Sounds like you want to redefine all of the defining terms ...
This does not answer the questions I asked. Why are you resistant to learning how objectivism defines these terms. It's the job of a philosophy to define its terms. Objectivism has a theory of concepts including a theory of definitions. Objectivism defines its terms in accordance with its theory of definitions. I will answer your question after you answer mine. What does Objectivism mean by self-interest? What does it mean by sacrifice. If you answer these questions your objections will disappear, I think.
Tell you what ... you answer my question WHILE I look into Ayn Rand's redefinitions.
No. I'm tired of people evading my questions and answering with more questions. Your objections depend on your own smuggled premises and we're not going forward until you answer. If you don't like that then we'll just end the discussion. And they are not redefinitions. They are proper definitions made by a process derived from the steps of concept formation.
I told you what my conditions are. What does Objectivism mean by self-interest and what does it mean by sacrifice. These definitions are key to understanding that passage you quoted. Let's get this done and then I'll be happy to answer your questions. You seem to think that Objectivism is anti-empathy and anti-cooperation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Randians are jerks, thats their whole point. Objectivism is just an excuse to be that, the ”philosophy” is pretty much just childish mumbo jumbo with no real value. Its a footnote in the history of philosophy with no contributions.
I'm being a jerk because I won't let someone evade my questions? I come here to offer my thoughts on the state of society that the OP is concerned about and I've been called childish and it has been implied that I'm emotionally stunted, socially crippled and that I can't deal with reality and I'm being a jerk? Whatever dude. As usual, no substance, just drive-by comments.
Why would discussion of this philosophic topic cause you to be depressed ... or despairing ?
No. It has to rely on the goodwill of others, just as anyone would. If one person's need places an obligation on another then we are all guilty every second of our lives because there is no bite of food that someone doesn't need and there is no value in general that someone somewhere doesn't need. But it's your right to help them if you want to and nobody should get in the way. Plus a child has enormous value to offer in trade. Every child is a potential Einstein or Rembrandt.
Youre looking at it wrong, because the orphan child has a claim on the collective, not on any particular individual. Its your participation in the collective arrangement to care for orphans that releases you to go about your individual life without an obligation to personally check in with every starving person first.
I think you're thinking about it all wrong. The "collective" doesn't exist. It's an abstraction. It's the aggregate of all the individuals. There is no collective obligation. If there is who puts it on me? Who has a right to take on obligations in my name? Do I not have a choice? If I don't have a choice then it can't be a moral obligation because the moral is the chosen.
I dont see how you can just hand-wave away millennia of the reality of bands, tribes, towns, nations. These things are real. And, like so many things, more than just the sum of their constituents.
Thats a false test. Why should I be possessed of some kind of magical omniscience such that I can calculate the precise optimum balance of individual freedom/obligation. Theres a decently wide gray area where it works, and then all or nothing zones where things go off the rails.
I see that you again refuse to answer my questions. Who or what places this obligation on me? Do I not have a choice? It's not hand waiving, it reason guided by logic.
