(Except, of course, for you.) :) — ZzzoneiroCosm

This is true, I only hate Farraday. Guy wasn't even a real scientist....

What does Rand mean by selfishness? Is it true that we ought to encourage humankind to be more selfish? Which is more widespread and more problematic in Western civilization: an excess of altruism or an excess of selfishness? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Now this is how this is gonna go down: You and I, and ayone else who wants to go, are gonna do this, but it has to be for real. Never in my life have I met people oppositional to Rand that are willing to debate her like grown ups, so that's what I expect. Deal?


What does Rand mean by selfish:

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals

Let's start there, what's your issue with this proposition? Is it valid, is is sound? If not, then why for each.

We haven't had a Rand thread for quite a while. Gird up your loins.

We haven't had a Rand thread for quite a while. Gird up your loins. — Bitter Crank

I have elected myself as "willing to debate all of you," on this subject. As it happens, Rand is among the many I have a wealth of knowledge on and I'm gonna see who can really argue against her, and I'm gonna rip through every fallacy I detect. So, gird them loins sweet cheeks.

That which is truly good for the individual, is that which makes them a better, more loving human-being. As such, selfishness and selflessness are one and the same. By being truly selfish, and thus truly caring for the positive development of oneself, one will more positively affect all those around them.

Our use of the term "selfish", greed, callousness, etc., is in fact not a selfishness - it is a self-destructiveness. Such behavior should be looked upon with pity, not disdain. Such disdain comes forth from completely misplaced envy.

Not sure what Rand would think about this, but I thought I'd throw my perspective in there.

That which is truly good for the individual, is that which makes them a better, more loving human-being. As such, selfishness and selflessness are one and the same. By being truly selfish, and thus truly caring for the positive developmen of oneself, one will more positively affect all those around them. — Tzeentch

You aren't using her clearly stated definition of selfishness, this is what she means: rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes.

Rational selfishness, is meant to denote a conscious valuing of one's life, which is finite, and the value of the requirements of one's rational faculty to meet the demands of a finite life to achieve happiness, success, equilibrium, and sustenance. That such is the basis of ethics both between humans, as well as individually.

Our use of the term "selfish", greed, callousness, etc., is in fact not a selfishness - it is a self-destructiveness. Such behavior should be looked upon with pity, not disdain. Such disdain comes forth from completely misplaced envy. — Tzeentch

"Our" use of "selfishness," not rational selfishness.

Not sure what Rand would think about this, but I thought I'd throw my perspective in there. — Tzeentch

She would say callousness is a perception you derived from something that was not relayed to you with any intention. Greed is only an evil when it violates the right of someone to pursue their own values, and self-destructiveness is a direct violation of rational selfishness that is part of the cause to all of those descriptors.

Rational selfishness, is meant to denote a conscious valuing of one's life, which is finite, and the value of the requirements of one's rational faculty to meet the demands of a finite life to achieve happiness, success, equilibrium, and sustenance. — Garrett Travers

How is this different from the normal use of the word?

The use of the word "rational" here seems to do little more than introduce bounds to what we consider "acceptable" selfishness, based on Rand's (or presumably, society's) preferences.

As such, if those preferences are self-destructive, so is the concept of an "acceptable" selfishness that they prescribe.

I don't even know who is Ayn Rand. I feel pretty ignorant right now...

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. if only through this conceptual faculty of reason can humans live a live according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals — Garrett Travers

Is there a reason these premises are written like this, Garrett? To me it sounds like it was translated out of Swahili into broken unclear English. Sorry. :smile:

If humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.. I can't follow what this is trying to say. Humans are rational beings as a consequence of nature?

Dissappointed this thread was created.

I'll play Garrett.

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival. — Garrett Travers

This first premise is simply untrue. Humans have the capability of using logic and rationality, but often times choose not to do so, or simply make logical and rational mistakes.

Barring that, one can come to the logical conclusion that eliminating their neighbors would result in a boost in wealth or power.

With premise one invalidated, 2 and 3 fall.

What does Rand mean by selfishness? Is it true that we ought to encourage humankind to be more selfish? Which is more widespread and more problematic in Western civilization: an excess of altruism or an excess of selfishness? — ZzzoneiroCosm

By selfishness, I understand Rand to mean rational self-interest - assuming of course that we’re talking about the possibility of a wholly rational consciousness, which human beings are not. What is problematic is insisting on either altruism or selfishness in an affected consciousness with a relative capacity for awareness. The former (Rand agrees here), constitutes unnecessary ignorance, isolation and exclusion of the potential of self; the latter (Rand is less forthcoming here) permits ignorance, isolation and exclusion of the potential of ‘other’. The trick, I think, is to recognise that Rand’s idea of a rational consciousness is limited by the perceived potentiality of individual human survival. So, it still permits a level of selfishness, and therefore ignorance, isolation and exclusion - which Rand seems to argue is necessary.

