Her approach to human behavior is not very scientific.
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
In her philosophy, to be selfish leads to the question: “What is my self?” If you answer ‘rational animal’, then an action is selfish only if your actions promote your welfare AS A RATIONAL ANIMAL. To steal, in her philosophy, decreases your rationality. You become a thug.
Hitler was the ultimate unselfish person. All of his actions required other selves, victims. A truly selfish man never wants or requires victims, as harming another rational animal makes you into an irrational animal (thug).
Rand is most definitely NOT someone you can read once or gloss over lightly in reading. You have to turn your brain on full power. Read Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged and if you really, really read it, you’ll be exhausted after the 3 or 4 days it took.
Huh? Could you elaborate on this.
This seems to state that power seeking behavior is unselfish because it requires someone to have power over?
If I shot a 6 year old girl, fucked her anus and stole her lollipop that wouldnt be a selfish act as it required a victim? It seems its extremely selfish as it’s putting minor pleasures for the self above the well-being of another individual(to a very extreme degree). Or does the fact that I disregarded the consequences for the hypothetical actions make it irrational, and therefore unselfish? Thus stupidity=not selfishness?
Ok, then if I did the same thing, kidnapping her disquised as her parents as to not arouse immediate suspicion, taking her to a secret location with a furnace that heats up to 10,000 degrees fahrenheit to chuck the body into and dispose of the evidence, taking a decontaminaton bath to remove any of her DNA, and having completed said task, without any risk of retaliation, and in total secrecy, would it then be a selfish task?
What about exploding myself with the intent to blow up a bunch of people, expecting to receive access to 72 virgins upon completing said mission with my death? Maybe I am just not getting that selfishness presupposes rationality, and rationality presupposes not being a a gullible fucking moron.
Anyways, if you do have a response, please do so in a thorough manner. I am really trying to understand this viewpoint, or make sense of these ideas at least. The kind of “you are a dumbass, and you just dont get it” type remarks aren’t helpful if you just leave it at that, like Pushharder sometimes does. I don’t think you do, but I dont read the forums enough to be sure. [/quote]
I will try to ‘pinch hit’ for Ms. Rand. Forgive any errors.
Every object has a defining characteristic (she got this from Aristotle). The meaning of a word therefore incorporates the defining characteristic of the object. There are also secondary characteristics, such as skin color. These do not alter the defining characteristic and are not equivalent; think of subsets.
Aristotle (and Rand) define ‘human being’ as the being who thinks by forming concepts extracted from percepts. We see enough similar things and unite them under one definition, which is tagged with a word. As an example, think of all the individual tables you’ve seen. Each is a table but have you ever seen just ‘table’? No. Its a word we created to identify objects having the same defining characteristic.
Whew!
Therefore, we define the ‘Good’ as whatever enhances or at least preserves a rational animal, keeping in mind what that is. So, is stealing from a rational animal good? No. Is raping/murdering rational animals good? No. Is sending IRS thugs to confiscate their life savings good? No. (Despite what Obama says.)
As an aside, if you harm another rational animal, you are saying its okay for someone to harm you (even though you are now a thug). Since this would lead to anarchy, and we regard civilisation as good (it allows me to exploit those above me in the brain department. I get all the benefit of what they invent or build, but they get nothing intellectually from me. In this way, workers exploit capitalists.), then irrational actions are to be prevented or punished.
Did I answer the questions? ;> BTW: I will always try to answer an honest question.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
But what is virtue? Not a virtue, but virtue itself. What is the common characteristic which makes something recognizable as a virtue? Yeah, I’m trying to read Menos, so what?[/quote]
An action is consider virtuous if it promotes/maintains the life of Man as a rational being.
Plato agonized over such words, most likely because he seperated them from their object. Virtue, by itself, is a meaningless word, taking on meaning only when applying it in a context.
Think of what we’ve done wtr the word ‘selfish’. We seperated it from context and now it has some sort of crackerbarrel definition of a thug stealing food from a baby.
But what is selfishness if we don’t define our SELF? Are your interests as a rational being truly served by robbery/rape/murder?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Scrotus wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
In her philosophy, to be selfish leads to the question: “What is my self?” If you answer ‘rational animal’, then an action is selfish only if your actions promote your welfare AS A RATIONAL ANIMAL. To steal, in her philosophy, decreases your rationality. You become a thug.
Hitler was the ultimate unselfish person. All of his actions required other selves, victims. A truly selfish man never wants or requires victims, as harming another rational animal makes you into an irrational animal (thug).
