/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11841563]

Is rational self-interest the only way? What's the alternative?

[Anonymous No.11841581]

>>11841563
No one can claim to know.
But it's the best way we've tried so far.

[Anonymous No.11841629]

Rationality is impossible, the self doesn't exist, and interests are impossible to explicate from the facts, but other than that, it's okay I guess

[Anonymous No.11841640]

>>11841563
>What's the alternative?
not being autistic

[Anonymous No.11841862]

>>11841563
This is my girlfriend's favorite book. What should that be telling me?

[Anonymous No.11841869]

>>11841862
That shes based and fucking redpilled

[Anonymous No.11842025]

It's hubris to call yourself rational or to believe you know what's best, even for yourself.
I'd say ruthlessly exploiting your ecosystem and all the people you share it with while calling that very exploitation altruism actually demonstrates how little you understand the good and rationality.

Ayn Rand was sent from Russia with Love to destroy us.

[Anonymous No.11842317]

>>11842025
>It's hubris to call yourself rational or to believe you know what's best, even for yourself.
>proceeds to make a claim about what is good and rational

[Anonymous No.11842347]

The best alternative is to protect individual human rights but also recognize ones role in and connection to society.

[Anonymous No.11842355]

>>11842347
Voluntary duty and responsibility with an eye for cooperation so to speak.

[LowSwingingMeat No.11842369]

>>11841563
Show me an individual that isn't entirely self-interested and I'll show you a liar.

[Anonymous No.11842395]

>>11842317
Actually, I made an implication about what isn't good or rational. Sorry it was lost on you, as it was never my intention to trick you. I'll try to be less subtle next time. Thanks for the feedback.

[Anonymous No.11842396]

>>11842369
How do we determine what is in a given individual's own interests?

[Anonymous No.11842417]

>>11842395
You clearly believe that refraining from despoiling the environment is rational and/or good. Rather than pulling the fake agnosticism card, you could make a case for an alternative to """rational self-interest""" as described in AS.

[Anonymous No.11842426]

>>11842396
> how do we
> determine
> what is in a given individual's own interests
Come again?

[Anonymous No.11842437]

>>11842417
Could you stop ascribing positions to me?
I don't need to propose an alternative ethical framework to talk about the problems with yours.
You're just deflecting because you don't have an honest reply to a legitimate problem, which makes you intellectually dishonest. So much for the rational part, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.11842441]

>>11841563
>rational
lol
>self-interest
everything you do is ultimately for self-interest

next

[Anonymous No.11842481]

>>11841862
She's read one book

[Anonymous No.11842499]

>>11841563
Not the only way but also a good one to destroy life on Earth in a few generations. Keep up the good work.

[Anonymous No.11842513]

>>11841563
Rationality and irrationality are both illusions anyway.

We either reward performance, or we subsidize everyone equally.

That latter method does not work.

Rand, distasteful as some of her ideas may seem, is both correct and morally correct while the rest of the herd is pursuing an emotional goal that is not realistic and always ends badly.

Communism was tried. It failed. Socialism was tried… it failed… then was hybridized with capitalism in order to keep the state going. Now all these states are going bankrupt and importing alien cultures to try to make up the difference.

Soon, we will view liberal democracy, the sense of "self" and social welfare as being just as failed as Communism and National Socialism.

[Anonymous No.11842524]

>>11842513
We should fear the Anglo-American drive for a cyborg end to man.

[Anonymous No.11842527]

>>11842513
All of your post is completely divorced from reality.

[Anonymous No.11842534]

>>11842527
Capitalist realism is not the end of history. The transfigured radical subject may follow Dasein’s genderless nature towards becoming an angelic being. One that will create a land empire Lebensraum for itself and other pre-modern peoples to preserve their unique cultural ontologies beyond the ever-nearer singularity. All those who are yet to have given in to the post-liberal zombiedom of the society of the spectacle and the internet with its Deleuzian posthuman rhizomatic mash-up of humans and machines must stand up for themselves.

[Anonymous No.11842635]

>>11842513
How do we determine performance?

[Anonymous No.11842653]

>>11842534
At least Deleuze is funny.
Did you move out yet?

[Anonymous No.11842684]

>>11841862
She like to please man at expense of his dignity.

[Anonymous No.11842791]

>>11842534
The dreams are dying. They have run out of people to dream them. The libidnal drive cannot reachyou in dasein. They will wait for the world to rise from the ashes. For dreamers to once more breathe life into this barren land. They will wait for eternity if they must. The dreams make their final stand here, in this, their last sanctuary.

[Anonymous No.11842793]

>>11842369
>>11842441
What about hermits who spent their lifes in desert caves and mortified themselves for their religion?

