to achieve some sort of perfection which we desire, it gives us a goal to strive towards.. such is the very nature of life.. but one must still ask the above questions..

My point in asking by what standard I mean.. Who defines that the ideal standard should be "qua man"?? And who defines the purpose to be each individual life?? Where does that decision ultimately come from?? Also you said : I ask WHY SHOULD it be that? and WHO DETERMINED that hedonism is not a good purpose in itself?? Arent those primacy of consciousness decisions in themselves? That is what I am saying... In other words.. the big question.. WHY? This is the biggest question i think Rand may have failed to look at which Nietzche greatly addressed.. at least from what I can assert thus far.. I have started the virtue of selfishness, but did not finish it yet.. i essentially see quite a lot of truths in Rands theories, and also quite a lot of gaps.. Reason can be a tricky thing because it can cause one to believe one has the entire answers, when one simply found a particular path.. from point A to point B.. perhaps not even realizing where points A or B initially came from.. or what context they truly lie in.. Thats the essence of what I think Nietzche was saying in this quote: I find it pretty much physically impossible to believe that she knew everything about everything and was 100% correct all the time anyway.. I believe personally so far that neither Nietzche nor Rand is 100% correct.. but rather I believe in some blend thereof to be most accurate so far. Therefore my statement along the lines of ... some think we know nothing.. others think we know everything.. I think we know what we know in the context that we know it

ah my bad.... First I misread the quote and I do not like the proper "easier to say" version of it which goes "you cannot have your cake and eat it too" which doesnt make any sense.. but when said " you cannot eat your cake and have it too" that makes a lot more sense I have just heard that expression being used about a lot of stupid crap in my life

