Leaderboard

Question 1: Here's something that I think gets missed often by those who use these questions to test Objectivism: If you construct a hypothetical situation in which every option is a horrible one, and the philosophy the question is meant to test is a rational one, then that philosophy will tell you to do something horrible. This is not a mark against that philosophy, but a credit to it, as it represents adherence to reality. Challenge anyone who implies that philosophy should be able to turn dog poop into ice cream.

"Most people begin practising self-sacrifice almost from the day they are born. With each year they give away more and motr of their desires and ambitions in order to "belong". Predictably, the result of this self-sacrifice, is that, in a kind of perverted rebellion, they often end up being petty, narrow-minded, and "selfish" over trivia. Trivia are all they have left to fight for, after they have surrendered their souls. "Do you mean it's NOT immoral to be selfish?" is a way of asking, "Do you mean I don't belong to others?Do you mean my first obligation is NOT to live up to someone else's expectations?" Such a thought is both exhilarating and frightening." [N. Branden, Honoring the Self.] Yes, I think that your examples are of 'trivial' selfishness, which I call the self-indulgent kind. (Not to say however one must always give up one's seat on the bus, as an imperative.) When one has largely absconded on one's own self, all that's left becomes extremely critical to hold on to, I see Branden as meaning. If it's all one has left, one will feel fear and anger - asserting one's "petty" priviliges to the 'nth' degree. This is not the confident self-assertion of a rationally selfish person, but a last remnant of it. Essentially it denotes counterfeit self-esteem. "Subjective selfishness", maybe. (I'm thinking of the OWS bunch, and other "we want-ers" round the world.)

I suggest the Ludovico technique.