Steve, stance on Ayn Rand's objectivism?

[Freelancer]

Originally Posted by Plato

It's like banging your head on the wall.

Well at least have the good grace to tell me if I've said something that is incorrect please. I would be most grateful. I'm not being sarcastic. I actually want to know if I've misrepresented anything. Thanks.

As for the quality of summaries, no doubt they lack the rhetoric that justifies the points of a philosopher but that doesn't stop anybody understanding the concepts perfectly well.

Again:

How can you base a code of ethics on a utilitarian framework given the polymorphous nature of "happiness", as kindly highlighted by Acting Like Godot, and how can we reconcile with the problem of "Ought from Is."

Further: if it is given that Ayn Rand means for her philsophy to beg the question, by basing it on axioms, then is it also given that it is useless for anything apart from re-inforcing the beliefs of somebody who already agrees with her?

I think I have my answers to that already but if anybody would care to comment on those points I would be much obliged.

I'm sorry my friend, I can't help you out.

Read the book, its more an experience then a abstract knowledge to be understood.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Plato

How can you base a code of ethics on a utilitarian framework given the polymorphous nature of "happiness", as kindly highlighted by Acting Like Godot, and how can we reconcile with the problem of "Ought from Is."

Happiness is not polymorphous.

The word happiness is polymorphous.

Whereas happiness is just happiness.

All human motivations are ultimately traceable to two motivations - which are interrelated. The two motivations are (a) to seek happiness, and (b) to avoid suffering.

Firstly you are asking: "How can we seek happiness, when we do not know what it is?"

But we do know what happiness is. Language is imprecise, that is all. In your own signature, you have written "The map is not the territory." Similarly the word happiness is not the emotion happiness. The word is simply the word. The emotion is simply the emotion.

The word is imprecise, the emotion is not.

Secondly, you are asking, "Why should I seek happiness?". You seek a reasoned answer - you want to find your way from what is, to what ought to be.

Well, logically, there appear to be three possibilties:

(a) to seek happiness
(b) to seek non-happiness
(c) to seek neither

Between (a) and (b), the choice is obvious. However, the choice is not based on reason. The choice is based on emotion. Happiness feels better than non-happiness, therefore we seek happiness, not non-happiness.

Between (a) and (c), there is in fact no choice. When you seek neither happiness nor non-happiness, you seek nothing. You have no desire. Freed from desire, enlightenment and bliss spontaneously occur. If you like - happiness spontaneously occurs. This requires no reason. It simply is.