HollowApollo

Exactly my point, your philisophy hinges on a false dichotomy. You depend on the "selfless" to define the "selfish" You depend on that which you denounce, to promote your hero. Your championed archetype cant exist without selflessness because, then who would he fight? You need your altruist to define your hero, to make him a hero, proving that the two are not seperate but interdependent, a singularity, ONE IDEA. Once one is gone...the other goes too, thus they must constantly be in bed togther having rough, hateful sex. You are dependent on the existence of your altruist....and that is your big flaw. This is your fallacy: denouncing the very thing you need, the very thing Ayn created to validate her belief system. Your altruist is not a part of me or society, it has always only been apart of you and your belief system. Your altruist and your selfish hero are just another god and devil, playing a kinki game of dress up, nothing more. I know both of your characters dont even exist. Rand was noting new. You reason like a christian.

That quote is an example of an assumption with new evidence. It is a generalization and an accusation, Rands claim that she knows what all people are thinking but I do not believe in your your false dichotomy. You do not see that your philisophy would crumble without selflessness. You need it to promote selfishness. Your ideas are incompatible with scientif evidence found in the physicical world. I do not deal in dichotomy. You selfish archetype will always point to its other because that is the only way it can prove its validity. You need your altruist to be the whipping Boy in order to validate you "philosophy," you depend on contrast. A except the valdity of both. I am selfishly selfless..meet the new breed. Science is currently studying biological evidence of the ALTRUISM COEFFICIENT of VARIATION in EVOLUTION, you will not grasp this concept because you will only recognize it in Randian terms. You buy the definitions that Rand changed for her own ends, so your belif system is incompatible with this scientific concept, much like Mormonism. The above state of progressive evolution, regarding a rejection of homogeny is why scientists and the academic world scoff at objectivism. You will have a hard time accepting this. It has already out-dated you.

You misunderstand. I was not making an argument against self-interest, I am not against self-interest. It is the objectivist who claims to be against selfless acts. I am arguing agaisnt the false dichotomy that objectivists promote. It is the objectivist, who claims that rational self interest is the correct state of man. However I am argiung that rational selflessness is a part of that concept and thus must also be a correct state of man. One cannot speak of selfish without indavertently referring to selflessness. Half of the argument promoting rational selfishness is an argument denouncing selflessness. Objecivism is an anti/pro philisophy. It is just as equally concerned with selflessness as it is with selfishness, therefore selflessness is half of your philosophy. Withouth your false dichotomy, you would not have a philosophy at all, therefore your whole state of being an objectivist depends on the very existence of that which you denounce. Objectivism is the act of distinguishing between, therefore you are inadvertently emphazing both, though you claim to be against one. "AGAINST" is a tricky concept to use as a foundation because come to rely on that which you are against. Selflessness is irnonically a part of you, more than it is a par of any other philosophy. Funny how that works. Do you understand how that works? I promote the idea that selflishness and selflessness are spectral...and exist in degree. I was trying to pose an example of how one interdependent micro-concept dies with out it's other. If the world suddenly stopped being selfless all together, we would no longer know of the concept of either selfishness or selflessnes. Objectivism is the act of distinguishing between. The only way for use to understand the both concepts is to accepts that it is a singularity. An act of selflessness can be a selfish act, niether side of the coin crushes the other into oblivion. Showing "heads," only reminds us there is a "tails." "Real Life" is another concept you use. This idea of "Real." Do you claim that my story is somehow not possibe? Do you claim that this can only happen in fiction? Do you think that similar things cannot happen? Do you claim that people do not die alone in the woods more often than groups do? This summer 15 people died in just Yosemite, but explaining this to you is not really my goal. The fact is that people's way of life in Alaska is far different than yours. I can tell you about things I experienced in Italy, Germany, France, Japan, Norway, Greece, Spain that wouldn't even imagined in your "reality." From the way you speak, I am willing to bet I have seem more of reality thant you have. People's way of life in Africa is far different from yours as well. Is it irrational to think that? There are people getting lined up and shot against walls, as we speak in some third world countries. More people are starving around the world right now, then their are American Citizens. To them, your way of life is a dream. If it happens in real life, it is real life. The fact that you would judge the rest of the world from your little microchism only tells me that you havent experienced the world at all. I have. There is no way you could travel like I have and still believe as you do. Sorry....its a hard truth.

