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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 2:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great essay, Dennis.

I've been tripped up by this, myself, for some time: How best could I advance Objectivism?

I first thought I could do this through metaphysics -- it being so foundational, and all. Then I read Rand writing about how philosophers basically pre-emptively delimit the kinds of metaphysics that they'd adopt -- depending on a prior adoption of a particular epistemology.

In this respect, the adopted metaphysics were mere apologetics of the kinds of epistemology that they had come to adopt. If you're a logical positivist, then you don't get to have any kind of metaphysics -- because of pre-emptively limiting yourself and your own thought. So then I thought -- for a time -- that epistemology was the answer (pun intended).

;-)

Then I read Rand say that the sweetspot to wake-up folks' minds is ethics -- because everybody can get personally and emotionally charged-up by thinking about ethics. It's meaningful and powerful to everyone (when worded right). Politics finds things meaningful and powerful to the masses -- in order to get what it wants.

You make a good case for epistemology as the sweetspot, though. I'll have to wrestle with this some more, before returning here with a thoroughly-enlightened view on it.

Ed


Post 1

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 3:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Enjoyed your essay, Dennis.

Post 2

Friday, February 15, 2008 - 9:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rationality cannot be the basis of one's moral system. A moral system is based on a hierarchy of goals. Rationality is not a goal. Rationality is computational process for coming to new conclusions.

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 1:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ed,

 

Thanks very much for the kind words.  I have been struggling for some time to answer the question as to why Objectivism has not made more progress in the last half century.  Since I wrote this last night, my head has been spinning.  I am honestly not sure if applying Freud’s analysis of religion’s positive influence holds the key or not, but that hypothesis definitely has me enthralled at the moment. 

 

In a way, it almost seems as if I am saying what should be obvious: the critics of egoism consider such an ethical outlook as destructive to the delicate social fabric that protects against Hobbes’ classic "war of all against all.”  And certainly a number of Rand’s critics have compared her to Hobbes, even though he was a psychological rather than an ethical egoist, contending that authoritarian government was necessary to enforce social justice.

 

The Objectivist literature certainly includes some writings on the question of what rational selfishness means on the social level.  Rand’s essay on the “Conflicts of Men’s Interests” and David Kelley’s monograph on “Unrugged Individualism” are obvious examples.  And, of course, Atlas Shrugged.  For the most part, however, our polemical attention has been focused on clarifying what selfishness means on an individual level—following certain principles to achieve a successful life—i.e., personal happiness.  And we have defended capitalism from the same ethical perspective—as the economic system that promotes such happiness.

 

What occurs to me now is that this discussion has taken place outside the context of the comtemporary philosophical and cultural understanding of the language we use.  Most especially, our discussion of the primary virtue—rationality.  Rationality,” as Rand states, “is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues…The virtue of rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action.”

 

But our discussion of that primary virtue has fallen on deaf ears, because our understanding of what rationality means is so foreign to both academic philosophers and the average man.  It is as if we have been speaking a foreign language.   As an exercise in what can only be described as abusive self-torture, I have been forcing myself to read extensively on the topic of postmodern philosophy, and it is truly astonishing to see serious thinkers calmly “explaining” that the law of noncontradiction has been thoroughly “disproven.”   Such thinking is what now passes as “logic” in academic circles. 

 

As for the average man on the street, how common is it to hear such expressions as: “We all have our separate realities,”  “you can’t trust your senses,” “that may be logical to you but not to me,” “racial/gender-based logic,” “there is no such thing as objectivity,” et. al.?  Those trite cliches are our ethical undoing.

 

When we defend egoism on the individual level, in terms of something akin to self-fulfillment, we may have some limited success.  But what Objectivists may be missing is that the average person is unable to extrapolate that and apply it to the social level, which is where most people understand morality to apply.  That’s where all the misconceptions about reason and rationality start to confuse their thinking.  The notion of rational self-interest simply does not compute, so to speak, on the macro level, and they fall back onto conventional ideas about altruism and self-sacrifice.

 

Rationality is not a fundamental guiding principle for most people; it is, at best, what Rand called “a junk heap of undigested slogans.”   So the term self-interest, in their minds, translates to subjective whim-worship, self-indulgence and the “war of all against all.”

 

The perfect example of this is the modern liberal.  Here is a quote from Dinesh D’Souza:

 

Here, at the deepest level, is the divide between conservatives and liberals, between Red America and Blue America.   Conservatives believe in traditional morality.  Liberals believe in personal autonomy and self-fulfillment.  And liberals have been winning the culture war in the sense that they have been able to produce a massive transformation of American society and culture along the lines of their new moral code. [from  The Enemy at Home]

 

What D’Souza does not acknowledge is that these same liberals promote the worst kind of bureaucratic spending and regulation in the name of the traditional values of altruism and self-sacrifice.  Liberals may well believe in some form of autonomy or self-fulfillment, but they do not genuinely translate that into moral terms.  If D’Souza truly inquired into their deepest moral beliefs, he would find that they held egoism in the same low regard as he does.