[Anonymous No.11842824]

>>11842793
>for their religion

[Anonymous No.11842871]

>>11842824
So choosing to further your delusion that causes you great suffering is a self interest now? In contrast to possible alternatives, even such as stoping to care and having a normal life? Self-interest =/= personal choice.

[Anonymous No.11842886]

>>11841563
>rational non-self interest

[Anonymous No.11843270]

>>11842437
I'm not that guy, I do not believe in Atlas Shrugged autism or support corporate environmental pillaging.

However, I don't see how you can even identify the things you mention as problems without asserting any values of your own.

>I'd say ruthlessly exploiting your ecosystem and all the people you share it with while calling that very exploitation altruism actually demonstrates how little you understand the good and rationality.

Like here, how can you say that ruthlessly exploiting everything and calling it altruism is not good if you do not have an idea of goodness? I don't personally agree with doing that, but why *isn't* it morally ideal to trash rainforests for short term profit? What specifically about that is not good?

Answering these questions *requires* asserting some sort of idea of goodness, if I'm wrong then prove it.

[Anonymous No.11843338]

>>11842437
>>11843270
desu yeah this is having your cake and eating it too
its the sort of argument some asshat interlocutor in the platonic dialogues would have
>aynrandism is bad because it leads to bad things
>how do i tell what are good and bad things though
>fuck off i dont need a full account of goodness to point out problems

[Anonymous No.11843348]

>>11842871
You seem to have hit the nail on the head here.
>everything is done in self interest
means
>all your choices come from your personal choice

[Anonymous No.11843529]

>>11842886
based and lotuspilled

[Anonymous No.11843671]

>>11841563
>humans are a social species
>social species are successful due to synergy
>this involves things like trust, compassion, fairness, ect.

literally just focus on the positive aspects of mutually beneficial relationships and quit being a selfish edge lord

[Anonymous No.11843770]

>>11841862
she's based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.11843791]

>>11843270
Why didn't you just start with
>prove me wrong
I wouldn't have had to read all that for no reason if you had.

You provide proof of your assertion. That's where the burden lies, not with me to disprove it.

>>11843338
More deflection. Why don't you answer what rationality is and how you determine what's in your self-interest?
Scared? Maybe you don't believe Objectivism is really that good of a philosophy after all, and that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Perhaps you're just a closet nihilist?

[Anonymous No.11843886]

I mean, gee, it'd be fuckin great if everyone was like that. Too bad they're not, and an increasing majority vehemently opposes it.

First of all, Rand is a bad theorist. Theory is pretty bad in general, but if you want the best from the libertarians, go for Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Take them with a grain of salt, though; they're heavy on the rationalism. Hence why they're often (rightfully) derided as "autistic".

Second, yeah, theory's bad. Study science instead. Start with Burnham's book on the Machiavellians, then read those works (maybe also some econ). That will get you thinking about how people *actually* behave. Only then can you actually get to deciding on the practical alternative to a laissez-faire utopia.

[Anonymous No.11843893]

>>11843671
This. Self-interest is a luxury afforded only in times of plenty and general public security. The force that made humans evolve to get there was incredible social cohesion and mutual reliance in times of almost unfathomable danger and strife.

When your neighbor just got his face ripped off by a mountain lion and you need your buddies to finish the hunt so your kids don't starve and get eaten by carrion birds you put your self interest aside or you die.

[Anonymous No.11844027]

>>11841563
>Is rational self-interest the only way?
Be interested in yourself and see what's going on.

[Anonymous No.11844028]

>>11841629
True.

[Anonymous No.11844029]

>>11841862
That she's a moron.

[Anonymous No.11844035]

>>11843886
rationalism is a disease of the mind
empiricism and model agnosticism are the only ways to properly map out reality

[Anonymous No.11844036]

>>11841563
>Is rational self-interest the only way?
No. It's not even a particularly good way. See: the tragedy of the commons, the dollar auction, the prisoner's dilemma.

>What's the alternative?
The categorical imperative.

[Anonymous No.11844080]

>>11841862
She's into kinky shit like pretend rape and BDSM.

[Anonymous No.11844107]

>>11843791
I'm not supporting Objectivism. It's not a good philosophy at all, completely retarded actually.
But I'm complaining about the following argument:

>It's hubris to call yourself rational or to believe you know what's best, even for yourself.
>I'd say ruthlessly exploiting your ecosystem and all the people you share it with while calling that very exploitation altruism actually demonstrates how little you understand the good and rationality.

>I don't need to propose an alternative ethical framework to
talk about the problems with yours

It's tempting to try to stand in a neutral place and just show that Objectivism is simply bad because it leads to bad things, without having to defend a competing philosophy.