I am sorry I cant provide you with a million different possible scenarios. All I had to do was provide you with one. its weird that you don' thin that is possible. I am wondering how. It is a possible scenario and you cant reasonably deny that. Bush pilots crash in Alaska, all the time and there are many stories about survival. In all survival circumstances a loner is more at risk than in a group is. THAT IS A FACT because a loner has to do all the work himself to survive. He has to navigate, find food, water, make a shelter, keep away from danger, he must divide his concentration and there for he becomes less efficient...and if he gets hurt in a place like ALASKA he is DEAD. Sorry you don't understand that. You don't try to back your assumption with reasoning. I want to hear your ideas. I don't want to hear unsupported statements. When you say something like my "hypothetical is a fringe circumstance," I want to know how you came to that conclusion. If you cant give me a reason...your not really making a valid argument and therefore your statements are not worth considering. Sorry, just saying. "Sacrifice is voluntary and based on the relative values because.............................................." see how the most important part is missing. "Taxes are not voluntary and are based on someone else's force because....................................." the important part is missing again, the only part that is worth reading. If taxes are based on democratic consensus, how is that force? It might be force to the minority, but it is not force to everyone because many people want to contribute because they believe that benefiting their community benefit's themselves. More kids with educations and health-care and places to go after school, less kids in gangs, less desperate and ignorant acts. You probably disagree, but we don't care, we will force you to do it anyway because we are the majority and we can. I'm not saying that to be a troll, really. Its just a fact. But philosophically, those who do not compromise at all can not be considered a rational benefit in the the collective interest toward strengthening civilization because those who do not compromise place all their desires above all else. They are not content to have some, or many of their desires met, they want all or nothing....and thus these people do not contribute to the progression of their species. They do not see themselves as a part of it, yet, still they dwell inside of it and do not concern themselves with whole that they effect. They just stubbornly defy those who wish not to take, but to give and take, but those who do not wish to give are actually the ones taking because they use civilization, yet they never allow civilization to use them. This is not and even trade and thus they are not an asset, but a liability, ironically expecting the same altruism that they claim to despise. There is nothing more ironic than hearing a man ask "why should I pay taxes," as he drives down a public free-way in large truck, spewing black exhaust.

was she joking, or did she mean that? I think it is an assumption to say that people believe selfishness is evil. I never thought that. Many people in history have expressed an acceptance of "selfishness." Rand was not the first. It seems "rightful state of man," however, is a bit of a stretch. Unless you mean to include it in a long list of "rightful states of man," being pretty much anything man is capable of. I call it a valid state of man, but "rightful" is an arbitrary value judgment. If Selfishness is simply "concern for one's self-interest" and the interest is left up to the individual and one recognizes that a rational self interest can be an interest in benefiting the species...and a self interest in dominating the species or gaining advantage over it...can be seen as irrational, then I have no problem with "selfishness." Being selfishly selfless or selflessly selfish is more accurate than anything...because selfish and selfless are conceptually spectral, they are relative...microcosms, if you will. They only seem like separate concepts, but they are singular....however...the concept is large. Objective and subjective are spectral, a matter of degree. They are not independent of each other. Another way to put this is..."selfish" points to "selfless" the two depend on each other to exist. So if selfishness is the correct state of man, the same must also be true of selflessness, for each micro-concept points to what the other isn't. Even when Rand wrote of selfishness, she could not speak of it without also speaking of selflessness, thus she dependent on its existence. She had to be anti-selflessness in order to be pro-selfishness. Thus both are a rightful state. They are both the equal parts of one beast. Think of it this way, if all were selfless, would we also achieve freedomPlease give more credit than having to explain what morally neutral means. I ma not against the concept of self-interest alone, but I am against it being valued as something

