About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 160

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 9:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I know my context is lousy by checking what I know in testable ways against reality (correspondence theory of truth), against other facts that I know (coherence theory of truth, Peikoff's favorite) and a pragmatic theory of truth (it works or it doesn't work for me). Now the second two are simply fallible tests which help supplement the correspondence theory of truth and alert me to potential problems. And yes, all this is within my context of knowledge!

Jim


Post 161

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 10:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom,

Perhaps he did change his mind. My main point was why not simply recognize where we have standing and where we don't and act accordingly. This applies to everyone. When we're able to do this it makes life a lot easier. I seem to remember Rand saying somewhere that she'd take suggestions from anyone as long as they were true.
 
Jim


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 162

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

I am only going from memory here, but I believe she said she would even take suggestions from a janitor (or busboy or usher maybe, can't remember) if they were true - in connection with relating her experiences about the original production of Night of January 16th.

Michael


Post 163

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom,

I agree with your formulation in post 152. It is the fact that we can't escape our current knowledge and principles. I'd also like to say I'm enjoying this exchange immensely and I'm learning a great deal from it!

Jim


Post 164

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 1:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Since my name came up in Post 127 just let me say that meeting Tom Rowland was one of the greatest experiences in my life. I've known him for over a quarter of a century, was best man at his wedding, and can't think of a better pianist and Objectivist (I'm referring to his knowledge of the subject). SOLO is lucky to have him as a poster.

Fred

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 165

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 12:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dave,

er... ahem... about Post 144...

Still ain't received anything...

um...

Are you absolutely certain or contextually certain you sent it?

Of course, being an Objectivist, you know lying is immoral, so you would never do that...

//;-)

Michael



Post 166

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 6:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom writes:

but also the normative abstractions that we -- and others -- bring to the table.

 

Please explain these normative abstractions.


Post 167

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 7:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

This is high praise indeed. Because it comes from a man whose integrity is unimpeachable. We have agreed to disagree on many things, but I know that those disagreements have always come from a mind dedicated to the search for the truth of things. Peace.

Tom


Post 168

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 10:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert D.

I think that probably there is an agenda here, am I right?  I think you want to draw me into a discussion of "Fact and Value". But I'll let you answer that before I go into any such discussion, which belongs on another thread, I think.

Here's a summary statement

A normative abstraction is an abstraction (from reality, hopefully) which pertains to the "good". (See AR's discussion in "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art.")  ''Good and bad," "desirable and undesirable," "value and disvalue" are concepts referring to the relationship between a fact and a code of morality.

Does this help? Do you have further questions?

Tom


Post 169

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 12:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

I did say I'd "think" about giving you a million dollars if you restricted a post to one word, which you so gallantly did. And after "thinking" about it, I decided to retrieve the check from the mailbox (just as the mailman arrived!) and sent it instead to AFSW (Americans For Succinct Writing) so they can help youths develop a Lincolnesque brevity. ;^)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 170

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan,

Hi.  Long time :).

I've never understood what these debates were supposed to resolve.  A perfection so devalued that it can be applied to all and sundry is useless, as is a perfection so high that even the sun may not approach it.

Perfection is necessarily an idealistic and subjective concept without some standard being introduced.  Isn't it enough to point to our actions and achievements in everyday life, while improving our understanding of the goals we can actually attain and how to attain them?  Why argue over whether this or that standard is the one true standard of perfection?

I don't care whether I'm perfect or not.  But I do care whether I can write my essays, pay my bills and teach my classes.

Someone recommended in a MENSA magazine that the word "love" be banished from discourse during relationships.  Not the concept, but the word.  The point was that many couples should stop asking silly questions like "Do you still love me?", where answers result in either heavenly delight or devastation,  and ask questions like "Are you still attracted enough to me to spend some time with me working out our differences?", which allow people to drill down and focus on the specifics problems that cause the differences.

The fascination with all-or-nothing verbal descriptions of things is pathetic.  It doesn't matter whether Rand was perfect or not.  She wrote good books, had an extra marital affair, inspired millions of people, lived to the age of seventy-seven and died of cancer.  What does "perfection" add to all this?

Laj.


Post 171

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 7:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Abolaji,

Here is a list of the evaluative words you use in your post: devalued, useless, high, silly, all-or-nothing, pathetic. And, of course, the entire post is evaluative. And if I wanted clarification, I would ask of you, as I asked of Robert B., what grounds you have and what standard you are using to make these evaluations. I do so, here, only in part.

If I get the meaning of your post, you're asking, "why can't I just live my life -- write my essays, pay my bills, teach my classes -- and stop worrying about whether I'm doing it perfectly?"  You can, and, in the final analysis, I think the worry about "perfection" can be overdone. One either turns on the brain (Objectivism's standard of morality at root) or one does not.

But there is a hint, in your post, of impatience with anything that smacks of evaluation. Or, perhaps, any discussion of broad abstractions -- philosophy -- at all. It reminds me of the question Ayn Rand asked in her essay, "Philosophy; who needs it."  Not everyone has a taste for doing philosophy, of course, nor do they need to, but I am convinced that it is a very important enterprise for those of us who do enjoy it. Ultimately, I believe, it sets the course of history.

Where do I see the hint of your impatience? Two places: your inclusion of the suggestion from MENSA that the word "love" be eliminated from discourse and your question at the end about the word "perfection."  Let's look at each in turn.

You call the question "do you still love me?" silly. Why?  It appears to me to be a perfectly valid question -- at least as valid as your suggested alternative -- in certain contexts.  Of course, it is not likely to come up in a relationship where it is not an issue (DUH!).  In my relationship with my wife, for example, our daily actions and words to each other make our love for each other so patently obvious that the question would never come up.  But the rush of life might make it less than obvious.  Differences can make it less than obvious. In those contexts, asking "do you still love me?" is not only a legitimate but a necessary question.  And your suggested alternate doesn't really do the job intended. After all, the answer to it can lead just as surely to heavenly delight ("yes") or devastation ("no"). Don't you think most people understand that the context of the question presupposes a problem that needs resolution?  And doesn't the suggested alternative, by eliminating the overtly evaluative word "love" with the more covertly evaluative words "attracted to" also eliminate the very emotion that is in question? I think it hints at least to an impatience with evaluation.

The hint in your last paragraph I find particularly troublesome.   As I indicated above, I'm very willing to forgo the addition of  "perfect" to the concept "moral"  The only reason it came up at all was Robert B's contention that "nobody's perfect"  Perhaps out of a long-established habit with my student's, where I hear those two words quite often as an excuse for mediocre performance, and out of my conviction that the two words are roughly the equivalent of ""original sin," I wanted to know "by what standard?"   In the course of our discussion we cleared the air on a number of issues, and, from all appearances came to agree that "moral perfection" was "the daily commitment to turn on one's brain -- to engage in a rational process." 

I take that to mean that while morality consists at root of "turning on one's brain", doing so intermittently -- only on rainy days, as it were -- is not enough. It is the daily commitment in every issue that is important. Call that "perfection" or not, such a consideration does "add something." to the concept "morality." In fact it adds, I believe, the very notion of degrees that Kelley is looking for.

Perhaps a negative example would help. Consider Hitler. We could say of him that he wrote a terrible (evil?) book, lived in "sin" with Eva Braun, was ultimately responsible for the deaths of millions of people, lived to the age of 56, and died of suicide in a bunker. Was he evil? Well, if "not turning on one's brain -- not engaging in a rational process" qualifies, then yes, he was evil.  But HOW evil and why does it matter? The degree of evil is so enormous a manifestation of  " failure to think" that I, at least, am tempted to say that Hitler was 'Perfectly Evil".  That is, his failure was not intermittent but constant. Does the word "perfect" add anything?  Sure, it adds the degree of evil. As Kelley (and Peikoff, BTW) point out, we must consider degrees of evil.  Call it "perfection" or not, such a consideration does "add something."

The truth is, we can't escape evaluation, and if we are to be just, degrees do matter. "Perfection" is one concept used to measure degrees. Perhaps we need to revise our use of the word, or use another word to name a different concept. But it does matter. And it is, in some sense, an all-or-nothing affair that goes far beyond mere verbal description.

Tom Rowland


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 172

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Abolaji,
It doesn't matter whether Rand was perfect or not.  She wrote good books, had an extra marital affair, inspired millions of people, lived to the age of seventy-seven and died of cancer. 
Actually she died of a heart attack.

You should check your facts (at least about Ayn Rand if you are too lazy to do the others) before tacking something like that on at the end of dumping on everyone.

