Flibbertigibbet

Important (I dare say vital) inventions, just off the top of my head:
Plastics
Antibiotics
Refrigeration
The Screen Door (c.f. the history of the construction of the Panama Canal)

three words for McGinn:
nasty
brutish
short

P.S. Where does he get the salt he needs in order to preserve meat?

Actually, I've often wanted to do become a hermit. In response to these types of people existing.

The real question is not whether hermits exist, but how hermits could possibly come in contact with a drowning baby and why any of us should care.

Have you ever noticed that they have to go into these ridiculous mental contortions creating ridiculous hypotheticals that in all likelihood will never actually exist to try to prove a point that they can't prove? Man, you have more fortitude than I do. I can't go back there.

Al's actions are not those of someone who, to paraphrase, loves life but not other's company; they are those of someone who holds humans as such in contempt. Since Al is himself human... you say he values life?

And they insist that, for egoism to be true, the conclusions to this hypothetical must appeal to common notions of morality, and that complete acceptance of the premises is required.

I was directly challenged to respond to that crap, which I shan't be doing.

I did like that one commenter bringing up the fact that emergency situations have no baring on ethics, since ethics should give us answers to how to live a happy life in the context of normalcy.

Oh, and they keep bringing up James Rachels. That man is such a sloppy philosopher... His textbook on Ethical Theory concludes with a chapter on what the perfect theory would look like. It makes it obvious that Rachels' approach to ethics is one giant session in question-begging. He simply says, we as a people find this, this and this immoral; therefore, the perfect theory would rationalize this conclusion. Alas, we haven't found one yet! But I'm sure it's some form of utilitarianism.

That was my point back to them as well: I simply do not see how a person can claim to love life but hate people so much that he would wish to eschew human company so much.

Most all of the examples they give they imagine floating out in space somewhere apart from all reality or any experience.

So weird.

Maybe I should lodge a complaint with the names bureau about how Jimmy is hurting my good name. Maybe I could get it taken away from him?

(To McGinn's ilk: At least *my* fantasy has some grounding in reality, c.f. Venezuela.)

Not all the people are the same. May be one don't need all that things that need others. And that is his choice.

That's kind of the question that I'd like to debate here, Paul.

Is human company entirely optional?

I mean, if EVERYONE in the world were completely and irredeemably irrational, I could understand just being a hermit and not putting up with it -- although one does wonder how long they'd leave you alone.

But not everyone is like that. In fact, I am rather pleased that there is such a high percentage of rational people out there. And even among non-Objectivists, there are people who are very intelligent, rational, and genuinely committed to truth. And there are people who don't even go that far who are interesting, generally pleasant people. And so it's possible to maintain friendships in our society that are well-grounded in rational values.

So, I'm wondering what the justification for self-exile would be, if there is one.