Latest online commentary

It's been suggested that I try to confine my posts about Objectivism to the Dissent board... so, since two blogs I regularly peruse have recently mentioned Rand, here I am.

BoingBoing: "Photo gallery of famous literary drunks & addicts"
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/27/photo-gallery-of-fam.html
links to a site implying that Rand was addicted to speed, while also linking to http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q6.3 which states that that's pretty much not the case.

Positive Liberty mentions Rand in two posts:

http://positiveliberty.com/2010/01/ayn-rand-inescapable.html

For every ten thousand people who have read Atlas Shrugged, there might be one who has read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and this is a crying shame."

My own engagement with Ayn Rand left me quite nearly an Objectivist. I realize that this is deeply annoying to many people. Yet I remain so today, quite nearly an Objectivist.

… except that, as a former Catholic, I noticed that, in order to become quite nearly an Objectivist, I had had to admit that I’d been wrong about many, many, many things. Can the same person who had just been wrong about so much now be right about everything? That would rather defy the odds, wouldn’t it?

And it would also bear a stunning resemblance to… Christian conversion narratives. Which I’d also just rejected. The sudden seizure of a new philosophical outlook, whether Christian, Objectivist, or anything else, ought to instill humility. Typically it instills just the opposite, and Objectivism is typical in spades.

http://positiveliberty.com/2010/01/ann-meet-ayn.html links to, and discusses, http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2010/01/26/the-possibility-of-the-happy-parasite/ , the "happy parasite", and a hypothetical "Ann" who is

a bureaucrat. A political liberal, she believes in her work at HHS and finds it extremely satisfying. She is convinced that government can make the world a better place and she works hard every day to do her part making sure that it does. She can see how the program she works for helps families in need, she feels like she’s making a difference, and that’s meaningful to her. Ann has a devoted husband (who is a lawyer for the EPA) and two delightful children. They go to church every Sunday where they learn about to importance of love for all people and the immense importance of service to others. Of Ann’s many activities, she finds most nourishing volunteering with her children at a community soup kitchen. She’s proud of how her kids have so enthusiastically embraced their obligation to help those who need help. She’s especially proud of how they have come, like her, to value hard work, independent-mindedness, honesty, and integrity. Ann and her husband are paid well by the government, and they’re good with money. They’re very comfortable and have a terrific work-life balance. They’re also active, fit, and very healthy. Ann loves her life. She has a lot of energy, is in a good mood most of the time, has very few regrets. When she becomes frustrated or sad, she bounces back quickly. When she reflects on her life, she is extremely grateful for everything she has.

... and discusses whether someone can be what Objectivism defines as a 'parasite' and be happy (which is manifestly possible), and whether or not the existence of such a 'happy parasite' conflicts with Objectivism's claims that a virtuous (ie, non-parasitical) life leads to happiness.

Post 1

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 1:24pm

… except that, as a former Catholic, I noticed that, in order to become quite nearly an Objectivist, I had had to admit that I’d been wrong about many, many, many things. Can the same person who had just been wrong about so much now be right about everything? That would rather defy the odds, wouldn’t it?

The odds? What is the assumption here, that epistemology is a matter of statistics, rather than non-contradictory hierarchical inference? The writer, while he is right to praise ItOE, hasn't understood it. If he is not certain that Rand's arguments are correct, or that his own better interpretations of them are correct, he has no business saying that he has given up faith for reason.

Yes, if he was a sincere Catholic and then he has understood and adopted Objectivism because he understands it to be correct then he would indeed have undergone a conversion process. I underwent the same process. It took a week. I remember the physiological process of the dominos falling in my mind as I reintegrated my most fundamental beliefs even more coherently after reading Rand. It was like emptying the trash, confirming the checksum, and defragging the hard drive of my brain. It was a validation of what was already there, not a months' long process of indoctrination. It was never a process of saying that according to Rand's opinion of Beethoven and lesbianism I have been wrong. It was a process of confirming as I read her that Rand's principles were sound and that in the details she was almost always right.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/28, 1:57pm)