 

To restate the central point of my essay: Objectivism’s promotion of rational self-interest will continue to be cursorily dismissed as irrelevant and potentially destructive to society, unless and until we successfully redeem the true meaning of reason and rationality.  That is where our most intense philosophical efforts are most urgently needed.  As it presently stands, nobody can hear us because nobody can understand what we are trying to say.

 

 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 1:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim---Glad you enjoyed it.  Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Dean--Please refer to the quote from Ayn Rand's essay on The Objectivist Ethics in my post 3, paragraph 4.  You are correct that rationality is not a goal.  It is, however, the primary virtue, and the guiding principle for determining one's hierarchy of goals.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 6:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Master Hardin asserts:

To restate the central point of my essay: Objectivism’s promotion of rational self-interest will continue to be cursorily dismissed as irrelevant and potentially destructive to society, unless and until we successfully redeem the true meaning of reason and rationality. That is where our most intense philosophical efforts are most urgently needed. As it presently stands, nobody can hear us because nobody can understand what we are trying to say.


I respond thus:

Could it be that many people -do- understand and they reject Objectivism on the basis of that understanding? Is it possible that some people believe their existence as social beings requires a degree of obligation to others? I do not endorse this view, by the way, but I can understand how such a view can be held. People are not stupid, in general. They may be misinformed, misguided, mistaken or have interests that you do not share. The failure of Objectivism "to catch on" may be related either to the message or the manner in which the message is promulgated. Could it be?

I am very aware of the problem. R. Hillel said about 2300 years ago:

If I am not for myself, then who is for me?
If I am only for myself, then what am I?
If not now, then when?

(Perke Avot I-15)

It is not an easy path to tread.


Bob Kolker


Post 6

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 6:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That presumes a worldview of it being a zero-sum world, not the sum-plus it really is.....

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 11:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But our discussion of that primary virtue has fallen on deaf ears, because our understanding of what rationality means is so foreign to both academic philosophers and the average man.  It is as if we have been speaking a foreign language.
 
Dennis -- great point in an interesting post.  Objectivists do speak a different language, using many common words with different definitions or emphases.  I think even more than "rationality", though, the common definition of the word "altruism" is the crux -- when (actually,more like "if") most people hear that Objectivists think "altruism" is evil, the mental shutters come slamming down and they think, "These people are irrational.  They are not to be taken seriously."
 
It's like that quote, "The British and Americans are one people separated by a common language."


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But Objectivists know that it is not secularism that is destroying our world, but the more fundamental subjectivism that Freud shared with the same religious outlook he attacked so vociferously—the unbridled emotionalism, skepticism and moral relativism which Freud and all of his philosophical predecessors unleashed upon the world.

Didn't reply right away, Dennis, because I wanted some time to mull over what you said.  I'm learning to slow down and not just pound away at a hasty and sloppy response.  Some further comments to append to my previous post:

Also, "skepticism" is another word that has vastly different meanings to laymen versus Objectivists.

And, relativism, moral and otherwise, is contributing to this tide of statism and mysticism.  As was pointed out to me yesterday by two people here, I'd bought into a form of relativism in physics related to the Schrodinger's cat paradox and other things that were taught to me in college, and with no dissenting or Objectivist viewpoint presented in the entire time I spent in that statist indoctrination camp.  Thanks to those links, which lead to 20 minutes listening to a YouTube video, I saw a fundamental error in my thinking I was carefully lead into, step by step.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 2:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think even more than "rationality", though, the common definition of the word "altruism" is the crux -- when (actually,more like "if") most people hear that Objectivists think "altruism" is evil, the mental shutters come slamming down and they think, "These people are irrational.  They are not to be taken seriously."


is why prefer taking the literal meaning of that word - otherism - and use it instead.....

because the person who lives for the sake of others - is a slave, however euphenistically the terms may be.....

(Edited by robert malcom on 2/16, 2:35pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Let me add my thanks and my vote of sanction. 

I understand the broad claim: "... a person whose mind was closed off by threats of hell-fire in childhood has learned to live with contradictions, and that we should not be surprised at the weakness of his intellect in adulthood."  Still, we have to admit that not many of us had Objectivist parents.  Fewer still lived in Objectivist communities.  The only logical explanation for the millions of copies of books by and about Ayn Rand is that choice is an inner process. 

Generally, if you toss someone a baseball, they will catch it -- or try to.  Ideas are less tractable.

I do find it interesting that Freud thought that his theories were not delusions because they were subject to correction.  There are neo-Marxists who correct Marx against the reality of post-industrial global society, what some call "Davos Man."  There are self-defined "Chrisitan" theologians who attempt to amend or emend that religious dogma, denying the divinity of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, the Assumption of Mary and all that, while attempting to provide a secular framework for their moral code.  

Here are "secular Muslims" attempting to live rational lives in an irrational place and being killed by religionist thugs. 

Sometimes, it's just the color of a woman's headscarf that can draw unwanted attention.

"One time, one of my female colleagues commented on the color of my headscarf," Safana says. "She said it would draw attention ... [and I should] avoid it and stick to colors like gray, brown and black."

This extremist ideology enrages many secular Muslim women, who say it's a misrepresentation of Islam.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.women/index.html

In terms of the measured minima of evil, are Marxists more or less threatening than Muslims?

 On the other hand there are Objectivists who maintain that this philosophy was perfect and complete within the works of Ayn Rand.    

What is the "habit of mind" that makes some people approachable and others not? 

 

 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/16, 7:41pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 8:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert K,

 

The failure of Objectivism "to catch on" may be related either to the message or the manner in which the message is promulgated.

 

I agree with you.  That would also apply to trying to spread the message without proper attention to how others understand the words you use (e.g., reason, rationality).   I have thought for a long time that the incessant moralizing by Peikoff , Schwartz and others has had a chilling effect, giving Objectivism the aura of a cult that should not be taken seriously.  But I am increasingly convinced that it is more than that.  Something about our message just is not as clear as it should be.

 

Jim,

 

I think it’s true that Objectivists understand “altruism” differently from the general public, which is why we often use other terms instead, such as self-sacrifice.  The critical thing about the misunderstanding of rationality, of course, is that we use that word to distinguish ourselves from hoodlums, scoundrels, manipulators, criminals and hedonists.  If people don’t understand what we mean, they could easily assess Objectivists and Objectivism as equally undeserving of respect.   

 

I like your quote about the British language.

 

Robert M,

 
I’m not sure what you mean about the ‘zero-sum worldview” or how it applies.  Sorry.  I will acknowledge that it’s my loss, but your posts often go sailing right over my head (which may be just as well, because sometimes they look a lot like spears).


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 8:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael,

 

Thanks very much.  You are right that it is impossible to truly understand why one person would be independent enough to grasp and accept Objectivism, while a great many incredibly bright people reject it.  And it is even harder to understand why apparently hard-working, productive, responsible people would choose to cling to malevolent ideologies throughout their lives.  Or be too afraid to attempt to flee a culture where a woman can be beaten to death for being seen in the company of someone other than her husband.  How incredibly dreadful it must be to live your entire life that way!!

 

On the other hand there are Objectivists who maintain that this philosophy was perfect and complete within the works of Ayn Rand. 

  

 

It is hard to believe that people are serious when they say that.  I am convinced she would have sent Peikoff packing to Denver again if she had heard him utter such nonsense.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 1:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis wrote:

I agree with you. That would also apply to trying to spread the message without proper attention to how others understand the words you use (e.g., reason, rationality). I have thought for a long time that the incessant moralizing by Peikoff , Schwartz and others has had a chilling effect, giving Objectivism the aura of a cult that should not be taken seriously. But I am increasingly convinced that it is more than that. Something about our message just is not as clear as it should be.


Bob replies.

Chilling is not the word I would use. How about God damned annoying? The tone of condemnation I perceive on some of the O'ist sites (not this one!) just drives me to distraction. I would almost guess that some people who consider themselves to be O'ists live for the moment (are you reading this Dave Oddin?) they can pounce upon someone for their alleged shortcomings.

It is one thing to judge (and to judge justly). It is another thing to condemn. We live or die by judgments we make. I think we should be very sparing about condemnation. It is too easy to do and it is a nifty way of projecting one's own shortcomings on others.

Bob Kolker


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Something about our message just is not as clear as it should be."

This assumes that if you could just communicate your ideas clearly enough, everyone would say, "Oh, wait, of course that is rational and correct. I must start thinking that way."

The reality is, many people do not place a high value on rationality.

Many people will not listen to a correct message if the person delivering it is, or is perceived to be, arrogant, or insufferable, or unattractive-looking, or in any way unlikeable.

And many people will not listen to a message about how someone else has a clear and perfect philosophy when the person delivering it is in fact wrong about one or more aspects of their philosophy -- when, to take an entirely theoretical example, they insist that logically, preemptive war is a justified non-initiation of force; that a neverending War on Terror that has empowered the state to terminate civil liberties and enormously expand the government is somehow consistent with a miniarchist philosophy; and that a cluster**** of a war in a distant land with ever-shifting definitions of the rationale for instigating it and no clear definition of what, if anything, would be sufficient cause to end our involvement is somehow, evidence that somewhere under that a pile of horse manure there MUST be a pony.

