I found a great video that points out how intellectually vapid Moly is as regards his take on the flaws in Objectivism:

http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com/2009/08/molynuex-doesnt-really-understand-ayn.html

All around, that was a pretty good video and critique.

One thing that I've always found odd (and frustrating) about Objectivists, is the fact that think they can define "happiness". To me, "happiness" is a pretty darn elusive, dubious, and nebulous concept. I'm very skeptical of the idea that such a concept can be nailed down and used as the corner stone of a logical structure.

And what does he mean when he says that happiness is cognition, and not sensation? I'm not sure we can make that kind of arbitrary distinction, or even that it's helpful or meaningful to try.

"Happiness" just seems like one of those nice, fuzzy concepts that short circuits the brain, and rather than acting as a logical connector, cheats by acting as an emotional substitute.

He means that happiness not the same as pleasure. A distinction Moly misses completely. Rand does a great job of explaining why Happiness is NOT a fuzzy concept. Rand properly contends that the only way to achieve happiness is by engaging in life affirming behavior, actions and thoughts. I think she is right.

Your purpose in life it to be happy. If you attaing your values, you will be consciously and rationally happy. i.e. happiness is a cognotive event.

If you can get the chance to read Atlas Shrugged, it should all come clear. it is a good read and conveys the idea's pretty clearly.

That is because Moly doesn't know shite!

hey Forget Me Not, Read it again and go full circle, then you will be happy again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!