Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on April 13

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

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

21650 profile views
  1. I don't think he does, not in the philosophical sense. We're talking here about using history to recognize principles, of which at least Obama understood some of. But that's really besides the point, the important point is that understanding history is necessary. This looks like anti-intellectualism. As if having an intellectual understanding invalidates someone's ideas, and that the lack of intellectual-ness in Trump is somehow a virtue. What do you think? When do you think America was at its best?
  2. This reminds me. I lean towards saying that bisexuality is more natural and ideal while heterosexuality (and homosexuality for that matter) are further away from human nature. Very little research was done on sexuality before the late 60s, and even that seem to be predicated on ideas from Freud and other psychologists. A number of ideas on sexuality stem from poorly crafted science. It may appear philosophical to relate homosexuality to specific aesthetic views, and entirely reasonable, but the concept homosexuality isn't based on any careful analysis or long existing concept throughout history. Bisexuality (or more specifically, a lack of any definitive line based on gender for sexual interest) seems to be the more normal approach as far as I've seen, and any preference one way or the other is more like a statistical regularity (and probably influenced by cultural values).
  3. He doesn't, but to be president he does. A president, to be half decent, needs to be read on history, be engaged in intellectual history, to read books, and all sorts of things that require intellectual engagement. So when he says "make America great again", he is not referring to any intellectual appeal. It is an appeal to emotion. Trump is a powerhouse of rhetoric and communication, but it does not follow that he necessarily esteems things he talks about. Specifically to the question in the OP, I would say the Gilded Age from 1880 to 1900. I picked this because it was an extremely capitalistic era in American history, slavery was abolished, the west was developing, railroads made mass communication possible. The biggest issue in this era of course was the treatment of blacks in the South. There was extreme racism and violence, and apparently the federal government did little to intervene.
  4. Eiuol


