the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

No, I don’t think so.
But where I disagree with you, is where you state that because there is no ONE RIGHT OPTION, all options are equally good.
I ought not to tolerate actions that I find wrong. Allowing for all morals is the same as having no morals at all.

There can’t be a decision that is right, because circumstances aren’t the same.

What is more moral to you, the death of a child, or a child being abused and neglected?
Some things are worse than death.
To me, the standard for moral isn’t “that which promotes life”. It is “that which promotes a thriving life”.

A world which allows for a man, the philospher-king of his own home, to determine the moral obligation of his household, and raise his children to uphold them and preserve them through #2, and when that fails, #1.

Even the christian bible says that all things are permitted, but not all are expedient… something like that.

There is no need to be willing to accept anything. Acceptance or not does not change the fact that we live in it. Accepting that fact is an exercise in understanding human nature. That’s about it.

And yet I still spend a lot of time in places like this looking for arguments that might allow me to extricate myself from my own “dasein dilemma”.
[/quote]
How can I delicately put it… nobody cares.
The only reason anybody would want to try to understand what something means to you, is so that they can replace that understanding with one of their own.
We’re memetic viruses :slight_smile:

What you said here is the same as to say that because you can throw paint at a canvas a million different ways, there is no real painting!
The sum of all of the colors, and all of the solvents, and all of the hand gestures that landed the paint on the canvas, and all the motivations behind it, and all of the themes within it, those things all together are the real painting. And it doesn’t end there. Solvent cures, paint cracks, dust sets over…

I think that it is the same as to say that one saves the child when one feels morally obligated to do so, given the circumstances.

El oh el…

The irony seems to escape you that you cannot even conceive of a hypothetical female making a rational, calculated decision, because you, yourself, are so emotionally vested in your spite for women.

Are you quite certain? Can you think of a scenario in which a person’s sense of right/wrong might overrides his/her sense of self-preservation?

Doesn’t gravity pull objects to the ground EVERY time?
Doesn’t the sun rise in the east EVERY time?

I didn’t contest the notion that we want to convince people. I contested whether we can or not.

You are not the center of the universe, estupida, you are not WOMEN, you are A WOMAN, and a stupid one at that.

PAY SOME CLOSER FUCKING ATTENTION TO MY WORDS, YOU . . . YOU . . . whatever.

This is what YOU get, your mom, however, will get something else, something MORE down to earth.

Seriously, you imbecile, how is this not you just wasting my time here by asking me to start a discussion only so that you can put an end to it with your pathetic annoying never-ending drivel.

Either just swallow the sperm or shut the fuck up.

Whine whine whine . . . let’s just continue whining . . . because I say so . . . because Magnus says so . . . because your daddy does not say so . . . because your neighbour does not think so . . .

I am merely wasting my time here by ejaculating inside an anus of a braindead failure of an abortion of a monkey of a . . .

In other words, you imbecile, you are an robot recycling word leftovers of dead philosophers such as “dasein”, “conflicting” and “moral” and “goods”.

If you keep your head deeply stuck into the anus of Ayn Rand you will never be able to see, let alone understand, anything.

Bottom line:

Momma, don’t let your babies grow up to be objectivists. :laughing:

Oh, and just out of curiosity, Magnus, how do you get the computer in the crib?

Just joshing, my friend. You keep me young.

Yes, I know, I keep you young.

:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: 8-[ ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

A female can only do so if she’s in “man-mode”. If a female has high levels of testosterone she is in the “man-mode.” Therefore when someone acts egomaniacal, over-dramatic, and generally ignorant to rationality and or communication I don the phrase “acting like a female-woman.” Also known to apply to homosexuals, ass-clowns, bible thumpers, 12 year old xbox kids and transsexuals and the like.

Magnus is giving us a good show of the female woman, whether that is his usual personality or a farce it matters not, applause applause applause applause. I live for the applause, applause, applause…

You get that shit because you are so full of it, it comes out of your mouth

all over your head.

I wonder, Lev, do you have a single post which is not a knee-jerk reaction?

Rhetorical question.

Let me try to define the word “rhetorical” since it is too abstract.

Rhetorical comes from French retardere which means “make slow or slower” meaning it is a question you should try to answer slowly on your own, you are not morally obliged to respond to the dasein that posed it.

So what do you think, Lev, are you not just another self-loathing communist imbecile despising the universe because your moronic ancestors were too stupid to take care of you?

Don’t make me wait too long, Lev.

This is because you are an-hedonic, love, so emotionality is non-sensical to you. Which is why you are posing pleasure as an end goal and I am not.

I need no pleasure because unlike you, I am not denying my emotions.

Now go back to your let-s-destroy-the-universe crap.

Take it down a notch, kiddo. You’re running the risk of becoming irrelevant :wink:

I’m not arguing that. Or, rather, I’m not arguing that so much as suggesting that each of us as individuals will determine [in our heads] which option is seen as better or worse; which option is seen as rational or irrational; which option is seen as moral or immoral.

And then beyond a particular concensus in a particular community, where can the philosophers/ethicists go?

Morality of course never goes away. Why? Because human wants and needs never go away. Morality is derived from the fact that embedded in the “human condition” is something rather obvious: that wants and needs ever come into conflict. Morality then is just a particular set of rules for a particular set of behaviors out in a particular world at a particular historical juncture. The rest is dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. That and opting for either “might makes right” or “moderation, negotiation and compromise”.

And, for folks like me, the dilemma embedded in dasein. Though I didn’t really “opt” for it. In fact, I wish I could figure out a way to “opt out” of it!!

But that’s my point. What is seen as more moral “to me” may not be seen as more moral “to you”. Or “to them”. My argument then revolves how I perceive [and you perceive and they perceive] these conflicting value judgments from the perspective of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

After all, that which the ubermen construe as promoting a “thriving life” will not often be seen by the “sheep” as doing the same. The only difference then between law of the jungle thuggery and the KTS crowd is that Satyr, Lyssa, Magnus et al always feel compelled to dress up the part about “might makes right” by concocting these fantastical intellectual contraptions [an actual “philosophy”] in order to separate them from the…retards? If only in their heads.

Imagine children being raised by the likes of Satyr and Lyssa! Or Magnus!! What’s the expression…“I weep for their future.”

Again, I believe that many objectivists react as they do to my “dasein dilemma” [some all but frantically] because they begin to sense that they are not really able to make it go away. “Oh, shit”, they’re thinking, “what if that is also apllicable to me?”

And, of course, if it is, then their carefully crafted world of words might come crashing down all around them.

I mean, look at the manner in which Satyr, Lyssa, Magnus and their ilk react to it…here and there!! Maybe not hysterically, but not all that far removed either.

Trust me: To think as I do here can be truly, truly demoralizing. “I” becomes merely [or largely] an existential contrapment/construction/fabrication swirling about value judgments that are not necessarily any more rational or moral than any others.

And that’s before you fall over into the abyss and are gone forever and ever.

You did not here respond to any point I made or inconsistancies I pointed out. You simply gave a global emotional reaction with some scattered assertions that do not respond to points I made.
Which is fine. I wasn’t posting to you.

Hmm. Let me think: Does that make it go away?

Uh, nope? :laughing:

So, how about God. Your God. Does He?

No, I mean really young. :banana-linedance:

And I haven’t resorted to the dancing banana since von rivers was here. I think. :wink: