Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/27/17 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Objectivists are people, too. Best case scenario is that their philosophy is superior, but even that is not a given - do they practice what they preach? Even with a superior philosophy, have they been able to translate that into life success? Can they get along with others? That is, do they have value to trade? People are people, too. They're not explicitly rational by choice, they don't explicitly pursue their own personal interests, but in practice, most do live this way most of the time. They are Objectivists to degrees and have translated that into life success, and have a lot of value to offer and trade. The world will never, ever present itself to you as the polar choice illustrated in Atlas Shrugged. People are fluid, choosing to change or not change. Atlas Shrugged is meant to crystalize principles, allowing you to make better day to day choices for yourself. It's an exaggeration which will never be a reality, because people have the ability to choose and change, and few of them are all evil or all good. Even more so today, a "band together and separate" fantasy shouldn't be given a fleeting thought, when everyone carries around pocket computers representing perfectly all the value the world has to offer to trade, the world's largest country is heading in the right direction, poverty is low, etc. etc. Why would anyone want to run from that? The world's never been better.
  2. 1 point
    I can't speak much to the term "consequentialism" in the context of the history of philosophy, but I wonder... If I said that I planned on pursuing a flourishing life by any means necessary -- and that I will judge (and amend) my efforts by their success in winning me a flourishing life -- what would we make of it? Would this put me in the "consequentialist" camp? Would it be outside the bounds of Objectivism? It is potentially a danger to reject principled thinking in the face of some accident. If I stop at red lights because I do not want to get into an auto accident, but one day I stop and... BANG, someone hits me from behind, I would not therefore abandon my strategy of stopping at red lights. But this does not change the fact that I adopt and maintain the approach of stopping at red lights in order to avoid such accidents. What an Objectivist means to do by adopting "principles" -- isn't this according to the consequences he expects through the adoption of such principles? Maybe that's not what's conventionally meant by "consequentialism," but it is what it is.
  3. 1 point
    The first Post starts with a question. According to other definitions brought up, it seems to I would be interested in knowing what you define "consequentialism" to be? At some point, you're brought up that it means that Any Means are Justified which to me renders it irrational so I am assuming you mean something other than what I understood.
  4. 1 point
    Consequentialism makes for an intriguing concept. It illustrates well the different approaches to concept formation. On one hand, you have the Consequentialist with a few layers of depth (in an ITOE approach) that pragmatically looks primarily at the result. If the desired result is not achieved, sure look at the approach for what might have gone wrong, but not necessarily from a principled standpoint. No time for that. Another approach needs to implemented as soon as possible in order to try again for the stated result. If you look at the concept in terms of what gives rise to the necessity for consequentialism, the few layers of depth (again, in an ITOE style approach) begins to examine the subsequent abstractions in depth, find still other abstractions the examined abstractions rely upon. On this basis, consequentialism has merit as an objective term, albeit, not an Objectivist term. This is similar to the term Existentialism, a brief contender as a proper noun for Objectivism, albeit dismissed after consideration of the baggage it carried along with it. Unlike the term selfishness, the common usage of selfishness, properly understood, is an aberration in concept formation. As such, Miss Rand decided it was the proper term, even though the redundancy of "rational" often precedes it in order to draw attention to how Objectivism applies it in accordance with a properly formed concept, rather than how it is often pejoratively used. In a world where language is embraced primarily as a tool of thought rather than communication, where man is regarded as the "conceptual animal", where the "rational animal" is regarded as one of the earlier stepping stones to grasping "man qua man", consequentialism (or consequentialist) may be regarded as a close synonym for rational egoism (or rational egoist). Until such time, it can easily serve as a good ice-breaker to explore potential common grounds on a not so common plateau.
  5. 1 point
    Strictly speaking, this is a contradiction in terms. If you were fully aware of what you were doing, you weren't evading per se. It might surprise you to know that many men who hire "escorts" have similar experiences to yours, even if they have never heard of Objectivism. Ongoing sexual loneliness can be terribly painful. If you've never experienced sex, you can feel like you're missing out on an essential part of life. (You are.) Under such circumstances, the idea of paying for sex — if only to see what it's like — can seem alluring. I don't think what you did is immoral, but I'm not surprised that it made you feel the way it did. You may think you wasted your money, but actually you didn't. You learned a valuable lesson that you should never forget. It's easy to think of sex as a physical experience with a strong spiritual component. In fact, the inverse is true. Sex minus any spiritual aspect — sex which is the result of a commercial transaction and is divorced from any larger relationship — is unsatisfying because it's essentially meaningless. We think we want the physical elements of sex, and we do, to a degree, but what we really want is the spiritual meaning that those physical elements convey and represent.
  6. 1 point
    You suggested Sally has a mental disorder, which isn't stated in the premise, and is not "taking the story as stated." You say verbal consent isn't necessary "as long as everyone is active" - kissing is active. You say a person can change her mind, but that Chris is immoral because he knew prior wishes but then tested for a change of mind. You say "Chris can get Sally more interested, find out what she also is eager to try" non-verbally if "everyone is active," which presumably Sally would be if she is "trying," but then you say that a "prideful way to pursue sex" would be only if Chris communicated verbally. Looks like there are a lot of double standards going against Chris. And of course, robotic sex instructions like "may I please put my hand on your left breast" isn't how any normal person has sex. In addition to giving Sally a mental disorder, you've moved the premise further from reality by insisting on verbal-instruction-only intercourse.
  7. 1 point
    It is a requirement that force or the threat of force must be present to violate a rights. Bank robberies and muggings are sometimes not actively resisted because of the threat of force. Rape is accomplished by force or the threat of force, usually a much longer and drawn out sequence of pushing around, threatening, disrobing, striking . ... etc than the "surprise sex" of this contrived scenario. Sally is not presented with any threats or employment of force and gives every sign of consent to what happens in the darkness up until the moment that penis is in vagina, and then nothing changes after that moment. Chris doesn't need to use force or even a threat of force. Why does Chris not need to use force or the threat of force? Because Sally is cooperating and participating, and actively consenting in the make-out session up until the moment of penetration. After the moment of penetration nothing changes except in the secret recesses of Sally's thoughts. The consent that was present the moment before penetration is by every outward sign still present after the moment of penetration. And no, that she said she didn't want to have sex hours ago does not mean she did not change her mind. To put the point positively, it is always in Sally's power to decide to have sex. That decision is communicated by actions and words, but in this case actions speak louder than words because Sally decided not to use any words. All her actions said "yes".
  8. 1 point
    She didn't. Your explanation is a rationalization for why she might not have said no... since she did not say no when 99.99999% of women would have.
  9. 1 point

    Meaning of the newborn cry

    Boom. Because it's a drive, an inclination, an instinct. Man has a nature. Man has innate drives. Values are not chosen. Don't be afraid to throw out tabula rasa.