RoR: Forum

Excellent insight, Joe.

I hadn't thought about the fallacy of assumed omnipotence -- and how it might affect one's thinking so much, regarding foreign policy.

Thanks for that.

Ed

Post 1

Friday, September 14, 2007 - 7:32am

Dear Joseph,

I think the problem you describe exists because of the "we" you describe. Though you have not defined the "we" I assume you mean by that "the people of a country as a whole" and not "objectivists locally joining forces".

This problem is excellently described in Atlas Shrugged. To want to work together with people with whom you do not share the same philosophical foundation is to either compromise your philosophic principles or try to convince them that your solution is the best. The latter option is highly unlikely to succeed in a world full of people who hardly think soberly and logically. We can see in this world that the objectivist principles, by which everybody would be better off, are not at all generally recognized or practiced.

I think that in reality you either accept (not the same as: sanction) the compromised principles of the society you live in or you leave in order to find a better place to live. If you do the latter, the country you leave behind will have become truly weaker, because one active mind has left the country.

So for me I choose between either taking the ways of society for granted or leave for an assumed better place. For now I will stay in The Netherlands.

Post 2

Friday, September 14, 2007 - 7:37am

Yes, good article, Joe. I often find myself falling into that way of thinking - why don't we either just annihilate the enemy or go isolationist and leave them to their own misery. Reading your article, I have the "He's right, you know" reaction! Foreign policy in the real world isn't so easy. (But I do think that we often shoot ourselves in the foot by not recognizing enemies as enemies, and trying to "help" them.)

Post 3

Friday, September 14, 2007 - 9:08am

To want to work together with people with whom you do not share the same philosophical foundation is to either compromise your philosophic principles or try to convince them that your solution is the best.

Claim rejected.

Post 4

Friday, September 14, 2007 - 11:43am

Joe,
Nicely stated. *Complex* yes. Thank you,

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 9/14, 11:48am)

Post 5

Friday, September 14, 2007 - 3:56pm

Dean @ Post 3 (rejected claim: differing philosophical foundation is compromise or leave)

I assumed this would be generally recognized here, but I made the claim, so I have to prove it. Your philosophical foundation determines what you say that is the right thing to do. To work together with someone else who does not want to go along rationality means that you do not come to the same conclusions what to do when the one is rational and the other not. You can argue about it in order to convince someone that your way is better because it is more rational, but if that does not succeed you will either have to reconcile yourself with the fact that you go along with a lesser rational action (which is compromise) or that you stop doing that thing together with the other (which is to leave). If you convince the other you from then on share the same rationality with that other person of course.

You are not really working together with someone else (but more: alongside someone) if each can make his own decisions and do it his own way. If that is what you mean: I agree.

I do not want to make this long. I hope I make sense to you. In any way I am glad to discuss things with people who go by rules of logic and rationality. That is what I like about this forum and I have found that to be rare (not a claim but only my limited experience so far).

Post 6

Friday, September 14, 2007 - 7:35pm

You may not end up doing what you prefer to do with the person, but your own actions can still hold up to your philosophical principals. Hence no "compromise [of] your philosophic principles".

Maybe we are looking at the same situation in two different ways. A specific example might help, but I'm not sure if its worthwhile to pursue if you understand what I mean.

Post 7

Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 3:35am

Dean, yes, I do understand now what you mean. It is only about what you consider compromise. I agree that in a given situation it can be smarter and more profitable to go along with someone elses choice then to pursue your own. It's often not smart to create a conflict.

Post 8

Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 7:29am

I enjoyed this fine article, Joe, and I can see its argument even more aptly applied at the level of individual conduct. The term "price no object" comes to mind here. As you noted in "Eliminating the Altruistic Baggage," people can let themselves get caught in the pursuit of values with "price no object" rather than actually doing a reality check and evaluating costs and benefits so as to optimize benefits with respect to costs over a lifetime. The "Omnipotence Premise" comes into play when people argue in forums like this one about how one ought rightly to conduct himself without regard for costs and benefits of a suggested conduct.

As I have implied in other threads here, for instance, the demand that a person ought to maintain his "integrity" by pursuing a teenage romantic encounter long before he can handle its emotional, social, and financial ramifications suggests an "Omnipotence Premise" held by those who demand such "integrity." In gratitude for making these implications, others have smeared me with labels ranging from "Lord Buzzkiller" to "spiritual murderer." I have no interest in resurrecting those threads, but suffice it to say that I have yet to see convincing arguments to the contrary that do not assume an "Omnipotence Premise."

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/16, 2:52pm)

Post 9

Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 5:54pm

Good point, Joe. But I think "invincible" fits better than "omnipotent."

Post 10

Monday, September 17, 2007 - 9:09pm