Rand is most definitely NOT someone you can read once or gloss over lightly in reading. You have to turn your brain on full power. Read Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged and if you really, really read it, you’ll be exhausted after the 3 or 4 days it took.
Huh? Could you elaborate on this.
This seems to state that power seeking behavior is unselfish because it requires someone to have power over?
If I shot a 6 year old girl, fucked her anus and stole her lollipop that wouldnt be a selfish act as it required a victim? It seems its extremely selfish as it’s putting minor pleasures for the self above the well-being of another individual(to a very extreme degree). Or does the fact that I disregarded the consequences for the hypothetical actions make it irrational, and therefore unselfish? Thus stupidity=not selfishness?
Ok, then if I did the same thing, kidnapping her disquised as her parents as to not arouse immediate suspicion, taking her to a secret location with a furnace that heats up to 10,000 degrees fahrenheit to chuck the body into and dispose of the evidence, taking a decontaminaton bath to remove any of her DNA, and having completed said task, without any risk of retaliation, and in total secrecy, would it then be a selfish task?
What about exploding myself with the intent to blow up a bunch of people, expecting to receive access to 72 virgins upon completing said mission with my death? Maybe I am just not getting that selfishness presupposes rationality, and rationality presupposes not being a a gullible fucking moron.
Anyways, if you do have a response, please do so in a thorough manner. I am really trying to understand this viewpoint, or make sense of these ideas at least. The kind of “you are a dumbass, and you just dont get it” type remarks aren’t helpful if you just leave it at that, like Pushharder sometimes does. I don’t think you do, but I dont read the forums enough to be sure.
I will try to ‘pinch hit’ for Ms. Rand. Forgive any errors.
Every object has a defining characteristic (she got this from Aristotle). The meaning of a word therefore incorporates the defining characteristic of the object. There are also secondary characteristics, such as skin color. These do not alter the defining characteristic and are not equivalent; think of subsets.
Aristotle (and Rand) define ‘human being’ as the being who thinks by forming concepts extracted from percepts. We see enough similar things and unite them under one definition, which is tagged with a word. As an example, think of all the individual tables you’ve seen. Each is a table but have you ever seen just ‘table’? No. Its a word we created to identify objects having the same defining characteristic.
Whew!
Therefore, we define the ‘Good’ as whatever enhances or at least preserves a rational animal, keeping in mind what that is. So, is stealing from a rational animal good? No. Is raping/murdering rational animals good? No. Is sending IRS thugs to confiscate their life savings good? No. (Despite what Obama says.)
As an aside, if you harm another rational animal, you are saying its okay for someone to harm you (even though you are now a thug). Since this would lead to anarchy, and we regard civilisation as good (it allows me to exploit those above me in the brain department. I get all the benefit of what they invent or build, but they get nothing intellectually from me. In this way, workers exploit capitalists.), then irrational actions are to be prevented or punished.
Did I answer the questions? ;> BTW: I will always try to answer an honest question.
[/quote]
OK, so to clarify, if you do something that is not “good” then you are not a rational animal? And we cannot attach the word selfish to an irrational animal?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
civilisation
[/quote]
are you canadian?
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Scrotus wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
In her philosophy, to be selfish leads to the question: “What is my self?” If you answer ‘rational animal’, then an action is selfish only if your actions promote your welfare AS A RATIONAL ANIMAL. To steal, in her philosophy, decreases your rationality. You become a thug.
Hitler was the ultimate unselfish person. All of his actions required other selves, victims. A truly selfish man never wants or requires victims, as harming another rational animal makes you into an irrational animal (thug).
Rand is most definitely NOT someone you can read once or gloss over lightly in reading. You have to turn your brain on full power. Read Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged and if you really, really read it, you’ll be exhausted after the 3 or 4 days it took.
Huh? Could you elaborate on this.
This seems to state that power seeking behavior is unselfish because it requires someone to have power over?
If I shot a 6 year old girl, fucked her anus and stole her lollipop that wouldnt be a selfish act as it required a victim? It seems its extremely selfish as it’s putting minor pleasures for the self above the well-being of another individual(to a very extreme degree). Or does the fact that I disregarded the consequences for the hypothetical actions make it irrational, and therefore unselfish? Thus stupidity=not selfishness?
Ok, then if I did the same thing, kidnapping her disquised as her parents as to not arouse immediate suspicion, taking her to a secret location with a furnace that heats up to 10,000 degrees fahrenheit to chuck the body into and dispose of the evidence, taking a decontaminaton bath to remove any of her DNA, and having completed said task, without any risk of retaliation, and in total secrecy, would it then be a selfish task?
What about exploding myself with the intent to blow up a bunch of people, expecting to receive access to 72 virgins upon completing said mission with my death? Maybe I am just not getting that selfishness presupposes rationality, and rationality presupposes not being a a gullible fucking moron.
Anyways, if you do have a response, please do so in a thorough manner. I am really trying to understand this viewpoint, or make sense of these ideas at least. The kind of “you are a dumbass, and you just dont get it” type remarks aren’t helpful if you just leave it at that, like Pushharder sometimes does. I don’t think you do, but I dont read the forums enough to be sure.
I will try to ‘pinch hit’ for Ms. Rand. Forgive any errors.
Every object has a defining characteristic (she got this from Aristotle). The meaning of a word therefore incorporates the defining characteristic of the object. There are also secondary characteristics, such as skin color. These do not alter the defining characteristic and are not equivalent; think of subsets.
Aristotle (and Rand) define ‘human being’ as the being who thinks by forming concepts extracted from percepts. We see enough similar things and unite them under one definition, which is tagged with a word. As an example, think of all the individual tables you’ve seen. Each is a table but have you ever seen just ‘table’? No. Its a word we created to identify objects having the same defining characteristic.
Whew!
Therefore, we define the ‘Good’ as whatever enhances or at least preserves a rational animal, keeping in mind what that is. So, is stealing from a rational animal good? No. Is raping/murdering rational animals good? No. Is sending IRS thugs to confiscate their life savings good? No. (Despite what Obama says.)
As an aside, if you harm another rational animal, you are saying its okay for someone to harm you (even though you are now a thug). Since this would lead to anarchy, and we regard civilisation as good (it allows me to exploit those above me in the brain department. I get all the benefit of what they invent or build, but they get nothing intellectually from me. In this way, workers exploit capitalists.), then irrational actions are to be prevented or punished.
Did I answer the questions? ;> BTW: I will always try to answer an honest question.
OK, so to clarify, if you do something that is not “good” then you are not a rational animal? And we cannot attach the word selfish to an irrational animal?
[/quote]
You are always a rational animal, simply because of what you are.
‘Rational’ is used in two different senses: one as a physical fact, the other is how you act. Just by the nature of man as man, you ARE the rational animal. In common vernacular, however, being rational means to ‘think clearly’ and is not identified as your distinguishing characteristic.
If you act to the best of your knowledge and the goal is to preserve/enhance the well-being of yourself as a rational animal, then you are doing ‘good’. If you choose to do evil, you are acting against your own well-being.
A lot of confusion here is attributable to religions. If we identify man as the being who abstracts from his percepts to form concepts (knowledge), then faith is meaningless. To accept something as fact withot percepts would be unacceptable.
Get real. Ayn Rand was a selfish twat. I’ve always been horrified that college sophomores hang on every word like it’s gospel. Is man inherently selfish? Yeah, but that doesn’t make it an attractive trait.
[quote]Amused59 wrote:
Get real. Ayn Rand was a selfish twat. I’ve always been horrified that college sophomores hang on every word like it’s gospel. Is man inherently selfish? Yeah, but that doesn’t make it an attractive trait.[/quote]
Why not? You are making the common error of equating ‘being a thug’, with selfishness. Being a thug is a very unselfish act, because the thug requires victims. True selfishness requires no one but the actor.
To live and work for yourself is good. Only a slave or servant works for the good of others.
I can’t help thinking about Orwell every time I hear that selfishness is unselfish and unselfishness is selfish.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
‘Rational’ is used in two different senses: one as a physical fact, the other is how you act. Just by the nature of man as man, you ARE the rational animal. In common vernacular, however, being rational means to ‘think clearly’ and is not identified as your distinguishing characteristic.
[/quote]
Actually, being “rational” does not have anything to do with the quality of the thought that man is capable of. It is exactly how you said before that defines man. Rationality is a precondition of action and we are rational by nature as man – because we act.
Action either obtains its end or it doesn’t. If it does not we do not consider the act irrational instead we say the person acting did not know what he was doing.
Irrational action is not conceivable. In stead what you are trying to define is the quality of the means used or ends sought.
In trying to define the quality of the ends sought we make axiological arguments which ultimately only come down to subjective value judgments; however, when we try to define the quality of the means, that is something altogether different. That explores the realm of all possible knowledge.
