Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Everything posted by sjw

  1. Sincerity is impossible to anyone primarily interested in Objectivism. "Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend." -- Aristotle
  2. Yeah, it would be the guy who has no thoughts of his own but can only quote Ayn Rand who'd pull the "critic is a troll" gambit. Pathetic.
  3. That paragraph isn't relevant unless you're trying for a cheap insult. Was that what you were aiming at? Are there Objectivist forums out there that have competent students of Objectivism, or is this the best there is? You guys are pretty awful, frankly. I'd ask the official scholars these questions but they only engage with critics when doing so translates to cash in their pocket, which is somewhat ironic given the subject here. (I fully expect the irony to go completely over your heads.)
  4. Sigh... You claimed I got a reasoned explanation but I ignored it, I was simply asking for what particular argument here you were referring to, there have been many posts. It's not my intention to ignore reasoned arguments. More likely you thought something was a great argument while in reality it sucked. But who knows when you don't specify what you're referring to.
  5. Link? I don't take your other remarks seriously, you're just projecting. Put up or shut up.
  6. At the start of this thread I think I got some decent answers. None of these later posts are answering the original question and they are misconstruing the intent. Just because I disagree that the argument for a given conclusion is full of holes, doesn't mean I disagree with the conclusion. Is the hole a hole or not? That's the question. Attacking me or telling me how wonderful the conclusion is doesn't speak to the holes. If Ayn Rand had claimed to have solved a great math problem, but where she got the right answer but made mistakes in how she computed it, should that matter? (This over
  7. OK, but that's just elementary philosophy, it doesn't need to be stated here.
  8. To which I replied "They have nukes." Of course we should care about widespread irrationality. Perhaps you want to rephrase this?
  9. This is a tangent related to your claim that "Rand didn't care if most people were consistently rational or not" and "What the majority do is beside the point", it's not relevant to the main point. The main point is more in the area of whether Rand thought rationality was a virtue. I.e. *consistently* being rational. She most certainly did think that, but you seem to dispute it. Go read OPAR if you disagree.
  10. 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?
  11. It's not an argument, and I'm not incredulous. Trolls and idiots are a dime a dozen, there's nothing surprising about you.
  12. Don't be ridiculous. They have nukes.
  13. Surely you jest? Do you consider yourself an Objectivist?
  14. I don't think you understand Objectivism... rationality is the primary virtue in Objectivism, and yes, it means being consistent.
  15. 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.
  16. Emphasis on "only" added by me.
  17. 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.
  18. Gross non-sequiturs. If that's the limit of your imagination then just move along.
  19. Well, that is what the topic is about -- precisely what is that argument?
  20. 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!
  21. Nope, you're just intentionally misconstruing me.
  22. His was the most irrelevant response of everyone's here. I've already read her works myself, quoting it back to me is useless without interpretation relating to my question. The matter of importance here is the argument to be (or to strive to be) consistently rational. That's what rationality means -- consistently being rational. It doesn't merely mean being rational in the sense of man being the "rational animal", where 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
  • Create New...