Nicky

The pursuit of happiness is rational if the source of happiness is rational, and it is irrational otherwise. It most certainly isn't rational in itself. Nothing is rational in itself. The only rational things are the things which are a consequence of reason. If you wish to achieve happiness by means other than reason, then you are irrational, no matter how many paragraphs or pages it takes you to dance around that fact.

Are they? How do you figure?

Children are easily influenced by their teachers. They have free will, but they don't have a strong will. That is why, if a child is taught to focus and learn, he does. But you can also teach a child to evade and refuse to learn. I can't imagine anyone doing that on purpose, and there also isn't anyone who can survive enough to have children and be able to feed them, while at the same time lack the ability to get them to learn anything whatsoever, but there are plenty of children who are influenced into choosing to un-focus their minds to some extent, very early on. That is why, by the first grade, some kids are "sharp" while with others you can already tell they won't do well in school. That disparity isn't explained by their brain structure, it is explained by their early education, the choices they are taught to make.

Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual:

No, she wouldn't say that. She would say (well, repeat, because she already said it) the exact opposite: that productive work is the central purpose of a man's life, and that reason is the source of that purpose. She would argue (as she has, feel free to look it up in the Lexicon, under "purpose" coincidentally enough) exactly what you're saying would be hard to argue: that rationality produces purpose on its own. What reason is is a given, and what the proper purpose of a man's life is (productiveness) is also a given precisely because it is the logical consequence of reason. And the way it ties into this thread is that, since what reason is is a given, what reason isn't is by definition irrational. So any discussion of the benefits of thing X (whatever that may be) cannot possibly get passed whether X is rational or irrational. In this case, reverence of something godlike (which the OP already admitted he cannot and doesn't want to provide proof for) is obviously irrational. My position is that irrational things are not beneficial. That includes the irrational thing the OP suggested is. As for the notion that some irrational things are "a need", all I can do is repeat the same question I asked (and watched go unanswered) in the other thread Devil made the same exact claim in: a need to achieve what purpose? It's certainly not the purpose Ayn Rand believed should properly be the central purpose of a man's life. That purpose results from rationality, and its only needs are rational. So, for the second time this week: What purpose is going to be achieved, by filling this need for reverence for something godlike?

No, you are suggesting that reverence for something godlike (which is irrational) has medical benefits. And you're not providing statistical evidence and medical research, you are providing some statistics that are evidence for nothing. It's the same exact fallacy being used to argue for socialized healthcare, gun control, and various other Japanese or European restrictions on freedom: they live a couple of years longer, therefor everything they do differently from Americans is good.

Rationality is the source of morality: it is the means by which we determine what the right ideas are. It can't also be the result: reverence for the right ideas. If it is, then you're just describing a circular argument, not a rational philosophy. Rationality is the source of reverence for ideas like individualism and freedom, but it's not that reverence. That is the definition of irrationality. The notion that irrationality is good for your health is just as obviously ridiculous as the suggestion that your link contains scientific research.

My starting position is that the faithful are irrational mystics. I will go beyond it as soon as you provide proof of God's existence.

You haven't provided enough of a context for me to be able to say anything specific. All you provided was a brief description of the crime. What one has a moral right to do in response to such a crime depends on much more than just the crime itself.

I used the power of deduction. If the decision to abandon him was made "early in the child's life", that means the father was on board with the conception, pregnancy and birth part. Otherwise, the decision would've been made before the child's life.

Depends. I said "if the justice system fails you". But I don't necessarily consider having someone acquitted by a jury to be "the justice system failing the victim". I don't think Casey Anthony's acquittal was the justice system failing, for instance. Expecting 100% conviction rates from the justice system would be an unreasonable standard for non-failure. The minimal requirement for a justice system failure would be the willful miscarriage of justice or blatant and provable incompetence on the part of officials. In that case, yes, an individual does have the moral right to act instead.

This guy doesn't seem to be using Objectivist principles at all. He instead is doing the same thing all anarchists are doing: taking non-initiation of force (a minor tool Ayn Rand used to explain her fundamental ideas) as an out-of-context primary, and running with it. But Ayn Rand's fundamental principle guiding human interactions isn't non-initiation of force, it's the principle of individual rights. And the principle of individual rights cannot in fact be logically extended to give you (and all individuals) the right to arrest thieves and put them in jail, or hang them, or whatever else your idea of justice and retaliatory force may be. Does this guy ever explain how he started with the right to life, liberty and property, and ended up with the supposed right to start a "defense company that retaliates against those who have initiated force"? (again, my impression is that he didn't start with individual rights, he started with non-initiation of force - he thinks that the Objectivist position is that rights mean that you can do whatever you want except initiate force, irrespective of context - and that's a blatant misunderstanding of Oism, not a "correction". In Objectivism, the government is the means by which retaliatory force is placed under objective control, not as a consequence of "people having the right to do it", but as a consequence of individual rights having to be protected. Just because Ayn Rand thought a government was rightful and necessary, to protect individual rights, it doesn't mean she also thought individuals have the right to exercise all the powers of the government, at their discretion.

