Ayn Rand

“"What you were guilty of was false dichotomy – assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. Pursuit of self interest does not have to be either moral or immoral."

The Viol man is right here. Many things of value, including self and self interest can be hugely valuable without being either moral or immoral.”

“This is precisely relevant, but I was suddenly reminded of a psychotherapy client I had years ago:

Th: It seems like you are expecting me to make value judgements about everything you do.

Client: Is that good or bad?”

“Pedxing, and the rest of the "Rand Gang", one and all.
You are invited to a Philosopher's Hike. We need to decide the when and where. I propose we have a good, remote base camp and we can dayhike from there when we are not engaged in verbal jousting. Does this sound like fun? Can I be included?”

“Violin’s original post was, “…I don’t think that pursuit of one’s own self-interest is a highly moral cause”.

So you guys are saying that violin's post was absolutely meaningless because highly moral behavior means... what?

In an earlier post, I said that my syllogism was invalid if you don't believe that highly moral behavior has value. That makes the syllogism wrong, but then what was violin trying to express in his post?

Last night I was all set to admit that I made a mistake in my logic deduction. Then I did the research because I certainly can't memorize all this stuff. You folks seem unwilling to admit that this is logic not opinion. Why is it so hard for you to admit a mistake. I make them all the time, just not this time.

You folks seem to be bringing out the big guns now, "nanny-nanny boo-boo you're wrong arclite."”

“I'd go if arclite promises not to mischaracterize and exaggerate my arguments in order to compare me to Hitler.”

“Philosopher hike?
Think of possibilities...
Ayn Rand does Gore-Tex?

Loud debates. Campfire.
Intense arguing. Gunfire.
Rand and Atlas shrug.”

“I would love to hike with you all. This is great fun for me. Imagine what it would be like with toasted marshmallows to throw at each other.

But I ain't gonna make a blood sacrifice to violin, the anti-christ.”

“So...what's wrong with Hitler? He was just displaying a superoior talent for taking care of his self-interests. (That's a joke, son, a joke.)
I don't think anyone is ganging up on anyone, here. The point-counterpoint is quite intriguing. Both sides seem to be making plausible points, which will make for good camp talk.
I could moderate and keep the "hitler" comments to a minimum.
Or, we could have a "philosopher's death-match", no holds barred! What do you guys think?”

“Kleetn, refer to the "Suggestions for Matt" thread.
NOW!”

“Well then, how about Moose-a-lini?”

“The original Eye-Talian Stallion!!!”

“What does it taste like, Tom?”

“You guys are all highly immoral”

“Hmmmm, kinda like chicken.....schitt!!!”

“Didn't want any budding Sartre's to miss this post because of the page break. This is the post where we all find out that violin and pedxing don't believe in the value of highly moral behavior. It would seem that the phrase "highly moral behavior" means absolutely nothing.


"Violin’s original post was, “…I don’t think that pursuit of one’s own self-interest is a highly moral cause”.

So you guys are saying that violin's post was absolutely meaningless because highly moral behavior means... what?

In an earlier post, I said that my syllogism was invalid if you don't believe that highly moral behavior has value. That makes the syllogism wrong, but then what was violin trying to express in his post?

Last night I was all set to admit that I made a mistake in my logic deduction. Then I did the research because I certainly can't memorize all this stuff. You folks seem unwilling to admit that this is logic not opinion. Why is it so hard for you to admit a mistake. I make them all the time, just not this time.

You folks seem to be bringing out the big guns now, "nanny-nanny boo-boo you're wrong arclite.""”

“Maybe Violin should have said, "Solely pursuing one's self-interests has no moral value". Violin, you must re-cast your statement to clarify your argument, -The Moderator. I think Arc is being very literal in his interpretation, which is only logical.
Wouldn't there be a huge grey-area between one's self-interest and altruism?”

“Debate. Argue. But
I still miss my Auntie M
Picking nits no fun.”

“Dunadan, I believe that's exactly what violin meant to express. But rhetoric can easily mislead people and I see way to much rhetoric in discussion these days. Many folks don't put rhetoric to the logic test and come away with erroneous conclusions. But hey, according to violin and ped, logic is only opinion anyway.”

“Arc –

Simply put, you were not fairly representing my statement. Saying “I don’t think that pursuit of one’s own self-interest is a highly moral cause” is not the same thing as saying “I think the pursuit of one’s own self-interest is an immoral act”. What I meant was that it is morally neutral. I am guilty of making an ambiguous statement.

I also think that you are mixing the words ‘value’ and ‘values’ rather freely. Somewhat akin to:
All trees have bark.
All dogs bark.
Therefore, all dogs are trees.


Even if you feel you are being ganged up on, you know better than to appeal to pity with this group.”

“Coming on the hike?
The phiosopher's debate?
Good time had by all.

Kleetn is still here?
Matt is remiss in duties
Ban the Northwest!”

“"I AM GUILTY" - Violin.”

“Auntie M, Auntie M!!!

Where is that wild woman?

She could slap you clowns around.....and you'd love it!

Hmmmm.....self-interest is virtuous?”

“Listen, sodbuster:
I shall not be banned by Matt
Weak and powerless.

Webmaster, I laugh
in your face! And furthermore
my squirrel mocks you.”

“Reeeeeely, violin? Is that what you really meant? Well gosh darn it all, I wish you had figured that out a while ago. If you had been clear, I wouldn't have had to go through all that research to express my OPINION.

Don't worry 'bout me, violin. I can hold my own.


Value- To consider or rate highly.

Gee, and here I thought that was clear within the context of my argument. Golly, I see it so clearly now, I've just been so unclear.

So, being a morally neutral act, you don't see anything wrong with Rand's philosophy of pursuing self-interest then?”

“Take yer meds dude.”

“You got some extras, Tom? How's that Thorazine workin' anywho?”

“There is nothing necessarily wrong with self-interest but it is not the highest moral purpose in life. It’s self-delusion to portray selfishness as some noble calling.”

“That's certainly up for debate, violin.”

“arclite: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Violin: Well, I was told outside that...
arclite: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!
Violin: What?
arclite: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR KIND REALLY MAKES ME PUKE!
YOU VACUOUS, STUFFY-NOSED, MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
Violin: LOOK, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT!!
arclite: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!
Violin: (smiling) Oh! Oh I see! Well, that explains it!
arclite: Oh no, you want room 12A, next door.
Violin: I see...Sorry...
arclite: Not at all! No, that's alright.
Violin: (leaves room)
arclite: (under his breath) stupid git.”

“arclite: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Violin: Well, I was told outside that...
arclite: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!
Violin: What?
arclite: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR KIND REALLY MAKES ME PUKE!
YOU VACUOUS, STUFFY-NOSED, MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
Violin: LOOK, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT!!
arclite: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!
Violin: (smiling) Oh! Oh I see! Well, that explains it!
arclite: Oh no, you want room 12A, next door.
Violin: I see...Sorry...
arclite: Not at all! No, that's alright.
Violin: (leaves room)
arclite: (under his breath) stupid git.”

“Oh no! I violated the 'Terms of Participation'. I'm finished!”

“You'll get no argument from me.”

“Meanwhile, Ayn Rand is still dead.”

“STOP THIS RECORD!!!

STOP THIS RECORD!!!”

“Ayn Rand is dead?”

“Sorry, but there are some parts of this horse corpse that are not thoroughly shredded.

Here is Arc's sylogism via cut and paste (I changed "violin" to "Ped"):

Highly moral behavior has value (my assumption)
Pursuit of self-interest is not highly moral behavior (according to Ped)
To Ped, the pursuit of self-interest is of little value (my conclusion).

Substitute "sex," "water," or "backpacking" for "pursuit of self interest" and see if the syllogism is still true:

Highly moral behavior has value (my assumption)
Drinking water is not highly moral behavior (according to Ped)
To Ped, the drinking water is of little value (my conclusion).

Nope!

I'm not trying to humiliate anyone or call anyone names. I'm just trying to establish some common ground about the nature of reason and logic. I ain't trying to call in big guns to get a surrender, but some common use of reason is necessary for argument to be fruitful.

I'm sorry if this over-flayed horse is starting to stink, but unwillingness to see and yeild to logic when it is laid this bare - at least when the heat of the contest has cooled - is fundamental and its hard not to see it as a question of competence and/or ability to exalt logic over pride. If reason can never disprove my point, then it is fruitless for anyone to argue with me.

Dunadan: Hiking with you and Arc and the Viol man, or others would be a pleasure.”

“I would have enjoyed listening to all of this in person, while drinking heavily.”

“Master of haiku
Threatening with squirrel nuts?
You WILL be banned!

Dang, Dayhiker, you really are a philosopher, aren't you? How could we have posted so many times without mentioning getting drunk? We are slipping here, my fellow TT'ers.
What kind of booze do you recommend, Dayhiker?”

