I'm an Objectivist. Debate me.

Practicality may have no meaning to you, but as practicality and morality are intertwined, it is meaningful to most people. At a certain stage, incompetence crosses the line into immorality, no matter how good the intentions of the incompetent one. Pushing a system known to fail is incompetence that crosses the line into immorality.

 

This is an anti-Objectivist stance. In Objectivism you can only value something because it is part of your life. All value is derived from one's life. If you value something, anything, more than your life, then you reject Objectivist ethics.

Which doesn't really address what I've said, and it is an argument that freedom is more valuable than life itself . . . again, this is anti-Objectivist. In Objectivism one's life is the source of value. If a noble death is preferable to a life without freedom, then life can't be the ultimate source of value.

I shouldn't have to tell you what logical fallacy that is. That's an easy one.

Earlier in the thread you argued that Rand doesn't actually have the final say: that one can be an Objectivist while disagreeing with some of her philosophical positions. But, no, she would not argue otherwise. She stated repeatedly that one's life is the thing of ultimate value and that all other value is derived from it. You, on the other hand, are arguing that some things can be more valuable than one's life. I agree with this anti-Objectivist view, but it is an anti-Objectivist view.

 

What’s so fantastic about a sound-wave weapon. Wasn’t it just used in Cuba, courtesy of Putin?

 

No. That was determined to be a case of mass hysteria, along with a few crickets.

 

Alright fine, there's that one contradiction in her philosophy. Any other contradictions in Objectivism that I should know about? Is there nothing positive you can take from her philosophy?

 

Laughable.

Masterful antithesis to totalitarian government? Horsebleep - she benefited from the very government she claimed to have condemned in her lunatic writings. She said government is inherently suppressive and that collecting anything like Social Security constituted parasitism. Yet, she was doing it all along on the sneak when she collected government benefits under her married name. This is hypocrisy of the worse order.




Usually, conservatives are the first ones to proclaim the goodness of practicing morality, fidelity, sobriety, clean living, etc. They point to liberals and accuse them of drooling over pornography, committing immorality, and accuse them of causing every manner of mischief in society. For example, recall their incredibly stupid accusations against liberals by saying the Boy Scouts admit gays due to liberal degeneracy and political correctness. This even though the president of the Boy Scouts is a Republican. Those same deluded right wingers said libs are responsible for the effeminacy of society by imposing a male cheer leader in an NFL team. When I pointed out that the particular team they criticized was owned by Republicans those right wingers clammed up. I can give you countless other examples where right wingers make stupid accusations against libs even though those right wingers commit FAR more acts of degeneracy and hypocrisies of the worst kind.

While right wingers love Rand, they conveniently ignore her degeneracies and infidelities. Why not apply the same standard to her as they do to libs??? Consider also her hatred for Jesus Christ - she said he was the biggest fraud in history and said the best thing about Christmas was its commercialization. If you read the Bible you would know Jesus condemned commercialization and scared away evil doers in a synagogue with a whip. He condemned the things she loved. The vast majority of people on this forum consider themselves good Christians. If anything each and every one of them should CONDEMN Rand as an Antichrist and a pervert.

 

I find it laughable that you find it laughable.

She paid into the system. Getting back money that was taken from you isn't being hypocritical. A parasite is someone who gets way more out of the system than what they pay in.

Also, even if she was a hypocrite, everyone is a hypocrite from time to time. And to completely write off people for not being perfect is ridiculous.

I don't see what liberals and conservatives have to do with the matter. And why do accuse everyone of being degenerate?

Alright....

 

What’s objective about Objectivism?

 

Obviously you missed the fact that she wrote that taking it in any form was parasitism. This proves she was a hypocrite. As for her degeneracy and perversions, that truth is self evident and incontrovertible.

 

Alright, thanks for posting. lol

You are obviously not going to change your mind or think better about her, so I'm not going to debate you anymore.

 

Being independent isn't enough. Life requires balance and that is what Rand misses. There are a lot of different types of people out there and different lifestyles that make them happy.

 

What you're saying is really vague and doesn't tell me what Rand is "missing"

 

Why did Kira Argunova have to die?

 

You haven't looked at what's behind objective physical reality. The double slit experiment shows that invisible, undetectable consciousness is at work in the process of shaping physical reality.

 

Oh. Is this Raul?

 

Ayn Rand preached the BS idea that capitalism polices itself. We know this is untrue.

 

You just proved her right. Thanks.

 

She preached, it’s your life, live it...and don’t force others to do it for you.

 

If so, it means that I have proven conservatives wrong.
You're welcome.

 

If anything it is conservatives who should be debating and criticizing Rand because her hypocrisies and stupidities are an embarrassment to their political POVs.

 

Ayn Rand would agree with you. She consider conservatives traitors to capitalism and a very grave threat to “...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.“

 

The OP has challenged any to a debate about Objectivist ideas and ideals. Instead he receives smears and character assassinations against Ayn Rand.

Really? That’s the best the opposition has? Name calling? Good grief.

Try this: “Man’s life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there’s only one price that pays for man’s survival: reason.”
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man.html

True or false? And why, either way.

 

correction: not smears and character assassination - instead, what you have gotten is TRUTH, incontrovertible truth

 

LOL. Well, at least your interpretation. How about arguing the idea.

Is man’s life one of a thinking being, or is it one of a brute, moocher, or thug?

 

That's not exactly a small matter. A contradiction like that means that there has to be a flaw in her ethical assumptions. Rand outlined five areas of philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, and aesthetics) and held that they were all interdependent. At best a contradiction like this means that 20% of her philosophy is flawed; at worst, and if she is right about all of these areas being interrelated, it means that the whole thing is suspect.

I mentioned some of the other problems with her philosophy earlier in the thread, but since you asked, I'll stick to the positive here.

• She made an attempt to create a complete philosophical worldview. This is very rare in modern philosophy and deserves some appreciation. Most philosophers stick to one or two niche areas.
• She addressed business/entrepreneurship as philosophically valuable aspects of life, instead of mundane drudgeries that occupy our time. For Rand, our work was one of the things we should value most in life, and I think the world needed to hear that at a time when it seemed like the philosophical majority was just willing to accept alienation as the default position of working life.
• She fought against nihilism, totalitarianism, and communism, all of which I can respect. She presented arguments that values and rights were very real things that should be respected.
  
• Related to the above, her ethics kind of bounced back and forth between egoism and a rights-based approach. I think she failed to reconcile the two, and I obviously don't agree with the former, but I appreciate her efforts with the later.
• She elevate self-esteem as philosophically important. This was surprisingly rare at the time.
• I sympathize with her disregard for the is-ought problem and I think she did a good job of pointing out that there is a false dichotomy between reason and emotion--the notion that emotion is inherently irrational and that reason is inherently apathetic.