Everything is context dependent, sure, but in a normal context, yes, abandoning your child is immoral. A child you agreed to have is a responsibility you assumed until he reaches maturity. Balking at that responsibility, by choice, is dishonest and irresponsible. Which part of Objectivism are you basing that understanding on? Are you familiar with the seven virtues described in Atlas Shrugged?

Unless you are defending yourself from immediate harm, fighting someone is one of two things: 1. A choice to compete, as in a sporting exercise. Like a duel, without the killing. Choosing to compete in a fist fight against a weaker woman is irrational for objective reasons, not just because society feels that way. Women are usually not a match to men, in a fight. 2. Retaliation. Choosing to hit anyone (man or woman) as punishment for a crime, in a civilized society, is always irrational. It's not your prerogative to retaliate against someone. Not even if you're the victim. It's the justice system's. (You may only take justice in your own hands if the justice system fails you.)

Yes. Mysticism and irrationality.

I don't personally know much about it, but if it works as advertised, then it's a secular, non-political means to socialize with respectable, dependable human beings. Sounds pretty great to me.

Was this before or after she declared that she would never vote for an atheist President, because he "doesn't represent all the religious people"?

Yes, you can be a Freemason and an Objectivist at the same time. There is no contradiction between the two. Freemasons are not a religious or political organization. The "supreme being" requirement is loose and non-essential enough to be disregarded, and your obligations to other Masons are not unchosen. You choose them when you join, that's the whole point of joining. As to the criticisms of the posters above me, Hairnet, charity is not an altruistic cause, and jm323, the OP asked a question about Objectivism, not your opinion on Freemasons and whether you find them silly or not.

When I asked you what is being applied, you said it was a subjective experience. Now you are back to saying that it's knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense or insight. Which is it? Curiosity isn't even an exclusively human trait, let alone a trait exclusive to humans who apply subjective experiences to the question of what's beyond our imagination. If your standard for wisdom is curiosity, then stating that wisdom is applying subjective experiences to the question of what's beyond our imagination is blatantly wrong. By your standard, cats are at least as wise as priests. Probably more so, since priests don't strike me as very curious.

Everything is dependent on context. The act of killing someone is murder or justifiable homicide depending on context, for instance. Subjective doesn't mean dependent on context. It means dependent on the subject (meaning that if you and me are in the same exact situation, I consider it moral for me to do something, because I'm me, but immoral for you to do it, because you're not me).

Simulation of what? Alien to whom? How do you know about 21st century Earth? I am having trouble taking your claim that perception is invalid seriously, because you keep using products of perception in a matter of fact way. No-where in your description of these simulations and aliens do you consider the possibility that simulations, species, aliens, planets, time, etc. do not exist. Never have, never will. You are talking as if their existence is a fact, while at the same time denying that it's a fact. Likelihood is a scientific term. It means a probability is greater than some others. Probabilities are determined based on facts. What facts have you used to determine the probability of us communicating? And what method to calculate it, from those facts?

I am asking what standard have you used to determine that applying subjective personal experiences to the question of what's beyond our imagination is wise?

How do you know that people can fantasize about things? What are people? What does "to know" mean? What does "can" mean? You really don't see how absurd it is to tell me that "we're saying the same thing" right after denying that there's any reason to even believe that we're in communication through our perception and interaction with reality? Where would you get the notion that "we're saying the same thing"? What could that possibly be based on, if you don't first accept that perception of reality is an actual thing and it connects us? When did I say that? What I'm saying is that silence and inaction is the only way to not contradict the claim that you know of no other existent except yourself. As soon as you use a word or perform an action, you have acknowledged perception, because all words are built on perception and all actions are interactions with the reality we perceive. Rationality is a constraint. It is what conforms us to reality. The reason why I want to be rational is because conforming to reality is the way to survive in it. But if you're in a dream, why would you want to be constrained by its rules? Why would rationality be a good choice? I don't know about you, but whenever I realize that I'm in a dream, the first thing I do is try to fly. Either by jumping up and just floating away, or if for some reason that doesn't work, by jumping off of something. Same with video games: first order of business is finding a cop and stealing his car. There is absolutely no reason to live by any kind of rules (be it the laws of physics or Reason in general). Can you give me a reason why you wish to be rational?

No legal checks can ensure that. If people want something other than LFC, legal checks will always be circumvented by politicians, to deliver what the electorate asks of them. Legal checks don't have any power by themselves. Without people to stand up for them, they aren't worth the paper they're written on. My position is that it's impossible to keep a LFC government without popular support. How do you go from that to "it's impossible for any capitalist government to sustain itself"?

Yeah, but what I'm asking is, which standard are you using?