/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5996478]

What was Ayn Rands argument for egoism?

[Anonymous No.5996486]

If everyone takes their own self interest as the right choice, then everybody prospers.

It's also the only choice when you realize altruism doesn't exist, since every action has at least some self interest in it.

[Anonymous No.5996507]

>>5996486
That sounds like Satanism as defined by LeVay.

[Anonymous No.5996678]

>>5996478
>argument for egoism
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.5997767]

It's just rational.

[Anonymous No.5997771]

>>5996486
But that's true, isn't it?.

[Anonymous No.5997805]

>>5997771
No, it ain't.

>>5996486
>If everyone takes their own self interest as the right choice, then everybody prospers.
We're in a prisoner's dilemma, and it is simply a false assumption that everyone will be rational, and neither is it possible to be certain of anyone else. Therefore, the rational choice is to defect - i.e. kill everyone in the order of their likelihood of killing you.

>It's also the only choice when you realize altruism doesn't exist, since every action has at least some self interest in it.
This fails to consider the difference between the map and the territory. The only way to consider self-sacrifice through death selfish is by being stupid in a clever fashion (i.e. philosophy).

[Anonymous No.5997811]

>>5996507

Yes, Satanism is basically Ayn Rand + magic + costumes

[Anonymous No.5998800]

>>5997805
>it is simply a false assumption that everyone will be rational,
>Therefore, the rational choice is

Cool contradiction, bro.

[Anonymous No.5998820]

>>5998800
... ?

I have to chime in. What he said isn't a contradiction: "Assuming everyone will act rationally is a bad assumption. Therefore, your own rational choice should be based on the assumption that not everyone will be rational."

There's no contradiction there. It looks like you just took two sentences completely out of context, put them next to each other, and called it a contradiction.

What are you, a politician?

[Anonymous No.5998821]

Also, OP, I stole this from Wikipedia:

"Ayn Rand argued that there is a positive harmony of interests among free, rational humans, such that no moral agent can rationally coerce another person consistently with his own long-term self-interest. Rand argued that other people are an enormous value to an individual's well-being (through education, trade and affection), but also that this value could be fully realized only under conditions of political and economic freedom. According to Rand, voluntary trade alone can assure that human interaction is mutually beneficial.[16] Rand's student, Leonard Peikoff has argued that the identification of one's interests itself is impossible absent the use of principles, and that self-interest cannot be consistently pursued absent a consistent adherence to certain ethical principles."

[Anonymous No.5998834]

>>5997805
Except the point was to change your own interests to match what is bound to happen soon or late.
Like, if you know that being rich also mean that someone can rob you of your goods, then just don't get too accustumed to their presence so that you're not in grief if that happens someday.
It's the same by being killed.
In that case it would not be to kill others to feel safe, but to supress your desire to feel safe.

[Anonymous No.5999059]

>>5996478

Wrong. And hilariously so.

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm

[Anonymous No.5999301]

>>5996478

She said nothing of meaning that Adam Smith hadn't already said, and said better.

[Anonymous No.5999325]

>>5996478
not science.

[Anonymous No.6001003]

>>5998820
By accounting for the irrationality of others you are being rational again, therefore what he posted is a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.6001010]

>If everyone takes their own self interest as the right choice, then everybody prospers.

Bollocks. There is a finite ammount of resources, energy, workforce, customers, lovers etc: so it is impossible for everybody to prospe4r simultanously in all aspects of life.

Second, humans are very often irrational, follow instant gratification rather than long term profit, and are unwilling to do difficoult stuff without coercion: even if doing so is in their best interest (think about kids who hate to learn math).

[Anonymous No.6002503]

>>5999301
Adam Smith didn't say anything about objectivism.

[Anonymous No.6002532]

SECRET CROWDS RISE UP AND GATHER SEE YOUR FEELOR TAKES ME SMELTOR YEA

[Anonymous No.6002541]

>>6001010
I hated to learn math because people were trying to force me to do it. try and say some snotty shit. I'll beat you out in any thought competition.

[Anonymous No.6002546]

>>5996507
Both crib heavily from nihilism. Objectivism is essentially Nihilism and some Enlightenment philosophy taped together with some liberal use of "Because... it's moral". It's pretty much dross nowadays. The children of the Enlightenment (true) Libertarianism and Progressivism treat the the core tenets of irreverence and personal choice a lot better. Ironically the nation that's the pinnacle of Enlightenment philosophy (USA, natch) lacks political input from either of the extent political theories. Instead you have the Republicans and Democrats (right and right-center, respectively) governing from an authoritarian/establishmentarian viewpoint.

[Anonymous No.6002550]

>>5996486
>It's also the only choice when you realize altruism doesn't exist, since every action has at least some self interest in it.

But that's not true. Altruism has been sucessfully analyzed as something that can arise from the individual thanks to selection for the genes. Saying altruism doesn't exist it's like saying that love doesn't exist because we know the chemical basis for it.

[Anonymous No.6002549]

I'm going to delete this thread even though I didn't make it. OP, delete this thread or I'm going to give you money in any amount you choose (maybe).

[Anonymous No.6002555]

It's against Ayn Rand's philosophy to think about why her philosophy is good for others. The only rules are that you don't physically hurt people nor creator's rights.

[Anonymous No.6002556]

>>6002555
nor break a contract

[Anonymous No.6002560]

>>6002550
Altruism based on "Do this or you won't get into heaven" or "Do this or we'll imprison you" or "Do this or we're going to tell everyone you're a bad person" is not true altruism. When the establishments offering that sort of reasoning are proven false or illegitimate, it'll only breed the opposite in its practitioners. Furthermore those that see the benefit of others practicing false altruism will perpetuate these establishments in spite of the fact that they may cause harm to the community as a whole. I perform acts of "charity" because it makes me feel good about myself and to develop social capital. If the fact that the outcome is exactly the same as if I did these acts because religion/the state demanded of me that I do them, then why should we continue on with propping up these establishments?
Not a Randian, btw, they're annoying little cultish cunts.

