Rand's intellectual dishonesty

Here I go again. I guess I like being a dissenter. I have problems with 3 words in Objectivism: sacrifice, selfishness, and pride.
Sacrifice: In my own little study on onelook.com, I found that almost all of the definitions to be similar to this defintion from Websters: "Destruction or surrender of anything for the sake of something else; devotion of some desirable object in behalf of a higher object, or to a claim deemed more pressing; hence, also, the thing so devoted or given up; as, the sacrifice of interest to pleasure, or of pleasure to interest."

I also hear sacrifice used this way more often than not. Rand's "sacrifice" is essentially the opposite - that is, giving something up for something of lower value. This is what most people call "giving up" or "surrender," basically backing down from something we believe in because of an external force.

She chooses a somewhat ambiguous word, rails on the one less used, and then uses that argument to attack anyone, such as myself, who believes that sacrifice is a virtue. I believe that sacrifice is noble - but not as she defines it.

Selfishness: Same thing. Selfishness is widely viewed as being self-centered, with disregard for the "rightness" of actions, and disregard for others. I realize what Rand's version of selfishness means, so please don't lecture me on that. In her definition of it, I agree with you.

Pride: Widely seen as contempt for others. A prideful person is not satisfied with being great, but only in being better than others. The prideful person doesn't care about morality, but only about being the best. Rand's pride is, again, very diferent, is it not?

This bothers me for two reasons. We all know which groups she was trying to refute, and I'm not sure that I wouldn't attack all of those same groups. Still, it seems grossly dishonest to set the argument up in such a way. Is that not a straw man? "You believe in sacrifice, and I'll show you how you're wrong." When all the while, we believe in the same concepts.

Next, the effects of Objectivism becoming widespread would be disastrous. Let's face it, most people would struggle to understand the concepts discussed in her works and in this thread. I fear that many have and many will yet say, "oh, selfishness is ok. I don't need to worry about anything, as long as it's for me, me me." Having not thought about it properly, such a man is much more likely to do things with disregard for reason - only looking for the quick payoff for himself, at which point he will be less happy than he was before, because he fails to hold true to anything of value. In common usage, disregarding sacrifice and embracing pride and selfishness would lead to some sick form of egotistical hedonism.

(again, I realize that the above description does not apply to most of you, so please don't be offended.)

(Edited by Joseph Funk on 4/12, 11:09am)

Post 1

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 11:51am

"Selfishness" and "pride" are, as you note, ambiguous. Rand wants to disambiguate them. That's part of a philosopher's job. Your accusations might hold up if she weren't clear about her meaning and about her reasons for preferring these meanings, but she is.

Your claims about what might happen if Objectivism became widespread are a matter for empirical psychology rather than for ethics. To investigate informally: Do you hang out socially with Objectivists? Do they behave as you describe? My experience is that they don't. I'm not a student of the matter, but my understanding is that people with self-esteem are more considerate and co-operative and make better friends, lovers and spouses than people without it. Nathaniel Branden cites some of the formal research in this matter, and I suspect that others on the list will chime in with more. (The first to observe this was Aristotle in the Nichomachean Ethics.) In any case, your prediction that if people were trained to understand and practice selfishness in the way Rand explicates it, they would understand it and practice it in some other, incompatible way, is an odd one. Going against common sense doesn't make you wrong, but it puts the burden of proof on you.

Post 2

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 1:08pm

A definition, properly, is a denotation... if it includes a connotation, then it is a 'biased' definition - one with a flaw... what Rand did was keep the definition without the bias, then go on and explain what was wrong with the usually given connotations, the bias...

for example - selfishness is - concern with one's self... period.... now, if such is to imply disregard of others' rights, act like a brute - then there is a connotation involved, a package-dealing in effect, which properly does not belong there.... identifying the difference between denotation and connotation makes for understanding exactly that the concept actually is, and then one can go and decide if it is indeed in tune with the connotation, or if that is invalid and should be exposed as such..

Post 3

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 1:24pm

Right.. well lucky for us, Objectivism isn't trendy. I think that currently the majority of it's followers understand the meaning. At any rate, as you correctly point out, that isn't really relevant to my claim of dishonesty.

I have to disagree with you one the first point, though. She took ambiguous terms, and didn't define the other one. She may have admitted or conceded it, but she certainly didn't make a point that there were two meanings. She used one meaning to bash - both inderectly and directly - on groups like Utilitarians and Theists.

It is a philosphers job to differentiate ambiguities, absolutely. It was Rand's job to be honest. It was her job to show both sides of the story, and she failed. Even in the presentation of fictional characters, there is no one of a differing philosophical viewpoint that isn't a spineless, mindless coward. I can see where you might do that to make a point, but combine it with the word-play and you should begin to see a trend.

If anything, Rand muddied the waters even further. Using those terms in talking to someone of a different philosophical background causes extreme confusion, especially if they are unfamilliar with Objectivism. That much I have witnessed first-hand.

Now I'm not pointing the finger at you, I'm pointing the finger at Rand, and you are under no obligation to defend her on each point. Obviously you are free to agree or disagree as an individual - that much we can agree on.

(Edited by Joseph Funk on 4/12, 1:27pm)

Post 4

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 1:26pm

sorry robert, we crossed posts there. I have to get back to work, but I'll look at it later.

Post 5

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 2:12pm

Joseph,

If you have some time, I would recommend you read this speech of mine:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Eliminating_the_Altruistic_Baggage.shtml

I think it provides a good explanation of how conventional morality does in fact promote sacrifice.

Post 6

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 3:54pm

Joesph Funk,

All good arguments begin with the definition of one terms. Rand defined her's quite clearly. I too suggest reading Joe's article.

Ethan

Post 7

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 5:52pm

Intellectual dishonesty is attacking Ayn Rand with labels that aren't justified by your argument. Rand was attacking altrusim which has corrupted the meaning of many words. She defined all of her terms and wrote in clear,easily understood language. There was no deception involved. No dishonesty. You are wrong to have titled this thread as you did and your arguments do not make your case.

If there are more than one way of using the word "sacrifice" then you need to look at the arguments behind both and make a decision. To call some one dishonest when they have done nothing to decieve is itself a form of dishonesty. Rand has been quite clear about what the different users of the term intend.

You could make up your own word as an intellectual experiment and attach the meanings you believe to be virtuous to that made up word. Then the question is does your newly labeled virtue benefit you? Benefit society? Can it be logically integrated with your most basic premises?

You need to ask why did she purposefully fly in the face of conventional usage on those particualar words? Why did she name a book after selfishness? Why did she consider the tale of Robin Hood vile?

And you need to ask why you are coming to an Objectivist site make these unfounded accusations? Do you enjoy baiting and looking for a reaction? Are you aware of inner struggles that you want to resolve but you won't let go of old beliefs or fully accept new ones? Do you enjoy getting people to try to convince you of something that you've already decided you won't accept?

Post 8

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 7:27pm

Next, the effects of Objectivism becoming widespread would be disastrous. Let's face it, most people would struggle to understand the concepts discussed in her works and in this thread. I fear that many have and many will yet say, "oh, selfishness is ok. I don't need to worry about anything, as long as it's for me, me me." Having not thought about it properly, such a man is much more likely to do things with disregard for reason - only looking for the quick payoff for himself, at which point he will be less happy than he was before, because he fails to hold true to anything of value. In common usage, disregarding sacrifice and embracing pride and selfishness would lead to some sick form of egotistical hedonism.

That's ridiculous. Since so many people have already read Ayn Rand's work, can you point me to a few examples of people who have ended up like this?

Post 9

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 9:51am

Joseph -- A lesson from Rand: Focus on the phenomena. Words often have contradictory meanings. So for sacrifice, for example, focus on the phenomenon of someone forgoing a lesser value, e.g. a new car, for a greater value, helping their wife or children. Then focus on someone who is guilt-tripped into majoring in a subject they don't really care and giving up one you love because relatives and the community in general feel the career that would result carries more prestige. Evaluate which is good or bad morally and why. Then figure out which words are best to communicate these distinctions.

Make similar distinctions for the other concepts.

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 4/13, 11:04am)

Post 10

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 10:56am

Next, the effects of Objectivism becoming widespread would be disastrous. Let's face it, most people would struggle to understand the concepts discussed in her works and in this thread. I fear that many have and many will yet say, "oh, selfishness is ok. I don't need to worry about anything, as long as it's for me, me me." Having not thought about it properly, such a man is much more likely to do things with disregard for reason - only looking for the quick payoff for himself, at which point he will be less happy than he was before, because he fails to hold true to anything of value. In common usage, disregarding sacrifice and embracing pride and selfishness would lead to some sick form of egotistical hedonism.

Joseph: first you postulate that Objectivism is widespread and then you point to behaviour that is incompatible with Objectivism and use that to show that Objectivism would be disastrous.

Huh?

Sam

Post 11

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 11:48am

Joseph Funk wrote:

I fear that many have and many will yet say, "oh, selfishness is ok. I don't need to worry about anything, as long as it's for me, me me." Having not thought about it properly, such a man is much more likely to do things with disregard for reason - only looking for the quick payoff for himself, at which point he will be less happy than he was before, because he fails to hold true to anything of value. In common usage, disregarding sacrifice and embracing pride and selfishness would lead to some sick form of egotistical hedonism.

Dean Michael Gores responded:

That's ridiculous. Since so many people have already read Ayn Rand's work, can you point me to a few examples of people who have ended up like this?

Given that you have little ethical qualms about dumping a newborn infant into a trash can and leaving it to die, don't you sense the incredible irony in your last question?

Post 12

Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 4:58pm

I don't think that's called for Leibniz - at least not in this post.

So dishonesty was probably the wrong word. I'll say intellectually lame if you prefer. What we need to ask ourself is: what is the point of communication? Why do we even talk to each other in the same language? We only open our mouths because there will be some shared meaning. Sometimes we don't share the same associations with words, which causes communication problems if left undefined.

I dislike such communication difficulties, and O.ism seems prone to them. I say the word sacrifice in one meaning, and many Objectivists jump on me. I don't mind it if you use one word, and I use the other. What I do mind is being told that I'm wrong about the words I use.

(Edited by Joseph Funk on 4/14, 5:00pm)

Post 13

Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 7:52pm

Joseph, who's telling you what words to use?

I think you're making up reasons to be critical, and its lame...intellectually lame.

Post 14

Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 9:23pm

Joseph -- Any response to my suggestion that you focus on the phenomenon and not the oft-confusing words, then evaluate the different phenomenon and offer a moral or other judgments about them?

Post 15

Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 11:57am

Joseph:
"Ambiguity" in the terms 'sacrifice', 'selfishness', and 'pride'? If you're familiar with 'normativity' in definitions (which are inherently beyond what dictionaries give), you'd see little ambiguity in Rand's defs regarding each. . --- Indeed, one'll find 'ambiguity' within the def-sets given for varied words within dictionaries, any 'similarities' amongst the defs nws. Consider (and check out amongst several dicts.) the term 'think.'--- I don't see your...'problem'...as one beyond your own making. I agree with Teresa. I'm presuming that you really think that you ARE familiar with Rand's arguments. I might be presuming too much, methinks.

LLAP
J:D

Post 16

Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 8:51pm

Joseph,

Rand's "sacrifice" is essentially the opposite - that is, giving something up for something of lower value.

This can be tricky. When Rand spoke of sacrifice, she was speaking of an objective hierarchy of value (where things, objectively, were more valuable than other chosen things were). Rand wouldn't say, for instance, that a coke-addict was making a sacrifice by straightening herself up -- even if the coke-addict "valued" being high more than being straight. Getting this point right goes a long way in understanding exactly what it is that she meant when she used the word.

Selfishness is widely viewed as being self-centered, with disregard for the "rightness" of actions, and disregard for others. I realize what Rand's version of selfishness means, so please don't lecture me on that.

Whaw? You want to rail against the woman's views -- but you want also to proscribe, at the outset, any defense of them? Are you trying to have a discussion here, or not? Disregarding others and "rightness" is not in one's self-interest. If you don't believe me, then simply try it for one week -- and see where it gets you. If not, then just trust me: a disregard of others -- or of "rightness" -- prevents the attainment of happiness.

Pride: Widely seen as contempt for others. A prideful person is not satisfied with being great, but only in being better than others. The prideful person doesn't care about morality, but only about being the best.

Only if the person has adopted what Rand called 'social metaphysics' (where your relation to others is everything that is thought to have any meaning in your life). Rand wrote about this enough to offer a more proper understanding than this. Have you even read her works?

In common usage, disregarding sacrifice and embracing pride and selfishness would lead to some sick form of egotistical hedonism.

So what? 'Common usage' says nothing about the rightness of anything. When 'common usage' runs counter to what's good -- then it is common usage that must go (rather than what's good).

Ed

Post 17

Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 10:59pm

No need to be rude mates, it won't add anything to the discussion. Teresa - if you would like an example of this, go look at the last thread I started. I was using a word one way, and someone tried to hit me by using it in the Objectivist fashion, making it look like a contradiction.

Ironically enough, I believe it was you. If you weren't telling me which word to use, you weren't understanding (see the above posts about communication) or you were twisting my words. While I was a little mixed up philosophically on that post, I certainly didn't mean any harm or insult to anyone. A perfect example, thanks for bringing that up.

You don't need to lecture me about Rand's philosophy Ed (T). I thought I was pretty clear from the outset that I'm not trying to poke holes in the argument. Rather, I am opposed to the method - the delivery.

I hope you understood the formula in the first post. I was showing that Rand's terminology is different from common usage. You seem to be confusing my explanation of common usage with what I think of Rand's usage. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, but give me a little more credit mate.

Forget it though. I'm not inclined to humor disrespect, even on message boards. I've already explained what bothers me, and if no one can understand that, I don't think this will be going anywhere. I appolgize for not realizing this in advance.

Post 18

Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 5:33pm

I�m new to Ayn Rand�s work and ideas. I�m also new to this board. Objectivism seems to emphasize, more than anything else, cold reason devoid of intellectually lazy mechanisms such as semi-personal or excessively sardonic remarks and prodding designed not to rationally establish the correctness of one�s point but rather meant to defeat another morally.

As such, the most civilized and rational�and by rational, I don�t necessarily mean �correct��posts I�ve seen in this thread are those of the dissenter. From many of those who are apparently objectivist, I see a lot of condescending attempts to either psychoanalyze and/or belittle the dissenter rather than attack his arguments with pure intellectualism. There are exceptions to this, of course, but those who are not exceptions are a bit disappointing, not only to me but perhaps to the philosophy of objectivism as well.

Post 19

Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 7:17pm