freestyle

Hmm... I think you made the "only" mistake there too. How do you reconcile that statement with: "Contradictions do not exist." You seem to be saying that this statement cannot be true.

So, said clearly, "Unicorns exist". Ok, I'll accept that you are including Unicorns in your definition of things that exist. Can you provide me an example of some thing which you can make a statement about that does not exist? (Obviously, if you're using gibberish, we are not talking about something - so it cannot be evaluated at all.) If Unicorns are fair game, I'm wondering what you would define as outside of "something that exists".

What about sjkdhfskdfjh? You stated, "Only statements about something that exists can be true or false." I provided a false statement about something (The Unicorn) that does not exist. Isn't that enough for you to concede that your proposition is flawed? How about: 1. Statements making claims about a subject described with random letters (gibberish) can not be evaluated for truthfulness.

Unicorns are frogs with beards. Unicorns don't exist, yet we know the above statement to be false.

Stupid on parade:

Can you work honestly and rationally while there? If so, you're earning your $.

I think you're missing the point of this topic. Rand has already done all the hard intellectual work in terms of making the case to a captive audience (and others continue to do so). I want to identify an effective method for gaining wider attention so as to bring the understanding of the philosophy to a critical mass. I do quite a bit on an individual level to discuss rational selfishness with as many people as I can. That may have some positive benefits for me (and them), yes, but it is not the breakthrough I'm looking for. I still am living in a world mostly guided by an evil and destructive philosophy. As I indicate in the title of this thread, I'm thinking in terms of "marketing" here. The standard way you might think to get a philosophy out to the masses is with a book. And that is a great way for the people that a.) find the book and b.) read the book. Atlas Shrugged (along with The Fountainhead) has obviously been the best success to date to drive people to Objectivism. But still, the majority of people you ask probably won't even know of the book, and many that do won't have any idea what it is about. In addition, there are not an abundance of people making the selfishness argument in public. Sure, you might get an occasional Yaron Brook or Harry Binswanger guest spot on the Glenn Beck show... but that's about it. Reading and re-reading much of Rand's non-fiction is a both rewarding and a bit depressing at the same time. These writings from 30, 40, 50 years ago describe a "current" dominant, flawed philosophy that still persists today so precisely that it shows nothing has changed in half a century. On the bright side, in general, you have the Tea Party movement which appears to be pushing/pointing in a positive direction on some issues... You see a lot of Atlas Shrugged signs -- But I think it is pretty clear that this is more of a general rejection of socialism and big government and may not necessarily have the fundamental philosophical undergirding necessary to properly support the actions required. I'd like to think I have 70-80 or so years left of life. I'll think of something... ... but if anyone has The Big Idea... I'd like to hear it. The "product" here is, objectively, good. Why should it be so hard to introduce it to "the masses"?

Re: Selling Selfishness Do a survey and ask 100 people if selfishness is "good or bad". Extrapolate from there to see why it is an uphill battle. What I'm looking for is the way to break through on a large scale. Can a movie do it? A president? If every person in a country were, at least, exposed to Ayn Rand and her ideas then I'd agree that the job would be much less difficult.

I don't believe I can sell it on an individual basis any better than Ayn Rand has already done with her book (The Virtue of Selfishness). If you've read that, then you understand the challenge. Most people will disagree with the title on its face and not give it a second thought. (And, of course, not read the book.) Now, if you've read the book and disagree with the thesis... then that's something we can discuss (just not in this thread, there are plenty of them here though).

<table style="font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="360" height="353"><tbody><tr style="background-color:#e5e5e5" valign="middle"><td style="padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</td><td style=padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height:14px;" valign="middle"><td style="padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2" <a="" target="_blank" href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-17-2010/jason-jones--bayonne">Jason Jones' Bayonne</td></tr><tr style=height:14px; background-color:#353535" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right">www.thedailyshow.com</td></tr><tr valign=middle"><td style="padding:0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display:block" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:366011" width="360" height="301" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000"></td></tr><tr style="height:18px;" valign="middle"><td style="padding:0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin:0px; text-align:center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%" height="100%"><tbody><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding:3px; width:33%;">Daily Show Full Episodes</td><td style=padding:3px; width:33%;">Political Humor</td><td style=padding:3px; width:33%;">Rally to Restore Sanity</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

