sts@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stanley T Shebs) (10/16/83)
Despite repeated hints, Tom Craver has refused to say anything about a fundamental basis of Objectivism - the exact definition of rationality. On the other hand, he has made several glib remarks about rationalization of irrational acts, and that this is somehow fundamentally different from "true" rationality. I would like to know exactly how, in real situations, one distinguishes the two. Here is an example of my Objectivist mode reasoning, based on what I know: The vulgar masses are mostly irrational, and according to Objectivism, have therefore forfeited all of their natural rights (see articles on the Taggart shooting). However, since *I* am rational (of course I am! and anyone who suggests otherwise is brain-damaged and should be put in a hospital), I keep all of my rights. Therefore, I can order anyone of the masses to do my will, and in fact I have the right to become an absolute dictator. After all, if an otherwise rational person disagrees with me, he or she is probably at least temporarily deranged, and so can be safely ignored. Why am I not in charge now? Well, I only have the *right* to be the ruler, and I must work for it, same as any other job. As soon as I get my M-16, I can go out and start removing the irrational people... So, what's wrong with this? I'll wait for an answer, before buying my armory... stan the l.h. utah-cs!shebs
mcewan@uiucdcs.UUCP (10/23/83)
#R:ssc-vax:-56800:uiucdcs:33300002:000:98 uiucdcs!mcewan Oct 22 12:42:00 1983 Hey, I'll kill anyone who says that I'm not rational! Scott McEwan pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan