"I do not see it, or I refuse to see it. Therefore it doesn't". I guarantee you, others can and do, requiring no explanation. So what does that tell you? — S

I'm continuing the discussion on this thread...

Anyway, I don't understand why you're not giving me an explanation. Isn't that the whole point of having a debate or discussion. If you disagree with someone you should or want to explain to people how it is they are wrong – no matter how obvious you think it is.

I often find myself in discussions where people ask questions that seem to be quite obvious, but I'm always eager to explain it to them. I don't just walk away telling them that it's obvious. That doesn't help.

I also think that people who say that something doesn't need explaining, are people who actually don't have an explanation, so they want to avoid the argument altogether. It's a clever way to avoid being wrong.

Being a trader, as I've said, is someone who gives up something he values to the person he's trading with in exchange for something that he values more from that same person. And that same person is also giving up something they value for something of greater value. When people trade, they are creating win-win situations. They are making both lives better. In order to do this, one must recognize property rights. One must recognize people as independent, responsible, and capable of making their own decisions. This is why Ayn Rand says that traders are the most moral. To not be a trader is to be a master or a slave. To be a criminal and parasite. Someone who just takes from people without giving anything back. To be a slave is to be sacrificial. To give up your life and things you value for nothing back. To let people use and abuse you because you cannot take care of yourself.

So I ask you, what is wrong with traders?

I know I'm wrong; I just couldn't think of an argument to justify eating plants. I guess there is no logical reason to eat or not eat plants. You can eat them or not eat them. It really doesn't matter. Especially since we already eat animals and they feel pain, there shouldn't be a problem with eating plants if they feel pain.

I don't really find this question interesting or really matters all that much anyway, so I won't be commenting in this discussion anymore.

Oh pffft... are you kidding me I can take all these people.

I don't know what this means.

Okay.

Everything you're saying is all wrong. But I don't know where to start because you wrote so much.

No it doesn't.

How?

We don't eat them though because they are human and have human rights.

The potential for reason.

, is what Rand was trying to say, how can I be blamed for missing it when neither it nor anything resembling it, was included or hinted in the passage, nor any passage remotely adjacent to it? I don’t, for the same reason, think I can be blamed for proposing you simply made that up. — Mww

You can be blamed for missing it because you haven't actually taken the time to read and understand her.

Just about anybody can take what Rand says as a bad thing, when Galt’s somewhat less than sustainable rant is mistaken for the foundation of a philosophy. — Mww

Well that's your opinion.

That there are decent tradesmen is completely irrelevant from the perspective of the proposition “The symbol of all relationships....”, they being merely exceptions to a generally toothless rule. — Mww

All traders are decent and are moral. Doesn't matter if it's a car salesman or an engineer. And you fail to understand why because you specifically chose "negative" traders.

I didn't say that.

Yeah, that's why we throw them in jail or they become homeless.

↪AppLeo Evidently, not everyone needs "the facts" to live life and prosper. — S

How?

Obviously you need some facts, — S

So you admit that in order to live and prosper someone needs facts. Finally.

but mysticism isn't all or nothing. — S

What do you mean by that?

Maybe you just don't understand what mysticism is, and that's what explains why you're making these suggestions which sound absurd. Mysticism wouldn't necessarily prevent one from finding satisfaction, attaining life goals, being a good person, and that sort of thing. — S

Well how would you define it? Mysticism is the opposite of reason. It's knowing reality without having to observe and make logical conclusions about your observations.

Absolute nonsense. Not only is it possible, there are plenty of people who value mysticism and live their lives in accordance with mysticism. — S

How does mysticism help someone live life and prosper if mysticism cannot get them the facts and actually distorts the facts?

Then the ability to reason is actually not your basis for assigning worth. — NKBJ

Yes it is. Humans have the potential for reason and use reason. Therefore, humans deal with each other according to individual rights. We respect each other's property. We respect each other's lives. Humans who don't, are considered criminals and are thrown in jail. Animals and plants don't have the capacity to understand or value individual rights, which means we are allowed to eat them.

Maybe because you've not let yourself get to know them better. Acting from such a position of condescension confines others to fit your already established opinions. Which presumably means you = smart and we = stupid. — fdrake

They were condescending first. You were condescending first. If I'm already summed up according to my age and my favorite philosopher, especially by people who think they understand Ayn Rand when they clearly do not... And on top of it say that I shouldn't be taken seriously. They don't deserve the respect of me getting to know them.

I'm not a randian. I'm an Objectivist.

Please, someone inform the used car salesman, the pension fund schemer, the Manila street-side vendor of ill-disguised monkey meat.......you are examples of the highest moral respect delegated by your fellow man. — Mww

I think you're missing the point of what she's trying to say.

Traders are individuals who recognize property rights. Individuals are responsible and independent. People who are not traders don't value property rights. Instead of being a free man of trade, you are a master or a slave. You use and abuse and people use and abuse you.

A doctor, businessman, and an engineer are also examples of traders. I can see why you would purposely leave them out to make what Rand was saying as a bad thing.

Okay yes, I agree.

Alright, there is no objective purpose to life. I’m wrong.

I think the purpose of life is life, but it doesn’t make it objective. It’s my own subjective interpretation.

Why are the people around me so stupid?

Well, to the best of my knowledge, no body has given me the right to distribute money. I do have some ideas about what to do with a few hundred billion dollars. I do not expect to get the opportunity. — Bitter Crank

No one should get the opportunity.

Surely you must be joking, Mr. AppLeo. — Bitter Crank

Capitalism is the only individualistic system. It's certainly isn't socialism. The word "social" is opposite of individual. Socialism is group based.

Very lame. If you are so smart, how come you aren't rich? Or, if you are so rich, why are you not smarter? It's a puzzlement. — Bitter Crank

Alright first of all, I'm only 20, so give me some time to build up my wealth. Most millionaires and especially billionaires are older because they've had time to accumulate wealth and make mistakes.

Second, intelligence doesn't correlate with wealth. It does to some degree, but not really. It's the value you produce in the economy. There's a lot of idiot celebrities, but they provide lots of value, and are therefore paid a lot. And there are plenty of smart people who provide no value to the economy so they aren't rich.

Labor creates all wealth. Some people have ideas, some people are able to marshal investment capital and arrange for a factory to be built. But the building the factory and making whatever is made in the factory (useful goods or wasteful crap) is made by workers transforming raw materials into commodities of one sort or another. People get rich by expropriating the surplus value that workers (the vast majority of the population) create. — Bitter Crank

I don't see a problem.

John Rogers (whoever the hell he is) says “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." — Bitter Crank

I don't know why people always mention that quote. Somehow they feel superior without really making any arguments. Plus, you're quoting someone you don't even know. Who cares what he says.

Flannery O'Connor says "I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you. The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky." — Bitter Crank

Again, another quote by an idiot who doesn't know anything.

You know I could quote another random person too. Anne Hathaway had something good to say about Ayn Rand, but who cares what she thinks because she's not a part of this conversation.

It's cool and trendy to hate Ayn Rand. And I don't know why. Because what she says is amazing.

I don't think you understand what I mean when I say contradiction. I'm not saying that there can't be paradoxes like cold and hot. What I'm saying is that something can't be cold and hot at the same time. A penguin can't also be a rooster. A pineapple is a fruit, but doesn't mean a pineapple can also not be a fruit.

That makes no sense. Perhaps try wording what you mean differently. — S

It makes perfect sense. Life is an end in itself.

That just a description, not a purpose. Perhaps try looking up the meaning of "purpose". — S

No that is the purpose. Your purpose is to live. My purpose is to live. That's everyone's purpose. No one's objective purpose is death or destruction.

