Leaderboard

Moral psychology just refers to the part of psychology that influences philosophy. Things like free will, the nature of choice, emotion, consciousness, etc. Yes that's kind of a huge part of Rand's novels is the interplay between the characters' emotions and their consciously held thoughts and premises. An example would be Dagny and Dominique at the end, once they had integrated correct premises with their emotions. Another is the character of Rearden, who is disgusted with his family, but supports them anyway out of conscious conviction. His emotions give him correct knowledge, but he can't act on it until he smoothes out the contradicting premises he held, then he acts on it by bucking their mooching advances. Another example is when Dominique tells Wynand to fire Toohey, Rand has her openly say that she doesn't know why she wants him gone (yet), just that she hates him. She even says "it'll take years for me to understand" (around p. 499-500 in my version.) Another supporting quote for my claim is in VOS (p.27) when Rand says emotions are estimates of what can be "for or against" you, and says they are "lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss." There is a scene towards the end of AS when Dagny even says she can "surrender her consciousness" and that her emotions are like a "voice telling her by means of a feeling" (AS p.674.) I think what Rand means to say is that emotions are inert by themselves, and so you'd have to trace them to the experiences that programmed them, but once one did, if they stem from rational thoughts, they can help take part in cognition and guide action. Aristotle more plainly sees emotional disposition as evidence of a virtuous character. While Rand officially held otherwise, I think her fiction seems to hold the more Aristotelian view. Her descriptions of the fully integrated hero/heroines are ones where their stated thoughts and emotional dispositions are aligned and both working "for" their wellbeing.

I am ignoring and will continue to ignore it because it is derivative....way down the logic chain.

This is not an illustration of the "expansion" of "survival", it is an identification of what that goal "survival" entails and implies. The goal "Shelter" does not imply only a straw hut. If you live in Norway it at least implies insulation and a source of heat, if you live near a river or on flood plains it at least implies a raised floor, and if you live near a big bad wolf it at least implies a brick based structure. And if cold, floods, and wolves are not impossible where you live, "shelter" implies all three. Illustrating that short sighted people do not fully grasp all the implications and consequences implied by a simple premise (eg a binary goal in an incredibly complex context) does not implicate the simple premise as somehow deficient, it exemplifies just how deficient simple mindedness is. imho

No, we wouldn't. Serious theologians argue with each other plenty - with the Bible as their standard of truth. And the Bible isn't too hot on the subject of atheism. A normal human being might adopt atheism in response to that, but a "monk" who could do so would not be. Yes. See Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice by Nathaniel Branden.