Post 2

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 1:33pm

a bureaucrat. A political liberal, she believes in her work at HHS and finds it extremely satisfying. She is convinced that government can make the world a better place and she works hard every day to do her part making sure that it does. She can see how the program she works for helps families in need, she feels like she’s making a difference, and that’s meaningful to her. Ann has a devoted husband (who is a lawyer for the EPA) and two delightful children. They go to church every Sunday where they learn about to importance of love for all people and the immense importance of service to others. Of Ann’s many activities, she finds most nourishing volunteering with her children at a community soup kitchen. She’s proud of how her kids have so enthusiastically embraced their obligation to help those who need help. She’s especially proud of how they have come, like her, to value hard work, independent-mindedness, honesty, and integrity. Ann and her husband are paid well by the government, and they’re good with money. They’re very comfortable and have a terrific work-life balance. They’re also active, fit, and very healthy. Ann loves her life. She has a lot of energy, is in a good mood most of the time, has very few regrets. When she becomes frustrated or sad, she bounces back quickly. When she reflects on her life, she is extremely grateful for everything she has.

There is no point in begrudging a person her happiness. I would fight to put this woman out of business, but not to make her unhappy as such. If she really is happy, so what? Some two-pack a day smokers live to their nineties, some health-conscious vegetarian athletes die in their twenties. Of course the example is simply unbelievable. The example of Ann the social worker is an exercise in hypotheticality that sounds about as plausible to me as the flight of pigs. But if I ever see a pig fly, "Hey, I resent your accomplishing what I believe to be impossible!" will be the last words out of my mouth.

Post 3

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 2:14pm

Of course the example is simply unbelievable. The example of Ann the social worker is an exercise in hypotheticality that sounds about as plausible to me as the flight of pigs.

Ted, I'm not sure I'm reading you right; are you saying that you believe that it's as likely for a community-oriented social worker to find happiness as it is for the traditional example of a pig to achieve altitude?

Post 4

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 4:37pm

I underwent the same process. It took a week. I remember the physiological process of the dominos falling in my mind as I reintegrated my most fundamental beliefs even more coherently after reading Rand.

As an over-30, wide-eyed, Christian, socialist, commie-pinko -- it took me over 2 months to undergo my frightening conversion. In 2000, when I was asked (in college) if I was an Objectivist, this dialogue ensued:

Me:
An "Objectivist", what's that?

Fellow Student:
It's a philosophy which celebrates selfishness.

Me:
Oh, heavens no. That's pure, unadulterated evil. I'm not one of those people.

The reason this question was asked of me was because I "sounded like" an Objectivist. Later, I cautiously looked into it ...

Even though I had bought "The Ayn Rand Lexicon", I stayed away from the topics of "atheism" and "abortion" like they were the plague or something. I was scared even to read topics under the "A" section -- for fear that I might accidentally view either of these 2 entries. Reason, you could say, eventually won out and my will was bent according to it -- or, rather, I purposefully aligned my will with the dictates of Reason (even though that was initially so painful and scary).

Ed

Post 5

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 5:35pm

I.e., the apparent progress toward TRUTH may in fact be a retrograde decline in one's critical functions. One simply no longer notices contradictions between conclusions and reality. Certainty may merely indicate an ongoing and pervasively corrupting loss of ability to discern fact from fantasy. For someone whose place in reality consists of unmitigated and hopeless misery, the evolution of increasingly successful methods of evasion may bring temporary but real relief.

If you found this advice helpful, then please contact me about who to will your assets to, and I, in turn, will advise you on more efficient methods of mental subversion.

Or did I get it wrong again?

Post 6

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 5:59pm

Daniel (to Ted):

********************
... are you saying that you believe that it's as likely for a community-oriented social worker to find happiness as it is for the traditional example of a pig to achieve altitude?
********************

If he's not, then I am. So there. Happiness isn't whatever you want it to be.

Ed

Post 7

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 6:27pm

Thank you for being so clear and direct, Ed.