1st to address WHYNOT: I am not sure if you are referring to me, but I have never implied any form of collectivist ideology.. what I am in fact implying is collectivist, vs individualist, vs suicidal, vs homicidal vs any other ideology cannot essentially be called "right, wrong, nor reasonable" .. because once you begin to try to categorize either as right or wrong.. the question must be asked "By what standard?" and "Why does that standard exist?" Ok.. first to address the point on anarchy: It is my understanding that anarchists are essentially flawed, because what they fail to understand is first came man, then came government. In other words we EVOLVED to the point we are at now. Think of the semi-anarchy which exists in the streets of a ghetto neighborhood, or in the past among freely wondering people. People always form into groups, those groups always standardize into a form of those who are dominant and those who are submissive. Since we are by nature group creatures, and not sole individuals, this is unavoidable. Therefore is the basis of the first governments. When groups coalesce we form larger groups, with more power, and therefore again with a ruling class, and a subservient class. Such is just the physics-nature of humanity.. the same as if you drop a bunch of marbles into a bowl, they will eventually all collect in a pile at the bottom. Therefore true anarchy in my belief is absolutely unsustainable. I personally think the best form of government is the states rights confederacy of before the civil war. This allows for maximum personal freedom to move between states as one wishes to follow the codes of conduct one finds most preferable while still keeping the benefits of a large protector and supplier for the entire country. We can see that anarchy is unnatural because if you put a bunch of un-affiliated children into a school, within a week 95% of them will belong to their individual groups with dominant and submissive members.. a microcosm of states… therefore my belief that anarchy is nothing more than a silly utopian concept of impossibility. Ok.. enough on that. This is a real nice, warm, and fuzzy quotation, but who’s morality is it HERS? Who is she to dictate the rules, god? I believe the same can be asked of Ayn Rand… I personally believe that her morality is great in the sense that, if in a utopian world, every single person adopted all of her ethical principles.. we could all live together for maximum self benefit, as well as societies benefit..in balance.. in a system of pure consciousness-energy capitalism. That is her utopian ideal from which she considers good and evil to originate from. I have come to the conclusion that good is something which simply promotes ones personal utopian ideal, whereas evil is something which goes against it... Take the Christian inquisition, many of us today would call it “evil” since it goes our utopian ideal, back in the day they would call US “evil” since we go against their utopian ideal. In essence to create their own personal utopia in their minds according to those base emotional desires which they have emotionally chosen to hold as personal ideals and values.. which they are usually 100% sure to be right, since it is right FOR THEM. But not anyone has a true monopoly on a utopian vision. For example, for the communists that which is right is total equality for everybody.. whether or not that can realistically be achieved is another story… For Ayn Rand the right is that which is good for the individual and the masses.. that is her utopia.. whether or not that can be realistically achieved is another story as well.. I’m sure for Ghengis Kahn, or for Hitler, or lets say if I wanted to take over the world, my vision of the ideal utopia would be different where I hold all the major cards, and others exist mainly for my service, or some other arrangement. Probably for most of us commoners, such a dictatorial feudal type system seems “wrong” and we would probably agree with Rand’s version of utopia as being the best as a balance of what is good for each individual and society as a whole, being a capitalistic system. However, if I wished to gain more power for myself than others, I may have the temptation to break Ayn Rand’s ethics of what is “morally right” such as the rules against the use of force, or ethics such as honesty, etc.. as many came to power by breaking these rules, in which case my right would be me having more power and everybody else having less, and that would be my personal utopia and all that which goes against it I could call “evil”. In other words, like I have stated before, it seems to me that essential value judgments, come from emotional drives and largely unknown causes, or un clearly determined causes.. and the methods of getting there are what is founded in objective reason... I do not think that you can subject all values to simply being described as : As, is it historical, political, etc process that determine one mans desire to be great vs another mans desire to help others be great? Or better yet, are they which determine whether a man would rather be a philosopher, a scientist, an architect, a mathematician, or an artist.. could you simply place him into any career and say "you will learn to like this because your desires are just a result of rational historical processes . so all you have to do is change your thinking" ?Also on Nietzches point of thoughts arriving on their own.. or “it thinks”.. I find very interesting. If you see the little question system I have pointed