Trolls

Eva:

You entered this forum purportedly to "learn" about objectivism but instead have aggressively challenged almost everyone who has attempted to inform you. You want to "enjoy" conversations but all of them turn into shouting matches and sometimes blatant insults. I suspect that your motives aren't as pure as you state but are more like trying to demonstrate how smart you are via name-dropping and so on.

As a specific example of your approach ...most of us here are minarchists so when you try to make a case for the FDIC and the Post Office as legitimate government agencies you can be assured that you will be set upon. Instead of trying to address the issue of the proper role of government and understanding our arguments you make no effort to read the non-fiction works of Rand, as has been recommended to you. I'm sure that your academic load can take priority but until you can find time to inform yourself you should just butt out. You do find time for your numerous posts.

Dean has made a statement acknowledging that he overstepped his authority and the bounds of civility. It would be appropriate for you to also make a similar declaration.

Sam

Post 21

Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - 11:01am

Eva,

The very best source for understanding Rand's view of concepts is in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology book - There is a "Look Inside" feature at the Amazon link in this post. The expanded version (which is the one I linked to) is the best because of the extended 100 plus pages of question-answer sessions where a group of professors asked her questions one-on-one. Unlike most of the college books you buy, this one will only set you back about $14 :-)

Post 22

Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - 2:25pm

Being a member of 'most of us here' gives no one the right to 'set upon' a minority.

The fact, as written, is that I'm for privitization of the postal system.

As for the FDIC, I'm saying that it's clunky; but banks are not yet ready to be privitized for reasons of operation--not those of personal belief.

This is main-stream Libertarianism.

(Edited by Matthews on 1/21, 6:57pm)

Post 23

Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - 2:53pm

Steve,

I've finished Machan's book, which ties Rand into the mainstream of philosophy. This, I believe is important for teaching.

I've also just read Long's article on Rand & Kripke, which I hinted at discussing in my last post...alas! ... no takers.

'Who Needs' and 'New Intellectual' have been read, but I'm withholding judgment on the witch-doctor' thing. In other words, it's not that I'm not aware of her animosity towards Kant, but rather,as things stand I just don't agree in toto.

So yes, I agree with Rand's position that ethics are consequentialist...to a point. On a larger scale I believe Parfit is correct in 'climbing the mountain'. We must also include deontological elements (Kant), utilitarian and intent.

Peikoff will come soon because it's more lexicon-driven. That's fine, but as you see, I'm far more into the integrative aspects.

Tonite, given time, I'll post on Bacon and certain misunderstandings re inductivism....

Eva

Post 24

Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - 6:57pm

Eva,

I'm not as fond of Peikoff. I agree with most of his concepts and principles but often find that I wish he had phrased things differently. At times he seems to leave holes in his logic that weren't necessary. With Rand, when I'd pay careful attention to the actual word choices she made, I liked what I read even more.

And, after Rand died, I think there were a number of times where Peikoff shot from the hip and ended up leaving some of Objectivism's principles behind without realizing it. If I were studying Rand more or less from scratch I'd be working from the Epistemology book on up... up to ethics, then to Capitalism, and see how she intended it to all tie together.
-------------------------

From Wikipedia: Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgement about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. The idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the English saying, "the ends justify the means".

The ends can't justify means that are wrong in and of themselves. Rand's ethics arise from the standard of man's life qua man. Both the ends (consequences) and the means (conduct) would be judged by the same standard. Coming from a psychological point of view, I've always seen "the ends justify the means" as pure rationalization by people that want to stay somewhat in denial about taking moral shortcuts - they want to have their cake and eat it too.
-----------------

Consequentialism is usually distinguished from deontological ethics (or deontology), in that deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct. Ibid

Deontological ethics, as described above, comes much closer to a description of Rand's ethics. Her code of ethics is universal and judged by the actions taken.
----------------

It is also distinguished from virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the act (or omission) itself... ibid.

Needless to say Rand judges the character of an individual and focuses on virtues. I'm don't see a conflict between deontological ethics and virtue ethics.
-----------------

... pragmatic ethics which treats morality like science: advancing socially over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral criterion is subject to revision. ibid.

