Yeah, it's a bit vague, but I wanted to see if there is even a smidge of people here interested in such a subject. I'll set forth a topic to start:

What are your thoughts on Objectivism?

By Rand?

(Just making sure before I post.)

And anything specific? There is a lot to objectivism.

Specifically your thoughts on her Metaphysics ("objective reality") and Epistemology/reason.

I never was much for philosophy, as those who practice it indulged on long and extensive discussions over relatively minor life-details. I am more of a "let's go out and play" type person. Life's short, time's scarce and fun is always fun.

I'm no Objectivist or Ayn Rand expert, but form the little reading and talking with a friend who reads her books, I gather a large portion of her philosophy on Objectivism has basis that existence is beside the point of reality?

Why am I the only one that seems mentally retarded in this community?

You were just born that way.

Hey, if you can post nonsense, why can't I?

:spam:

I'm no Objectivist or Ayn Rand expert, but form the little reading and talking with a friend who reads her books, I gather a large portion of her philosophy on Objectivism has basis that existence is beside the point of reality?
Beyond the point of perception.

Most of her philosophy is an extension of individuality, to my understandings. It is comparable to Existentialism, however, the "seclusion" factor is out of the question; her findings is that man is his own object and does things out of his own [rational] self-interest. This means that sense perception is the basis of 'knowledge' .... this translates that there is no faith, but, as she put it in a 1959 interview, "..personal convictions."

Myself, even though many "professional" philosophers disregard Rand's Objectivism as un-thought-out, I view it as something which is quite respectable. I've adopted some of the teachings of Objectivism and I've become quite happier by doing things for myself and finding enjoyment out of doing things without the need of others. This is especially true in my art [music].

How familiar are you with ancient philosophy?

And which parts do you respect? I'm curious.

Not very well versed in Ancient Philosophy. In a way, I'm working my way back by starting with Objectivism --> Existentialism... I'm doing a self-study in Rationalism, basically.

There is a lot of symbolism tied into Existentialism, just a heads up if you plan on reading Camus without any outside help, you really need to be aware and read his books probably two or three times over. The Stranger is that obvious starting point.

I really enjoyed that book, but not many people do [what, I was part of a 5:25 ratio of people who did in my AP English class?...]. Think about how the book revolves around nature, around things that are for sure because they are there, especially the sun and lighting.

Not very well versed in Ancient Philosophy. In a way, I'm working my way back by starting with Objectivism --> Existentialism... I'm doing a self-study in Rationalism, basically.
Let me know when you get to around 500-200B.C. and tell meh whatcha think of Rand's ideas.

You said that you were just starting off with Objectivism. What's the next topic?

Do something less complicated so I can join in. I do basic philosophy.

What is 'basic' philosophy? There isn't anything called 'basic' philosophy; don't expect me to just start something. This is for everyone to talk about. Let's talk about ethics and morals-- What are we supposed to do?

Deontological ethics: The duty of doing something only in regards of the 'right' of the action itself, taking no consideration for the consequences.

Consequentialism/Utilitarianism: The duty of doing something because the outcome is the best outcome, or, the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.


If an action has an adverse affect on a minority, should the action be seen through because it benefits the most people possible? The argument of Deon vs Utility boils down in many cases to Life vs Ethics, morals, and self-value. Does benefiting someones life weight heavier then the idea that you did something that was bad? Or even vice-versa: should you be obligated to do the right thing, even if it has adverse outcomes for someone?

In a case where you must pick either/or, [and please, for the sake of argument don't be riding the fence], I would go with Deontology. If it's all about benefiting here and there, doing the thing that will make him or her happy, then what is life? My sense of self-worth, the idea that I know and can do what is the right thing, is worth a lot to me, and is what lifts humanity above many other species on Earth, beyond the 'natural animal' category.

I have to say that I would go with Deontology. I haven't really studied philosophy, but I'm assuming that Utility merely saves life, and deontology offers freedom? I don't know, I can't have an argument without knowing anything, because I'll obviously lose (and I'll lose if I know something as well -_-)

I have to say that I would go with Deontology. I haven't really studied philosophy, but I'm assuming that Utility merely saves life, and deontology offers freedom? I don't know, I can't have an argument without knowing anything, because I'll obviously lose (and I'll lose if I know something as well -_-)

Utilitarianism is based on the utility of the consequence, or, how much benefit is reaped from it; in most cases utility does boil down to life.

Keep in mind, just because a consequence of an action is beneficial doesn't mean the action was necessarily good, nor right.

Basically, you're somewhat saying Capitalism vs. Communism?

I'm not sure how you got to that...
Capitalism, consequentially, opens up the market for everyone, however it never makes it fair because those who are at the top, stay there, and it's near impossible to get up there without starting there. But it's open and 'free'.
Communism, everyone is economically equal by force. There is a lack of freedom. However, everyone is equal, everything if fair.

Within those aspects of Capitalism and Communism, I can't say which one you paired with Utility or Deon.

Never mind, I didn't do my research correctly. As a side note, I paired Communism with Utility, Capitalism with Deon. Don't try to delve into my thinking, it goes around in circles.

I would go with Deon, seeing that the end does not always justify the means.

Deontological ethics: The duty of doing something only in regards of the 'right' of the action itself, taking no consideration for the consequences.

Consequentialism/Utilitarianism: The duty of doing something because the outcome is the best outcome, or, the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

Those are quite the opposites, aren't they?