Or, you know, you could just not say anything at all...

Gotta pay to play. Focus, dude, focus...

Michael



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 173

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Since the topic of this thread is “moral perfection” and I’m such a lover of going to the original text, I thought it might be helpful to have Rand’s words before us. The word “perfection” appears many times in ATLAS SHRUGGED, usually with the adjective “physical” or “moral” as a qualifier. Below are the cites that contain the phrase "moral perfection."

#1.
"Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man's values, it has to be earned—that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character—that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind—that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining—that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul—that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice—that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own MORAL PERFECTION , valuing nothing higher than itself—and that the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul's shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable value which is your consciousness and the incomparable glory which is your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others.” (1020-21 Plume pb)

#2-3
"A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward—if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of MORAL PERFECTION .
"You are told that MORAL PERFECTION is impossible to man—and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death. (1028)

#4
"You fear the man who has a dollar less than you, that dollar is rightfully his, he makes you feel like a moral defrauder. You hate the man who has a dollar more than you, that dollar is rightfully yours, he makes you feel that you are morally defrauded. The man below is a source of your guilt, the man above is a source of your frustration. You do not know what to surrender or demand, when to give and when to grab, what pleasure in life is rightfully yours and what debt is still unpaid to others—you struggle to evade, as 'theory,' the knowledge that by the moral standard you've accepted you are guilty every moment of your life, there is no mouthful of food you swallow that is not needed by someone somewhere on earth—and you give up the problem in blind resentment, you conclude that MORAL PERFECTION is not to be achieved or desired, that you will muddle through by snatching as snatch can and by avoiding the eyes of the young, of those who look at you as if self- esteem were possible and they expected you to have it Guilt is all that you retain within your soul—and so does every other man, avoiding your eyes. Do you wonder why your morality has not achieved brotherhood on earth or the good will of man to man? (1033)

#5
"Love is the expression of one's values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. Your morality demands that you divorce your love from values and hand it down to any vagrant, not as response to his worth, but as response to his need, not as reward, but as alms, not as a payment for virtues, but as a blank check on vices. Your morality tells you that the purpose of love is to set you free of the bonds of morality, that love is superior to moral judgment, that true love transcends, forgives and survives every manner of evil in Its object, and the greater the love the greater the depravity it permits to the loved. To love a man for his virtues is paltry and human, it tells you; to love him for his flaws is divine. To love those who are worthy of it is self-interest; to love the unworthy is sacrifice. You owe your love to 'those who don't deserve it, and the less they deserve it, the more love you owe them—the more loathsome the object, the nobler your love—the more unfastidious your love, the greater your virtue—and if you can bring your soul to the state of a dump heap that welcomes anything on equal terms, if you can cease to value moral values, you have achieved the state of MORAL PERFECTION .” (1034)

#6
"Discard that unlimited license to evil which consists of claiming that man is imperfect. By what standard do you damn him when you claim it? Accept the fact that in the realm of morality nothing less than perfection will do. But perfection is not to be gauged by mystic commandments to practice the impossible, and your moral stature is not to be gauged by matters not open to your choice. Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. MORAL PERFECTION is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute. (1059)

Actually, from 1020 till the end of Galt’s speech should be read because she keeps coming back to the topic.

Enjoy,

Fred




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 174

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you VERY MUCH, Fred.

Not considering the parts where she was chastising the unattainable 'moral perfection" of altruism, I was pleased to have this assortment to test my own thinking.

I am perfectly comfortable in thinking "perfect commitment to reason" where she gives "moral perfection" - as opposed to "perfect execution of reason."

Nothing like the perfect horse's mouth.

Er... ahem...

... no disrespect meant to Rand by that or anything...

Michael


Post 175

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom,

You get a hint that I am impatient with "anything that smacks of evaluation".  You are wrong - I am impatient with moral evaluations to the degree that they detract from addressing real problems and questions which would contribute to solutions.  Discussing "perfection" in the abstract assaults my patience.  "Perfection", like the words "good", "bad" and "love, is a word that subsumes judgments in a wide range of contexts.  It's often more productive to focus on the specific context.  I think that the context of Robert's original post was pretty clear.

If you say that I am not doing something perfectly, what matters is not the word "perfectly", but in what way my behavior could be improved.  The standard dictates the judgment of perfection.  So it is a waste of time to focus on perfection and far more productive to see what can be improved and how.

I agree that "a moral commitment to turn on one's brain -- to engage in a rational process" is a proper standard for moral judgment.  However, I am not convinced that a singular focus on intentions apart from results or results apart from intentions can capture morality.  I think that the agreed upon standard captures the intentional part, but devalues the result-oriented part.  I have seen individuals whose best in specific situations wasn't good enough, and while I can laud their efforts, I cannot argue that they really deserved more.  And I'm sure that they would be far more happier if I could have helped them improve their performance to get the job done than they were when I congratulated them on the content of their character.  There is a hard but important balance between process and results.  Our judgment of process often hinges on a correlation (which might be causal) with the results achieved - for example, we laud thinking because thinking results in more effective actions.  We can apply perfection to each part (process or results) separately, or to some combination of both.  But again, the standard precedes the judgment.

I think we agree that moral standards do matter.  I think we disagree on how the moral standards work - I think that moral standards should be more empirically motivated.  I might be caricaturing your position if I claimed you disagreed with that, but I get the impression that you think that broad philosophizing can replace the need for hard experience in more contexts than I am willing to accept.

The claim that "nobody's perfect" is a sorry excuse not to work hard if it is clear that if specific steps are taken, certain positive results will follow.  But that is just one use or meaning of the claim "nobody's perfect".  There are others that I agree with, which include the claim that a man has to know his limitations.  I learned my limitations not by anything to do with "perfection", but by actually living my life.  That, and not that moral standards are trivial, is my main point.


Post 176

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Thanks for the correction.  I'm sure that I won't be the first or the last to make that mistake, but I will do my part in correcting it.

Since you took the opportunity to cast a wide judgment of dubiousness on the quality of my facts, I'd be interested  to hear what else you think is factually incorrect in my posts.

My "dumping on everyone", to use your words, is pretty much a restatement of what others have said - that focusing on hard solutions to real problems is more important than focusing on abstractions like "perfection" which have highly subjective meanings if a specific context is not defined.  I feel more strongly about the issue for personal reasons, but that should not detract from the quality of my point.

Cheers,

Laj



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 177

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Abolaji,

LOL (benevolent sense - not sarcastic)

There simply were no other facts in your post. You said something about MENSA, but kept it at the "someone said" hearsay level. The rest of the post was pure opinion.

By "dumping on everyone," I seem to remember your word "pathetic" to describe "fascination with all-or-nothing verbal descriptions of things."

That means me too, dude. I did it all over the place in this thread. And I ain't pathetic. If you take the time to read through Fred's post above, you will see that that means Ayn Rand too. She ain't pathetic either.

But since you used the word "personal," I hear something between the lines that is a little more serious and not so offensive.

So my guns are still in their holster.

Wanna talk about it?

Michael


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 178

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 4:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Laj: “Perfection is necessarily an idealistic and subjective concept without some standard being introduced.  Isn't it enough to point to our actions and achievements in everyday life, while improving our understanding of the goals we can actually attain and how to attain them? “

Hi Laj. Nice to see you back again. In general, I agree with your sentiments. As this thread demonstrates, the idea of moral perfection is highly abstract, and hard to relate to the tangible details of everyday living.

A realistic standard would also have to tell us what moral perfection would look like in reality.  Rand’s “unbreached rationality” sounds imposing, but in practice is there any realistic way of accurately measuring our behaviour against that standard? I’m not sure there is. I would have thought outcomes were as important as motivation, and they are at least measurable.

Brendan


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 179

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan, I agree with you entirely. "Unbreached rationality" -- which appears to be Rand's most definitive statement on the topic of moral perfection -- strikes me as far too vague for any measurement. How can one know that he is being completely rational in any given circumstance?

A key issue seems to me to involve balance. On any given issue, is one more minute of diligent thought possible? Desirable? How much time do we devote specifically to career pursuits? Can more time be taken out of a hobby, sleep, some other diversion? How much? What is the balance of productive thought to other values? To one's mate, family, dog, recreation? Given the importance of philosophy, how much time does one put in studying Objectivism? And what, then, constitutes "context-dropping"?

I just regard the whole concept as too nebulous to serve as a standard of measurement and self-evaluation.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.