(July 17, 2016 at 10:31 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 17, 2016 at 10:27 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: My views about Objectivism aren't related to my views on a fulfilling life.

I would enjoy a clarification on your views of objectivism.

Feel free to reread my first post in this thread, then.

(July 17, 2016 at 10:58 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 17, 2016 at 10:31 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: I would enjoy a clarification on your views of objectivism.

Feel free to reread my first post in this thread, then.

Thank you for making it easy for me. Oh, crap, I'm being too subjective.

This one?

Quote:I don't think it comports with reality very well, that out altruism has evolutionary antecedents. Furthermore the idea that it equates to "suicide" is a fallacious reductio ad absurdum.

(July 17, 2016 at 11:00 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 17, 2016 at 10:58 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Feel free to reread my first post in this thread, then.

Thank you for making it easy for me. Oh, crap, I'm being too subjective.

I bet that sounded witty ... before you pressed send.

(July 17, 2016 at 11:01 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I bet that sounded witty ... before you pressed send.

Even afterwards it was.

Now that's funny!

(July 17, 2016 at 10:27 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: My views about Objectivism aren't related to my views on a fulfilling life. That's another assumption you might want to drop.

How could they not be? I'm sincerely curious, since Objectivism is a world view, i.e. it is about how people should live their lives.

I agreed with your original evolutionary point, and about how Rand's views aren't in accord with reality. The particular reality that I feel they are not in accord with is that I think fulfillment and satisfaction isn't a zero-sum game: it's not necessary to take from others in order to fully enjoy, and in fact social interactions are a big part of fully living life as a human being. In fact, I'd almost say that an unwillingness to interact positively with others would represent a partial suicide-- of that which is most human in oneself, since we are a social species.

Maybe you could elaborate more on your original point? I honestly thought we'd be in agreement on the OP.

(July 17, 2016 at 1:08 am)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(July 16, 2016 at 1:33 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: How do you strawman "fuck you, I've got mine", then? I'd like to know.

That IS a strawman.

So her philosophy as is demonstrated by both her fiction and her way of life is a strawman of her philosophy? Again, how do you strawman "fuck you, I got mine"?

You cannot make Rand's ideas more simplistic than she made them herself.

(July 18, 2016 at 1:07 am)bennyboy Wrote: it's not necessary to take from others in order to fully enjoy, and in fact social interactions are a big part of fully living life as a human being.

I never thought I would rush to Rand's defense at some time. But that's not what she said. It's not take from others, it's don't bother with the welbeing of others. Which isn't that much better in my opinion, but yet, a crucial difference. It's not actively making other lives miserable, it's just that you shouldn't care if others are miserable.

It doesn't, and it shouldn't work, since we are a social species, and I for one take enjoyment in helping others. With whatever little I can contribute. The absence of empathy, as Rand seems to strive for, provides for a very empty and purely materialistic existence.