That, in fact, some people might reject a message because they DO place a high value on rationality, and rightly perceive that someone who calls themselves a rational Objectivist is acting irrationally and unobjectively.

Theoretically speaking.

Post 15

Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 10:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Today’s conservatives attribute all our contemporary social ills to the secularism and self-indulgence of the sixties, when American society began to break free of the social constraints and traditional mores imposed by Bible and The Ten Commandments.  They have a good deal of empirical evidence to support that argument and to oppose Freud’s proposals for removing religion from the educational curriculum.
Do not be too quick to grant them that premise.  See here:

Before The Court Ruled - Were They Really “The Good Ol’ Days”?

by David Lee

Copyright © 2006 American Atheists, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/decline.html (Accessed August 20, 2007)

What is surprising is that these increases in crime came during a religious revival in the 1950s that had caused “under God” to be put into the Pledge of Allegiance and “in God We Trust” put on the back of our paper money - all accompanied by a 25% claimed increase in total church membership from 1950 to 1959.

 

 

I add that August Vollmer (1876-1955) is considered the creator of professional policing.  Himself with only a 6th grade education, as the police chief in Berkeley, California, he helped design the first university curriculum in policing and required it of his officers.  His was also a pioneer force in the use of polygraphs and motorcycles.  Volmer's 1936 work, The Police and Modern Society (now reprinted with a new introd. by James Q. Wilson. 1971) cites the same alarming statistics about rampant crime and soaring incarceration rates.

 

 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 8:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bob,

 

It is one thing to judge (and to judge justly). It is another thing to condemn. We live or die by judgments we make. I think we should be very sparing about condemnation. It is too easy to do and it is a nifty way of projecting one's own shortcomings on others.

 

I agree completely.  Especially when we are talking about condemning people because they happen to disagree with us.  That’s really going to help them “see the light.”  In fact, of course, all it does is shut down communication and make any chance of persuasion all but impossible.


Post 17

Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 9:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To this:

"It is one thing to judge (and to judge justly). It is another thing to condemn. We live or die by judgments we make. I think we should be very sparing about condemnation. It is too easy to do and it is a nifty way of projecting one's own shortcomings on others."

And this:

"I agree completely. Especially when we are talking about condemning people because they happen to disagree with us. That’s really going to help them “see the light.” In fact, of course, all it does is shut down communication and make any chance of persuasion all but impossible."

I say:

I concur. It is one thing to disagree with someone's ideas or behavior, and vigorously point out why you disagree with their ideas or behavior. It is entirely a different thing to judge and condemn them as bad people for holding those ideas or behaving that way. If you are so foolhardy as to routinely do that while married, you would best be advised to get a divorce attorney on retainer.

Post 18

Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 9:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Before The Court Ruled - Were They Really “The Good Ol’ Days”?

 

That’s a great article, Michael.  Thank you.  It concludes:

 

From the statistical evidence, there is little to support the claim that the Supreme Court rulings in the early 1960s which addressed the problem of unison prayer and Bible-verse recitation in public schools was a significant and direct contributor to crime rates, serious violence, or divorce.

 

The article is well-documented, but conservatives are not only looking at those specific issues (violence, school drop-out rates and divorce).  The so-called 'sexual revolution' is another big issue for them.  A lot of conservatives still hold to the notion that sex before marriage is wrong.  Another trend they decry is the number of women choosing career over marriage in the wake of women’s liberation.  (Betty Friedan is reviled as much or more than Hugh Hefner.)   Conservatives tend to see the “Pill,” women’s lib and the decline in traditional mores as one big anti-religious package deal.  They cite the sixties as the turning point when the decline of the family began to chip away at the social fabric. 

 

The increasing acceptance of the gay lifestyle, with all the corruptive aspects associated with AIDS, also gets plenty of derision.  Throw in the explosion of gangs in the inner cities and the prevalence of explicit, mindless violence in film and television.  The article mentions drug abuse and teen pregnancy, but does not really document whether those behaviors showed any marked increase

 

I would agree with conservatives that many of those things (but by no means all) are indicative of moral decay.  Needless to say, that decay is not due to the decline of religious values, but to the nihilism that has replaced them.

 

 


Post 19

Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 9:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Many people will not listen to a correct message if the person delivering it is, or is perceived to be, arrogant, or insufferable, or unattractive-looking, or in any way unlikeable.

And many people will not listen to a message about how someone else has a clear and perfect philosophy when the person delivering it is in fact wrong about one or more aspects of their philosophy ---is somehow, evidence that somewhere under that a pile of horse manure there MUST be a pony.

That, in fact, some people might reject a message because they DO place a high value on rationality, and rightly perceive that someone who calls themselves a rational Objectivist is acting irrationally and unobjectively.

 

Needless to say, I have no intention of responding to a post of this nature.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.