18 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaAnd that's the whole point.
Rand fully recognises man's ability to act irrationally, but that does not mean man has to act irrationally. Rational action is possible but man must apply thought to making that happen, a piece of grass cannot act rationally or not, man can, man has that choice.
It's not automatic.
Not everyone can choose to act rationally (as rational already is subjective to a certain extent. i.e. who dictates what is and what is not rational).
Not everyone who can choose to act rationally has always a choice to act rationally.
Hence, any doctrine based upon acting rationally (founded in it, drowning in it, being flushed with it, etc.) is flawed.
18 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirYep there are a few tards around, others that fell off their motorcycle but had forgotten to put their helmet on, boxers that have taken one or two too many, that type of thing but that vast majority are capable of rational thought. Others have the ability but they abdicate that choice. Here's a statement from one of them:
And that's the whole point.
Not everyone can choose to act rationally (as rational already is subjective to a certain extent. i.e. who dictates what is and what is not rational).
Not everyone who can choose to act rationally has always a choice to act rationally.
Hence, any doctrine based upon acting rationally (founded in it, drowning in it, being flushed with it, etc.) is flawed.
"Not everyone who can choose to act rationally has always a choice to act rationally"
18 Jan 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat you're so opposed to, this 'laissez faire capitalism' amounts to this:
Not at all, even if people were rational laissez faire capitalism would be a terrible idea.
I have something of value i.e. property, knowledge, my labour. There is another fellow he has something i.e. property, knowledge, his labour. We get together, each of us recogonises the others ownership of their property, knowledge, labour. We commence to trade value for value, a mutually beneficial trade (not always sometimes one or the other party makes a mistake, like when you bought a GN250), there is no force, threats of force or fraud.
18 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaWas the war on Afghanistan rational?
Yep there are a few tards around, others that fell off their motorcycle but had forgotten to put their helmet on, boxers that have taken one or two too many, that type of thing but that vast majority are capable of rational thought. Others have the ability but they abdicate that choice. Here's a statement from one of them:
"Not everyone who can choose to act rationally has always a choice to act rationally"
18 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaMy point does not hinge on a particular character flaw. I threw out "lazy" and "selfish" as something that would likely arrive at a quick agreement that these are not virtues. But I never intended to debate them. Better to throw out something more hideous.
Good point, but would ,being lazy, really be caring for no one but yourself?
I would say no, people that are lazy have basically given up caring for anyone at all, even themselves. They are not selfish, they have given up on themselves. That is why being true to oneself is the road to morality and virtue.
Shav used the example of someone who likes to dissect children. Would you say a person is on the road to virtue if their desire was to dissect children (or molest them) by remaining true to themselves?
Personally, I would think that someone who desires to dissect children would be on the road to virtue only if they sought to purge themselves of the desire all while repressing what desire they currently had not yet purged.
18 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaThis is incorrect; there was trade long before there was capitalism.
What you're so opposed to, this 'laissez faire capitalism' amounts to this:
I have something of value i.e. property, knowledge, my labour. There is another fellow he has something i.e. property, knowledge, his labour. We get together, each of us recogonises the others ownership of their property, knowledge, labour. We commence to trade value for value, ...[text shortened]... makes a mistake, like when you bought a GN250), there is no force, threats of force or fraud.
19 Jan 11
Originally posted by shavixmirshav, shav, shav, we all know you have a fear of objectivism, what you have shown in your last ten posts is that it is an irrational fear. There are a million factors that would need to be considered to detemine the rationality of the Afghan war, in this the age of internet there are probably a million threads where you can go and discuss that issue. It has been very clearly extablished tha man has acted irrationally in the past i.e. not man as a species but 'men', and that the philosophy of objectivism fully recognises that fact.
Was the war on Afghanistan rational?
Would you say man as an idividual is capable of rational thought and action (maybe even you)?
Please answer this question so I know whether to discuss it any further with you.
19 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaGod no.
Would you say man as an idividual is capable of rational thought and action (maybe even you)?
Please answer this question so I know whether to discuss it any further with you.
I shag anything that walks and punch everything which irritates me.
I think most people are capable of rational thought in the right circumstances.
A prime example would be a fire in a cinema.
Some people will react rationally (and generally die).
Some people will freeze with fear (and generally die).
And some people will panic (and these are the people who generally survive).
No matter how much of a Sheldon (from the big bang theory) you are, the circumstances you find yourself in will dictate just how rational you react. And your reaction, no matter how rational you could perceive it, does not automatically mean it's actually rational or in your own best interest.
19 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirBrags about his own irrationailty.
God no.
I shag anything that walks and punch everything which irritates me.
I think most people are capable of rational thought in the right circumstances.
A prime example would be a fire in a cinema.
Some people will react rationally (and generally die).
Some people will freeze with fear (and generally die).
And some people will panic (and these ...[text shortened]... d perceive it, does not automatically mean it's actually rational or in your own best interest.
Throws out an imaginary scenario where people that act rationally die and people that act irrationally (panic) survive.
aka: squirming like a tape worm.
Contrary to your scenario it is the person that considers the situation in rational way that is more likely to make it out alive. The situation you are in will determine your options, it will not determine whether you rationally consider those options, that is up to you. Have you actually read any Rand i.e. more than the title "The Virtue of Selfishness". (btw, in that book one of the first things she explains is her choice of title) In particular an essay titled "Philosophy: Who Needs It", there are a couple of plugs for objectiviism in it but for the most it is neutral.
19 Jan 11
Originally posted by WajomaI'm not against trade. I'm against any system that does not maximize the standard of living, and rampant crime, epidemics, low GDP, low social mobility, low productivity etc. tend to be harmful for the standard of living.
What you're so opposed to, this 'laissez faire capitalism' amounts to this:
I have something of value i.e. property, knowledge, my labour. There is another fellow he has something i.e. property, knowledge, his labour. We get together, each of us recogonises the others ownership of their property, knowledge, labour. We commence to trade value for value, ...[text shortened]... makes a mistake, like when you bought a GN250), there is no force, threats of force or fraud.