[Anonymous No.6002569]

Altruism has been established as conferring evolutionary benefit.
I can't remember the study, but in many animals, including humans, altruism exists between individuals according to degrees of relation.
The more closely an individual is related to another, the more likely altruism is to exist.
And this makes sense; For example, a typical human would likely give his life to save that of two of his siblings. This confers evolutionary benefit when one recollects that the fundamental purpose of evolution is maximum propagation of genetic material. And you share about 50% of your genetic material with your sibling. So if by giving your life contributes to the propagation of the same genes, you would be likely to do it for multiple siblings.

[Anonymous No.6002574]

>>6002560
>Altruism based on "Do this or you won't get into heaven" or "Do this or we'll imprison you" or "Do this or we're going to tell everyone you're a bad person" is not true altruism.

That's religion, law and social status (or whatever, can't come up with the proper word in english sorry). I'm talking about true innate altruism cause by your genes and positively selected for by evolution, the most obvious example being altruism towards your family (not altruism from the point of view of the genes, but it is from the point of view or the individual).

Much has been argued about how other types of altruism outside family work (green beard thought experiment leading to actual experiments trying to measure if people feel more sympathy towards people with a similar phenotype, for example) but most if not all agree that there is true innate altruism for the point of view of the individual in human beings. You could try to argue if being 100% selfish is good like Rand does (I don't agree with her either) but it's a 'anti-natural' strategy the same way using contraception or saying "fuck it, I'll have no children and bathe in money" like many people today do is 'anti-natural'.

[Anonymous No.6002598]

>>6002555

we would never have sent people to the moon if everyone simply acted in his 'rational' self-interest. people would be too busy buying up oil-fields and tricking people into being slave laborers to think about exploration or advancing humanity.

yes at some point it's in the best interest of the ultra rich to terraform some other planet and rape it of it's natural resources, but humans are inclined to be petty, short-sighted and irrational. don't tell me this philosophy is a good one because i've seen other people fall into this trap and even the best-of-the-best have fallen flat on their face because of the kind of hubris it instills in people. it's a toxic 'philosophy' made by a jewish hack.. ignore it.

also not science.

[Anonymous No.6002847]

>>5997805
There is no such thing as altruism. By definition it is:

1.selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others
2.belief in acting for others' good: the belief that acting for the benefit of others is right and good

You are walking down the street and find a vagrant. You put some money in his cup. Altruistic. You feel good about it. No longer altruistic. Any act of supposed altruism can ALWAYS fall on that notion. It makes you feel good. In essence you are also getting something out of it, albeit not material. The closest you can get to altruistic is dying to save someone. Was it instinctive? Is it a complete stranger or some relative? Obviously if you lived you'd feel good, but having died did you?

[Anonymous No.6002850]

>>6002598
People would not be slaves, unless it was in their self-interest.

[Anonymous No.6002854]

>>6002598
If EVERYONE acted in self-interest then it would work. That's is the basis of democracy itself; being able to pursue your form of happiness. The issue, as it also is in politics, it that WE are far from perfect and as pointed out before, 300 years ago slave owners acted on their own self-interest, but slaves did not. That is obviously and extreme of how bad it can get, because either side of the scale chooses not to hold its ground, but we see that every day, today. The problem is that the philosophy is highly idealistic and only serving a species that sticks by the strictest of codes and honestly we as a species suck. I've asked and been asked this question before and it is also based on this notion, "Why can't EVERYONE be happy"? Not just you, or me or him or her, but everyone. The answer is that we are just not ideal for such idealistic views.

[Anonymous No.6002861]

>>5996478
I think she was full of shit because everybody is selfish already in ones personal way. I mean, what if communism was in my personal self interest? You know what I mean?

[Anonymous No.6002868]

>>5997805
The other thing is that these kind of theories are self fulfilling prophecies in that sense that people who think everybody just acts selfish believe they have to act selfish themselves and people who think people are unselfish will act more likley unselfish. That's the problem with Rand, game theory and so on.

[Anonymous No.6002871]

>>6002847
This is why smart people dodge philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6002872]

>>6002854
Everybody does act selfish but for some altruism is how their own selfishness expresses itself. If there was no advantage in helping eachother there wouldn've been any civilizations in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6003084]

>>6002503

Why would he? Objectivism is just question begging primitive realism.

[Anonymous No.6003095]

>>6001010
>and are unwilling to do difficoult stuff without coercion

Rather people are unwilling to do things they do not want to do without coercion. There are plenty of examples of 'difficult' things people do in their leisure.

[Anonymous No.6003109]

Acting in your own self interest does not necessarily mean them the same things as acting selfish directly. For example it would be in my interests that everyone else had an advanced level of education because that many more people would be doing work towards the development of future conveniences.

[Anonymous No.6003114]

I'm a libertarian, not an objectivist.

Rand had some good points but her philosophy was wrong.

[Anonymous No.6003119]

>>6002598
>we would never have sent people to the moon if everyone simply acted in his 'rational' self-interest.

Good faggot, those resources would be better spend on technology here on earth that directly benefits consumers.

[Anonymous No.6003121]

>>6002598
>tricking people into being slave laborers
Top lel

Your childish view of the labour market is horribly misguided.

[Anonymous No.6003131]

shit! Ideevee just fatted up eek

[Anonymous No.6004165]

>>6003114
>I'm a libertarian

So you work in a library?

[Anonymous No.6004227]

>>5996486
>It's also the only choice
Except they are different.
>I care about kids in africa and it gives me joy (selfishness) to give to charity
vs
>I don't give a shit about kids in africa and will not give to charity
>Me not giving to charity and spending it on the economy might help kids in africa (probably wont but whatever)

[Anonymous No.6004229]

Free rider destroys it.