out for discovering your raw instinctual passions or drives.. they are things you DISCOVER.. NOT things which you create.. Meaning yes.. essentially what is good for you and in your rational self interest, or your personal utopia, in a sense, you do not create.. but rather discover.. What do you think of that? I have essentially come up with a formula for personal happiness in my own personal musings.. it follows like this.. and I actually have a whole book I am working on writing which really breaks this down and explains exactly why it is true, the details of it, and a full explanation of it, but for now you will just have to take my word that there is deep reasoning behind this. It follows like this: Personal Identity + Personal Life + A Continual Movement Upwards Towards Progress and Excellence.. Personal identity essentially is composed of these 1st order emotions which form each persons self interest, values, drives, etc.. Personal life is solely a function of POWER, or personal power.. as what defines life from death is movement vs stillness as Rand said herself. And what defines stillness vs movement is POWER. What defines a sick man from a healthy man is POWER.. and not simply financial power, or power of holding environmental prosperity, which I think Rand has mistaken as the form of happiness, being simply prosperity of working to make money. But rather the realization of complete personal power.. society being a garden of the environment, finances being required for the accumulation of environmental power, environment being a garden of the body, the body being a garden of the mind. Therefore full personal power involves maximum power and balance between: social-financial-environmental-bodily-mental.. all of them being interconnected, if one fails or lags too far behind it will affect all the others.. so life = personal power Constant upward movement – nothing stays still through the passage of time, at all time things either build up or get destroyed, come towards order or towards entropy.. as long as you are moving up, you are moving towards life.. which by the way requires effort but that’s another story.. (Nietzche talks about this how all of life requires pain if there is to be joy) if you let yourself go and move down, you go away from life.. So as long as you have the above three requirements you are moving in a direction of ever increasing personal happiness... to achieve this process effectively is what requires reason.. This can be seen in all areas of nature, as people are always moving towards: orderly perfection, maximum positive personal style, elimination of negative aspects…. Such are the things all life gravitates towards and finds beautiful.. Anyway long story.. Im trying to summarize my book I’m working on in as short of a method as I can. The interesting point is.. does true happiness in a sense come from the elimination of free will?? Is the only point of our reason to move towards our “destiny” of perfection + style.... life + identity... power + fulfillment? Even if you think of each mans personal utopia which he constructs and desires as their ultimate mental goal.. it is a combination of perfection + style.. order of life + identity.. think about it. Identity being ones personal values, order of life is the desire towards the destruction of entropy, which is the very definition of life.. the ability to resist entropy.. If identity and personal drive as I have explained in my first post is FOUND rather than created through reason, and life power itself is something already pre defined which we are simply to maximize, and upward motion is already a predefined law of nature.. Is the key to our happiness simply to give up our essential free will and move towards our pre-programmed “destinies”? I know it can be a scary thought.. but think about it There are two things reason can do.. Help us navigate the objective world to get there and live out our destiny, or if we make the “wrong” choices against our pre programmed destiny – to lead us into misery.. meaning.. maybe we all have an innate destiny of personal greatness, or a destiny of personal failure inside of us.. and it is the function of our reasoning to guide us down the best path towards greatness through this objective world.. What do you think of THIS? Here is a quote regarding Nietzche: Seems to go along with my own personal philosophies which I concocted... By the way I have concocted these philosophies long before I knew of Rand or Nietzche.. in fact my discovery thereof was a direct result from searching for more evidence/answers etc.. for my own philosophy. What I find interesting is how closely my ideas in a way coincide with both philosophers. Whats interesting to me as well, is that if you look at the writings and ideas of many thinkers from the 1960s era of psychedelics.. many of them claimed that we are not in fact individuals in a sense, but that we are all somehow interconnected through a mass consciousness.. Nowadays in the field of quantum physics and such.. there seem to be a development of similar ideas.. that we may be a sort of individual antenna for individual collections of ideas and concepts, which are all part of a whole.. I cant say any of this to be true or untrue.. but it seems to fit with the concept of “IT thinks”… It seems to me like everything from the concept of anarchy, to the concept of happiness and free will.. seems to have a built in ideal pre determined physics sort of arrangement for its ideal position.. and I think it may be the job of our