But if you refuse to affirm some sort of value, then even if you can show Objectivism inexorably leads society into an I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream hellscape, you still cannot say that doing so is BAD, because you refuse assert any standard for good and bad mean. And what other standards are you going to use, fucking Objectivism's?

I'm not trying to pull a gotcha here, I'm sure whatever you
believe is at least less retarded than Atlas Shrugged, but if I'm not going to bitch about confused reasoning I pretty much forfeit the right to look down on shitty philosophy too.

>inb4 burden of proof lol checkmate theists
Remember OP:
>is rational self interest the only way? whats the alternative?

In response to this question, don't act like "rand is awful and I offer no alternative" deserves some burden of proof protection, as though someone walked up to you on the street and demanded you join the Rand cult.

(And again, because this will be immediately forgotten, I do not support Rand's ideas.)

So, do you see the problem with just saying Rand leads to bad things where bad is defined under [data expunged]?
Perhaps to make a good case against Rand, you could offer your own, surely better ethical ideas, and make a case of why they are better. (I am not being sarcastic here, I think you could easily do this, Rand is a low bar to clear.) But to call Rand not good does require assertion of a different ethical framework.

[Anonymous No.11844481]

>>11843791

You got BTFO.

[Anonymous No.11844525]

>>11841563
Individualism seems to dialectically invert or reverse into its opposite for me. Like say you're a rationally self-interested Randian Objectivist, won't you eventually rationally conclude that living in a society is more beneficial for your wants and needs than not, and that living in a peaceful society is more beneficial for your wants and needs than not, and so forth until you reach the same conclusions as those supposedly collectivist ideologies which you're against? Sure you might justify your support of altruism selfishly, and internally you might be a self-owner, but ultimately it concludes in the same reality.

[Anonymous No.11844526]

>>11841862
That only you can prevent forest fires.

[Anonymous No.11844537]

>>11843893
I think Stirner's point, in using the Hegelian dialectic from a historical perspective, is to partially argue the same conclusion, that we first needed to overcome those earlier and more primitive levels of human existence in order to produce a society in which individualism and egoism were possible. It's absolutely not an ahistorical ethics, it is only really possible at a specific time and place in history.

[Anonymous No.11844560]

>>11842369
The idea of psychological egoism is an unfalsifiable premise. If I show you a person who claims to be acting altruistically, and who's actions all appear to be as charitable and selfless as possible, then the psychological egoist can simply claim that there is some hidden motive, possibly unconscious, hidden deep in his mind, that is really actually selfish and egotistical. The problem is that we can never prove that such a motive exists as external spectators, and even the individual himself is not aware of such a motive. It's an appeal to some hidden but inaccessible noumenon, some metaphysical spirit, that always legitimates this supposed idea of universal selfishness.

[Anonymous No.11844684]

>>11841629
I'll have what he's having.

[Anonymous No.11845907]

>>11844684
#Metoo

[Anonymous No.11846100]

>>11844107
>>11844481
Actually, I went to sleep.

I can stand whereever I want to point out the flaws of something. What you're doing right now is committing the genetic fallacy.
You're pretending that I need to offer a better theory to reject a faulty one, which is grade A sophistry.

Here's a simple form of our exchange:
>>I think that rational self-interest is the only viable way
>that doesn't make any sense, you're silly for believing in rationality and thinking that you know what's good. Usually this just looks like some apologetics for whatever get rich quick scheme you're trying to push through congress
>>no bro you'd better give me something better you obviously have a position so let's talk about that instead
>that's not what you made a thread about though, if you want to make a claim like OP, you need to define "rational" "self," and "interest"
>>Nah dude you can't just ask me to justify my positions like that, I'm going to write 5 paragraphs and explain why actually the burden of proof is on you to show how I'm wrong about these terms I refuse to define
>>lol it's been two hours you must have been BTFO by my Cruzian debate skills and superior capitalist brain sac

Try answering my questions if you want to have a discussion, otherwise there isn't a point in continuing. You can just keep bitching about how it's so unfair that people could possibly critique the statements you've made instead of answering two simple questions, and I'll keep calling you out for it until you answer them.

[Anonymous No.11847144]

>>11841629
Sounds irrational to argue rationality is impossible.

[Anonymous No.11847631]

>>11846100

Remember these disclaimers? I was not lying here.
>I'm not supporting Objectivism. It's not a good philosophy at all, completely retarded actually.
>And again, because this will be immediately forgotten, I do not support Rand's ideas.
I must add that just because some specific argument against Objectivism is false does not mean that Objectivism is true.
There are endless possible garbage-tier arguments against ideas that happen to be false for unrelated reasons.

The genetic fallacy is to dismiss an argument by its source instead of by its content, yes?
I am emphatically not saying "lol he won't offer his own opinions that makes all his arguments against other things automatically trash".
This is not an attempt to bait you into revealing a different philosophy so I can nitpick that to distract from Objectivism being dumb and wrong.
I freely admit that Objectivism is dumb and wrong, as I have already stated multiple times.

But thinking badly is much, much worse than having the wrong opinions.

So, you've noted that Objectivism is:
>apologetics for whatever get rich quick scheme [someone is] trying to push through congress
I agree.
>ruthlessly exploiting your ecosystem and all the people you share it with
I agree.
>calling that very exploitation altruism
Yes, and falsely to boot.

All of these charges are correct.

But before you raise the 'Badthinkers BTFO' victory banner, there is one additional question to answer. The core question, in fact:
Why would it be incorrect to declare that all of the aforementioned bullshit is morally good?

Personally, I emphatically agree none of that is morally good, but any argument against Objectivism made by bringing up its (many, shameful, inexcusable) bad effects hinges on actually making that point, not on showing the practical causal effects of people believing it.
Otherwise it's "Objectivism is bad because it leads to bad things and lol no I won't fall for your tricks and define what bad means, nice try, Wall Street goons."

You cannot show that a philosophy of ethics is bad on the grounds that it leads to bad things, unless you're shifting to a different philosophy of ethics in order to define "bad".

"Randism is wrong because it excuses exploitative capitalist looting", though true imo, is not a solid counterargument because a Randian does not think that most exploitative capitalist looting is bad.
That translates to "Randism is wrong because it excuses [thing that is natural and fine]."
That argument is *unintentionally* importing definitions of good and bad from elsewhere without making it explicit -- you have to defend a better ethical system to say Randism is bad for its results.

Otherwise, you can try to show why Randism does not make sense in and of itself.
>>11841629 is a perfectly decent start for that kind of argument.

This stuff is a major theme of The Republic. You should read it.

[Anonymous No.11847741]

>>11841862
That she wants you to rough her up and she'll love you afterwards. What a fucking keeper.

[Anonymous No.11848182]

>>11841862
i wish i had low IQ gf
am i narcissist? dammit i hate myself

[Anonymous No.11848189]

>>11842369
rational self interest is factually incorrect, the past decades of psych research disproves it
humans are too incompetent for that
we are hardwired (ofc culture amtters) for reciprocity , we seek sense of belonging to a community

[Anonymous No.11848210]

>>11843886
"nudge" by cass sunstein BTFOs lolbert theory with evidence

[Anonymous No.11848216]

>>11846100
not an argument

[Anonymous No.11848229]

>>11848210
What kind of evidence? Is it FACTS and LOGIC? Is it presented EPIC-STYLE?

[Anonymous No.11848299]

>>11844560
Proving it or not, altruism is unnatural at our most base instincts.

[Anonymous No.11848362]

trannies remove yourself from the vicinity

[Anonymous No.11849183]

>>11844035
Instead of mapping out reality, detach yourself from it. Begin to map yourself, for "reality" or the observable cannot sway you once you're strongly tethered inside the void.

[Anonymous No.11849243]

ok im giving this girl a chance. the way she gets everyone panties in such an uproar has made me want to read this

[Anonymous No.11849249]

>>11841862
she cheats on you

[Anonymous No.11849633]

>>11847631
>>apologetics for whatever get rich quick scheme [someone is] trying to push through congress
>I agree.
Wut? How? Objectivism argues for limited government so that no one can get rich quickly through congress?

[Anonymous No.11849761]

>>11847144
Yes it is

[Anonymous No.11850473]

>>11849633
Clearly an irrelevant concession made while trying to talk about a different point.

[Anonymous No.11850499]

>>11848299
You're proving that guy's point.

[Anonymous No.11850624]

>>11850473
Irrelevant, they're both wrong on that point.
You might as well argue that objectivism is apologetics for murdering people and violating their rights.

[Anonymous No.11850704]

>>11850624
It is.

[Anonymous No.11850776]

>>11841563
Help others to become better than you, maintain your ancestors legacy, build something.
Self interest is the easiest way

[Anonymous No.11850886]

It's amazing how many flavors of idiocy have been extracted from the simple assumption that the world is rational.

[Anonymous No.11850954]

>>11841563
Ayn Rand turned me into a devil-worshipping cock-sucker! Do not turn to the advice of cock-sucking maniacs!

[Anonymous No.11851597]

>>11850624
>can only process arguments in terms of whether they are for or against a particular ideology

[Anonymous No.11851825]

>>11850954
You make a strong case, but nevertheless Ayn Rand is shit.

[Anonymous No.11851829]

>>11843886
>go for Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe
How original ! How about venturing on unknown path and not just spouting what libertarians keep repeating over and over.