However, I now have to ask... what sort of definition of 'happiness' are you using, which is so nigh-impossible to apply to Ann?

Post 8

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 9:32am

This one:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Thompson/Human_Happiness_The_only_kind_there_is.shtml

Post 9

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 10:02am

Ed,

I've just read that article... and it seems to entirely leave out the idea of /joy/, a form of happiness that isn't just goal-achievement satisfaction, that isn't just 'following one's instinctual nature', and yet encompasses experience that is entirely outside the Objectivist definition of happiness.

There is a non-zero chance that I might be banned from this board for what I am about to say, but I think it's worth saying even with that risk.

It appears to me that your definition of happiness is so constrained and twisted from the real, actual experience of happiness, that any attempt to base a philosophy on something so un-real is absurd, if not outright insane. There's an old saying, I believe from Voltaire, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." I think that you are being quite clear about what you believe Objectivism means; I also think that those beliefs are so irrational that those who follow them could easily pose a danger to others. I am ill-equipped to argue against such a philosophy, as it would seem to require overturning certain items taken as foundations, and I can barely manage to communicate my own ideas, let alone de-convert someone from their own.

In short, as far as I can tell, you're not only suffering from a dangerous delusion, you're completely unaware of it.

I hope I'm wrong in this assessment, I really do. And if someone convinces me I'm wrong, I will be happy to admit to my error. But, until such a hypothetical occurs, this is what I think, and I think that it's worth letting you know that's what I think, even knowing that you will completely disagree with it and reject it out-of-hand.

If, due to this post, I am asked by a moderator to cease posting even to Dissent, I will do so; if that is the case, all I ask is that you refrain from censoring or deleting this final post, so that other readers will know why my participation here ended. I hope that this does not happen, as there may still be useful knowledge to be gained, by me or by others who read my posts here, but this is your playground, and I will respect the rules thereof.

Post 10

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 10:06am

Define joy, and provide some examples.

Post 11

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 10:49am

I'm sure you know as well as I do that defining emotions is a tricky business - they /are/ qualia, subjective, with all the difficulty thereof. The best that I know how to do is pick one or more such experiences, and point to them, saying that such-and-such a word includes them.

Now as for an actual such example... have you ever gone flying, and experienced the joy thereof? It's nothing to do with simple goal-achievement, or following non-existent flying instincts, or even just the physical pleasure thereof; and it is an emotion that can be felt equally by those who follow Objectivist philosophy and those who don't. It's an experience that falls entirely outside the categories given in Ed's article, and thus seems to refute the entire definition of happiness he proposes.

Post 12

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 11:57am

So joy is simply an immediate sensation, like the experience of the color red? That sounds like sensual pleasure to me. Sugar on the tongue only pleases until it dissolves. Is joy like that, tied to the momentary physical experience?

I do not like heights and am subject to motion sickness. Joy is the last thing I would experience if you told me I were to go on a plane ride tomorrow.

Post 13

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 1:28pm

So joy is simply an immediate sensation, like the experience of the color red?

Sensation, yes, as much as any other emotion is; immediate, not necessarily, much as any other emotion isn't. (Do you wait an hour after getting bad news before feeling sad?)

What gives me joy isn't necessarily what gives you joy - yet another problem with the whole defining emotions thing. I can refer to the emotion I felt in a plane and call it 'joy', but there's no real way I can communicate what it /felt/ like, except by analogy and comparison to other emotions (For a pop culture reference, there was that Star Trek episode where Data tried to explain what his first emotion felt like...), or, as here, by listing examples of when I felt that emotion in hopes that you have felt a similar emotion during similar occasions.