rational mind to simply somehow discover that.. that going against it may be essentially bad for us.. and that accepting this may be good for us.. Another quote regarding Nietzche: The question which puzzles me is how did all these I came up with randomly one night, while by the way experiencing a rather psychedelic experience from some drugs (please dont mock me for this.. haha) somehow begin to coincide with the works of these philosophers.. that makes me think there may be something to all this.. To quote Nietzche again: I do not wish to insult Rand as she came up with some very good ideas, particularly I like the idea of rational self interest, non whim worship, and a formulation of personal ethics to get to ones personal utopian values.. as well as her rejection of popular moral values as being universal truths, ideas such as altruism, humility, selflessness, etc.. However, in her thoughts that her philosophy was the ONLY true philosophy, that she somehow knows EVERYTHING about the world, and that her utopian vision was in fact perfect in all forms and in her solid universal objective assertions of good and evil.. could she possibly have been guilty of what Nietzche speaks of ? For example, I and Rand are both artists, she being a writer, me being a composer and musician.. It is easy for me to see how she could so simply ascribe art as an expression of ones reasoned values.. being a writer and all.. but for me it is not so simple. I seem to relate to this quote greatly.. I have no reasoned explanation why some certain noise sends me into a state of ecstasy.. particularly being an electronic musician, I deal with improvised sounds created from nothing, and creating all sorts of sounds and content which seem to come from nowhere and mean nothing yet strike me greatly. -----Socrates claimed we know nothing.. Rand seemed to claim we know everything.. I believe that we know what we know in the context that we know it…\ It is good to think one is right, it is great to keep an open mind.. As I also like to say.. don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, and do not keep the bathwater with the baby.. fore no one human has all the correct answers to everything.. I like this quote from Buddha.. even though I am not a Buddhist .. ““Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” Oh also check this out as far as what Nietzche said: Its interesting to me how this coincides with my own theories on happiness.. That true happiness comes through POWER + individual STYLE/identity + a constant upward motion.. a going up.. which is created through EFFORT.. Which is interesting because in physics power is defined as Power = Work / time… I think there is a correlation between the laws of physics and the laws of life itself since we live in a physical world.. since essentially the creation of life power comes through effort, as does the creation of physical power on a literal level.. On Nietzche: This is EXACTLY the concept I came up with when on my own trip where I wrote the rough draft of my book.. only I came to in in a bit more detail and specification as I have listed above.. Again though even he misses his own point of “good and bad” is defined by HIS values, which are his and his own.. fore some men may not desire their own happiness, and that statement may only be a half-truth, or a truth representing half the knowledge.. as power is not the ONLY requirement to happiness, but the requirement of the increase of life.. which must be accompanied by IDENTITY and self expression. I think what Ayn Rand missed in her musings was that our brains are not a Newtonian model of reason.. which is why we cannot create AI from Newtonian computers.. rather they are a quantum-mechanical process.. and in the field of quantum physics there is a whole lot of un-reason, probability, things randomly popping in and out of seemingly nowhere.. etc.. She said emotion comes from values, and values come from our self interest, which comes from what makes us happy, but what determines what makes us happy other than emotion?? Some men wish to be engineers, other men wish to be artists.. if you place one in the others field he will not feel fulfilled and therefore happy.. so did she propose some scientific model to map out each persons happiness factors?? Is there some formula one can use to simply pre-determine everybody's personality which could be discovered if we just reasoned hard enough? You see what I’m saying.. Emotion creates passion, reason fulfills passion, emotion feels joy.. thats what I think so far.. If all emotions come from values, and all values come from some form of reason.. then what are the values/reason behind this? I know its rather comedic.. but think about it.. perhaps this can help us consider what Nietzche spoke of when he spoke of Dionysian inspiration.. of chaos.. meaninglessness, instinct, and other rather "mythical" concepts.. which can I argue be thought of now as more of "quantum" concepts.. Perhaps we can better use it to understand the rational values of him dancing around in his home naked.. considering this song, and the entire video.. If this does not express clear values, then is it "objectively" art? and if not.. then what is "objectively art" or not would seem to me to be more of a "subjective opinion" of Rand herself are their dance moves inspired by rational values and logic>?? or perhaps the result of political actions or social actions, and where did THOSE originate? I know I said a whole lot… Anyways I would love to hear some feedback.

