Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


2046 last won the day on October 6

2046 had the most liked content!

About 2046

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8531 profile views
  1. That and the primary purpose of most of these people is to channel new converts into the Objectivist lecture/books/course/conference/membership ecosystem, which is the primary monetization enterprise, aside from convincing rich people to donate money to them. I'd just recommend steering clear of them altogether, there's only a few of them that are even good at what they do. Let's take a look at the following propositions that DO mentioned: 1. The facts and logic always lead to only one conclusion 2. If two people come to different conclusions, then one if them has betrayed reaso
  2. This is another good point. I have a bit of a soft spot for the ordinary language school. I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether the everyday common sense usage of "conflicts of interest" comports with the meaning Rand employs here. And if it does not (which it definitely doesn't) what motivates our moving from the one usage to the other? And the answer to that lies in the answer to the question: why does Rand need there to be no conflicts of interest? What work is this doing in her overall system? I mean what's the cash value of the thing? Suppose she's wrong, someti
  3. Maybe this will actually help provide clarity. I don't think we're having a conflict of interest, at least not in Rand's sense. I take Rand's sense of interest from the VOS introduction and "The Objectivist Ethics" to refer to ones good as a human being. (Or more precisely, to refer to the scope of one's good.) I take this because she uses self-interest and selfishness interchangeably (or as selfishness as concern for ones own interest), and refers to them as "the values required for man's survival qua man." I don't think my good and Merlin's good are in conflict. We don't have to agree t
  4. You need me to believe that to maintain your worldview
  5. Let us take this opportunity to discuss the metaphilosophical issues confronting the way you are required to do philosophy, before I turn to my usual dismissiveness. And yes I am choosing my words purposefully, philosophy is normative and has requirements. You are required (in the sense that you can be held to it) to do (at minimum) alternatively 1-7 below in order to do philosophy well. If I turn in a paper that doesn't follow these methods (among others), I get a bad grade. (This list is not intended be exhaustive.) In the OP, ET says he "can't integrate" the conflicts of interest idea.
  6. The Stoics made a differentiation between what they called impressions and nature. The Sage (a hypothetical exemplar that is always perfectly rational and virtuous) never assents to impressions without using his intellect to assess the source of the impression. Giving assent to an impression without assessing it would open oneself up to living by misguided thoughts and appearances. Taking a wider point of view to nature is supposed to allow one to see how one is a part of the world and subject to cause and change, and living amongst other people, and thus not fall inadvertently into thinking t
  7. In evaluating a philosopher's conclusion or doctrine on something, you generally want to know what they mean when they say things. Otherwise it's a fallacy of equivocation. So if Merlin wants to say "well maybe on Rand's premises there aren't, but on my premises there are!" that is either completely uninteresting contribution to the discussion on Rand's philosophy, or it's a fallacy of equivocation. If Merlin is only playing around with his own premises, then he can do that without my participation. If he's making logical fallacies then he is unworthy of discourse. The question for everyone el
  8. "Basically stating" is not demonstrating anything. We see that E1 and E2 have plans that conflict. Most people have ordinary experience of conflicting plans among people in life. So now you need to show how this is a "conflict of rational interests" in Rand's sense in the essay.
  9. I mean I'd say neither. There is a conflict in the sense that the plans conflict since you stipulated they are incompatible. And that's fully coherent with saying one, both, or neither of them is being irrational. We don't know that yet. But this tells us nothing about whether there is a conflict of rational interests. Again, the thesis is about interests: whether there is a basic conflict in our individual human good. It's not a thesis about conflict of conclusions, conflict of plans, or legal/financial conflict. So to rework your example to make it more relevant to the problem at hand,
  10. Because her point is when you are being rational, you take 100% of the context in mind. Context refers to, she wants to say, the fact that you aren't living in a solipsistic way. So her point isn't about a given percentage or amount of time that any understanding of one's interests don't conflict but that they need not ever, when rightly understood (ie., are "rational.")
  11. Also, NHC folks don't use words literally. "Capitalism is racist" is also a tautology for "capitalism is against what I want." In this way, by saying the words "capitalism is systemically racist" we cast the spell that refutes capitalism. This is called problematizing. The first post I made was the closest thing approximating an actual argument, a more classical Marxist would make. Capitalism is racist because it's exploitative, and chattel slavery is a logical extension of (100%) wage slavery.
  12. You didn't actually account for A.) "all those aspects of existence which are open to his [man's] choice" B.) Ways in which choices express the virtues C.) Ways in which your life is limited and thus even a small mismanagement of values do effect the course of your life A is hard counterexample to your interpretation. Your minor premise is that there are choices that don't in fact effect the course of your life, so maintaining that premise requires dealing with B and C in some way.
  13. Sure, a lot of Rand's psychology, and philosophy in general, is underdetermined. And certainly we ought to follow wherever the argument and evidence takes us. But the guy didn't ask "what's Boystun's theory on this," he wants to understand "The Objectivist Ethics," right? So I think it's fair to say non-moral choices don't exist for Rand, and she thinks value-judgments are chosen and automatized into emotions, such that the "sources" of our emotions are discoverable (eg., VOS 27.)
  • Create New...