If I am acting out of self-interest (which I am),
then make a prediction.
What am I going to say or do next?
2 minutes ago, Sebastien said:
If I am acting out of self-interest (which I am),
then make a prediction.
What am I going to say or do next?
In some circumstances, self-interested actions are somewhat predictable.
Your understanding of Objectivism is strange, making it difficult to predict what you will say.
If you see a prediction of your actions, you can act so as to make it fail.
I actually successfully predicted that you would suggest looking at a prediction and acting to make it fail.
Do you know why?
Because I perceive very clearly that you are on a power trip,
and you’re enjoying the ride while trying to pretend that you are not being an asshole.
I know your premises. I can read them like a book.
Don’t mess with me. Find another punk who has a chip on his shoulder like you.
Then you can play arrogant together.
Me? No thank you.
My understanding of Objectivism is strange?
You better do some studying because I’ve been studying Objectivism a lot harder than you,
which is made very clear simply by critically observing the points you made
with absolutely no sense of pride, integrity, or any morsel of good character at all.
Don’t. Mess. With. Me.
To settle this matter with reason.
The fundamental postulate of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism that pertains to economic decisions
is that human beings have free will and choose their own values.
If you gave me $1,000 as payment that I deserve for teaching you this lesson,
you wouldn’t have the faintest clue what I would do with it.
Maybe I would lick it to death because I like the taste of money.
Maybe I would buy an engagement ring even though I don’t have a future wife.
Maybe I would buy a savings bond instead of a treasury bond even though treasury bonds have a higher yield.
Good luck predicting the economic interests of 300 million Americans.
Get off this thread and do some reading, and then come back and tell me if you still think my
understanding of Objectivism is strange.
Anyone else reading the most recent development of this thread,
my conversation with Doug Morris,
My contributions are not violating any of the rules of this forum.
Unfortunately I have had to use verbal self-defense
just to get this arrogant dude off my back.
If there is any question, just read the thread.
The facts will speak for themselves.
Additionally, any support from others in my defense would be much appreciated.
2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
In some circumstances, self-interested actions are somewhat predictable.
1 hour ago, Sebastien said:
Maybe I would lick it to death because I like the taste of money.
Maybe I would buy an engagement ring even though I don’t have a future wife.
Maybe I would buy a savings bond instead of a treasury bond even though treasury bonds have a higher yield.
Would all of these be in your self-interest?
1 hour ago, Sebastien said:
Get off this thread and do some reading, and then come back and tell me if you still think my
understanding of Objectivism is strange.
I have done a lot of reading of Ayn Rand. I stand by everything I have said in this thread.
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.
-
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.
-
A rational man holds values and interests that have been determined by a process of reason.
16 minutes ago, Sebastien said:
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.
A rational man holds values and interests that have been determined by a process of reason.
Yes, both are correct.
Ok, great.
To continue.
-
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.
-
Man’s primary form of life in society is productive work.
-
Men who engage in productive work have a right to dispose of the product of their labor.
-
Rational men dispose of the product of their labor by rational means.
-
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.
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.
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.
Nor should my behavior be criticized as irrational, as long as my ends are pursued and attained by rational, legal, and just means.
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.
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.
33 minutes ago, Sebastien said:
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.
Sebastien, this is a forum not a twitter account. Consider outlining your responses to a thread and composing a single summation, or if need be, identify which post(s) in particular you are responding to. You have an hour after you post a response to edit that response.
As to consciously choosing to smoke heavily for the rest of her life, Mr. Rand, when the doctor informed her that she was killing herself with the habit, quit cold-turkey in 1975. You may want to seek out a new favorite example, or revamp this one to be in better alignment with the available facts.
1 hour ago, Sebastien said:
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.
Man’s primary form of life in society is productive work.
Men who engage in productive work have a right to dispose of the product of their labor.
Rational men dispose of the product of their labor by rational means.
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.
All true.
1 hour ago, Sebastien said:
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?
Each person has the right and the responsibility to make his or her own judgments, and to deal with whatever consequences result.
1 hour ago, Sebastien said:
Who is the holy moral lawgiver who decides whether a means to my happiness is rational?
There is no holy moral lawgiver. But there is reality.
I have never said, implied, or assumed that any individual’s actions are predictable. I have said that, given certain economic conditions, it is almost certain that enough people will react in certain ways to have certain economic effects.