like i said.. a better argument would be "you cant have something be impossible and possible at the same time" "you cant have your cake and eat it too" is a rather stupid expression in my opinion because theoretically, if i have a cake, i can eat it.. like i said.. i dont like it because it can randomly be applied to any two given objects to give the illusion of impossibility.. when in fact thats not the case the example of having a cake and eating it.. is the perfect example.. and a perfect irony to illustrate what im saying since you CAN have a cake and eat it..

I do not mean to be rude, but please do not come back at me with a reply such as "obviously you haven't looked at epistemology closely enough" etc.. If you have the inclination to say so.. you may be correct, I may have not looked at it closely enough to your standards, so please care to explain. I have not read and seen 100% of all of Rand's work.. Although I have gone through quite a decent amount in my view. I have come here mainly to bounce ideas for the process of learning.. not to preach nor be criticized for a preaching which I did not intend..

Can you provide a concrete example? I already have As I have looked into some of Rands epistimology.. I have discovered the source of the statement to be.. you CANNOT have your cake and eat it too IF AND ONLY IF it is physically impossible.. such as a circle and a square at the same time.. However if it is physically possible.. upon sufficient creativity, one can theoretically always figure out how to do so.. One of my examples was donating to charity.. what if you want to donate to charity and contribute to a cause AND you want to gain something tangible in return of equal value for yourself out of it? That would be the equivalent of having your cake and eating it too.. I hear the tax code allows charity donations to be tax deductible . meaning that one can contribute to a cause, not have to pay taxes, and not lose any money to a place he does not want to lose it to.. How is that not having your cake and eating it too? If this is not a physical impossibility.. then it is possible.. Even with eating cake.. If i have a cake, logically unless someone takes it away from me and I cant figure out a way to get it back, I can eat it too... "you cant have your cake and eat it too" is a rather random imposed expression which I do not like because it can be imposed onto any two objects to make a person feel as if they are limited in a way in which they are not.. Such as a mother telling a child who wants a Snickers bar AND a Twix bar that he cant have his cake and eat it too.. This is not a physical impossibility.. if the child is creative enough or capable of getting a dollar for himself.. he CAN have his cake and eat it too.. This is my point That the entire statement is in itself subjective

I will make the attempt to use more proper punctuation and organization in future posts.. 1. I hope you can realize that coming here, I did not previously know the nature of this forum, nor of the personal values of its posters... therefore had no reasonable basis on which to act other than on that which was my own best guess. 2.Please forgive me for my ignorance of Rands complete works.. but the reason I came here is in fact to get feedback, to learn more, not to simply preach.. although it may mistakenly come across that way.. In other words, please consider my perspective.. is there a certain amount of Rands work I must have read before posting here? Half the posts in the lexicon? John Galts Speech? All the Lexicon? Some interviews? Every book and every interview and every lexicon post??? In other words, please do not judge me upon a requirement which I know nothing of or of which I have not even the awareness of existence.. I came here primarily to learn.. I have no real interest in preaching anything.. Often times my posting style is that of a statement rather than a question.. the purpose being to bounce around ideas and get feedback, as that is how I usually do it and prefer to do it..

