• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Xyhm

  • Rank
  • Birthday September 01

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0
  1. Response To Charges Against THE FORUM

    Hey, wait a minute. My post came out wrong for some reason. I wrote partly That "(by acci" part should't be there. Actually, in my first draft I wrote in one place "and only later (by accident) found out about it", but I removed the "(by accident)" part because I wasn't sure how he found out about it. For some reason half of it ended up at another part in the post. Gah. Stephen: feel free to remove "(by accid" and this post.
  2. Response To Charges Against THE FORUM

    Now there's a commenter on Noodlefood wondering why Stephen Speicher is deleting posts here when he left (by accidObjectivism Online because someone had deleted posts of his. The commenter is asking: "Why was doing the very same thing, in his own forum, that he left Objectivism Online for?" However, as I recall the situation on Objectivism Online, Mr. Speicher had a post edited without his knowledge, and only later found out about it. Now, is editing someone's post without saying so "the very same thing" as deleting posts while notifying the poster and giving reasons? Hardly. (Okay, just after writing this I see that Kyle Haight has already answered that comment. However, he doesn't mention the fact that Mr. Speicher wasn't even notified of the editing.)
  3. House (2004)

    House is a very enjoyable TV show. I've only seen about 7-8 episodes, but that's enough to give it a 9. There are only five TV shows that I like more (and possibly one that is as good as House).
  4. Angel (1999)

    I wish they could decide upon at least one season at the time. Those greedy capitalists.
  5. Angel (1999)

    Okay, sounds like something to look into when I get the chance. I do think The West Wing is very well done in many ways, first rate dialog and so on. I guess the main problem (which isn't that big a problem) I have with it is the lack of spaceships and sorcerers. Or maybe not, since VM has neither. And at first I thought it was a little too light, but it seems to have gotten a little more serious during the season.
  6. Angel (1999)

    I have now seen the first two seasons of VM, and I like it a lot. It's like BtVS meets Twin Peaks (the Twin Peaky part being the atmosphere of secrecy, not the Lily/Laura thing). Another TV show that Joss Whedon says is the best show ever, and that I've become a big fan of, is Battlestar Galactica, of which I've seen the first season. Lastly, I recently bought the first season of The West Wing, partly because you have spoken well of it on several occasions. I've seen about 11-12 episodes now and I like it, though not quite as much as any of the above or any of Whedon's shows. (Though it's still growing on me, so I can't say for sure yet.)
  7. "Properly Understood"

    I've described the three different concepts of egoism that I see in the post before this one. I think you are talking about concept #3 whereas I've been talking about concept #2, which would explain some of our disagreement. I'll be back trying to answer the rest.
  8. "Properly Understood"

    I see three different concepts. Two valid and one anti-concept. These: #1. Egoism as evil. This is the view of egoism as predatory, with the inbuilt evaluation of it as evil. #2. Egoism as a neutral concept, simply pertaining to acting in ones interest (without stating what ones interest consists of.) #3. Egoism in Objectivism - with rationality and life as the standard implied. #1 is an outright anti-concept (and a package-deal) and should be completely rejected. It serves no valid purpose at all. Sense #2 and #3 are both equally valid. Peikoff has a lecture in which he talks about the cases in which a concept has two equally valid definitions, one general and one Objectivist. I think egoism is such a concept. He says that Ayn Rand was concerned with not letting Objectivism completely adopt and redefine ethical concepts and then simply reject alternative ethical doctrines by referring to the Objectivist definitions. For example, it the case of value the general definition is "that which one acts to gain and or keep". Murder and torture of the innocent can be values according to this value-concept (and perfectly valid ones, in terms of how the concept is used, too, I might add). But in the Objectivist version of the concept, these would of course not be values. Both definitions in these cases are necessary and valid (he makes that very clear, and I agree).
  9. "Properly Understood"

    Should have been: I was saying that it isn't a virtue because it doesn't fall into the same basic category as virtue. (emphasis added to mark my change)
  10. "Properly Understood"

    Judging from both this and your previous post, I think you are missing my point. I was not saying that selfishness isn't a virtue because selfishness is neutral, neither a virtue nor a vice. I was saying that it isn't a virtue because it doesn't fall into the same basic category as selfishness. Virtue is basically an action, and selfishness isn't - was my point. The context you are referring to doesn't have the power to change that basic category. However, my view on selfishness not being an action has changed (see my earlier post), so now I don't have that objection to "the virtue of selfishness" anymore (although I would still say that egoism isn't a virtue). I suspect that you think of egoism and selfishness as synonyms, since you haven't objected to me obviously using them as such.
  11. "Properly Understood"

    That's interesting. I've been using them as synonyms. So I take it you agree that it would be wrong to say that egoism is a virtue, but correct to say that selfishness is. That neatly explains the title "the virtue of selfishness" in a fully satisfactory way. Tentatively, I agree with you. Thanks.
  12. "Properly Understood"

    And she does a very good job. It's a collection of brilliant essays. But that doesn't mean that egoism strictly speaking can't mean robbers. How do you reconcile your position with Peikoff's very clear description of egoism as by itself not saying anything about how to act? "[Egoism] does not specify values or virtue"(OPAR, p230). That's why egoism by itself isn't enough (with egoism alone we would have those robbers etc), we need a full context. Time to sleep.
  13. "Properly Understood"

    I agree of course that egoism out of context offers no practical guidance (think of the robbers I mentioned in my previous post). But how does that support the claim that selfishness is a virtue? Egoism/selfishness answers the question who should profit from our actions, and virtue tells us which actions to take. They fit together very nicely, but that doesn't make egoism (or selfishness) a virtue. (Maybe you could say that both selfishness and virtues are values, but that's another thing.)
  14. "Properly Understood"

    I know, and I have no satisfying explanation. Virtue and egoism are highly related, of course, yet different. Ayn Rand gives and agrees with the dictionary definition of selfishness: "concern with one's own interests". And she says "The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests...". In other words, she does think of robbers as egoists. But I don't think she would describe them as virtuous (which she would have to do if egoism implies virtue).
  15. "Properly Understood"

    Actually, properly understood, selfishness isn't a virtue at all. Nor a vice. Virtues tell us how to act, whereas egoism "tells us not what acts a man should take, but who should profit from them." (OPAR, p230) Sorry, couldn't resist.