The point I was getting at is that atheism is not necessarily a step in the direction of morality. In many cases it takes people in the opposite direction (think hedonism, nihilism). Rejecting "god" to those who are believers isn't something that I find to be a first priority. I substitute "god" with the idea/concept "unknown" and much falls into place (i.e. In Jesus' times, it was "God" that held the moon up in the sky). :-) Now, as soon as a messenger of God starts telling me how my life should be, that's when I reject it. Especially when they tell me that I'm noble if I live a selfless life. However, when I hear God used in the context of "the highest order", I let it go because that isn't a threat. That's just lack of specific knowledge filled in by the traditional answer.

What if they say... "We were never considering abortion. Not for a second. We just wanted to expose how sick the world is. So far 21 thousand people, without knowing us, have actually voted that we should kill the human being we have created and is currently developing into a person." I don't know. I normally would ignore this crap. (I didn't say it wasn't sick, btw) Balloon boy was a pretty sick stunt too. Edit: My guess is they have an activist pro-life agenda and want attention. On the site http://www.birthornot.com/ they show ultrasound pics where you can see the fetus' shape and some video with it moving. They're not going to have an abortion. Never were. They think they're going to expose sick people. And they very likely will (even if two of them happen to be themselves).

It looks like a pure publicity stunt to me. Trying to make money... or trying to make a point.

Same year: BASEBALL; Ryan Signs Pact Worth $4 Million For 1992 Season

Agreed 100%. "For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors—between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it." - John Galt It is less important that the concept "God" be rejected than for the morality of altruism to be rejected.

When http://xtranormal.com/ comes back from maintenance you should copy paste this all into a video. :-) I'll watch!

I worked at a large company for a while before I went off and started my own business. The reason is because people in large companies want a:) to keep their job, and b:) to get a promotion. Since this applies near universally to everyone in the company, naturally there is competition within the workforce. When one feels like they can trust someone as a loyal friend or ally, they tend to want that support around them as much as possible and they will bring them along if they get promoted. Someone who is an independent producer can be very threatening.

An option is for a limited time. It isn't full ownership indefinitely.

Well then you have a chicken and egg problem. How do you know that you prefer cookies to a smack on the head? You need to HAVE some accurate knowledge of, or experience with, cookies to form a preference. But the context of rational selfishness was my point here. Once dead, there is no YOU for the decision to be about. The rational case for suicide is a choice between NOT being able to live a rationally selfish life (but still being biologically alive) or NOT being able to live a rationally selfish life by being dead. It is akin to having to act in an emergency situation. I would say that the choice for suicide is the perfect example of how one could be rational and not selfish*. Remember, in the case where suicide would be considered the rational choice, the option of living a rationally selfish life has been removed from the equation. (If it hadn't, then choosing death would, necessarily, NOT be rational.) If a man's right to free will and choice of actions is taken from him (by force or nature), life becomes biological and not the Objectivist's definition of man's life (self-sustaining and self-generated action). So the choice is between two zeros. Death or non-life. A forced choice between two evils is not part the normal conditions of life where objective selfishness can apply. *Selfish in the Objectivist's sense of serving your LONG-TERM rational best self interest. Suicide is instant and final. Long-term selfish life is off the table in this scenario.

Agreed. So what's the best way to have that happen? I'm not sure I can totally identify the problem. I think that not having a replacement word for what people INCORRECTLY call "selfishness" may be at issue. But I definitely think that understanding of rational egoism is very much tied to the word selfish and having the negative connotation dislodged from the generally accepted usage. The question I'm trying to raise in this topic is whether or not convincing people that it is harmless IS actually required. My question is; Can we limit the word to what it really is? Selfish, meaning "concerned with" self, does not address other's. Selfish has come to mean, "bad for others" and usually something akin to rapacious. You're right. It isn't that hard to teach to a young child. What makes it difficult is that they will get a lot of conflicting messages at school. You just have to stay on top of it. I gave the example the other day to my son: The teacher tells all the kids at recess that there is pizza back in the classroom for when recess is over. YOU race in there early and eat ALL the pizza. Was that selfish? He said "yes, but the bad kind". I said, "OK... Let tell you a little more of the story... Now, you have a bad stomach-ache. When the other kids got back they were all very mad at you and called you names. AND the teacher was also very upset and told you that you will not get pizza the next time and will have to sit on the bench for the next 2 recess'." He said, "Definitely BAD selfish"... I could get into rational and irrational selfishness, but I feel like "irrational selfishness" is an oxymoron on the face. Even the suffix "ish" seems to have taken on a negative connotation over time. Whereas my understanding that it simply denotes like, resembling, from, origin, nature -- it seems to be characterized as "excessive" now. Anyway, I still think that serious effort should be put towards establishing the premise that "Good for the individual" does not automatically imply (and is often a total contradiction of) "Bad for all other individuals".

There's a thread here, looking for the perfect replacement word. In the end, that is an equivocation. The word still needs to be "won back". In another thread: And I've said it myself: I've been doing some thinking about the Objectivist's challenge of conveying the proper meaning of selfish. Spawned by my almost 6 year old son sometimes asking me "Is that the 'good' selfish or the 'bad' selfish?" I don't prefer him to accept that there can be a "bad" type of selfishness, but I have had to explain that MOST (if not all) times he hears someone using the term "selfish" they are not meaning it as a good thing. I explain to him that they are not using the best word choice for what they are trying to say. (Unfortunately I have yet to have found the perfect replacement word, which he calls a "thesaurus word" - I'm working on "greed" right now-- it can be helpful, but it isn't panning out as I would like due to its root meaning). One thing I that I've had to acknowledge is that while Selfishness (rational) is always good for the self, that does NOT imply whether it is good or bad for every other living being. It has nothing to do with other people (good or bad), it is a word that is referring SPECIFICALLY to the one's self. I gave him the example of feeling hungry for ice cream on the way home. You say to yourself, "I want vanilla ice cream!" - You stop and buy yourself some ice cream. "Was that selfish?", I ask? Of course it is. "Did it hurt anyone else?" The answer is no... (in fact, his answer was "It helped the person who sold you the ice cream!" -- :-) Which made me feel very proud). Was it good for the guy who owns The Cleaner's next door? No. Was it bad for him? No, Yes? -- Maybe? you did take up the last parking spot. So, my current line of thought is as follows: Is it better to argue and present the proper definition of selfishness as LIMITED to whether or not it is rationally good for one's self and ADDRESS AND CONFRONT the fact that it makes no judgment as to the effects on every other person in society? Is the answer to the problem of the word being broadened to mean "good for you AND bad for everyone else" to proactively point out the LIMIT of the meaning. Look up selfishness in Wikipedia. Horrible. In a way, I'm suggesting that this is much like the argument for Capitalism properly being that it is moral and NOT that "the outcome will be good for society". I agree with Rand that the word can not be considered a lost cause. It is the cause. Can anyone suggest the best (most efficient and effective) strategy to promote widespread education (re-education) of what the term means on a widespread level?

How can one prefer "not living"? I mean, objectively explain to me how, once the choice is made and completed, the "self" is happier. What you're proposing is a choice between two evils. And in that context, yes there are times when the "lesser evil" for a living person to chose may rationally be death. That is a failure of value achievement at the highest possible level. When death is the best option, the alternative(s) must necessarily be to live as less than man qua man... without the option to exercise freedom, free will, or achieve one's rational values, the option to act selfishly is lost. In the context of Objectivist Selfishness, suicide is the polar opposite.

Is suicide selfish? No. Dead people have no self to serve. It is the exact opposite.

In today's news: FDA Set to Move on Caffeine in Alcoholic Drinks

So you're only arguing that regulations (with the force of LAW behind them) are legitimate so long as they objectively protect individuals from violations of their rights? It is the Objectivist's position that laws which objectively protect individual rights are legitimate. So long as the person making this argument correctly understands what rights are, then there can be no disagreement with the above. However, as soon as you argue that one has a "right" to have the number of calories provided to them on every package of Ding Dongs they choose to buy, then you expose yourself as an authoritarian statist with no understanding of what rights are.