Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
sjw

Why follow reason?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Also there's a Greg Salmieri talk about the proverb themed "taking responsibility for your happiness" although it's more of a motivational Ted-talk style than a talk about academic philosophy, but interesting theme nonetheless. He brings up a connection between Sartre's concept of "bad faith," that a kind of self-deception involved in not taking responsibility for your actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

This translation of the Tenth Idyll of The Idylls of Theokritus provides Milon as having said: "God finds out the guilty. You've been asking for it."

The literal translation of what Ayn Rand actually wrote is more along the lines of this. However she intended it, the question "Why be (consistently) rational?" remains, so the literal translation (which should be the default one) is more confirmatory evidence that she was a metaethical hedonist than the main evidence.

I wonder if she was thinking "take what you want, and pay for it" when she was sleeping with Nathaniel. She sure did both!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

It is possible to make an argument

Well, that is what the topic is about -- precisely what is that argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sjw said:

I wonder if she was thinking "take what you want, and pay for it" when she was sleeping with Nathaniel. She sure did both!

So you consider sex to be hedonism? Are you a religious fundamentalist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

What, if anything, would you propose using in lieu of reason?

Nothing, I'm pro-reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nicky said:

So you consider sex to be hedonism? Are you a religious fundamentalist?

Gross non-sequiturs. If that's the limit of your imagination then just move along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2018 at 12:01 AM, sjw said:

The matter of importance here is the argument to be (or to strive to be) consistently rational.

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

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I don't have a reason to think that ever cared interposition whether people are consistently rational.

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2018 at 12:01 AM, sjw said:

... clearly most men are not trying to be consistently rational, let alone agreeing with Rand that they should be trying to be. Most people would say that rationality is a qualified good, it's good when used (say) as a "slave to the passions" or when implementing certain articles of faith given to them by religion.

So any appeal to man's nature is totally beside the point. Man's nature is that he can be quite inconsistent, applying rationality where it suits him.

 

 

23 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

sjw,

There is a difference between what humans sometimes do and what is best for them to do, given their nature.

 

The sentence of mine that I just quoted was my main point, a response to your statements that I am quoting here.

Ayn Rand has already explained this more fully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

The sentence of mine that I just quoted was my main point, a response to your statements that I am quoting here.

Ayn Rand has already explained this more fully.

Then what in concise terms is her answer to "Why be [consistently] rational?" Isn't it more or less "Because that will lead you to the most/best flourishing?"

Your main point isn't an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sjw said:

?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

"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.

 

Quote

"Rationality is the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." -- Ayn Rand (as quoted in OPAR p. 221)

Emphasis on "only" added by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you add the word only? What point are you trying to make?

All that follows from reason being the means of survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Why did you add the word only? What point are you trying to make?

All that follows from reason being the means of survival.

People in this forum seem to have a hard time reading.

I didn't "add" the word, I only added the emphasis. Go check out the section in OPAR for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Rand didn't care if most people were consistently rational or not.

I don't think you understand Objectivism... rationality is the primary virtue in Objectivism, and yes, it means being consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sjw said:

I don't think you understand Objectivism... rationality is the primary virtue in Objectivism, and yes, it means being consistent.

Help me understand objectivism. Where does it say I should be rational? Why should I be rational? And why do I have to be consistent? Prove it. I want citations from Ayn Rand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Help me understand objectivism. Where does it say I should be rational? Why should I be rational? And why do I have to be consistent? Prove it. I want citations from Ayn Rand. 

Surely you jest? Do you consider yourself an Objectivist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sjw said:

I don't think you understand Objectivism... rationality is the primary virtue in Objectivism, and yes, it means being consistent.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

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. 

Don't be ridiculous. They have nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, sjw said:

Surely you jest? Do you consider yourself an Objectivist?

An argument form incredulity!!! Questioning the person instead of proving it!! Fallacy fallacy!! Guess you can't prove it then! 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 2046 said:

An argument form incredulity!!! Questioning the person instead of proving it!! Fallacy fallacy!! Guess you can't prove it then! 😂

It's not an argument, and I'm not incredulous. Trolls and idiots are a dime a dozen, there's nothing surprising about you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you don't like trolling and pedantic comments and you want your arguments to be examined and exchanged seriously... Hmm 🤔🤔🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you're completely sincere when you say you can only comprehend my questions as being trolling or pedantic. But that's no excuse for engaging in that which you condemn, is it? Is aping what you hate typical behavior for you in real life too, or do you only do it when masked by that pseudonym?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×