I will attempt to address this issue without writing a book... In my personal musings i have come to the conclusion that Ayn Rand was quite possibly incorrect in her assertion that everything, including emotion stems from reason.. let me try to explain in as brief a manner as possible.. I hope i can do my best in doing so without having to write the book that I would really write were I to go into full depth in my thinking. Also I must admit although I have gotten fairly deep into Rands philosophy, I have not studied it 100% thoroughly so I may be missing pieces of the puzzle, which is why I post here, out of interest of qualification of my idea and to bounce it around some other people, who may perhaps come up with things which I do not see.. Ok i have come to the fundamental belief that all reason, and all human motives actually come from some mystical emotion rather than reason.. similar to what Nietzche would refer to as "instinct" to quote Nietzche: "“With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small terse fact, which these superstitious minds hate to concede: namely, that a thought comes when ‘it’ wishes, and not when ‘I’ wish, so that it is a falsification of the facts of the case to say that the subject ‘I’ is the condition of the predicate ‘think’. IT thinks..." I have come up with 3 types of emotion.. which I also have created a method to effectively identify each one, but I dont wish to write a book so I will not post it here... Lets just say it is a formula for which one can find their "instinctual" desires.. 1. Pure emotion of the self/ "instinctual, passion, base, primal drive emotion": The deepest form of emotional self interest.. For example: The fundamental assertion in Rands work is that each man is bound to live for himself and his own happiness.. and that altruism is objectively "evil".. the question becomes.. what if a man desires to have no genuine desire for his own happiness, and genuinely desires to sacrifice his happiness for that of selected others, even if he knows it will make him live in personal misery? what of a man who wants to live, vs a man who desires to commit suicide..? if we have no "duty".. then where is the very "duty" to desire to live? is this not a PURE emotional decision.. the fundamental emotional decision, "instinctual" decision, to live or not to live.. to thrive or not to thrive, is for each man to make individually.. no? How can this decision come from reason or logic? Where is the logical premise that each man MUST desire to live for his own well being? What "logic" gives him the "duty" to do so?? So therefore how can we objectively judge that man as "wrong"? 2. Mis-placed/mis-allocated/mis-understood emotion: An emotion based on one of the base emotions, mis-interpreted as belonging to something else.. For example: While watching a movie we might catch feelings watching a white character who sacrifices himself in order to free 100 slaves from bondage and save their life.. whereas we may not catch the same feelings watching a Nazi Supremist sacrifice himself in order to save the lives of 100 other Nazi Supremists. So does the feeling really come from watching someone self sacrifice?.. Which we may believe it comes from... or does it actually come from watching someone sacrifice to OUR CAUSE??? So does the feeling ACTUALLY come from the deeper, base feeling of watching somebody contribute to our base values and therefore for our own self interest? A soldier may feel bad about killing a friendly soldier and regret it the rest of his life, but does not feel the same level of pain and regret killing an enemy soldier, unless he can somehow identify with that soldiers personal values.. one may have great hesitancy to allow to die somebody they absolutely love, but not have such great hesitancy to allow to die somebody that they absolutely hate.. what is the underlying emotion come from? The act of killing.. or the act of killing somebody who goes against our personal values? In the Christian inquisition, one may feel righteous watching a "witch" burn.. but not feel righteous about watching a fellow Christian burn.. In other words, these are second - order emotions, emotions which have their base in first order emotional values, but are possibly mistakenly attributed to second order events. We may feel "guilted" into attributing such emotions to these causes out of social programming, social pressure, our upbringing, etc.. 3. Emotions of whim: These are emotions which are felt temporarily, but hold smaller emotional value to us than our larger emotions, and acting upon them would ultimately deny us of achieving our larger values, but we may do so out of a lack of proper rationality, or foresight... For example: If your greater desire is to become an athlete, and your smaller desire is to smoke cigarettes But you choose the smaller desire and end up inadvertently sacrificing your larger value desire in the process and live to regret it. The method I have devised to calculate which type of emotion each feeling falls into basically discovers whether the felt emotion is genuinely instinctual, or programmed/mis-attributed in some way. And whether one emotional drive will cancel out a greater emotional drive in the process.. That being said.. I have come to belief that man shall not live upon 2nd or 3rd order emotions.. but 1st order emotions are the very basis of our rational self interest.. Therefore all things ultimately begin with emotion, and end with emotion- the emotional desire to fulfill our final goals, whatever they may be, lets say happiness, life, or self preservation..... with reason being the process in between... In other words I have come to believe that our core values themselves are determined essentially by our first order emotions, and objective rationality is simply the process through which we achieve that emotion.. For example.. one imagines a purpose, a project, an idea for what one wishes to achieve, then one devises and acts upon a formula to achieve it.. then one feels the satisfaction of having achieved his original idea.. but where did the original idea originate?? Ayn Rand says that emotion is the result of value judgements, however, where did those values come from in the first place?? In other words, a computer must be programmed by a human to perform a purpose which the human desired, such as to play a game.. a computer cannot simply program itself to have its own desires through logic and reason alone.. therefore desire must come from another source.. that is what separates humans from robots, and why we do not have true AI. Here is a scenario.. other than the core desire to live itself: Lets say my only motivation for why I hold or feel any values is because of sheer logical rational self interest.. so lets say.. I could enter a neighborhood of poor people with nobody watching, and successfully steal a small child from the neighborhood in an alley where nobody sees me and I have 99% chance of getting away with it forever.. then I can successfully take that child and sell his organs on the black market, or sell him as a sex slave, I will not make a habit out of it to get caught, but will only do it once.. lets say I make 50 thousand dollars selling that child on the black market, I dont get caught.. I then return to my country and use that 