Actually, empathy is the ultimate acceptance of reality.

Once you have fully suspended your mind. Agreed.

And by saying so, you have practiced the lowest form of human knowledge. See what I mean?

 

Once you have fully suspended your mind. Agreed.

And by saying so, you have practiced the lowest form of human knowledge. See what I mean?

No. The mind must be open and accepting to allow empathy.

 

No. The mind must be open and accepting to allow empathy.

Replace "open" with "empty" and I agree.

 

Empty of the bonds of self.

 

Empty of the bonds of self.

Negation of one's self is the most serious, and deadly, of all evils.

 

Negation of one's self is the most serious, and deadly, of all evils.

To the contrary, freedom from self is the catalyst of progress.

 

To the contrary, freedom from self is the catalyst of progress.

Freedom from self is death, or, as Ayn Rand puts it:

A body without a soul is a corpse, a soul without a body is a ghost.

 

Selflessness is not the absence of soul.

 

Selflessness is not the absence of soul.

Perhaps. But of the mind.

 

Perhaps. But of the mind.

Neither soul nor mind. Soul and mind are joined.

 

Rand? Now your just funning us.

 

Rand? Now your just funning us.

So, ad hominem is your logical argument?

Perhaps you can provide a summary of Objectivism and an argument as to where it is in error?

 

It's a philosophical question and as such has no proven answer.
Sorry, didn't mean to laugh at your impeccable source.

 

It's a philosophical question and as such has no proven answer.

This statement doesn't even make sense. A philosophy, for better or worse, is something one possesses to guide his life. It's not a question of prove or disprove. You got one, whether you realize it or not.

The only question is: Is a particular philosophy moral or immoral? I claim (as does Ayn Rand) that a philosophy of rational self-interest is moral, and one of altruism is immoral. Unless you can logically refute this statement, mine, and Ayn's stands.

Sorry, didn't mean to laugh at your impeccable source.

Yet more of the ad hominems.

 

??

Have you watched OMG – Oh My God!
The man who sues God over a natural disaster.
A 2012 Indian satirical comedy-drama film.
The storyline is based on a Gujarati stage-play entitled Kanji Virudh Kanji.
Max.

 

This statement doesn't even make sense. A philosophy, for better or worse, is something one possesses to guide his life. It's not a question of prove or disprove. You got one, whether you realize it or not.

The only question is: Is a particular philosophy moral or immoral? I claim (as does Ayn Rand) that a philosophy of rational self-interest is moral, and one of altruism is immoral. Unless you can logically refute this statement, mine, and Ayn's stands.



Yet more of the ad hominems.

But, you see you can only claim. You can never prove.
It's like saying the Methodists are happier than the Baptists.

 

But, you see you can only claim. You can never prove.
It's like saying the Methodists are happier than the Baptists.

Philosophy != religion.

Please try to understand the difference prior to making such asinine statements.

Their are logical underpinnings to the claim "a philosophy of rational self-interest is moral," and Ayn Rand has done a fine job expressing -- and logically proving -- them. If you can show where the logic is in error, you will have shown the claim to be false. To do this, though, you will first need to understand what is meant by 'rational self-interest', and 'moral', and what it means to be and to think, and why. This is something I cannot help you with here, but you are welcome to go and investigate. I've provided plenty of links.

 

FWIW, a link is not a logical argument.

 

FWIW, a link is not a logical argument.

And for you to suppose that I thought it was shows your aptitude for logical thinking and, well, reading.

 

So, ad hominem is your logical argument?

Perhaps you can provide a summary of Objectivism and an argument as to where it is in error?

So cite the 'evidence' of whether objectivism worked for Ayn Rand, or did she die penniless on Social Security with MedicAid paying for her cancer treatments (that she got from smoking, which is an incidental argument against social libertarianism as well)
She also never would have made it out of Russia without huge assistance from her mother. Hers was a hypocritical life.