[Anonymous No.6004560]

>>5996478
I tried to understand it but had a lot of trouble till I saw a documentary about her life, most of her stuff lack the context which makes it harder to understand. Basically the communist party took everything under the grounds it was for the public good, things for her were anything but good so she came to America where she saw prosperity based in individualism. So she came to the conclusion

collectivism = suffering
individualism = prosperity
therefore
super individualism = super prosperity

And later was horrified as she saw the federal government grow similarly to the old communist party. She feared the government would balloon into an ineffective bureaucratic monstrosity and welfare and entitlement programs would bankrupt this great land.

In her context it is correct and I can see it as a useful study of public systems, but it grossly ignores other situations where things behave differently which are quit common. Thus her argument is not as grounded in relatable or relevant ways so it comes across as arrogant selfishness and should not be used directly in the vast majority of cases, indirectly however it can be somewhat useful when adapted right.

[Anonymous No.6004607]

>>6002847
>You are walking down the street and find a vagrant. You put some money in his cup. Altruistic. You feel good about it. No longer altruistic.
Dead wrong.
Learn to opportunity costs you fgt.

Someone who gives hundreds to charity every month doesn't derive as much pleasure from it as he could using the same money for hookers.

[Anonymous No.6004699]

>>5996478
Take your religion elsewhere

[Anonymous No.6004852]

>>5996486

> sounds like classical economics

[Anonymous No.6004923]

>>6004560
to put your pic into context, it's right to protect society if you care about it. You'll care about it if it has inherent value. If you worship the zero, you are immoral and anti-life.

[Anonymous No.6004945]

>>>/pol/
>>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.6005181]

>>6004923
I agree that any good society and even many bad ones have value which is why we so often make them, people working together can do more then any individual and rules can be beneficial.

One can be too collectivist just as one can be too individualist.

What puzzles me is that last part about "worship the zero" part of me think you mean Zeus as that is the only deity can think of that starts with the letter Z, but I am sure I am missing something there. Also does that last pic have some kind of back story I don't know about, I thought it was just a good saying especially with how we demonizes anything called socialism regardless of merit?

[Anonymous No.6005377]

>>5996478
if you want to absorb it quickly then read Anthem by her. It's very short and gets her message across. Stay away from Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead unless you want to get mad at books. Took her like 1,000 pages to say what she said in maybe 150 through Anthem.

[Anonymous No.6005399]

ayn rand is a circle jerk. her argument basically boils down to "if everyone was perfect, the world would be perfect." and her arguments don't account for scarcity of things either.

[Anonymous No.6005897]

>>6002847

What if you feel neutral-worse for doing good for others, but do it regardless by compulsion? I don't believe that true altruism exists, I believe it's just incredibly rare

[Anonymous No.6006013]

>>6004945
philosophy is also science, is the science dealing with problems other sciences don't cover

[Anonymous No.6007250]

>>6006013
It does not use the scientific method..

[Anonymous No.6007258]

>>6007250
Philosophy studies possibilities in logical space; science studies possibilities in empirical space.

[Anonymous No.6008457]

>>6007258
Most philosophers don't understand logic.

[Anonymous No.6008483]

>>6008457

Bullshit. I can pick a pro at random and just about he or she will annihilate your naive theory of meaning.

[Anonymous No.6008523]

>>5996486
>It's also the only choice when you realize altruism doesn't exist
Of course, except it does.
The desire to not rape or kill isn't solely cultivated by knowledge of the possible consequences, it could easily be the product of being empathic.

[Anonymous No.6008528]

>>5996486
>then everybody prospers.
demonstrably false

[Anonymous No.6008531]

>>5996478
Flimsy at best.

[Anonymous No.6008544]

>>6008483
>I can pick a philosopher at random, and he will spout a huge volume of impenetrable drivel and say that this proves nothing means anything, and I'm impressed by this.

[Anonymous No.6010246]

>>6008483
Thanks for confirming that you have no idea what logic is about.

[Anonymous No.6010299]

>>6010246

'about'

you mean what it means?


keep digging, little buckaroo. The bottom must be there somewhere

[Anonymous No.6010504]

>>5996478
Rand wasn't an egoist, she was an Objectivist. Egoism is nihilistic.

[Anonymous No.6010544]

Why is everyone on /sci/ so averse to Objectivism? Objectivism is one of the few philosophic positions which is amenable to the progress of science. Other philosophies mistrust science because they involve, in one way or another, fundamental rejections of reality. Objectivism embraces reality, and seeks to understand it rather than fear it. Were he alive today, Galileo would be an objectivist. As would Copernicus, and countless other scientists who were persecuted for their pursuit of the truth.

[Anonymous No.6010550]

>>6010544
>I believe there is an objective truth therefore Objectivism is the only way
lolno
Those scientists would have been positivists at best.

[Anonymous No.6010557]

>>6010544
Too pussy for philosophers who actually contributed to scientific thought?

[Anonymous No.6010574]

>>6002541
>my nigga.

[Anonymous No.6012225]

>>6010299
>dat backpedalling

I guess I was right about you not knowing formal logic.

[Anonymous No.6012389]

>>6012225

>backpedaling

howls of derisive laughter

You don't have a theory, do you? You just manipulate symbols.

[Anonymous No.6012396]

>>6008457
Why do you think this?

[Anonymous No.6013570]

>>6012396
Because I've seen philosophers failing to understand a logical implication. Understanding logical implications doesn't even require taking a formal logic class, it's so basic that it is covered in IQ tests.

[Anonymous No.6013594]

>>6013570

0/10

[Anonymous No.6013681]

>>6004607
that's a weird comparison though.. Obviously we get more pleasure from doing certain things than others. Doesn't mean that we don't get some type of pleasure from other things.

