Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sebastien

Regulars
  • Posts

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Sebastien last won the day on October 3

Sebastien had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Sebastien's Achievements

Member

Member (4/7)

3

Reputation

  1. Radical means "to the root." Ms. Rand truly was a radical for capitalism because she grasped the essential nature of capitalism as lying in the essential nature of man and his requirements for living in society. So she went "to the root."
  2. Easy Truth, I respect your contribution to this dispute, and I appreciate it. But the tone I got from my conversation with Doug Morris was not simple disagreement. If I misjudged, then I am due to apologize for what would then constitute unwarranted insult. However, if I was correct, then I will be satisfied with knowing that I was correct. The point is that if I perceived initiated verbal aggressive behavior, I have a right to retaliate verbally without being insulted in turn by an esteemed community member.
  3. The "No" is a verbal attack. Very aggressive. The source of my resorting to self-defensive verbal behavior, which was further indicated by your aggressive attitude. Will someone come to my rescue and redeem my right to verbal self-defense or not?
  4. Eiuol, read the first response Doug Morris left me, and tell me if the tone is appropriate for this forum. Then cast whatever judgment you have on me. But remember Rearden's trial.
  5. Eiuol, Do I have the right to verbal self-defense if i deemed it necessary or not?
  6. Truly it is saddening to get such a negative response from a highly esteemed community member. Did you not see the attitude with which Doug Morris instigated my self-defensive behavior? Imagine you were a child and built a structure out of blocks, and some other child just said "No." And smashed it to pieces. Would you not rationally resort to well-justified verbal self-defense? I have lost all of my respect for you Eiuol. Clearly you do not understand the core of what it means to have rights protected in an online learning and discussion environment. Instead, you reproduce the same hostility that you just criticized by smashing my good experience on this forum to pieces. Nice work. You succeeded in alienating a fellow Objectivist from the Objectivist community.
  7. Doug Morris, I think we are finding points of agreement. I'll let you have the last word on this topic.
  8. My favorite example of the principle I am arguing for is the fact that Ayn Rand was a heavy smoker. If a holy moral lawgiver were to come down from the sky and tell Ms. Rand that she was being irrational by either choosing to smoke so much or by failing to quit smoking, she would laugh and say something like: "A life without my cigarettes would not be a life worth living." Ms. Rand knew rationally the health risks of smoking. But she consciously chose to smoke heavily for the rest of her life. Can we predict that she would smoke a cigarette on a given day because she was an addict? That's not how rationally integrated minds work. We nicotine addicts choose to be addicted to nicotine, and if we have the opportunity to quit, that opportunity will come when we die and can smoke no longer.
  9. What I have found is that the more integrated my interests and values become after I have chosen them by means of reason, the less deliberation is required to make decisions concerning my interests. In other words, having thought things through, whenever I act, I have greater confidence that I am making a choice that later I will not regret.
  10. Nor should my behavior be criticized as irrational, as long as my ends are pursued and attained by rational, legal, and just means.
  11. Buying an engagement ring isn't good because it would make me happy, buying an engagement ring would make me happy because I think diamonds are worth more than they sell for. Whose reason decides that? Buying a savings bond isn't good because it makes me happy, buying a savings bond makes me happy because I think it is good to buy things that are undervalued, which savings bonds are. Again, whose reason decides that? As long as I am using my reason to the best of my ability, when it concerns individual choice, my behavior cannot be predicted by someone who does not know my rationally determined preferences.
  12. By the way, this is not an escape into moral relativism. We're talking about economics, which involves individual consumption choices. By nature, individual preference is important, while still satisfying the requirements of reason. If we were talking about social contract or arbitration on the other hand, it would be very important for rational minds to agree.
  13. Ok, great. To continue. 3. Reason is volitional. We actively choose to engage in purpose/goal-oriented behavior guided by logic and limited by the requirements of life, whether in nature, or in society. 4. Man's primary form of life in society is productive work. 5. Men who engage in productive work have a right to dispose of the product of their labor. 6. Rational men dispose of the product of their labor by rational means. 7. If a man is an end in himself, the means of disposing the product of his labor is reason, while the end of disposing of the product of his labor is his happiness. If rationality is what determines whether a means of attaining happiness is good, whose rationality governs this relationship? Does my mom have a right to tell me that drinking more than 7 cups of coffee is excessive because that is what her reason suggests to her? Who is the holy moral lawgiver who decides whether a means to my happiness is rational? Licking $1000 isn't good because it makes me happy. Licking $1000 makes me happy because I have tasted many things but nothing tastes as good as money.
  14. Doug Morris, I'm willing to continue to engage in argument with you. Let me make two assertions. Please, for the sake of continuing the argument, tell me if you think they sound right, because I will be making deductions from these two assertions. 1. Objectivism is a philosophy of rational self-interest which advocates that every man (and woman) act for the furthering of his own values and interests, while not infringing on the rights of others. 2. A rational man holds values and interests that have been determined by a process of reason.
×
×
  • Create New...