[001]
Sannit
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
First, my obligatory thanks for this resource. Most Objectivists I\'ve met (both IRL and online) seem to be the froth-at-the-mouth, \
to:
First, my obligatory thanks for this resource. Most Objectivists I\\\'ve met (both IRL and online) seem to be the froth-at-the-mouth, \\\"Logic is important and you have emotions so you are dumb and the poor should die in the streets,\\\" nominally Objectivist \\\"Randroids,\\\" as someone here so amusingly put it. Which is sad, because I\\\'m honestly trying to gain an understanding of the philosophy here, and all I\\\'m getting are Internet trolls who act like I did at age 14. So, thanks!
And now my question - \\\"sacrifice\\\" seems to be defined in a way (by Rand) that makes it an impossible action for a person to undertake. I understand the context of her rage at those who demand sacrifice for king and country, and such, but I can\\\'t think of any instance where someone would trade something for something they consider to be of lesser value. If someone is willingly performing an action, they do so under the assumption (correct or not) that the action will change their situation to be more valuable to them. So even if someone is sacrificing a dollar for a penny, I\\\'d argue that they\\\'d \\\'\\\'never\\\'\\\' do it while thinking that the penny is less valuable. Maybe it\\\'s a commemorative coin. Maybe it has sentimental value. Perhaps the guy just needed to throw something and dollars are just too floaty.
My point is, the act of \\\'\\\'choosing\\\'\\\' to make anything that Rand would consider a sacrifice necessarily indicates the value of the \\\"sacrificed\\\" object (or goat or whatever) as being lesser than the value of what they are receiving - if only from the point of view of the sacrificer.
Now, if her argument against giving too much of yourself to someone or something who didn\\\'t deserve it were \\\"Now please consider if the cause you\\\'re giving yourself to is really worth it!\\\" then this would all make a lot more sense. Perhaps she was attempting to illustrate that people were giving themselves to a cause that \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\' benefit them by defining \\\"sacrifice\\\" in such a way - but that doesn\\\'t remove the inherent contradiction in the definition.
I just noticed that there\\\'s no actual question in there. Um...I guess I wonder if the contradiction is actually acknowledged by modern Objectivists, and if not, am I just wrong?
(To be honest, the philosopher I\\\'m actually reading and not just TVTropesing about ATM is Kant, whose philosophy, as I understand it, Rand detested, so I might just be in a Rand-aversionary mood right now if she\\\'s correct about their differences. I\\\'d make an a priori knowledge pun here, but that might be pushing it.)
And now my question - \\\"sacrifice\\\" seems to be defined in a way (by Rand) that makes it an impossible action for a person to undertake. I understand the context of her rage at those who demand sacrifice for king and country, and such, but I can\\\'t think of any instance where someone would trade something for something they consider to be of lesser value. If someone is willingly performing an action, they do so under the assumption (correct or not) that the action will change their situation to be more valuable to them. So even if someone is sacrificing a dollar for a penny, I\\\'d argue that they\\\'d \\\'\\\'never\\\'\\\' do it while thinking that the penny is less valuable. Maybe it\\\'s a commemorative coin. Maybe it has sentimental value. Perhaps the guy just needed to throw something and dollars are just too floaty.
My point is, the act of \\\'\\\'choosing\\\'\\\' to make anything that Rand would consider a sacrifice necessarily indicates the value of the \\\"sacrificed\\\" object (or goat or whatever) as being lesser than the value of what they are receiving - if only from the point of view of the sacrificer.
Now, if her argument against giving too much of yourself to someone or something who didn\\\'t deserve it were \\\"Now please consider if the cause you\\\'re giving yourself to is really worth it!\\\" then this would all make a lot more sense. Perhaps she was attempting to illustrate that people were giving themselves to a cause that \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\' benefit them by defining \\\"sacrifice\\\" in such a way - but that doesn\\\'t remove the inherent contradiction in the definition.
I just noticed that there\\\'s no actual question in there. Um...I guess I wonder if the contradiction is actually acknowledged by modern Objectivists, and if not, am I just wrong?
(To be honest, the philosopher I\\\'m actually reading and not just TVTropesing about ATM is Kant, whose philosophy, as I understand it, Rand detested, so I might just be in a Rand-aversionary mood right now if she\\\'s correct about their differences. I\\\'d make an a priori knowledge pun here, but that might be pushing it.)