In a sense we can only know something because we can act – because we are rational.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Actually, being “rational” does not have anything to do with the quality of the thought that man is capable of. It is exactly how you said before that defines man. Rationality is a precondition of action and we are rational by nature as man – because we act.
Action either obtains its end or it doesn’t. If it does not we do not consider the act irrational instead we say the person acting did not know what he was doing.
Irrational action is not conceivable. In stead what you are trying to define is the quality of the means used or ends sought. In trying to define the quality of the ends sought we make axiological arguments which ultimately only come down to subjective value judgments;
However, when we try to define the quality of the means, that is something altogether different. That explores the realm of all possible knowledge.
In a sense we can only know something because we can act – because we are rational.[/quote]
I agree that ‘being rational’ only tells us that we think logically, it tells nothing about the axioms that that logic is built upon.
But we are all able to define the quality of the ends. And to be able to define the quality of the means means you must have an idea about what is desirable. All logic, except for mathematical logic, is subjective.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Amused59 wrote:
Get real. Ayn Rand was a selfish twat. I’ve always been horrified that college sophomores hang on every word like it’s gospel. Is man inherently selfish? Yeah, but that doesn’t make it an attractive trait.
Why not? You are making the common error of equating ‘being a thug’, with selfishness. Being a thug is a very unselfish act, because the thug requires victims. True selfishness requires no one but the actor.
To live and work for yourself is good. Only a slave or servant works for the good of others.
[/quote]
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
Ayn Rand followers simply redefined selfish ‘Being a thug is a very unselfish act, because the thug requires victims.’ What nonsense. Selfish means that you fail to treat others as your equal. Generosity is the opposite of selfish, and that still requires others. If you want a world where each individual can stand alone, the word you are thinking of the world ‘lonely’, not ‘selfish’.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
But we are all able to define the quality of the ends.[/quote]
Yes, but we do not necessarily define it similarly. It is always a value judgment.
[quote]
And to be able to define the quality of the means means you must have an idea about what is desirable. [/quote]
Yes, that is to say one must have a theory as to how to act to acheive the desired end but it does not mean one necessarily chooses the correct theory – i.e, we would most likely judge the quality of the means pretty harshly should it fail at achieving its intended aim.
[quote]
All logic, except for mathematical logic, is subjective.[/quote]
This cannot be correct. If all logic except mathematics is subjective that means there is no truth. All truth statements can only be judged as such, objectively.
There is no such thing as a subjective truth statement. If a truth claim fails a test – that is to say, we can show it to leads to an incorrect conclusions – it is false. There is nothing subjective about that.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
All logic, except for mathematical logic, is subjective.
This cannot be correct. If all logic except mathematics is subjective that means there is no truth. All truth statements can only be judged as such, objectively. There is no such thing as a subjective truth statement. If a truth claim fails a test – that is to say, we can show it to leads to an incorrect conclusions – it is false. There is nothing subjective about that.[/quote]
Facts can be a evaluated, what those facts mean is mostly, but not always, a subjective choice and that we call truth. If you follow the road of logic, there are no truths, it’s totally logic. It’s a wonderful game, really. And at the same time you know that you can’t agree with all the conclusions you reach.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
All logic, except for mathematical logic, is subjective.
This cannot be correct. If all logic except mathematics is subjective that means there is no truth. All truth statements can only be judged as such, objectively. There is no such thing as a subjective truth statement. If a truth claim fails a test – that is to say, we can show it to leads to an incorrect conclusions – it is false. There is nothing subjective about that.
Facts can be a evaluated, what those facts mean is mostly, but not always, a subjective choice and that we call truth. If you follow the road of logic, there are no truths, it’s totally logic. It’s a wonderful game, really. And at the same time you know that you can’t agree with all the conclusions you reach.[/quote]
But truth claims can only be true or false.
All apples are red.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
All logic, except for mathematical logic, is subjective.
This cannot be correct. If all logic except mathematics is subjective that means there is no truth. All truth statements can only be judged as such, objectively. There is no such thing as a subjective truth statement. If a truth claim fails a test – that is to say, we can show it to leads to an incorrect conclusions – it is false. There is nothing subjective about that.
Facts can be a evaluated, what those facts mean is mostly, but not always, a subjective choice and that we call truth. If you follow the road of logic, there are no truths, it’s totally logic. It’s a wonderful game, really. And at the same time you know that you can’t agree with all the conclusions you reach.
But truth claims can only be true or false.
All apples are red.[/quote]
FALSE, some apples are green, so suck on that.
[quote]
lifticus wrote:
But truth claims can only be true or false.
All apples are red. [/quote]
Even within the confines of a logical system, you are wrong.
Statements that presuppose false statements are neither true nor false. (Dan stopped beating his wife.)
Statements that contain contradictory self references are neither true nor false. (H is a member of H, where H is the set of all sets that do not contain themselves.)
When we exit the confines of a logical system and enter the real world, you are even more wrong.
Implicature. Is “Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot” a true statement? Google her quote.
Fuzzy sets. How many bites can an apple have removed from it before “This is an apple” becomes a false statement. Don’t tell me it depends how you define apple. Get real. Definitions in the real world are post hoc descriptive approximations of words that people come to understand without their use.
While you’re at it, look up the Gricean maxims, and discover how statements that would be evaluated to be true under classical logic, are not true at all by any sensible interpretation.
As for this confusion about rationality.
Consider:
How do you evaluate the rationality of an action?
Does it depend on how the person decided to execute the behavior?
Is evolutionarily beneficial behavior still rational if it came about through cognitive processes that if spelled out would appear stupid?
For example, if someone drives drunk, crashes, and winds up hospitalized, and the doctor finds and apprehends cancer that would have killed the guy if it was discovered much later, is this rational behavior?
No.
That is why you simply cannot use a behavior test to evaluate rationality.
Thus, rationality must be evaluated as a mental function. How do we do this?
First, understand that the human ability to introspect is weak. That is to say, if you think you know what mental processes enter into your own decision making, you’re probably wrong.
Introspection must be ruled out as a method.
People do not understand why they make decisions. The process is complex, and it is not approximated by a computer or a logical system.
In general, even in the best and brightest, logic is an afterthought and never a factor in decision making. People like to think of themselves as logical, but simply, we are not. People make decisions and then spend days, months or years trying to rationalize them and solve cognitive dissonance.
This is one of the reasons why the claim that “all actions are self interested” is a bunch of bunk. Human decisions are not made by weighing the costs and benefits. People simply are not built that way.
People act. Sometimes to their advantage, and sometimes to their disadvantage. A former cigarette smoker will instinctual reach for his pack years after quitting. Girls bitch at everyone while on the rag. Preferences for behavior change following brain damage.
You can pretend that there is something inside everyone that logically evaluates available choices by assigning a positive or negative numerical value to all outcomes. You can even try to say that in these systems some people assign higher value to short term outcomes and others make no distinction between short term and long term pain/pleasure.
You might even respond to the claim that behavior can be more a function of habit than logic by saying “yeah well, changing habits requires work and the delay of short term pleasure, so people choose to continue their habits because the costs of changing are to great.”
But it’s all a fantasy. It’s not how people think. It’s not how we’re built. There is much that goes into decision making, but for the most part, “logic” and “rationality” is just along for the ride.
[quote]Gael wrote:
You can pretend that there is something inside everyone that logically evaluates available choices by assigning a positive or negative numerical value to all outcomes. You can even try to say that in these systems some people assign higher value to short term outcomes and others make no distinction between short term and long term pain/pleasure.
[/quote]
Actually, there are theories in psychology stating that people do just that. There is supporting evidence for these theories, although they can be simplistic and I don’t consider them comprehensive. For example, Herb Simon found evidence that people “satisfice” by going with the first acceptable answer rather than going with the best answer, given that we have limited cognitive resources.
[quote]Gael wrote:
lifticus wrote:
But truth claims can only be true or false.
All apples are red.
Even within the confines of a logical system, you are wrong.
Statements that presuppose false statements are neither true nor false. (Dan stopped beating his wife.)
Statements that contain contradictory self references are neither true nor false. (H is a member of H, where H is the set of all sets that do not contain themselves.)
When we exit the confines of a logical system and enter the real world, you are even more wrong.
Implicature. Is “Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot” a true statement? Google her quote.
Fuzzy sets. How many bites can an apple have removed from it before “This is an apple” becomes a false statement. Don’t tell me it depends how you define apple. Get real. Definitions in the real world are post hoc descriptive approximations of words that people come to understand without their use.
While you’re at it, look up the Gricean maxims, and discover how statements that would be evaluated to be true under classical logic, are not true at all by any sensible interpretation.
[/quote]
If a statement cannot be answered as either true or false it is not a truth claim.
Likewise, logic sets must be unambiguously defined or there is no possibility to judge truth claims as such.
Logic is easier to understand from a computer processors perspective. Everything is explicitly defined to it in terms of low and high voltage units. Linguistically, we can do the same thing, only much more efficiently.