I have no clue what you are rambling about, but it is possible.
Lets do this mister objectivist-er-ma-person!
I can sort of understand you using the words, “One of the greatest minds of the twentieth century,” but the single greatest mind of the twentieth century? Seriously?
This is the twentieth century we are on about here! Arguably the greatest time for advancement in human history, and you chose someone who basically well phrases that which has been around for years, and is effectively common sense? Genius.
Lol, what?
Should be common sense. If you look around, (and this happened even before Rand) people are always preaching lies and deception, in other words, collectivism, altruism, and their effects. Ayn Rand was the first to completely expose and describe the horrors that would occur if the world, or most of it, followed these preachings. And it’s already happening today: More government taxation of the rich is coming into place, countries are going to war with each other due to collectivism/altruism (only to continue preaching these things in a different form!), and businesses are closing. Yet people still continue to cry out, “For the state!” “For the people!” “For my country!” “For my God!”
And you call yourself an objectivist?
Great BSTs…
Isn’t the rational generating function similar to the cum. moving average 
(I said cum.)?
NO idea though how you could use only ONE parameter…
FECK! Sry for the double post.
How is altruism (helping other people without wanting anything in return) a lie? I wonder whether you have ever faced a situation that could not be solved without the help of others.
If your answer is ‘no’, you’ve had an enviable life.
Altruism is NOT helping people and expecting nothing in return. Altruism is the belief that it iks moral to hold the life of others above oneself; to be selfless; to believe that happiness comes from suffering; to believe that pleasure is pain, and that the only purpose in life is to live, without question, serving a sort of “common good” and expect to die without any wants or desires. That is what altruism requires. Now, it CAN be rewarding to help others in times of need IF whatever happened to them occured through no fault of their own; for example, if your neighbors’ house caught on fire because somebody threw a cigarette on their lawn, and you are friends with them, you might want to maybe pay them some money or even help them repair the house. There’s nothing wrong with that. But thinking that it’s the only MORAL way to live is evil.
evil does not exist
also, what’s wrong helping people that have a problem caused by themselves? you have to be a perfect person in order to deserve to be helped?
according to that logic nobody would need help anyway
Um, no, that’s not what altruism is.
Wait, what? You’ve got this really weird notion of “altruism”. Where did it come from?
Bull.
https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruism
“the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others”
Now, think about it. Try to break that definition down to its core meaning. You’ll find that my definition is much less deceiving.
You believe there is an unseen force that does bad things to people?
Good/Evil is false dichotomy, and one which the world could do without.
Bad things happen. People do bad stuff. That does not mean those bad things are ‘evil’ or that those people are ‘evil.’
“But thinking that it’s the only MORAL way to live”
Only?
Also, I find it interesting that you find altruism (helping others instead of yourself) is evil.
evil is also quite far away from being objective
This. Good and evil do not exist in nature.
Good and evil are not some sort of supernatural or unseen forces. They’re states of the human mind. If a man leads a happy life without causing harm to others (this is different from altruism, because he knows his limits and that each man or woman on earth has their own goals and values) then he is arguably a good man. If a terrorist leads a life of torturing and killing others either for entertainment or for his so-called “god” then he is an evil man.
Like I said, there’s no harm in helping others. However, everyone must know their limit when it comes to this.
How so? Read my statement above.
You said, and I quote:
“Altruism is the belief that it iks moral to hold the life of others above oneself; to be selfless; to believe that happiness comes from suffering; to believe that pleasure is pain, and that the only purpose in life is to live, without question, serving a sort of “common good” and expect to die without any wants or desires. That is what altruism requires.”
That is not what altruism is. At all.
Could you take it one step further and show the class why he’s wrong daniel?
Also believing in forces like good or evil does put you pretty far away from being objectivist.
Must be pretty hard seeing past the walls of your room.
Altruism is simply the desire to do good without reward. If you drive down the interstate and see a car go off the road, you stop and see if you can render assistance (calling 911 from your cell phone, pull them out of the car if it’s on fire, etc). That’s what altruism is. Even if the driver did wrong, the altruistic person would still render assistance, and not expect any kind of reward for doing so.
Less dramatically, you see someone struggling with their grocery bags and you offer to help them carry them.
Are you a psychologist? Have you read any articles or anything on the psychology of the human mind that deals in good and evil states of mind, from a reliable source?
No? Then how do you get off claiming something like that, especially being a so-called objectivist?
As I said, people can do good things and bad things. Doing good things does equate to being “good” and doing bad things does not equate to being “evil.”
What if a “terrorist” (a term which is spewed around without regard these days :|) is a “good” man in his own community, in every sense of the word, but is somehow misled or has certain ideas which lead him to blow a building full of people up? Is he “good” or “evil”?
I really don’t see how you can reasonably make a distinction between good and evil from an objective point of view.
The only way it can hold up is if there is some objective measure for it, which only seems to exist in religion.