How does the Minimoralist regard this? Hero or no, I as a Minimoralist could not tell this man what to do. He may be a Subjectivist, a Survivalist, an Intrinsicist or a Mystic for all I know. I can only to advise what I believe is consistent with Minimoralism. Were he to say that he is a Minimoralist and wanted to know my advice this is what I would say: Life is full of uncertainty, the possible outcomes and their various causes, are too many to analyze with certainty the full consequences of any single action, or a single eventuality from a given number of known staring conditions. At best we have limited knowledge, and more or less can know of the general magnitude of the likelihood of events. It is in this way that a man devoid of all hope in a concentration camp might yet live in the face of unsurmountable odds by the unforeseeable consequence of human action and the volition of unknown people. It is in this way that a man of the 1600s would, based on his knowledge have no rational inkling that a man would eventually set foot on the moon... the actions, discoveries, and accomplishments of other men, because they are moved by free will are not easily predictable. You, who have this particular life-long dream would likely not be able to replace that specific dream with a brighter one, but it is not impossible. It is precisely the capability of each of us to learn and to change which makes so much of life unpredictable, and if not the spontaneous self-generated change that you yourself make, then changes in you in response to the unpredictable and unforeseeable inspirations, innovations, and creations of others. Some new art form or discovery yet to be made by another may be more compelling to you than you could possibly imagine now... because of the very fact that you personally cannot imagine this new possibility. Perhaps you did choose to pursue the specific life-long dream, perhaps it does not meet your expectations, perhaps you find upon your return a greater dream that you would have wished to live longer to enjoy, and you live the rest of your shortened life not with satisfaction but with regret. The experts cannot know whether the pursuit of your singular dream will actually cut five years off your life.. even if they were 99% sure, there is an actual 1% chance that it will not... the experts also cannot know that you will necessarily be severely depressed, nor the exact reduction of the term of your life which would result from its effects. There are so many questions. What could you do to change yourself, your pleasures, your dreams? What could you do to minimize the chances that the so called one dream would result in loss of years of your life? What could you do to reduce your depression (should you choose to forego the specific dream) and/or its effects on your lifespan? So much is uncertain, and yet so much hangs in the balance. It IS your very life after all. I would ask you to think, given the risks and the chances involved, If you are uncertain about your particular dream and whether you could find an alternative to it, then by all means try to live your life on terms which exceed your expectations but in a safer way. One which multiplies your ability to live and to experience your joys. There are a humanly uncountable number of dreams, experiences, and pleasures to choose from. IF, on the other hand, you know yourself with enough certainty to claim that NO OTHER LIFE would be worth living at all. That no matter what the chances, that you would rather die if forced to give up your specific singular dream for any other alternative. If so, you have already made the choice to renounce all of life’s possibility, to renounce Minimoralism, and its principles. Your obsession, your purpose, your choice, and your end, is your one dream and it is more important to you than yourself and your survival. You are no longer an end in itself to you, your specific dream IS... you are now merely the means. Clearly then, Minimorality could not serve you from that moment on, it could not serve your choice, your end, your dream... it thwarts it, and you should simply give Minimoralism up and use something else in its place as your guide to that single end which is your particular dream. IF, on the other hand, you know yourself with enough certainty to claim that IF THERE IS JUST ONE CHANCE no matter how small that you can have your dream and live your life too, you would want to take that chance no matter how small because that life which includes your dream means too much to you, then I say take that risk. Do everything in your power to maximize the chances of having your dream as well as those five years, even if all you can do is change those chances by the most miniscule amount, it may make the difference in the end. You are not a helpless passivity in a malevolent universe (or some philosophical hypothetical), you can nudge the needle onto the camel's back, you can affect the outcomes in reality... Pass through the eye of the needle of uncertainty (I know a second needle analogy), come out the other side, and maybe, just maybe you can die an old man with the knowledge you fought for your life with your dream, that the chances, although insurmountably low, were never impossible, and that you overcame the odds and won, and the fight was worth it. And if you fail, know in your last moments, that that small chance was worth it to you. The main thing to be certain of that that the specific dream is important enough to take that chance. If it is not important enough, find another dream!

How do you know anything at all about the people entering the country if they are not to be examined, and what use would that examination be without the right to deny entry? Well what of your current country of residency, the U.S.? The rest of the world does not share the principles of America, and so I value the rest of the world less than I value America. And why do you call Trump racist? Serious question. Where does this come from? No one ever asserted such a thing before the 2016 Presidential election season, and being such a fat rich juicy target certainly someone would have taken the shot?

Objectivist Ed Powell has written a paper against the open borders immigration position of other Objectivists (Binswanger, Tracinski, Biddle, Bernstein, Duke). This raises the question: Does a foreigner have a right to cross an international border? Powell says no. Powell says the burden of proof that any applicant for entry is not a threat to the freedom or security of the country lies with the applicant. The paper is well written, the position well argued. For reference: Binswanger's essay and Biddle's essay

In ordinary everyday existence, the choice to live or not to live doesn't usually come up explicitly. It is not as if we wake up each morning and make an explicit choice to live or die, we get up and go through our morning routine. However, I think this would be the choice to live one's life and to pursue the day and the values of the day. In some extreme cases, however, the choice is explicit. If one suffers some horrible illness and cannot enjoy one's life one can say, "I'd rather die than go through this." In fact, people do say that, though without full seriousness for getting things like a very bad case of the flu, for example, or surviving the death of a loved one that is so painful one doesn't know how to go on living with that pain uppermost in one's mind. In other threads on other forums, I have made the case that like the choice to focus one's mind or not, our fundamental choice, that this *is* the choice to live, since living rationally requires one to focus on the facts of reality with our full mind on the ready. However, in this type of case, one doesn't deliberate, because one cannot deliberate until one's mind is focused. So,like I said, the choice to focus or not or the choice to live or not comes before one will reason about anything. In Tara's view about rationality, it is always purpose driven, and she states that without purpose there is no rationality -- that one cannot focus on the facts of reality with one's full alertness without having some specific purpose in mind. I do think she is correct about this, that rationality has to do with effectiveness (taking the facts into account or not), though taking the facts into account requires a huge context that comes about due to what one wants to pursue -- i.e. purpose. Otherwise the facts are there but so what? She is saying is that we cannot have a purpose until we decide to live and to pursue our lives; and without purpose, there is no rationality. This is the fuller meaning of what she means by "pre-rational" -- there is not necessarily an explicit deliberation about the issue, and we are not taking the facts into account because we cannot do this until we are focused on living purposefully.