ZeusTKP

hmmmm, I would say that "A is A" is self-evident, and I don't see the difference between saying: Something exists. and Something exists. Should I hammer out this topic before reading VOS? yes

I actually tried to find info on "new age libertarians" but couldn't. Do you have any links? What's the difference compared to regular libertarians?

yes yes (but not all of them) You would have to elaborate on what you mean by identity. The day the thread was locked I checked online if the bookstore near me had "The Virtue of Selfishness" available, and was planning to pick it up after work. I was going to take Marc K. up on his offer.

I don't think I made myself clear. I didn't mean "deal with them" as in dealing with people on a personal level, or talking with them. I mean in a political sense. You live in a country where most people have some irrational beliefs. How do you plan to advance your agenda? If you plan to advance your agenda, that is. Personally, I don't know if I can answer my own question. I feel pretty helpless. But are we talking about the absolute number of people, or the percentage?

To Jennifer: So will anything ever change?

How do Objectivists deal with irrational people? More specifically, right now there are many factions of irrational people such as: socialists, religious fundamentalists, libertarians. So what's the game plan? Do you think they will all become rational (ie Objectivists) eventually? Do you deal with each group in the same way? Or are Objectivists happy with they way thigs are?

I honestly had no idea that Objectivists hate libertarians so much. Wow. Yeah, I'm looking through the posts.

OK and not OK are meaningless questions to me. You are presupposing that things are either OK or not OK. If you are asking me if I would be happy if you killed me, then my answer is no. I'm guessing that the Jews weren't too happy to be gassed because I wouldn't want to be gassed either. Hold on. Please define what it means that "no individual has the right to take any action which infringes on the rights of another." What does it mean that someone does not have the right to do something? If they are physically capable of doing something, then they are still able to do it regardless of whether they have a right to, correct? What purpose is there in saying that someone has certain rights? yes Not according to my definition of "reason". A non-thinking creature can live. A person who is only sometimes rational can also live. see http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=4836

In another thread I said that I want to associate with libertarians to create a better world. This was the response I received: So what is the deal with Libertarians? I was under the impression that the libertarian party was the closest in ideals to Objectivism. What political party (or political ideals) is favored by Objectivists?

I guess that in the short term I'm looking for like-minded people to socialize with. In the long term, I'm interested in making the world a better place. I should probably talk to libertarians for that. As far as refining my ideas about the real world, I need to talk with others. So I need to find out what they think. How are you trying to make sure that your ideas coincide with reality?

We have to be very careful with our words at this point. When you say that something is good, are you saying that you want it to happen, or are you saying that it is good regardless of what anyone wants? If you think the latter, then you are allready assuming that things are objectively good or bad regardless what any person thinks. If you are using the former definition, then the answer to your question depends on the person. In my case, I want whatever will get me the most value and will make me feel good. In a civilized country, that's being a doctor. In a wild environment, that might be being a murderer. I think that there is no such thing as an objective moral code. I'd bet that your moral code says that you should be a doctor, not a killer. I'd also bet that there are people who have the opposite moral code. Hmmmmmmmm It is not rational to just stop living if you just feel like it? (not because of any hardship) I guess this is the problem, because I don't see why living is any more rational than dying. You will die anyway, so what is the point in living as long as possible? No, no one should anything. That's the point. If they want to live, they will live. If they want to die, they will die. Neither act is rational or irrational. I should say that I use a specific definition of what is rational and what is not. If given facts you draw the logical conclusion, then you are rational. If you draw an illogical conclusion, then you are irrational. You don't have to have a reason for doing everything that you do, because ultimately, I don't see that we have any reason for living. Hmmm, I want to say more, but I'll wait for a reply. OK, I might do that.

Let's stop here. This is not a statement that I would make. I don't think that "rights" exist. Which part? Figuring out if I generally share Objectivist beliefs or finding people who share my beliefs?

I want to clarify something. There is a number of reasons why I would rather talk to people in the forum than to read the books. Not just the cost in money or time. First of all, I care what you think and not just what is cannon in Objectivism. For example, I think that GreedyCapitalist is at least ambivalent about morality, so our beliefs are very close. (I'm saying this based on the short amount of time I've spent talking to him in person). But this is not "true" Objectivism as I understand. Second of all, I'm interested in a specific issue, namely morality. I have a specific opinion allready, but I want to make sure that I've considered all sides of this issue. For me, this requires a lot of back and forth discussion. I can't talk to a book and ask it questions. Lastly, the amount of work that I would do researching the issue all on my own is not worth the benefit. It turns out that no matter who's right, I still live my life pretty much like an Objectivist. The reason I'm here is to figure out if my beliefs are close enough to Objectivist beliefs for me to associate with Objectivists. If not, I need to figure out what group out there DOES share my beliefs. Statistics say that out of 6 billion people at least some should. Well, I'm pretty certain that there is no objective morality of any kind. I'm trying to make sure that I'm not ignoring some argument against this position. But I still have to point out anything that does not make sense in any contrary argument. I can't just accept something if it doesn't make sense to me. So in effect I would be arguing against some concept in Objectivism. But my immediate purpose is not to challenge Objectivism.

Cost is not so much an issue as time and convinience. Anything in electronic form is easier to read and quote for me. And in general, I would prefer to have a discussion with someone and have point-by-point back and forth rebuttals instead of replying to an entire essay which would require another essay as a response. That's fine, we can take our time narrow it down to the specifics that we care about. I agree so far. This is where I have a problem. If someone is pursuing value, why can't that person take value from someone else? One more question I might have is whether you think it's possible that not all of Objectivism is correct.

I've just read through parts 1 & 2 and I just want to make the point that I don't agree that “cynical egoism” is not egoism or that it is not rational to enslave others. Other than fear of retribution, why would you not take something by force from someone else. Why would you not enslave someone else? On to part 3... OK, I've finished part 3. I do not agree with the primacy of conciousness of view. "The primacy of consciousness metaphysics claims that consciousness in some form, controls reality" I completely disagree with this. The problem is that I think that "might makes right" IS objective reality, while Dr. Bernstein is saying that not exploiting others is the proper thing to do. But I don't see any justification in the article for why we must not exploit anyone else. He says that exploiters can't survive on their own. This is true, but it is possible to both exploit others and to be productive. It is also possible to exploits others, but no so much as to kill them. In these two cases, the exploiter can still survive. Also it is implied that trying to survive is rational, and that not trying to survive is not. I don't think that this has been shown and I don't think it's true. I consider survival to be no more or less rational than suicide. It is very difficult to offend me. I am not squeamish and I make a conscientious effort to not get offended. i.e. not get emotional. [Edit: removed quote for "spring" cleaning. Cheers! Matt]