I wouldn't say that I am deontologic, but that I am not a [true] consequentialist. That is, I do not think about the outcome for the people, but this does not mean I do not take into consideration the outcome, itself. I look at the consequences of my actions solely on what it will do/mean for me. In other words, I am an ethical egoist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism)

EDIT: And I completely see how Mushy compared Capitalism to Communism. There are similarities. I am a capitalist, more specifically, an anarcho-capitalist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchocapitalism)

And yeah, I did link to Wikipedia twice. :P

Those are quite the opposites, aren't they?

I wouldn't say that I am deontologic, but that I am not a [true] consequentialist. That is, I do not think about the outcome for the people, but this does not mean I do not take into consideration the outcome, itself. I look at the consequences of my actions solely on what it will do/mean for me. In other words, I am an ethical egoist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism)

EDIT: And I completely see how Mushy compared Capitalism to Communism. There are similarities. I am a capitalist, more specifically, an anarcho-capitalist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchocapitalism)

And yeah, I did link to Wikipedia twice. :P

Haha an ethical egoist, it's like taking the best of a deontologist and utilitarianist, but on a selfish level. I see what Mushy was saying too, when he tells me what was what, like the right thing to do would to give freedom to everyone, but the good thing would be to make everyone economically equal.

An ethical egoist is almost like a self-destructive imperative in today's world, in the sense that it would be amazing to live life for yourself because truly that's all you have, but it's unreasonable, obviously selfish, and impossible. To do only actions with the only ethic and value in mind being yourself, is almost to rid of senses beyond reason, because after reason is emotion, and to claim emotion is to inevitably include others; but with only reason, humanity, the self, would fall apart.

Nein?

Haha an ethical egoist, it's like taking the best of a deontologist and utilitarianist, but on a selfish level. I see what Mushy was saying too, when he tells me what was what, like the right thing to do would to give freedom to everyone, but the good thing would be to make everyone economically equal.

An ethical egoist is almost like a self-destructive imperative in today's world, in the sense that it would be amazing to live life for yourself because truly that's all you have, but it's unreasonable, obviously selfish, and impossible. To do only actions with the only ethic and value in mind being yourself, is almost to rid of senses beyond reason, because after reason is emotion, and to claim emotion is to inevitably include others; but with only reason, humanity, the self, would fall apart.

Nein?

Not quite.

I will not deny that it isn't a selfish way to look at living one's life (I accept this openly, because being selfish does not mean anything negative at all. That is a merely a connotation with the word. I'm a lot more interested in the denotations of language, when discussing such things).

Maybe I did not make myself quite as clear. I wanted to use "ethical egoism" as a term used within dec. and util. To see further, in a much broad and commonly-accepted sense, I am a Libertarian. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) So, in a way, I could be a utilitarian, based off the fact that I make decisions to see how it would affect me, however/furthermore, I do not interfere with others. So we can eliminate that I am DEFINITELY not a deontologist, since the consequence (effect) is of importance in this discussion.

I must say, I disagree with the statement,



"An ethical egoist is almost like a self-destructive imperative in today's world...


I've been making decisions with the thought of the 'good of myself, only' for the last month or so. If anything, my life has been moving quite smooth, and this doesn't mean I do not think about others. Just because I do something selfish, doesn't mean I think about doing something impulsive or emotional. It's quite rational, even though you've discarded ethical egoism as "rid" the senses beyond reason. There is reason in ethical egoism, more specifically, libertarianism. The whole mind frame is that you have the freedom to do anything, as long as it doesn't hinder with another man's freedoms.

To call me "self-destructive" and the reasons behind which, are a definite fallacy.

My knowledge of 'selfish' is quite impaired itself, I guess. My assumtion on what is an ethical egoist is that the only actions under the philosophy are those whose consequential utility benefit the self. Is that wrong?

I don't feel like waiting so I'll go ahead with myself haha.

If my assumption is true, then unless there are benefits for the individual, the action wouldn't be done. Tangently, even if the benefits are for someone else and there are no adverse affects on the individual greater then the benefits for the other person, then wouldn't the simple fact that an ethical egoist has to take time, step aside to do something for someone else make it so the action wouldn't be seen though? I guess what I'm asking is, what is being weighed in mind during a situation, by the ethical egoist?

According to Wiki, ethical egoism is what should be done (as opposed to what is actually done), though I don't trust with (philosophical) explanations. I've seem more than one article that is basically wrong.

But if I am to go with wiki, I'll say that I put more faith into psychological egoism. I think that people do only do what is in their self interest (and not necessarily that they "should"). I believe this is more than a personal observation: advantages/disadvantages. We all want to complain when we are put at an unfair disadvantage, but we never seem to mind when we are put at an unfair advantage. Funny that. Us before them.

There are the exceptions, of course. Then again, most of us are not put into situations for us to become the exception (or so logic suggests). Do you think that (most of us) would give up our lives (or whathaveyou) for another, given the chance? There is the drive to live, which can lead to the (purposeful) death of others. But, in the same instant, there are those who are able to overcome that and sacrifice themselves. Actually, I have to wonder if they have truly "overcome" their instincts or if they have merely tapped into another part of human nature---one we don't witness too often.

Back to ethical egoism. I don't really think we "ought to" put ourselves above others. At which point is it acceptable (to me) for someone to do so? I am not quite sure. The ultimate test would be putting myself into that situation (or finding myself in it). I don't know what I'd do. Sure I want to claim to be the hero, but I doubt I really would be. Do you think we could "practice makes perfect" ourselves into near-pure altruism?