    A good psychologist wouldn't take on the role of some spiritual advisor. Meditation is very important to do for dealing with depression symptoms, but some people then take that step to do a full dive into Buddhism and discover egoless-ness. A good psychologist will give you strategies on how to deal with emotions. It's like hiring a personal trainer for working out. Sometimes you'll get good advice, but other times you might not learn anything new.
  5. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    You asked a one line (ish) question, didn't elaborate your position, and didn't mention anything about what you already know. All signs pointed to you knowing very little. The quality of your question affects the quality of the answers you receive.
  6. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    This is completely changing the topic... You didn't ask about how to deal with irrational people. You asked why one should be rational. My first two posts, for two. You responded to one part, but it was more a misunderstanding of what I meant (which is now transformed into a strange literal reading that "Rand didn't care that most people are rational" had to do with contexts besides "why be rational"). You made some strong claims that Rand is a hedonist in metaethical terms, but you still do follow-up to my questions and reasoning as to why she isn't being hedonistic. I have nothing else to add other than this discussion has become pedantic rather than interesting. Your last post or any real effort was to say that the nature of man is to be rational where it suits him. That is, his nature is not to be rational - for if it were his nature, he would be consistently rational. But this is a surface level misunderstanding of Rand. She repeatedly spoke about reason is the means of survival, and that's what she means by the nature of man. If you're getting frustrated with people, it sounds like you are very unsatisfied by an explanation of why reason is the means of survival, but I haven't yet seen in arguments from you to show that Rand failed to justify reason as the means of survival. Instead, I've seen you latching onto how you want people to address that most people don't try to be rational, and no one is trying to answer that. If you think that question is important, you need to prove it, because most people here would think of it as a degree of moral failure rather than evidence against man as the "rational animal". The (attainable) ideal is to be rational, and it is critical to flourishing.
  7. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    I don't know why you interpreted what I wrote as she didn't care about being choosing to be consistently rational. I said she didn't care if the majority of other people are consistently rational. (I don't need to keep saying consistently, because to be a certain trait is to be that trait consistently.) She cared about being rational, she didn't care how many other people are rational, because it doesn't change the nature of man. Maybe you misinterpreted what I wrote, thinking that I meant Rand didn't care about being consistently rational in her moral theory. For one, I elaborated specifically that being rational is the standard to judge right or wrong. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I attribute it to you thinking that when I said "people", you thought I was referring to what all people ought to do. But that's not what I mean. I was referring to the idea that observing how many people are rational doesn't matter. Rand would probably say it doesn't matter if -most- people are rational for determining the means of survival; what matters is the characteristics -all- people have, namely, the capacity of reason. To say man is the rational animal is not to say that all people will always be rational, only that as a general category, man's proper nature is to be rational. It's an ideal and end you must work towards.
  8. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    The discussion is why be rational, so I was saying that there is no "why" or "should" because the answer to that question is just that it's in man's nature, as in its necessary for his flourishing. I have no idea what nukes have to do with that.
  9. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    What does that have to do with choosing to be rational, or man's nature?
  10. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Right, being (consistently) rational is the aim for those who seek to follow their nature. If 1% or 99% of people are (consistently) rational, that doesn't alter man's nature - 100% of people have the capacity to be (consistently) rational. What the majority do is beside the point.
  11. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Sorry I misread it? But still, I don't know what point you're trying to make. Rand didn't care if most people were consistently rational or not. The quote doesn't say otherwise. EDIT: to clarify, I was responding to how you were talking about if people in general are rational, not individuals
  12. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Why did you add the word only? What point are you trying to make? All that follows from reason being the means of survival.
  13. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Sorry, I was using speech to text software so it didn't come out right. It was supposed to say: "I don't have reason to think that Rand ever cared in her position whether people are consistently rational." She was only concerned if man's means of surviving, of existing, is reason.
  14. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Then address that, because the whole discussion is about what Rand wrote. You brought up a quote of Rand quoting, which isn't too helpful, because it's not her own words. If you have an argument as to why she is a subjectivist ultimately, then presented. All you really sad is that her liking a quote that "sounds" hedonistic suggests that she is giving moral license to all types of behavior. But maybe you should draw out your argument then. Are you trying to say that morality is a metaphysical characteristic of reality, so it is hedonistic to suggest otherwise? Are you trying to say that evaluating the effects or the nature of the entity acting is invalid because morality is just embedded in the fabric of reality? I'm thinking the real issue is that you think a teleological argument is invalid. In that case, it's not that Rand is inconsistent in your eyes, but that you don't think a teleological argument can be consistent. If we think of morality as a characteristic of actions that man takes in relation to his life, then there isn't much to discuss other than how we "pay" for our actions, whether they undermine our ability to flourish. I don't have a reason to think that Rand ever cared in her position whether people are consistently rational. By rational animal, she only means that reason is the means of survival - so we all have a capacity of rationality. If you have an argument as to alternative means of survival, then make that argument. For Rand, there is no other feature to take into account, reason is the only relevant standard for Rand to judge whether an action is right or wrong. Being rational is an attainable ideal, and the "payment"is flourishing and life. Being irrational is possible too, and the "payment" for that is (at best) slowly moving away from flourishing in life. But importantly, she isn't saying that we should be rational because of the consequences. Rationality is the moral standard because it's in our nature, it is our means of survival, and benefits come along with it. EDIT: typos
  15. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    You are reading way too deeply into a single quote that is quoting a quote. It is only saying there are consequences to all your actions. Given that it is a religious quote, I see no reason to interpret it as consequentialist or suggesting all is permissible as long as you are willing to pay for it. If you don't like the original quote, fine, maybe she's misreading what it means (she wouldn't be the first philosopher to misunderstand what somebody else said). The only thing relevant to your post is David's response, the quote won't really mean anything until and unless you know pretty well what it is she is summarizing. Generally, there is no -reason- to be rational, to the extent that rationality is the only way to judge what is right or wrong. She makes a teleological argument that man's nature is to be rational and it contributes to his flourishing/life, so right or wrong can only be judged insofar as you act rationally. I don't think this is morally agnostic, just that an important moral principle is to recognize there are moral implications to your life or any action you take.