My memory of flying is close to the purest experience of joy that I recall having, which is why I picked it as an example. Other occasions have included scuba-diving in a quarry with my dad; being in the middle of a long hike with literally no other human in miles; being involved with a newborn; certain events of the space program; and, on occasion, when I learned something that simplified and explained a great deal that I had previously not understood. (The latter is described as 'mapping' at http://www.datamodel.co.uk/Reciprocality/www.reciprocality.org/Reciprocality/r0/index.html .) Sometimes solitary, sometimes as part of a group; sometimes short-term, sometimes long-; sometimes related with something immediate, sometimes something happening to someone else, or even someone far far away; none of these examples have very much in common, save for the emotion they inspired in me. I can only hope that you have a similar list of such experiences of your own, and that the list I'm presenting here suffices to inspire you to be able to think of your own brushes with happiness.

Post 14

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 1:55pm

You speak of emotion as subjective. Does that mean that we cannot truly understand each other's experience of flying? Is it possible we might feel the same thing, but describe it differently?

Do you feel joy when you recall such episodes as scuba-diving with your dad? If you knew now that you were going to repeat them tomorrow, how would you feel now?

Can you imagine a scenario where, although I would not feel pleasure in flying, it would bring me joy?

What distinguishes joy from pleasure?

Post 15

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 2:18pm

You speak of emotion as subjective. Does that mean that we cannot truly understand each other's experience of flying? Is it possible we might feel the same thing, but describe it differently?

Very much so; but I've had some, shall we say, interesting conversations, with people who mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. Emotion is a subjective experience, but it occurs in an objective reality, and, presumably, a few decades from now, neuroscientists will be able to measure and quantify it. Without getting into "but does he really see the /same/ red as I do?" pointlessness, I'm trying to come up with a way to evoke your own memories of such emotions, whatever the words being used to describe them are.

Do you feel joy when you recall such episodes as scuba-diving with your dad?

Hm... good question. Not nearly so much as at the time, but yes, I'd say I feel some degree of it when recalling that.

If you knew now that you were going to repeat them tomorrow, how would you feel now?

I've always been a bit weird, anticipation-wise, so I'm not sure my answer here would be of any use. On those occasions when something joyful has been in my future, and I've been expecting it, I've usually been too busy with the minutia of preparing to pay much attention to how I was feeling, or at least not enough for my emotions at the time to have stuck in memory. But, yes, I do believe that I have felt some joy in anticipation of an expected event, in addition to while experiencing it and while remembering it.

Can you imagine a scenario where, although I would not feel pleasure in flying, it would bring me joy?

Oh yes indeedy. On one occasion of diving, I had an upset stomach the whole time, and puked afterwards; and when dealing with babies, have occasionally been puked /on/ - but I'd still describe myself as having felt joy.

What distinguishes joy from pleasure?

Good question. What distinguishes any emotion from any other, such as anger from sorrow, or surprise from confusion? If you can tell me what Ed meant by 'pleasure' in his essay, maybe I might be able to answer this.

Have you read any of Spider Robinson's novels, such as the Callahan's Crosstime Saloon series?

Post 16

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 2:46pm

"But, yes, I do believe that I have felt some joy in anticipation of an expected event, in addition to while experiencing it and while remembering it."

So, you would say that you actually felt, not just imagined, joy (even if not so intense) in anticipation or remembrance of some occasion?

Have you ever seen and not just imagined red in anticipation of eating an apple?

Now can you identify the difference between pleasure and joy?

Post 17

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 2:47pm

I cannot speak for Ed. We have serious disagreements. He has never had a pet dog.

No, I have not read Spider Robinson. Have you watched The Flower of My Secret?

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/29, 2:48pm)

Post 18

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 3:44pm

Daniel,

Thanks for taking the time to answer. A really funny situation is occurring here -- you're sure I'm confused and you pity me and those who think like me; and I, them and you (the same thing, juxtaposed). Luckily, we are both folks who prefer talking it out. You must've thought I or others here don't however, as you were scared you'd get banned. You said:

... and that the list I'm presenting here suffices to inspire you to be able to think of your own brushes with happiness.

But happiness -- as Aristotle, Rand, and I understand it -- isn't something you merely "brush up" against. It's not fleeting, like an elusive "drug-high" that you have to chase after. Instead, it is robust. It is something you can plan your life around (or "for").

Ed

Post 19

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 4:00pm