Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on September 11

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/01/89

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Recent Profile Visitors

20715 profile views
  1. What you say is true and all correct as far as Objectivism. "The ends justify the means" sums up consequentialism though. Not just that that there are ends, but that -any- means is appropriate as long as the end is correct. There are modifications to this, but any consequentialist philosophy is only concerned with the ends in principle. That is, ends external to you as a person, only the stuff that we see at the end. Objectivism strongly advocates integration of means and ends - it promotes selfishness because who we are as actors is primary. I don't think you disagree, I'm posting this as a way to show that I think you and whyNOT mostly agree. I'd argue not, or at least not until the end of a book. Even still, Roark had almost no internal conflicts. Since it was fiction, if anything, showing those conflicts detracts from portraying the ideal. In real life, the ideal takes a long time to form.
  2. I don't mean to say that someone with a faulty subconscious premise is acting immorally or we should say the person is immoral. They can fix it. But I can't even think of when someone was conflicted and a wholly-integrated as a person. In other words, the person may be good on the whole, but fail to be an ideal. That ideal man is the virtuous man. I see how the quote suggests that an unintegrated person could be also a virtuous person. "Bad" thoughts don't make you bad. But it doesn't refer to the ideal man. Now, Galt may have felt conflict, but I don't think Rand succeeded with Galt in portraying the ideal man. He was a supporting character and not concretized as deeply Dagny or Rearden. I'd say Galt was good on the whole and a great guy, but not an ideal. If he were wholly integrated, I don't think he'd feel a temptation to sabotage his own goal even for one second. Good people may struggle, but it's easy for the virtuous person. I don't think Rand said much on integrated virtue, only that we should seek to be our best and eliminate our internal conflicts. Since Rand's fiction mostly deals with character growth, it's fair to say she thought it took years to become that pillar of moral perfection. Psychologists can help us get there if we have trouble.
  3. Sure she does. What about all she says about moral perfection? What about the fact that attaining the most fundamental values requires constant and unbreached rationality? One must be at all times virtuous, if we use these standards at all. It's no wonder then that Rand sees the ideal man as an integrated person - having a virtuous character. If one is conflicted about their actions, that means there's a lack of integration somewhere. They have failed to be virtuous to some degree. Stated from the other side, acting with the proper principles will mean no conflict. Virtues must become so habituated that it feels natural. Of course we should be critical of other virtue ethicists who reecognize human nature differently. Rand still captures and follows Aristotle the way he thinks of virtue. Aristotle probably thought of virtuous character as innate, but that's inessential.
  4. I don't know if that's really the idea. Wouldn't character traits be principles of action, as long as we say character traits can be cultivated? Some might describe these as immutable traits, sure. Virtue is still about the individual -being- good and as part of one's thinking. Objectivism just derives what virtue is differently than say, Aristotle, but the purpose to ethics for either one is guiding and habituating -being- good.
  5. Why Objectivism is so unpopular

    Mostly it's feel good emptiness. Nothing like a philosophical serious approach.
  6. Not the same way, but similar. It's just the broadest action of all; in a way, it's the abstraction "identity". It's not odd to see the manner of its being as how all its concreteness behaves. As I said before, action can't and doesn't exist before things, and things can't and don't exist before actions. Your next line doesn't make sense. "is" is the verb "to be", that's still an action. "Brown" is the adjective, not more than information of the cookies attributes that adds to its identity.
  7. Hmm? It's a verb... Yeah. This whole tangent was about if "exist" is an action, and I say yes.
  8. Existence, i.e., all that is, is a different concept than "to exist". Existence exists isn't one concept repeated - it is two separate concepts. This is relevant to the OP as far as that existing and identity are bound together, neither one precedes the other. Action doesn't depend on a thing existing, nor does a thing existing depend on action. That's how "existence is identity" makes any sense.As long as we know that anything exists is necessarily acting, it's not hard to say each thing that exists in relation to another thing is a cause.
  9. That's an error in my phrasing then, it doesn't capture what I was thinking well. I shouldn't say "aspect of". I mean to say there are things doing existing, that to exist also means to act. When something doesn't exist, it also means nothing is doing existing. Not that there is no thing to act, but there is no thing AND no action as action and existing are inseperable.
  10. Right, which then leads to what I said. Existing as an action as implied by the fact that to be is to do and to do is to be. Existing is an aspect of a thing's identity, as in it exists by virtue of acting. I see how you are saying an action is not itself a thing - but neither is existing. Existing is as tangible as action, as in not at all tangible. Or if you are saying existing is a different phenomena than action and untangible, you would be giving it some unique status. For sure, there are conceptual distinctions to make. My only quibble is that your reasoning suggests that, metaphysically speaking, existing, acting, and identity are not simultaneous. If you still disagree, what is existing then?
  11. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    Lol, ignore that. Wrong Spencer. ^^
  12. If I follow you correctly, this is still a problem. You are saying that there are first things that exist that don't necessarily act. However, by virtue of existing, they will inevitably act. In this way, actions are attributes that "hang onto" entities and those actions are only there as a consequence (or "by accident"). It's the reverse of platonic action you described: a platonic form of existence, from which numerous actions will spring. I know somewhere in ITOE Rand commented on that idea, namely to say it's wrong. I'll find it for you. The point was along the lines of what Grames said above. I see this as existence and identity are the same thing essentially, and inseparable. If something exists, that means it is acting, always. Simultaneously.
  13. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    I doubt it did much to her outlook. People get strawmanned all the time anyway, in all ways. Spencer is a caustic person and essentially a reactionary racist collectivist, but it doesn't warrant treating evil as something it's not. Or Goldwater is essentially good, it's just easier for people to say he had to be racist for opposing the Civil Rights Act. One way to stand against strawmans is to name your ideas and delimit them. Or for Nietzsche, he just said it would happen and that was that. The more radical a person's ideas (whether the ideas are right or wrong), the more the person is misunderstood..
  14. You are making it more complicated than it is. Start off with the idea that all actions are embodied by some entity. Sometimes, two or more entities interact which leads to all of them producing an action as a group. So BOTH the bubbles act, they BOTH do something. However, their relationship to one another is not identical. The important point is that there is not -only- a one way relationship, and that there is no such thing as a "pure" action.
  15. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    Actually, I was saying that a mental disorder is one reason why Sally acted so oddly. But that is secondary. The important idea is that there are multiple reasons why this can happen. I brought it up at all because some posts have said that this isn't plausible, but it really is plausible. For Chris, all that matters is he ought to ask what's wrong when clearly something is wrong - failure to ask makes him legally at fault for her resulting psychological trauma. If you disagree on the legal consequence, fine, but I still see no reason to doubt he's acting immorally. Regarding kissing, it isn't sexual activity, even if arousing. It is a prelude to sex, but it isn't sexual until and if he went "below the waist" (and if THAT is what happened, the whole scenario would be different). I don't see this as being active during sex. Given that Chris went to surprise penetration, that's when sex started. That's when she was no longer active. By the way, I don't mean "sex is only penetration". If there was sexual foreplay (oral sex, sex toys, things like that), this would be different. By active, I mean a bare minimum of activity. Doing something. As presented, Sally did nothing. So, all I mean is Chris at least on a moral level is to ask "Hey Sally, what's wrong?" and stop. Of course it's possible she changed her mind, but I see no mention of things that show she did. As I said above, I don't consider kissing an indication of consent or changing her mind. I'm not saying they need to do something as absurd as a contract. When someone only a few hours before said no, then it is better to just ask like "well, are you sure? This is more fun than I thought it'd be". If there was nothing only a few hours before, this would be different.