If altruism is a moral no-no, is there any moral obligation to decrease the suffering of suffering people? — ZzzoneiroCosm

No obligation as such, according to Rand. She does, however, appear to encourage it insofar as it doesn’t conflict with our own pursuit of rational (honest, justifiable, productive, etc) self-interest. There are a number of other ‘objectivist’ virtues that extend this self-interest, steering us towards increasing awareness, interconnection and collaboration with others, but only insofar as any action doesn’t impede our own success, happiness, survival, etc. This means that kindness, generosity and gentleness, for example, are considered conditional virtues.

Rand’s philosophy does make a certain amount of rational sense, offering a broad reductionist methodology for those who believe themselves to be wholly rational beings. But I think its over-complicatedness owes itself to a limited and distorted understanding of reality. And while her philosophy seems to render this limitation (human survival) necessary, her fictional writing (particularly in relation to characters who intend beyond their rational self-interest) does not.

I don't even know who is Ayn Rand. I feel pretty ignorant right now... — javi2541997

Look her up. You'll be interested. She was a.... unique person. Besides being an anti-communist philosopher, she wrote the worst science fiction book in history - "Atlas Shrugged." So very, very, very bad, it's goo...No, sorry. It's just bad.

Wow an anti-communist philosopher writing books about science fiction. I can't get over it :lol:

I just checked in Google and there is a Spanish editorial which translated all her works. I would give a try in one of her works :cool:

Wow an anti-communist philosopher writing books about science fiction. I can't get over it — javi2541997

Hey, L. Ron Hubbard, who was a pretty good old-style science fiction writer in the 1950s, started Scientology.

I just checked in Google and there is a Spanish editorial which translated all her works. I would give a try in one of her works :cool: — javi2541997

She is an.... acquired taste.

This first premise is simply untrue. Humans have the capability of using logic and rationality, but often times choose not to do so, or simply make logical and rational mistakes. — Philosophim

So, what part is untrue? Not employing reason, does not negate the fact that we exist through natural processes, and have developed reason, as opposed to fangs, to survive. Premise one still stands as a self-evident, and scientifically informed fact.

Barring that, one can come to the logical conclusion that eliminating their neighbors would result in a boost in wealth or power. — Philosophim

To logically conclude something, you'll have to conclude so logically, rather than just by this unsupported assertion. Besides, we haven't moved on to this portion of the conversation, which is covered by Rand extensively. Stick with just this proposition for now.

Is there a reason these premises are written like this, Garrett? To me it sounds like it was translated out of Swahili into broken unclear English. Sorry. :smile: — Tom Storm

Sorry about the typos, I wrote it at like 2 in the morning, lol.

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. and if its only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capabale of living according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals

That should be better.

Humans are rational beings as a consequence of nature? — Tom Storm

Yes, evolution. We evolved to produce reason as our means of survival, rather than fangs or claws. We create concepts and frameworks of behavior through reason. To negate such an assertion, evidence will have to be provided that opposes this as a deductive conclusion, and evidence for some other processes will also have to be presented.

How is this different from the normal use of the word?

The use of the word "rational" here seems to do little more than introduce bounds to what we consider "acceptable" selfishness, based on Rand's (or presumably, society's) preferences. — Tzeentch

What do you mean, the two are entirely not related. One describes just mindless self-pursuits, and the other is a principle of rationally understanding that it is only through the use of one's mind, and his/her rational faculty that life can be lived at all. The "bounds" are exactly what is going on, rational bounds on selfishness. It isn't just about self-attainment with no consideration for others, it is precisely the value of rationality and reason as a human universal that is valued to begin with. Which as a principle, renders the vanilla definition of selfishness illogical as an individual practice.

"Atlas Shrugged." So very, very, very bad, it's goo...No, sorry. It's just bad. — T Clark

Hey, L. Ron Hubbard, who was a pretty good old-style science fiction writer in the 1950s, started Scientology. — T Clark

She is an.... acquired taste. — T Clark

Yo, Clark, no well-poisoning. The deal was, we were going to actually do this, and not act like a bunch of PhD's who have never taken a logic course. Present an argument, because these kinds of comments are simply reorienting the views of people who read it through nothing but shit talk.

And also, qualify your opinions. What about Atlas Shrugged was "just bad?" It's literally one of the most influential novels of the past century, you'll have to come up with something at all that's better than that.

Wow an anti-communist philosopher writing books about science fiction. I can't get over it :lol: — javi2541997

Arguments, got any?