Any I beleive people act good because in most cases there is not reason to be mean/ no benefit. Ex. go out and stab people people are going to think you are terrible and you lose support and respect from your fellow man. Not worth it. Never helping your friends out also not worth it because you lose there support after a while. When you feel you don't need anyone though, I think that's when we see that people stop giving s shit about being nice

[Anonymous No.6015732]

>>6013594
Why do you 0/10 on me? How the fuck can you 0/10 my anecdotal evidence? What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.6015742]

>>6013681
>Doesn't mean that we don't get some type of pleasure from other things.
Reread my post slowly and explain to me what you don't understand in the phrase "opportunity cost".

[Anonymous No.6015752]

>>5996478
that it feels good to get fucked.

[Anonymous No.6017425]

>>6012389
I never claimed to have a "theory". We were talking about understanding logic.

[Anonymous No.6019249]

>>6015752
But it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6019302]

ITT: people who rarely walk around outside of the basement and talk to people

[Anonymous No.6019313]

>>6019302

my base is full of wood scraps
I told to strange people in the Walmarts

[Anonymous No.6019324]

In a speech Ayn Rand said the most noble profession is Scientist.

[Anonymous No.6019333]

She was a narcissist.

[Anonymous No.6019366]

>>5996478
God said so, also god is called ayn rand

[Anonymous No.6019377]

Hint: most of the people who admire Ayn Rand and despise Ayn Rand only read her novels and never her actual philosophical body of work.

Full answer: it's just a Plato ripoff

[Anonymous No.6021450]

>>6019333
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6021676]

>>6021450

>Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (Random House, 1957), 1-1168.

[Anonymous No.6021696]

>>6019377
Ding ding din

[Anonymous No.6021700]

>>5996478
You give her too much credit. A 'visionary' like Rand has no need for arguments.

[Anonymous No.6022379]

>>6019377
>Full answer: it's just a Plato ripoff

How so?

[Anonymous No.6022413]

>>6022379
>come back
>see I wrote Plato when I thought of Aristotle
shameful display

By that I meant how Rand likes to portray Aristotle philosophy as glorifying the sort of "great man" which is central to her thinking, and also that she consider having his stance on the role of fiction as being more revealing than history books.
And of course the whole epistemological premise of using reason to discover the objective world, the objective world including not only physical phenomenon, but also ethics.
In opposition to Plato, of course.

Of course it can be argued that she didn't really get her source material, here is an article slashing into her understanding of Aristotle: http://stpeter.im/writings/rand/aristotle-rand.html

[Anonymous No.6023506]

>>6022413
>the role of fiction as being more revealing than history books.

absolutely disgusting

[Anonymous No.6024451]

>>6019324
I agree.

[Anonymous No.6024630]

>>6010544
No, you're thinking of empiricism, naturalism, and other Aristotelian modes.

Also, your thinking that past scientists would be objectivists without taking any other parts of their lives into account reveals an extremely shallow level of reasoning and historical context.

[Anonymous No.6024679]

>>5996507
I chuckled

[Anonymous No.6025276]

>>6004560
>And later was horrified as she saw the federal government grow similarly to the old communist party. She feared the government would balloon into an ineffective bureaucratic monstrosity and welfare and entitlement programs would bankrupt this great land.

You wouldn't be, by any chance, implying that it isn't?

[Anonymous No.6025303]

>>6004227
vs
>I don't give charity to africa because I care about kids in africa.

[Anonymous No.6027237]

>>6024630
Empiricism is not aristotelian.

[Anonymous No.6027244]

>>5997811
I laughed
>You just mean Ayn Rand + costumes

[Anonymous No.6029031]

Isn't egoism just the natural consequence of evolution?

[Anonymous No.6030493]

Egoism is a tautology. Altruism is just another symptom of egoism.

[Anonymous No.6031401]

>>6004560
>super individualism = super prosperity

What the fuck is super individualism?

[Anonymous No.6031837]

The self is an illusion. Personhood doesn't have an essence.

[Anonymous No.6033308]

>>6031837
An illusion? What perception is misinterpreted?

[Anonymous No.6033333]

>>6031837

>personhood doesn't have an essence

personhood is the condition of being a person
essence : what can't be removed and have the thing be itself, or in other words, your personal identity.

And as Ayn Rand would say "No entity without identity."

So to summarize, either we can identify you, or you don't exist.
for pseudo-philosophy, you might want /lit/ or /x/

[Anonymous No.6035010]

>>6033333
>And as Ayn Rand would say "No entity without identity."

You don't need Ayn Rand to understand this. Just learn category theory.

[Anonymous No.6035825]

If I want to learn about her philosophy without having to read thousands of pages, where can I find the most comprehensive summary?

inb4 wikipedia

[Anonymous No.6035841]

>>6035825
y ud u evr inb4 wikpidea

[Anonymous No.6035958]

>>6035825
>I want a fast mashup
>don't give me the website for fast mashups

[Anonymous No.6035961]

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_essentials

[Anonymous No.6035962]

>>6035825
>>6035961

[Anonymous No.6036900]

>>6035961
thank you

[Anonymous No.6036910]

She is the kind of people who don't understand that the best interest of the individual does not yield the best interest of the group, people who can't into the prisioners dilemma or John Rawls or macroeconomics

Someday people will see how this bitch is nothing but the poor rehash of classical libertarians and the dirt on the nails of real thinkers like Nozick.

inb4 libertarian, no Im not

[Anonymous No.6038381]

>>6036910
>does not yield the best interest of the group

Is there a reason to give a fuck about the group?

[Anonymous No.6038398]

>>6036910
I don't really think she based her ethics on those outdated utilitarian notions.