50 thousand in order to start my own business, which in the end gets me rich.. The whole time I was acting solely in my rational self interest... and if all my values are based on that which is directly good for me, and my emotions are based on my value judgements, which are non-emotional in nature.. shouldnt i feel very good about doing so?? am I then simply deluding myself to feel bad about such an action?? I know Ayn Rand is against the use of force.. but isnt her whole point that it is wrong to use.. purely only out of rational self interest and whats good for me? otherwise it becomes a "mystical, un-objective" value or a "socialist" value in her interpretation.. So if I can get away with it, and use it to build up my life.. shouldn't I feel good about myself for doing so based on those premises? Am I simply deluding myself into feeling bad? I dont think one can reasonably say "it is because we do not want to do what we would not like to be done unto ourselves".. since that is a value which must be taught and ingrained in us, proving that it is not inherent or instinctual.. And I can come up with the example, that if I could, I would embezzle many casinos, or scam certain people who are suckers... Yet I would not want my own casino embezzled, or to be scammed for my own weaknesses I quote Rand: "Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions. The joke is on ... on them" is it possible that the joke is in fact ON HER? It seems to me that our very core self interests itself, come from core first order emotions.. and not from any other rational explanation.. Ok.. I have decided maybe I should post the way in which one differentiates 1st from 2nd or 3rd order emotions which I came up with... To determine a 3rd order emotion is simple.. If it is an emotional urge which inherently conflicts with a greater emotional urge if executed.. such as long term happiness for example.. this is what determines "rational self interest" from simply "whimsical self interest" To determine a 2nd order emotion from a 1st order emotion I have come up with 5-6 basic steps.. these steps are based on the activities one chooses to do or not to which one believes is ones rational self interest.. which are based from a cause.. here we are to identify the cause.. since it is my belief and understanding, there is no cause of "logic or reason" for such basic decisions, as I have hopefully demonstrated my personal reasons for believing so sufficiently above.. 1. Did you desire/would you desire to do that activity being an un-trained, un-programmed child? 2. In your free time do your thoughts naturally gravitate to performing that activity, or not or to the opposite 3. If you eliminate the possibility of all judgements and commands from others, and remove all your guilt to them, would you still like to be doing that activity, or would you rather be doing something else 4. Do you have to keep your urges to do, or not do that activity in some "secret" or "shameful" space in your mind that "youre not supposed to think like that" 5. Does not doing that activity, purposely avoiding it, or purposely doing the opposite bring you any pleasure, or perhaps a guilty or secret pleasure and satisfaction These are the 5 main questions one must answer the proper answer to all of them before one can decide whether something is a true base emotion, or "driving instinct" or not.. It is my belief due to my above explanation that all rational self interest essentially begins with first order base emotions, or "instinct" For example for me, on donating my time to charity I would answer 1. No, 2. No they dont, 3. No I wouldnt, 4. To an extent I have previously felt urges to not do so to be kept as a "guilty secret" 5. Yes So giving to charity is not one of my first order instinctual emotions, and is not in my rational self interest, but rather used to be a second order one.. As I used to constantly say, when I grow up I will dedicate all my money to feeding the poor etc.. Upon rational analysis, I have discovered that the true first order emotion behind this was my desire for praise from others.. upon analyzing the desire of praise from others i come up to these answers 1.yes, 2 they do, 3, upon removing any guilt to others, i still want that, 4. I have kept my urges for that in a shameful place, which means that i really wanted to do it, and have extolled false urges to not do it, 5. experiencing it definitely gives me pleasure Therefore my desire for praise from others is a candidate for first order base instinct emotion and is a basis of my rational self interest, AS LONG AS it does not interfere with values I EMOTIONALLY judge as greater, such as my overall happiness, or my wealth. on killing children and selling their organs to start a busienss i would answer: 1. No, 2. They dont gravitate to that, 3. No I wouldnt like to do that, 4.No I have no secret urges to do so 5. I feel like avoiding it would definitely bring me pleasure.. therefore according to my EMOTIONAL JUDGEMENT, this is NOT a candidate for rational self interest... and my emotions do not value it.. Although based on the concept of pure rationality, and valuing that which is best for myself, if i got away with it and it helped me start my business and become rich and live the life i wanted.. technically I should feel emotionally good about such a thing, but I dont.. unless somehow Im deluding myself, and I somehow SHOULD feel good about doing such a thing.. since it would technically be good for my existence and even in the long term, or that I just rationally chose that such an action would make me unhappy somehow, and all I have to do is adjust the reasoning behind my values, wake up and see that its good for me, and then I will suddenly become happy about the prospects.. Sorry for the length of this post.. but I hope it shows my point.. I have come to believe that Neitzche is right.. that ultimately our drives are not by reason, like a computer, since a computer has no inherent drives, although it is perfectly rational.. but ultimately come from some mystical place of things like "passion, instinct, etc.." So the best form of rational self interest is to follow ones heart ultimately, as long as one truly rationally understands what ones heart is actually telling him.. That the formula is Heart- Head - Heart.. discover ones passion drives, use reason to achieve them, enjoy the results thereof.. That all things ultimately begin and end in the heart, in some mystical, currently un-explainable by reason or science place.. Perhaps that is the thing that makes us human, not totally figured out, and different from machines or robots I am a musican, and when I write my compositions, which are supposedly an expression of my values.. I do not use the head, but rather the heart to create my ideas.. they may be an expression of my musical values.. or values on life.. but where do these values themselves come from other than from personal choice or preference.. which comes from where other than first order emotional drives? No? I am not saying reason or knowledge has no place.. I am simply saying that I have come to believe that reason and raw knowledge is NOT the basis of a persons greatest individual values, preferences, etc.. but rather a means of getting there.. Please give me your thoughts on my ideas..