Not compatible with Objectivist Ethics which derive from the nature of man, and the only revision needed would arise from a better understanding of man's nature. Discussing social advances over lifetimes sounds more like evolutionary ethics, and how would one KNOW what is an advance and what is a decline without a fixed, universal ethical standard to compare to?
----------------

Ethical egoism can be understood as a consequentialist theory according to which the consequences for the individual agent are taken to matter more than any other result. ibid.

There is a problem here in that there is no universallity - no ethics, really. Rand might say that the consequences in the individual's life are the purpose (to live a full life, a rich life, to be happy), but that the standards for judging the rightness or wrongness of an action, and the standard for judging the hierarchy of a value system must come from human nature (and then from one's preferences since not all values rise to the level of being universal - like chocolate versus vanilla ice cream).
----------------

That's as far as I've gone with this... but Rand saw no conflict between rational self-interested behavior and living in society where certain universal value and principles applied. And her focus was always on the purpose - what is the purpose of an ethical system? What is the purpose of having a government? What is the purpose for a code of values?

Post 25

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 4:50am

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the reply.

Actually, yes, when I got into Peikoff, it became fairly clear that his project was to use Rand to develop his own philosophy.

Now that's altogather fair: my guy, Deleuze, became rather famous for developing 'ologies of various writers---Proust, Hume, Nietzsche, Spinoza, et al to the extent that the uninitiated eader was always conflating writer with writee...(was 'recherches really about the pursuit of love?...). In other words, if you knew little about Proust, start with de Botton!

My successful turn to Machan indicates a strong nattative presence; he's trying to tell the reader what Rand was really like. For example, she (like Deleuze!) was able to focus clearly on the central problem: the 'fog of the north' must go!

Yet even beyond Machan, it's obvious that Rand's dislike for Kant was rather visceral, hence a spillover into ethics. To the extent that the consequence of what Kant wrote produced evil, he became evil. Or to use the Wiki-def, because the end was evil, all means that produced said end were evil, too.

The philo dept here uses Oxford philo dictonary (The Ox) as standard reference, right or wrong. Within, ethics are threefold: consequental (includes utilitarian), deon (duty) and virtue (includes agency).

>>>I don't see a conflict between deontological ethics and virtue ethics.<<<

I don't think that Machan sees one, either. Moreover, I believe that a strong point of Randian ethics is the suggestion that the Standard Threefold Model is simply wrong. Perhaps somewhere in The Journal somehas developed this idea...

Again, Parfit surely has, which is my rather ad hoc contribution to Machan's growing portfolo of instances of Rand's 'inside the box' contributions.

Yet for the sake of argument, deos relates to what one feels is a duty, ostensibly standing in conflict with rightness based upon personal goodness. The classic example of this has always been 'Antigone' which, when performed today, regrettably weighs in on the side of virtue. Yet the Greeks always asked, what exists of virtue outside of society? Aren't virtues nothing but internalized rules (thanks, mom!)?

Lastly, I'm not sure what 'qua' adds to the discussion, as in 'man qua man.' The phrase presupposes what 'as' represents, or rather begs the question. Kindly explain, please

Eva

Post 26

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 7:35am

Dean:

I seem to have missed a mess. I hope I didn't contribute to it.

I noticed on some post that it was claimed Eva insulted Steve, Machan, and me.   Speaking only for me, I wasn't aware of any such insult; I took Eva as being spirited.
I know I didn't complain to you. I doubt if Steve did, based on his posts.   And whether Machan did, only you/admin and he knows.

But I interpret your response differently.   I am a guest here, for as long as I am welcome.   It is not up to me to say who is and is not welcome here, for whatever reason. It is up to the owners/maintainers of this site to decide that, 100%.   I don''t recognize any implicit right of mine to post here; I am a guest.   As a guest, I am glad you reinstated Eva here as another guest.   Tone in this medium is next to impossible to gauge, and I attribute most of these issues to exactly that difficulty.

What Eva is or isn't, or for that matter, what I am or not, really is hardly an issue with anyone except Eva or me. (20 yr old college student? 57 yr old gray haired fart pretending to be 20 yr old college student on in-ter-net? I am not telling you which one I really am, but you are free to guess.) In this medium, we declare who we are and are not with our thoughts expressed as words. I've rambled here since 2007 and I've never claimed to be a card carrying Objectivist, but that isn't something specific to the -ism of Objectivism; I've never claimed to be any -ist. There are no cards I carry in my wallet, other than a few credit cards.   What I am is an admirer of Rand's works, which I resonated with and which influenced me as a young man and today, without worshipping her. (My take on Rand includes the idea, 'blindly worship no other, including Rand.')   I think Rand's ideas stand up well under criticism, and deconstruction, when applied, just looks like rote instruction from the deconstruction/reconstruction mills to me. (Her, not so much these days; decomposing corpses--not to be confused with deconstructed author/philosophers-- offer lousy immediate argument.).