[Anonymous No.6038523]

>>6038381
This will be a very succint answer, if you need further development I'll gladly post more. Politics/ethics/morality only makes sense if you're referring to a group of individuals. Otherwise, if there was only one possible subject, what sense would it make to talk about the right or wrong when it's you and only you judging? Who are you doing the right or wrong too? Who will effectively claim your action is wrong? (not objects clearly, only subjects can as they are the only ones able of adscribing value to an act). Basic ethics dichotomoy, object/subject. inb4 you believe in some sort of revealed universal ETHICAL truth independent of the subjects perception (notice ethical not merely empirical).
Furthermore, no, I cannot give you one definite reason to care about the collective, you might as well be full nihilist/individualist, but I can tell you (and you'll agree, whether you admit it or not) it is impossible -today- to live completely alone and independently from thrid parties, you need others for everything, from basic survival to sex and fun. Only in a weird futuristic dystopia could you say you live and die independent from others because you were raised by machines, notice these machines were also created by others (either human others or in a very hypothetical case "alien" others).
Notwithstanding, this question about the nature of ethics is a very interesting question, whether the human being is essentially social or merely conditionally social. See: Hannah Arendt, "The Social Condition".
And more thing, there is no ethical school in philosophy that does not consider ethics in a social plane. There have been attempts at moralities that are "totally" individualist (Nietszchean "power of will", to some extent libertarians yet this is a very debatable aspect).

>>6038398
I don't really think you know jack shit about philosophy, history, Ayn Rand, Smith, Mill, Berlin, Nozick or Libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.6039589]

>>6038381
Groups are an interesting topic of algebra.

[Anonymous No.6040887]

>>6038523
>and you'll agree, whether you admit it or not

Cool fallacy, /b/ro.

[Anonymous No.6041330]

>>6040887
Logical fallacies are arbitrary bullshit and referenced by people who cant argue.

[Anonymous No.6042574]

>>6039589
Groups are not very interesting. Rings are more important.

[Anonymous No.6042591]

>>6038523
>I don't really think you know jack shit about philosophy, history, Ayn Rand, Smith, Mill, Berlin, Nozick or Libertarianism.
As a matter of fact I do, and Ayn Rand was never utilitarian.

Too bad, you lost your occasion not to sound retarded.

[Anonymous No.6043583]

>>6042591
>Ayn Rand was never utilitarian.

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6043955]

>>6002574
>>6002569
True dat. Do you know why they are altruistic though? It's their offspring. It's hardwired in all living beings - you must more your genes forward. There have to be more little yous running around. That's egoism, just in another form.

[Anonymous No.6043965]

>>6043583
http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/08/07/the-undesireability-of-utilita/
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/utilitarianism.html
Utilitarianism, while it was a tenet of classical liberalism, turned out to be a basis for the socialist state.
The desirable consequences that come from freedom are, for Rand, totally secondary to the moral value of freedom itself.

[Anonymous No.6043970]

>>6042574
Hahaha no.
They are different and of equal importance. Schemes are built from rings, but a particularly important kind of scheme is the group scheme - a scheme which is also a group (well not quite because schemes are weird, but that's the idea).

[Anonymous No.6043974]

>>6041330

And by argue you just mean spout invalid inferences. Cool story, bro.

[Anonymous No.6043979]

>>6041330
...yeah, you're fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.6044876]

>>6043974
>>6043979
>ad hominem

[Anonymous No.6045415]

>>6043970
Group stacks are more important.

[Anonymous No.6046674]

>>6045415
Name one real world application of group stacks.

[Anonymous No.6046676]

>>5996478
The better argument is self value. Without it you're void.

[Anonymous No.6047379]

>>6046674
T-duality.

[Anonymous No.6049159]

>>6047379
String theory is not the real world.

[Anonymous No.6050337]

>>6047379
That's like saying "solve for x". Where do we ever need this in the real world?

[Anonymous No.6050364]

>>6040887
Way to ignore the whole point, retard.

>>6042591
I never said she was utilitarian, she was a libertarian, who also coincidentally have some utilitarians figure. Too bad you-re way to fucking retarded to follow a long post and its answers.

[Anonymous No.6050911]

>>6049159
What is?

[Anonymous No.6052627]

>>6050364
>Way to ignore the whole point, retard.

What point? He did not make any point. Baseless assertions are not a valid point.

[Anonymous No.6052792]

Fellow libertarian here.

Ayn Rand had some good points but her philosophy was bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6052794]

moot

[Anonymous No.6052799]

>>6052794
Moot is a libertarian.

[Anonymous No.6052803]

>>6052799
big deal, there's nothing especially prestigious about looking after books

[Anonymous No.6052804]

>>6052627
Describing a posture on the subject is a baseless assertion? Why don't you just fuck off, you're clearly out of your league here.

[Anonymous No.6052808]

>>6052792
>economy
>knowledge

This is why I can't take liberkiddies seriously, throw around big words and sound all "FREEEEEDOMZ"

[Anonymous No.6052818]

>>6052808
>liberkiddies
Awwwww,

Now don't you sound all big and grown up after saying that?

> throw around big words
Um, no, statists and socialists do that. We actually explain economics and the complex mechanisms of system while our opponents shitpost like you just did.

[Anonymous No.6052827]

>>6052818
your opponents claim exactly the same as you do.

unless i'm provides with evidence i'm inclined to believe neither.

[Anonymous No.6052843]

>>6052827
>your opponents claim exactly the same as you do.
Actually no they don't.

>unless i'm provides with evidence i'm inclined to believe neither.
How about the fact that statists are afraid to argue with us while we go out of our way to try to debate them.

Even offering 100000 dollar to go to charity if an ivory tower scumbag debates us.
http://krugmandebate.com/

[Anonymous No.6052866]

>>6052843
yes, they do. you just can't tell the diff as one side you agree with and the other you don't.

from the sidelines you are all just talk and no evidence.

that statists won't argue is nonsense as there are a thousand vocal marxists still around.

that you present one single person that won't argue as evidence is indicative of the evidential standard in economics on all sides of the debate

you may as well shout astrology vs homeopathy

[Anonymous No.6052881]

>>6052866
>yes, they do. you just can't tell the diff as one side you agree with and the other you don't.

