:-|
Now you resort to claiming you aren't even capable of understanding why 'good' health is objectively better than 'bad' health?
Dude, watching this much rationalization is *not* a pretty sight.
Simply disagreeing with what the other person says is *not* profound, and in fact not even an argument.
Didn't you see that episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus?
Of course I'm capable of understanding, if only someone would take the time to prove it to me. So far, no luck. I'm starting to think that it's not possible to prove it, despite repeated claims about how obvious and trivial it is...
I feel for ya, Dom - I really do. On the one hand, you appear to know better than to flat-out assert that it's a self-evident proposition - self-evident propositions are taken as true without anyone being able to prove they are true, and Rand says that everything is rationally accessible and rationally knowable, which self-evident propositions clearly aren't. And on the other hand, really and truly logically proving something that seems so obvious is going to be fiendishly difficult, if not impossible - which I suspect you instinctively know, and which is, I suspect, why you're not exactly bowling everyone over in your rush to provide a proof of this knowable, rationally accessible proposition.
What a shame. Since you can't prove it, and obviously didn't derive the truth of it for yourself, all I can do is conclude that you violated one of the dictates of Rand, and just took that proposition - being healthy is objectively better than being unhealthy - on authority from someone else, or on faith. Don't worry, your secret is safe with me ;)