/lit/ - Literature

>>4379967
You can learn philosophy completely through another person. The key factor is that you honestly use your own independent judgement to evaluate anything, whether that be first hand sensory information, ideas shared in discussion, or the opinions of experts. It must be accepted or rejected by the standard of the context of your knowledge. That is what rationality requires. First hand judgement.

As for why do we explain it? Because other people are a value to us, to try to advocate for the kind of world we want to live in, the kind of world that we believe humans can thrive in, to whatever extent we can manage to get towards there. Because the ideas are enjoyable to discuss. Because intellectual discussion is satisfying. To better understand ones own ideas through expressing them. Lots of reasons.

I don't believe in spending too much time trying to "convert" as there are many more important issues in my life to enjoy. Most Objectivists after they get settled into the philosophy take the same position. Politics isn't life, and the goal of Objectivist political involvement (other than those who wish to actually be politicians or active intellectuals) is to be involved in politics so that one day you don't have to, or to get closer to that point. Every degree helps.

>>4332502
Human beings can only survive through certain means, their minds only work through certain ways, and man has a certain nature. You can reject that anything can have value, you can reject epistemology (or just have nihilistic epistemology), you can reject that one should live for ones self, and you can reject plenty of other things, but if you're not rejecting the idea that you should live for your own benefit, rejecting the idea that you should act in a certain way to benefit yourself doesn't have much standing (providing you'r not also rejecting the epistemological things I mentioned earlier or you hold some crazy subjectivist metaphysics). Self interest being valid is the "is" that forms the "ought" of certain virtues and actions to achieve it (as again, man requires certain things to survive and these things can only be achieved through certain actions.)

I suppose you could try to divorce the concept of physical health from psychological health and just discard one, but the reasons why that is hilariously bad planning are pretty obvious. Given, I'm speaking of actually accepting self-interest as being neato, and just not total subjectivist ethics that regard egoism and altruism as being equally acceptable/pointless.