I thought about that several times, it's just not true. Their side actually does that all the time, that's why they get super mad when you explain basic economics to them.

It's like debating with a creationist.

>no evidence.
Keep saying that if it it's true. It won't change the huge amount of evidence we provide.

>as there are a thousand vocal marxists still around.
haha oh wow
Where? Getting state money from the rest of society? High up in their ivory towers. Marxism is embarrassing btw. I sure hope you're not defending it while being on a science board.

>you may as well shout astrology vs homeopathy
Nah it's evolution vs creationism.

[Anonymous No.6052894]

>>6050364
>I never said she was utilitarian
Ouch, backpedalling is never pretty.
If that's not what you meant, then why react like a flaming retard at >>6038398 ?

[Anonymous No.6052906]

>>6052881
>It won't change the huge amount of evidence we provide.
you provide argument, not evidence.

economics is a pseudo science, and the best you seem to be able to (as the other side also does) is call the other side names, or accuse them of calling you names. or refusing to argue, or whatever. all shouting and no evidence.

whichever, it's all unfalsifiable nonsense whether from ivory towers or whatever place you reside.

[Anonymous No.6052925]

>>6052906
>you provide argument, not evidence.
No, we provide numerous statistics and sources too.
Most of what the debate is over is logic and the how the economy works, so yeah, argument.

>economics is a pseudo science
LEL
Oh god, how hilarious. Next you're going to say math and logic are pseudo science because they don't use "science".

>is call the other side names, or accuse them of calling you names. or refusing to argue, or whatever. all shouting and no evidence.
Just making things up to slander people is NOT going to help your case here. I accept your defeat.

>whichever, it's all unfalsifiable nonsense
Yes, please tell me how raising the minimum wage to 150 dollars an hour will not price 95% of society out of the market and cause mass unemployment.
Please tell me how I'm just a "stupid economist" for explaining the exact mechanism as to why that wouldn't work.

[Anonymous No.6053566]

>>6052906
Economics does not even attempt to be scientific.

[Anonymous No.6055150]

>>6053566
Economics is applied math.

[Anonymous No.6055169]

>>6002861
> what if communism was in my personal self interest?

rand actually believed in this sort of thing: if voluntary collectivism is in your own self interest, go for it. rand hated the idea of forced collectivism...

the problem in rand's philosophies, however, is that humans tend to fall victem to the prisoner's dillema, and because of this they fail to actually take actions that indeed do lead to rational self interest

[Anonymous No.6055192]

>>6052925
>please tell me how raising the minimum wage to 150 dollars an hour will not price 95% of society out of the market and cause mass unemployment.

How about you establish why it would. You get called out for being full of shit because you go about making bald assertions like this without providing any supporting evidence or argument at all. That is why it isn't scientific and that is why you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.6056309]

>>6055150
Mundane babble makes zero use of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.6056324]

>>6052881
why do these images exist
just marx wrote like 3 1k page volumes, and angels wrote a shitload more, analyzing the fuck out of capitalism
and that's just marx and engels, there's so much more anlyzing capitalism by socialists
why would you make that terrible cartoon?

[Anonymous No.6056331]

>>6056324
s/angels/engels

[Anonymous No.6057849]

>>6056309
Economics uses a lot of math. Some of the equations used at Wall Street involve triple integrals.

[Anonymous No.6058813]

>>6057849
What are the equations used for?

[Anonymous No.6059981]

>>6058813
making profit

[Anonymous No.6060826]

>>6059981
How much profit?

[Anonymous No.6061743]

>>6060826
a lot

[Anonymous No.6062916]

What is the difference between egoism and egotism?

[Anonymous No.6062937]

>>6062916

egotism is egoism for those with autism

[Anonymous No.6064085]

Egoism is implied in evolution.

[Anonymous No.6064930]

>>6062937
Nobody has autism so egotism is for no one.

[Anonymous No.6066089]

Her argument was an appeal to tradition.

[Anonymous No.6066097]

>>5996478
Self-improvement, I guess.

[Anonymous No.6067289]

>>6066097
That is selfish.

[Anonymous No.6067631]

>>6067289
It's just evolution.

[Anonymous No.6068644]

>>6067289
Does that make it unethical?

[Anonymous No.6069272]

>>6067289
Now you're getting it.

[Anonymous No.6069318]

Ayn Rand had an argument for egoism? I thought she wrote fiction, not psychology.

[Anonymous No.6069344]

>>6069318
after Atlas Shurgged, all non-fiction for the rest of her life

[Anonymous No.6069356]

I always find this philosophical field of speaking to be rather useless. So altruism does not exist. Ok, so what? Are we supposed to change the way we act because of that? Are people any less admirable for their acts of helping others? I would say no. I just find it useless.

I have found a significant amount of joy in my life from helping others, selfish or not, I just don't think it matters.

[Anonymous No.6069362]

>>6069356
the point is that you felt that joy, without guilt and gave willingly, not out of any moral duty imposed upon you and that the happiness you got was rightfully yours and part of the never ending quest for rationally furthering your life and values.

The goal is to live as happy and productively as possible, in accordance with the proper nature of reality and your own existence as Man.

[Anonymous No.6069367]

>>6069362
Alright.

I guess the thing that irks me is the way it is worded, altruism is "selfish". I suppose it is, but at the same time it is a mutual benefit.

It just seems to degrade altruism. Now if it said something along the lines of "Altruism is a tool to make yourself and others feel good, and using altruism for that mutual gain will bring happiness".

I guess Rand did kind of say that. Its just that diction, mang.

[Anonymous No.6069376]

>Rand:
"The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

"The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness."