tell that to Mr. Selene i only come with cold hard reasoning

vanity: Excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements. if pride is one of the greatest objectivist virtues how can it be considered wrong in an objectivist forum like i have already said in a previous post i have seen quite a few anti-objectivist posters in this forum, advocating ideals of humility, altruism, etc.. thats why i got into objectivism in the first place.. because i do not believe in such ideals in fact i despise them... realism.. sure.. humility? never if you wish to attack anything, do not attack my pride, but rather the reasoning behind my arguments

never got into epistemology , only looked at ethics so far.. so i wouldnt understand exactly what you are saying I would have to look into it first before i understand it, or believe it, or understand teh context behind the statement

i would have to hear the explanation for the assertion of not having your cake and eating it too since i think that is one of the dumbest, most self destructive statements ever made i believe if you are creative enough.. you can almost always figure out how to have your cake and eat it too plus it depends on the circumstance.. as in the case of actual cake.. i can have it.. and i can eat it too.. haha or in the case of charity. you can donate to charity.. AND get a tax deduction.. again having your cake and eating it too so there is no way this assertion can be made universally, except for perhaps in unique individual circumstances i personally believe that creativity and will can out do anything.. if we have managed to fly to the moon and teleport atoms, coming from living in dirt and playing with sticks.. we can figure out how to have our cake and eat it too either way i appreciate your rational response.. thinking and values and reason are very important to me, for without, many feel lost in this world, and turn to nonsense like religion and mysticism to give them a purpose in life and drive also in the case of letting your friend stay over.. why not make him work during the period of his stay?? i dont think the term "Selfish" can ever be used as a criticism as long as nobody initiates force upon anybody else i can be as selfish as i desire.. and i do not have to put anybodys, even my friends needs ahead of my own.. if it is in my self interest to make him scrub my toilet as a precondition to living at my home for free.. i shall make that contract.. guilt free.. and if he doesnt WANT to work for his stay.. i feel no empathy for him attempting to be a leech to me everything is about SELF interest first.. NOT the interest of others like ayn rand said, friendship ties are not valued above productive work

WHAT???????? i thought this forum would be filled with intelligent people who are into philosophy but now i fear may have been mistaken

i would agree with that assertion although, technically we are discussing the nature of reality through reason so it is somewhat aligned and again... i didnt start the post.. i just saw it

talk about immature.. ad hominem attacks... criticism of the structure of my writing vs the actual content.. all nonsense.. totally irrelevant.. i dont have to answer any of your questions old man what exactly is your personal beef against what i wrote that you get so mad about.. are you one of those posters on here thats actually against objectivism and pro altruism.. like ive seen quite a few posts of already so far you have neither addressed nor effectively criticized even a single point i have made