“I know this won't be popular with all of you micro-brew, dark beer guys, but I go for Budweiser. If it's a whiskey night, then Crown Royal is as good as it gets. I know there's been a bit of a disagreement here lately, but now it's time for a real fight. What do you drink? All this academic mumbo-jumbo pales in comparision.”

“In reality, one can only worry about oneself and a small number of close friends/relatives/and coworkers. How many people do you know who can impact more than a couple hundred people max?
or 5 or 10?”

“Biz - Well, my boss's wife is heavily involved in United Way. The $125k that this county collects goes into the metro Birmingham fund. About $350k comes back into the county. I'd say that's someone I know well that has a big impact. My boss is heavily involved with Boy Scouts. He is president of the council for the whole NE part of the state. Leadership drifts down and affects thousands of youth. I'm involved with Kiwanis. We raise money to attempt to elliminate iodine definiciency(sp?) world wide. It's the leading cause of preventable mental retardation. At the last Kiwanis meeting we gave a check to the local Salvation Army. The man who collected the check was about 90 and thanked us for the money, said it would NOT be used locally. He then said, "remember, children are children wherever they are".

This is not intended to be a look what we do blurb. It is to show that all that is required to get involved. So few people "just show up" that it turns out that, that's the first step. You can quickly make a difference. If I recall, Biz, you're an engineer. You'll be suprised how quickly people will listen to what you have to say BECAUSE of your technical background. Attorneys and Dr's get alot of bad press, but people tend to respect engineers. They see us as an unbiased opinion. Everyone has biases, but people seem to want our opinion.”

“Ped, that really would be cool. Where should we go? Just imagine us all enjoying the great outdoors and discussing our different points of view while the two Jersey boys are grabbing themselves and yelling at each other. I doesn't get any better.
Dayhiker, Buttwiper is a step below what Marvin Gardens likes to drink. But, again, that is all open to discussion at the camp-out.
Biz, are you going to join this group of brilliant thinkers in the wilderness?
And, Biz, because of the inter-connectedness of all things, we do not fully know how far our sphere of influence extends, do we? I have a feeling that it is like the ever-expanding circles on still water.”

“Everybody loves politics but hates a politician”

“Non of that is politics. They are all volunteer organizations. Most volunteer/civic groups are hungry for new blood. On our Habitat for Humanity board I'm the ONLY one under about 48 years old. I'm 30, so age is not a barrier.

Dundan - have you seen the movie "Play it Forward". I think that's the name. It has Ben Affleck, Gweneth Pal....(can't spell her name), and Elijah Wood. It deals with the every expanding sphere that you refer to.”

“I think Ayn Rand's point is that the people who build railroads, and invent new types of steel and look out for their own companies self-interest, not because they want to, but because its the only thing the know are just as good as the moral do-gooders. why? because everyone benefits from a new railroad or a better/stronger steel. period

there is no grand scheme”

“whatever ones position in life, whatever ones philisophy, one always thinks THEY ARE RIGHT

arc, 1. why do you want to know my motivation? 2. if I knew it, I would tell you Ü”

“"Pay it Forward". No, but I know what the movie is about, (my wife read the book).
I'm still having a hard time reconciling a civic-minded engineer with someone who drinks Bud.
And, Biz, what exactly did you mean by that last post?”

“I haven't read Rand and don't intend to. I was not trying to argue that one was better than the other, just pointing out that the average Joe/Jane can make a difference. I'm also a Republican, and will soon be buying out my boss as he starts the retirement process. It's not just pie in the sky idealist that make a difference. I am continually amazed at the leadership that business provides on the volunteer end of things. The Jack Welch book is a good example. GE demands that their people give back and they have 300k employees. Think of that sphere of giving.”

“Oh, well, I mean three posts ago, Biz. I am so slow.
Arc has ulterior motives.
Dayhiker drinks Bud.
And, as is my question with all new technologies, in just what ways have we really benefitted? Technology is neither good nor evil, but do we want to burden it with making us happy?”

“Dunadan - I'm a condundrum. Most people say that my personality is different from that of an engineer. My wife even says so, but that I have my moments. I'm taking a Leadership seminar series through an engineering org and we had to take a Birkman personality test. It basically breaks down into four quadrants: analytical type, marketing type, creative type, and organizational type. The more toward the middle you were the more of all 4 type you contain. I was the furthest in the analytical(engineering) quad of all the engineers in the room. What can I say, I'm a weird ass.”