[Anonymous No.6069377]

>>6069367
>>6069376

>more Rand

>on Altruism:
"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”"

[Anonymous No.6069379]

>>6069376
That is some serious over simplification and generalization of altruism.

[Anonymous No.6069380]

>>6069367
“Under a morality of sacrifice, the first value you sacrifice is morality; the next is self-esteem. When need is the standard, every man is both victim and parasite. As a victim, he must labor to fill the needs of others, leaving himself in the position of a parasite whose needs must be filled by others. He cannot approach his fellow men except in one of two disgraceful roles: he is both a beggar and a sucker.

“You fear the man who has a dollar less than you, that dollar is rightfully his, he makes you feel like a moral defrauder. You hate the man who has a dollar more than you, that dollar is rightfully yours, he makes you feel that you are morally defrauded. The man below is a source of, your guilt, the man above is a source of your frustration. You do not know what to surrender or demand, when to give and when to grab, what pleasure in life is rightfully yours and what debt is still unpaid to others-you struggle to evade, as ‘theory,’ the knowledge that by the moral standard you’ve accepted you are guilty every moment of your life, there is no mouthful of food you swallow that is not needed by someone somewhere on earth-and you give up the problem in blind resentment, you conclude that moral perfection is not to be achieved or desired, that you will muddle through by snatching as snatch can and by avoiding the eyes of the young, of those who look at you as if self-esteem were possible and they expected you to have it. Guilt is all that you retain within your soul-and so does every other man, as he goes past, avoiding your eyes. Do you wonder why your morality has not achieved brotherhood on earth or the good will of man to man?"

[Anonymous No.6069388]

>>6069380
I agree with Rand in the fact that you should not allow morality to get in the way of being happy, it is for a man to decide how much he is willing to sacrifice without destroying his own self-interests, even to the point where his feel-good altruism cannot fill the hole that was created by the means.

That being said, sacrificing is a way to shed the excess, to suffer loss is to be reminded of humility, while at the same time taking care of those you love, or a stranger. I would seriously pity the man who needs the confirmation of Rand: "Don't let guilt get in the way of living your life."

I've sacrificed some pretty significant things in the past, and I have never regretted it. I think by shedding the things we are most eager to hold onto, we can come to a certain fluidity. Understanding how little you need to be happy, and what you do and don't need to be happy.

Of course, all these principals have extremes that can lead to disaster, morality to serve others, and therefore yourself is the best morality. It does not matter whether it is selfish or not. Even the "self destructive" altruism has its pros. But altruism should not be committed from a place of guilt, but a genuine love and caring. Only then can you assure you will be happy with your sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.6069397]

>>6069388
"Sacrifice" is another hotbutton for Randian semantics:

“Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. “Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.

If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.

If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself—that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.

[Anonymous No.6069395]

Ayn Rand is a shitty author who had an idea for a book where the shittiest people she could think of would be the heroes and their shittiness rewarded.

Atlas Shrugged is not an essay or comment on anything. It is just a shit book with a goofy premise. She then started exploiting idiots who invented a message for her book.

[Anonymous No.6069399]

>>6069397
>cont'd

A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward—if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.

You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man—and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death."

[Anonymous No.6069404]

>>6069397
Some people are very happy serving strangers selflessly, but you know, even that is selfish because you gain self satisfaction etc from it.

I suppose a healthier practice would be mostly "trading" with a dash of sacrifice. You can't really quantify how much joy my watch brings me vs. how much joy I will receive by giving it to somebody in need, so it is hard to decide what is "trade" and what is "sacrifice".

From what I am seeing, Rand argues true altruism is basically impossible. Even selflessness serves you in some way. It may be true, but either way I find it useless.

[Anonymous No.6069408]

>>6069399
Does any man really seek full virtue? It is just not the nature of.... nature. Even in our history, those who are perfect moral beings are still not fully virtuous by these standards, including God if you are looking at the bible.

[Anonymous No.6069415]

>>6069404
and quantifying that joy is actually part of a rational process of a hierarchy of values. Could I draw one up on the spot? hell no, but ideally one should be able to and consider that hierarchy and the full context of the situation when exchanging any values, in accordance with whatever the best outcome is for your own rational self-interest.

Ideally, ever action is carefully thought out, either consciously or subconsciously on an emotional, unrealized but still existent level. Anything else isn't in your best interest and willingly choosing to do so in the face of that is a sacrifice in Randian terms.

[Anonymous No.6069419]

>>6069408
By Objectivist morality, the christian God is near the epitome of evil, plus it's mystic, non-rational, and non-existant

[Anonymous No.6069425]

>>6069415
Alright, but often times, I would say a vast majority of the time, your best self interest involves helping others. Whether your self interest be from the feel-good, the lessons you learn about people or yourself, or just creating connections.

I always feel like objectvism is painted in this light of egotism and an absolute selfishness. But a vast majority of that time, the selfishness involves selflessness, so the way it is portrayed seems contrary to the way it is applied.

[Anonymous No.6069437]

>>6069425
that's on the level of what Individual good, the values are for you to decide, Objectivism is just the framework and the principles. It is absolute Egoism (NOT Egotism, that's an almost paradoxically second-hand form of self-centrism, your self-worth there is totally crowd-sourced tp get a bit fast 'n loose) and selfishness. Morally, it's about making selfishness, I, me, and the self not be dirty words (that's a big part of the guilt she talks about and it's self-imposed {"Sanction of the Victim"})

If helping those people is what makes YOU happy, after considering everything else, go for it, make it your life but the essence has to be doing it for yourself, not them.

[Anonymous No.6069639]

>>6069437
What does it mean to be happy?

[Rosan Rosanadana No.6070342]

>>6069395
How dare you speak of L. Ron Hubbard like . . .
Wait a second, you said Ayn Rand.
Oh!
Never mind.

