Hairnet

Thank you. Now I need to prove that there is such thing as Man qua Man.

Thank you for the suggestion. I am poor right now, so while I will probably purchase the book in a couple of weeks, I will continue the conversation as though it were not within my reach, because it is. It is really hard to argue with moral nihilists the "If I want to live, ______" thing. Nihilism is that hardest thing for me to refute in my own mind. If I were a nihilist, I would say something like "Well Mussolini was alive wasn't he, was he moral?". There must be a definition of life that does necessitate some values beyond the will and ability to survive. Now I know there is something more than survival. This is the trouble, it is hard to define, and our culture lends towards spirituality or subjectivism. Find God, or you know, whatever it is you want. I mean we have basically 4 options ethically. 1. Altruism in some form. This can be radical altruism (Jesus), Kantianism, Utilitarianism, or whatever. This is usually bundled with spirituality so people can trick themselves into very temporary happiness. 2. Subjectivism. This has various roots and forms. Reductionist, boring, but convincing to me on a fundamental level. There are a lot reasons for this I will start another thread about later. 3. Egolessness. Just read about Buddhism or Taoism. They advocate something weird that is all about present orientation and breaking down the barriers between self and reality. A lot of it seem to amount to disassociation. 4. Objectivism, Aritotelianism. Both advocate a better life through hard work and thinking. I would like it to be true. I don't know if it is yet. That is what we get to choose from. I know one is wrong, it doesn't matter if two is right, I don't like three and hope it isn't true but it could be, and four is what I want to be true but haven't been convinced by it. Anyways, thanks for clearing up the obligation thing.

I am revisiting Objectivism as a system of thought. I am going to explain how I have interpreted Ayn Rand's ethical theory, in order to make sure I understand it. I found that Objectivism is not as easy to understand as I would hope. I think that Rand talked about issues in a different way then people are used to, so it lends to misunderstanding if one projects their preconceptions on to her work. The way I see it, Rand proposed Egoism as a starting point in ethics, not as a general conclusion about behavior. It is quite obvious to anyone who reads her in depth that she was against "Do whatever you want". Egoism is an alternative starting point to where most ethical systems in the past have started. Some people have criticized Ayn Rand for calling modern ethics altruistic when they are not narrow hardcore altruism. What she seems to have mean was any ethical system orienting ethics around other people. Egoism just means that ethics starts with the good of the individual, and if there is anything to say about others and interpersonal relationships, it will be rooted in this a secondary. I want to explore the nuts and bolts of egoism beyond this. Altruism is obviously bunk. I think it would be helpful to my explanations of selfishness to others that there is more than just selfishness, there is also a method to figuring out how to live. This raises a few questions in my mind. 1. Where can I find a specific method of dealing with what is in Man's best interest? A little more specific than "Reason". I have heard ethics referred to as a science, like any science it has its own rules that are derived from the properties of the things being studied (Look at the difference between the way economists, physicists, and psychologists have to operate). 2. Is it correct to understand ethics the science of figuring out what one's obligation is to your own self? This is very important as it raises questions about how one can be obligated to oneself. It would also be convenient to me as a thinker that this was true because it would blow the Is-Ought thing to pieces. I will ask more questions once these are dealt with.