None of the rest of your post provides reasonable grounds for concluding that there is an objective purpose to- or meaning of- life. Remember, bald assertion is not argument. You're just doing that thing again where you make a whole bunch of statements which are disconnected logically from your bald assertion that there's an objective purpose or meaning. — S

You keep saying that but you don't explain why it's a bald assertion, so I don't care. And OP didn't specifically mean meaning. They meant what is the right purpose or philosophy.

That's a non sequitur and is false in light of counterexamples. Let's say the meaning of life is to act in your own self-interest. Does that mean that I can't hold values outside of my self-interest? No. Are there real people in the real world right now who hold values outside of their self-interest? Yes, obviously so. Have you never heard of aid workers? Or have you just deceived yourself into believing that they're all just acting based on their value of self-interest? — S

You can hold values outside your rational self-interest obviously. But that's why people's lives suck because they aren't valuing what's important to their life. They're valuing things at the expense of themselves. Which goes against the whole point of life, which is to live for yourself. Life is an end of itself, not something to be justified by other means.

pffff... Kant sucks.

Of course not.

Plants can't reason and humans can.

Yes, I agree.

Even if plants could feel pain, I’d still eat them anyway because plants are inferior to humans.

People are entitled to wrong opinions.

You can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean I can't disapprove of your beliefs.

Well, the people who don't take their faith so seriously are fine I guess. They are fine because their reason overpowers their faith. They don't actually take the test of God seriously enough to not consult help from a doctor, they let homosexuals be homosexuals, etc...

It's reason that keeps people from doing stupid things. It's not because of faith that allows people to live. You can choose to have faith, but it doesn't make your life better. It only has the potential to destroy your life.

Okay then...

There's millions of examples.

People who believe in God tell homosexuals that they can't be homosexual. They even use their faith as an excuse to hurt and murder people. Homosexuals are forced to suppress themselves and are told that they will burn in hell if they don't. Why? Because it's based on faith. Any rational person would tell you to be homosexual if it makes you happy.

Or when someone is is suffering from cancer, but they have this irrational belief that God is testing their faith. That if they rely on a doctor to save them that must mean that they don't trust God to do what's right for their life. And there are people who take their faith seriously and would actually deny help from a doctor.

Or someone who has faith in the after life. They spend all this time and energy in this life preparing for something that they don't even know exists! And on top of it, they can't ask questions or change their morality because if they do, they'll burn in hell for eternity.

Or the crusade wars. I don't even need to explain that. It's because of faith those wars happened.

And in general, having faith in something makes you unable to prove something to other human beings. Which means that if you ever want to resolve a problem regarding faith, in other words, if you want everyone to agree with you, you have to result to violence. You must force people to agree with you.

I didn't say that because we have reason, life has a purpose. I said because life has a purpose to live, it is an objective fact that we must use reason.

Premise 1: The purpose/meaning of life is to live life.
Premise 3: Humans are a form of life.
Premise 2: Humans need certain things in order to live. Food, water, shelter.
Premise 4: Humans can only get the things they need by using reason.
Premise 5: Without reason, humans cannot get what they need.
Conclusion: It is an objective fact that humans must use reason to live.

If there is no proof of something, there is no reason to act as if it exists. To do otherwise would be to accept it as faith. Faith is detrimental to one's life because you cannot get what you need based on believing, only by knowing.

Let's just say someone is wrong and not give a reason why they're wrong. People are wrong just because I say so. Makes perfect sense.

Which one? Can you point to anything I say at all?

Ayn Rand would hold the billionaires as virtuous, not some young buck who just read “Atlas Shrugged” for the first time and thought he was one of their club and who spends hours a day on a philosophy forum trying and failing to make a coherent argument. lol — Noah Te Stroete

Which one of my arguments fails? Be specific or I'm just going to assume that you're insulting me because you like to feel superior to people you disagree with.

It would be more 'reasonable' to think of reason and instinct as a continuum rather than either/or. Non-human animals can exercise some reason and some human behaviors are instinctual. — Bitter Crank

I mean yeah, but that observation is trivial and doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Humans need to reason and cannot rely on instinct to live.