[Anonymous No.6070368]

>>6069639
I suppose happiness is the achievement of the individual man. Every individual has to seek their own happiness. It is what you want.

>>6069437
I suppose I practice objectivism to a wide degree, but I would not like to admit it. I feel my altruism is ill-born, and I therefore do not get the normal satisfaction I would from it. So I would like to push ideas of objectivism out of my mind.

When the time comes though, my actions are dictated in what I feel is best for me, whether it be a sacrifice or not. My subconscious understands where I need to be as far as sacrifice, altruism, and selfishness; a balance of them, probably from so many years of actively thinking about the three.

That isn't to say I do not consciously think about what is best for me, I just like to think my selflessness is genuine from a place of love. And I think it is. But I love myself over all people, not because I am the greatest person, but because I need to love myself over everyone else to avoid manipulation and dilution.

So I guess I am a pretty hardcore objectivist, at least as far as social/self aspects go. I don't think that really belittles my want to help other people though, I may be doing it for my own good, but it also makes me feel good knowing it is a mutual benefit.

[Anonymous No.6071626]

>>6070368
I cannot seek happiness if I do not know what it is.

[Anonymous No.6072545]

>>6071626
Happiness does not exist.

[Anonymous No.6073478]

>>6072545
Where is your proof?

[Anonymous No.6074540]

>>6073478
Hitchens' razor

[Anonymous No.6076154]

>>6074540
Hitchens is dead.

[Anonymous No.6077151]

>>6076154
He died because he cut himself with his razor.

[Anonymous No.6077263]

>>6077151
Best joke yet!

[Anonymous No.6078451]

>>6077263
That's not funny.

[Anonymous No.6079362]

>>6076154
>>6077151
RIP in peace, Hitchens. You were a great scientist.

[Anonymous No.6080057]

Fuck Ayn Rand. Egoism is logical without philosophy. Do you even evolution?

[Anonymous No.6081503]

She was against egoism.

[Anonymous No.6082368]

Was it a philosophical or a logical argument?

[Anonymous No.6083435]

>>5996486
>If everyone takes their own self interest as the right choice, then everybody prospers.

Isn't that self-evident? I don't need a philosopher to tell me obvious facts.

[Anonymous No.6084235]

>>6077151
No, he died of cancer.

[Anonymous No.6085579]

>>6070368
>I suppose happiness is the achievement of the individual man.

I am not a man.

[Anonymous No.6085736]

>>5996478
All human actions are motivated by self interest. Altruism is actually illusory. Even Mother Theresa expected something in exchange for what she did, namely a divine, eternal gratification (infinite reward for finite actions, what a greedy). Having said that, the only difference is that some people don't acknowledge they are selfish.

Unless you are morbidly insane, you take decisions based on what you think is the best for you.

[Anonymous No.6085758]

>>6004607
>Someone who gives hundreds to charity every month doesn't derive as much pleasure from it as he could using the same money for hookers.

yet there's a reward, so donating hundreds to charity isn't altruism either.

Whether the donor chose charity over hookers just proves that she did what SHE thought was best, maybe because she selfishly realised that benefiting the society SHE is part from gives her a greater (though indirect) benefit.

[Anonymous No.6085761]

>>6006013
nop, science is a kind of philosophy

[Anonymous No.6085764]

>>6085579
lol

[Anonymous No.6086876]

>>6085761
Science and philosophy are mutually exclusive. Either you accept the scientific method or you believe in "cannot know nuthin". You cannot have both.

[Anonymous No.6086880]

>>6086876
nice bait anon

[Anonymous No.6088225]

>>6001010
>http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm

Both of your premises/assumptions are simply not true. Limited resources? finite energy? bill gates pursued his dream of a pc in every home, where no pc even existed, and he accomplished that. oil producing nations raised the price of oil to the point where other oil sources (oil shale) became profitable, to the point where the US now has shale reserves that dwarf Russia's and Saudi Arabia's together. Men of vision will always search and find a way to make their ideas come true. there are not finite resources, there are only finite minds -- too many of them in charge, by the way.

[Anonymous No.6089337]

>>6088225
Resources are finite because the universe is finite.

[Anonymous No.6090296]

>>6088225
>to the point where the US now has shale reserves that dwarf Russia's and Saudi Arabia's together

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6091596]

>>6088225
>there are not finite resources

Can't tell if trolling or delusional.

[Anonymous No.6092517]

>>6002569
>Altruism has been established as conferring evolutionary benefit.

Not always.

[Anonymous No.6093534]

>>6086880
Why would you say that? When did it become common practice to dismiss arguments by calling them "bait"?

[Anonymous No.6094604]

>>6093534
I hate it too. When did yelling "bait" become 4chan's downvote function? If a post hurts someone's feelings, he shouldn't comment on it at all. Labeling it as "bait" is just childish.

[Anonymous No.6095911]

She used an appeal to emotion.

[Anonymous No.6097165]

>>6095911
That's what all the great philosophers did.

[Anonymous No.6097184]

>>5996478
>go on /sci/
>thread on Ayn Rand
>wtf?
>222 posts and 12 image replies

I'm leaving. Fuck you guys.

[Anonymous No.6097872]

>>5996478
Its based on her epistemology look into it.

>>5996486
That's psychological egoism.

[Anonymous No.6098892]

>>6097872
Epistemology is a solved problem. We have the scientific method. Everything else is "u cannot know nuthin".

[Anonymous No.6098900]

THERE ARE EGOIST PEOPLE.

THERE ARE ALTRUISTIC PEOPLE.

WHY DO THESE FAGGOTS THINK EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME MINDSET?

[Anonymous No.6098905]

>>6097184
/lit/ must be laughing their asses off.

[Anonymous No.6098913]

>>6098892
nah bruh

[Anonymous No.6100403]

>>6098905
Does /lit/ know about this thread?