I am aware that language is flexible, but Rand defines terms with the same exact terms...and that bothers me. I am not going to believe a term is self evident, as she seems to want me to. A word of advise to you too, words are not meaningless either. Communication depends on some degree of consensus. You also cant alter words within a an argument and o be taken seriously, or even still be considered logical. Defining a term with a term limits concept....and that I cannot stand for. Ayn Rand herself claims to stick to dictionary terms, so I was trying to play her game, but she seems to only do that when it is convenient for her to do so. She claimed claimed to define selfishness by its dictionary definition, but apparently she only use half of the definition, meaning she lied, or she was ignorant. She invents definitions for words to prevent providing any real meaning. Its strange. I find it deceptive.

Sorry. You will have to forgive me. I am simply understanding the words as they are defined in the dictionary. Not one term I used was drawn out of thin air. I find it strange that rand considers self interest and selfishness to be one in the same. I also find it strange that she then defines both of those words as "concern for your own self interest" because she is defining a term with the term itself. Like "a mammal is a mammal." That does not tell me anything. It seems to burn away any concept. This is not enough thought for me. Blending two concepts into one concept that simply means "concern for your own self-interest" then defining "interest" as "whatever your interested in." That's basically what you said she did right? Its like its just an empty game she is playing. You don't have to have advantage over just people no, you can have an advantage over your environment, for example. As a physicist, what is absolute is hard to say, however, I find that she is ignorant of the fact that closed systems do not exist. Do you know why I would bring this fallacy of "closed systems" up at this point in time? You mentioned that "contextual absolutism is what is proper only to the relevant kind?" But do you understand that application in physics, physics dealing with all things including the mind? What, in your opinion would Rand say about "singularity?" Would you say that rands idea of contextual absolutism is absolute? Or is that doctrine also just limited to relative to the relevant kind, like semantic games?

Many people argue using questions. Why wont you answer them? Just as you may assume that I ask questions because I don't know the answer, I assume that you wont answer my questions because you don't have an answer. If you asked me a question, I would try to answer it. Yes. I have read Rand. The arguments in here are kind making Rand's philosophy seem slippery and arbitrary, as if her philosophy isn't even worth challenging, or considering. If self interest can mean anything, why should I care? It may as well be reduced to....

Sorry. I am simply using the definition of the term self-interest, instead of the term itself. Is there something wrong with that? The terms I am using are the terms used to define "self-interest" and "selfishness" in the dictionary. Are you asserting that Rand rewrote these definitions. Furthermore, Rand said "giving is not required for you to exist," but, in the circumstance I presented, it is required for you to exist. You said so yourself. I don't know why you have a problem with that.

So RAND didn't use the term correctly? She didn't use the dictionary definition? If my friend did not have skills, would it then be okay to let him die?

So you are saying that in that circumstance it would be wise to feed him because he lacks the skill to find food in the wilderness? but would that not be an action, made by me, that provides us both with a superior condition because it is a condition more superior than that of not giving him food? and if I gave both of us that superior condition, it must stand to reason that I gave him that superior condition. but then Rand said "THE ONLY RATIONAL ACT IS AND ACT THAT SERVES YOUR (OWN) SELF-INTEREST...and self interest is defined as "concern for well-being and superior condition or position)

are you saying an action that provides other people with supremacy of position or condition is also a ration action? or acting to give then an equal position or condition is a rational action?

are you saying an action that provides other people with supremacy of position is condition is also a ration action? or acting to give then an equal position or condition is a rational action?

So youre saying acting in other people's self-interest is a rational thing?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selfishness This one says ....regardless of others.