What does Rand mean by selfish:

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals — Garrett Travers

Let's take a look at these:

• Humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival. - Two points 1) We have many means of survival. Our mental processes are only one. 2) I don't think it's correct to characterize human mental processes as primarily associated with reason.
• It is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty. - I think the claim that we develop our values through our conceptual faculty of reason is incorrect.
• The only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals. - I think one of humanity's primary values results from our social nature. We value other people. We have empathy.

Yo, Clark, no well-poisoning. The deal was, we were going to actually do this, and not act like a bunch of PhD's who have never taken a logic course. — Garrett Travers

Perhaps that was your deal, but you are not the original poster. I think my post was in the spirit of the original post. I also think it's reasonable for me to make my disdain for Rand clear.

That being said, I don't plan to interfere with your plan to have a reasonable discussion of Rand's ideas. See my previous post.

assuming of course that we’re talking about the possibility of a wholly rational consciousness, which human beings are not. — Possibility

Not assuming such.

The former (Rand agrees here), constitutes unnecessary ignorance, isolation and exclusion of the potential of self — Possibility

No, she regards it as evil because it asserts that it is proper for the human to be regard as a fit subject for the practice of sacrifice, either to someone, or someone to your self. Respect for one's own reason is inconsistent with this view.

(Rand is less forthcoming here) permits ignorance, isolation and exclusion of the potential of ‘other’ — Possibility

That is your choice. It is against the value of reason to hold others not responsible for their own pursuit of knowledge and a better life.

The trick, I think, is to recognise that Rand’s idea of a rational consciousness is limited by the perceived potentiality of individual human survival. — Possibility

Yes. Individuals are bound to this one precarious life woth only their reason as a means of survival.

So, it still permits a level of selfishness, and therefore ignorance, isolation and exclusion - which Rand seems to argue is necessary. — Possibility

100%, it simply doesn't admit willful ignorance, that's irrational.

No obligation as such, according to Rand. She does, however, appear to encourage it insofar as it doesn’t conflict with our own pursuit of rational (honest, justifiable, productive, etc) self-interest. There are a number of other ‘objectivist’ virtues that extend this self-interest, steering us towards increasing awareness, interconnection and collaboration with others, but only insofar as any action doesn’t impede our own success, happiness, survival, etc. This means that kindness, generosity and gentleness, for example, are considered conditional virtues. — Possibility

Yes. It is impossible for me to do any good for those I love within my virtue, without an increasing knowledge base, productive skills, and refinement of virtues.

her fictional writing (particularly in relation to characters who intend beyond their rational self-interest) does not. — Possibility

That's a cool point. Who did you have in mind?

C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals — Garrett Travers

What does an Ayn Randian society do with those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to pursue their own values. Specifically, I'm thinking of people who are severely handicapped, severely schizophrenic, children with severe birth-defects, etc.?

1) We have many means of survival. Our mental processes are only one. 2) I don't think it's correct to characterize human mental processes as primarily associated with reason. — T Clark

What would it be then? What allows you to do anything? You'll need to expand this beyond internal confusion.

I think the claim that we develop our values through our conceptual faculty of reason is incorrect. — T Clark

Cool, explain. Where do we get our values if not from ourselves? Saying other people will simply just mean that reason constructed values that have been passed on to us. It will be the same process. So, where?

I think one of humanity's primary values results from our social nature. We value other people. We have empathy. — T Clark

And only in the society described above can such values be freely expressed. These are not incompatible, but complimentary.

Perhaps that was your deal, but you are not the original poster. I think my post was in the spirit of the original post. I also think it's reasonable for me to make my disdain for Rand clear.

That being said, I don't plan to interfere with your plan to have a reasonable discussion of Rand's ideas. See my previous post. — T Clark

Fair enough.

What does an Ayn Randian society do with those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to pursue their own values. — RogueAI

It will be, just like with children, the responsibility of those who created them to take care of them.

Specifically, I'm thinking of people who are severely handicapped, severely schizophrenic, children with severe birth-defects, etc.? — RogueAI

Same thing. If you have a child who is autistic, its your child. If you are rationally self-interested, you will know of such risk before having a child and prepare for the worst.

It will be, just like with children, the responsibility of those who created them to take care of them. — Garrett Travers

What happens if "those who created them" are unable to take care of them? Reliance on charities?

What happens if "those who created them" are unable to take care of them? Reliance on charities? — RogueAI

Yes. Taking care of them was their creators' responsibility. If you desire people to adopt that responsibility, you will need to appeal to them through reason. Forcing you to take care of them, or stealing your money so that I can, are ethical violations masquerading as virtue. And your real question should be: what did the creators do to place themselves in this position, and how do we ensure that this doesn't happen again. Of course, if they've died that's another thing.