25 Apr 11
Originally posted by FMFObviously, Z,A,B and C can just move on elsewhere if they don't like it there. No-one's forcing them to stay!
The problem with this 'man X acting in his own interest for his own welfare deals with man Y, and they do so on their terms, and it's no one else's business' thing, is - what if the dealing between X and Y is detrimental to Z, A, B and C who also live in the vicinity of X and Y?
25 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Yes, I know the you're-either-a-lion-or-a-leech answer. But... back to the real, adult, interlocking world!
Obviously, Z,A,B and C can just move on elsewhere if they don't like it there. No-one's forcing them to stay!
If there is "detriment" in play, then those affected must have (a) protection and/or (b) recourse to a just settlement. If there is "protection/recourse" there must be regulations in play. And regulations need a bit of nitty gritty in terms of arbitration, enforcement and sanctions.
Clearly, a society in which X, Y, Z, A, B and C live cannot simply rely upon the hope that X and Y will self-regulate and eliminate the "detriment". The only solution is that X, Y, Z, A, B and C reach some consensus about how "detriment" is defined and how members of the community protect themselves from it.
Imperfect perhaps, but what other mechanism could there be?
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't see that choosing that lifestyle is compatible with acting to ones own advantage, pleasure or wellbeing, nor with ones own welfare. It may be a lifestyle that has no regard for others well being but it would also be with no regard for ones own well being. This is a common misconception about selfishness when the term selfish is applied to suicides. Yes, a healthy person that commits suicide may be acting without regard to others but it could hardly be considered 'being concerned with ones own welfare or advantage' and the same could be said for the hermit, it's not a healthy way to live. I don't believe selfish people live that way.
A selfish man could be a hermit, too, so I don't totally agree.
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by SeitseGet ready for a whole new wave of Randroids Sietse, the film has given 'Atlas Shrugged' a real boost in book sales, hoorah.
What are we debating here? There are no Randroids anymore
in the civilized world, as far as I know. Or are they?
I think it is pretty clear that Rand was nothing but an perennial,
sniveling teenager preoccupied with her own bellybutton and the
5 centimeters of flesh surrounding it.
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by WajomaIf one finds it to be in his own advantage to eschew interactions with other people then I fail to see how they are not acting in their own well-being by being a hermit. I guess Wajoma is the judge of what others may legitimately do in their own self-interest.
I don't see that choosing that lifestyle is compatible with acting to ones own advantage, pleasure or wellbeing, nor with ones own welfare. It may be a lifestyle that has no regard for others well being but it would also be with no regard for ones own well being. This is a common misconception about selfishness when the term selfish is applied to suicides. ...[text shortened]... r the hermit, it's not a healthy way to live. I don't believe selfish people live that way.
25 Apr 11
I don't know norm's and Wajoma's personal situation but I wonder if they would make the following statement (which is consistent with the beliefs they have stated here) to their significant other, family or friends (if any):
I will do nothing whatsoever for you but what I deem to be in my own selfish interest. I regard achievement of my own happiness as the highest moral purpose and will never do anything for anyone's else benefit except if I deem it in my own self-interest to do so.
I suspect that anyone making such a statement to their "loved" ones would be regarded as a lunatic or a prick.
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderPossibly what happens is that they end up attracting a certain type of uber maternal type of individual who sees their emotional emptiness as a challenge?
.....I suspect that anyone making such a statement to their "loved" ones would be regarded as a lunatic or a prick.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI wonder why people like that would bother to announce it; they might even see announcing it as antithetical to their interests. Of course the internet allows such admissions, due to relative anonymity.
I don't know norm's and Wajoma's personal situation but I wonder if they would make the following statement (which is consistent with the beliefs they have stated here) to their significant other, family or friends (if any):
I will do nothing whatsoever for you but what I deem to be in my own selfish interest. I regard achievement of ...[text shortened]... e making such a statement to their "loved" ones would be regarded as a lunatic or a prick.
But in any case, they'd "make the statement" through their actions. A shrewd example of this kind of person would take this into account. I think again of Dexter.
26 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Why not announce it if you believe in Objectivism? Surely you'd want to teach such values to your children, wouldn't you?
I wonder why people like that would bother to announce it; they might even see announcing it as antithetical to their interests. Of course the internet allows such admissions, due to relative anonymity.
But in any case, they'd "make the statement" through their actions. A shrewd example of this kind of person would take this into account. I think again of Dexter.
EDIT: Dexter knows he's a monster; Objectivists think they are paragons of human rationality.
26 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're not shy in making one or two judgments yourself no1, making judgments then feeling justified in backing those judgements with force and threats of force. That is the difference. I will judge whether a hermit lifestyle is in a persons best interest, but that judgment will not be on it's 'legitimacy', you're being a little bit sneeky trying to slip that word in eh no1. Apart from the pleasure one gets from friendships and romantic relationships how does a hermit make his toast? or a pencil?
If one finds it to be in his own advantage to eschew interactions with other people then I fail to see how they are not acting in their own well-being by being a hermit. I guess Wajoma is the judge of what others may legitimately do in their own self-interest.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/thomas_thwaites_how_i_built_a_toaster_from_scratch.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
Link for shav:
http://5z8.info/yourdick_n3p7ks_horse-slaughter
Is it really in anyones own self interest to cut himself off from society, to never experience friendship, wild sex with someone you care about, to spend months building a toaster or a pencil. Being a hermit is only one half of the selfish definition, the half that says 'disregard for others' the one half that you are fixated on. Do you think that is in a persons best interest no1?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, Dexter is a poor analogy.
Why not announce it if you believe in Objectivism? Surely you'd want to teach such values to your children, wouldn't you?
EDIT: Dexter knows he's a monster; Objectivists think they are paragons of human rationality.
Is it in your self interest to teach your children Objectivism? If so, do. If not, don't.
26 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseYeah, that's no secret, it's low buget, some of the actors took a cut just to be involved, but the book has taken off again and it is the book that is the best source for the ideas. It will probably be one of the most critiqued films of all time, and not being a film critic will be no restraint for most of them, from the left whinger collectivists champing at the bit to put the knife in, to self proclaimed Rand scholars pointing out every deviation and commenting on what should have been included and what should have been left out and which actor should have played which part, there will be critcism from those who have not seen the film and who have no intention of seeing it, but the main thing is the ideas Seitse, they're out there again, being read, discussed and debated.
Ugh!
And I checked the cast and there's absolutely nothing
impressive there.