I'm grateful to Rand and her works. They saved my life, by forever giving it back to me at a young age.   But in order to truly do that, it was never hers.

My eyes glaze over with all the intrigues...the Barbara Branden jilted wife getting healthy nonsense, the Peikoff friction, the thorny bristling frictions, who is the true heir...Jesus. ( No, wait a minute, I don't mean that Jesus was the true heir, I meant that as the usual expletive.) It's just that, all those intrigues seem like "The Foot Fungus of Ayn Rand." Here, I'll give it initials, someone can write another book I'll never read: (TFFOAR, not to be confused with TPAR).

Look at this niche called Objectivism on the web and all the splintering.   RoR...SOLOPassion...ObjectivistLiving... as best as I can tell, card carrying Objectivists are made mostly of fissile material. But that -is- inherent in a philosophy that celebrates/defends individualism in a tribe overwhelmed with its atavistic herd mentality gene pool.    Look even at the history of folks who used to post here.    There seems to be critical mass above which folks of a certain bent will erupt into an explosion.    Unity for unity's sake is not our thing.

I've often wondered about that.   Rand's critics readily paint her as "I vs We/Us."    And yet, her own romantic characters were not isolated men on deserted islands. I don't know if anyone here has actually ever been in a steel plant, but I guarantee you, it isn't one guy on asbestos roller skates-- even if, at one point, 330,000 working Americans owed their jobs to the ideas and drive of a very small few.   She did clearly exalt individualism, but my re-interpretation of her is that her exaltation of individualism is in no way contradicted by adding the concept free association to that individualism.   Her characters did choose their socius, freely -- but, they chose socius.

To me, free association -includes- the subset 'with nobody' but does not limit itself to that.    Rands critics have largely been successful of painting Rands admirers as being classically 'selfish' and restricted to 'association with nobody' -- and have done so primarily in the service of paradigms dependent on forced association.   That, to me, is their Achilles Heel, and is where those competing ideas of Collectivism via forced association must be attacked.   What ethical person in their right mind embraces the ethics of a gang rape?

So why do so many of Rand's followers lead with their chin on this issue?

Still, free association is free association, and it takes at least two to freely associate.

regards,
Fred

Post 27

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 9:12am

Fred:

I don't know if anyone here has actually ever been in a steel plant, ...

Well, I actually have. I worked for a year at the Steel Co. of Canada as a millwright helper when I was 20 years old so that I could earn enough to return to my engineering studies at the University of British Columbia where I eventually got my Masters in structural engineering.. It was in 1953-1954, so that pretty much pinpoints my age. I was paid $1.68 an hour and a 5 cent shift bonus. In those days you could live on $1200 per year, including room, board, books, tuition ... everything.

Sam

Post 28

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 9:16am

Hi Fred,

I judge your replies to be spirited, too. which is what I enjoy.

Otherweise...

>>as best as I can tell, card carrying Objectivists are made mostly of fissile material. But that -is- inherent in a philosophy that celebrates/defends individualism in a tribe overwhelmed with its atavistic herd mentality gene pool. <<<

Cute.

Eva

Post 29

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 9:22am

Eva,

I believe Peikoff sees himself as continuing along Rand's path - adding to Objectivism. And mostly I agree that's what he's doing, but I just don't like the way he words some things - even when I agree with what he's trying to say. That is just a minor nit I'm picking and I only mentioned it to caution you that Rands words will be the best to chew on when considering any key component of her philosophy.
---------------

To the extent that the consequence of what Kant wrote produced evil, he became evil. Or to use the Wiki-def, because the end was evil, all means that produced said end were evil, too.

If an act must, of its nature, produce evil then it has to be seen as evil but that doesn't mean that an evil act, stealing money from an innocent person, for example, would become NOT evil because the money was given to orphanages to feed starving children. Have you ever seen an instance of claiming that "the end justifies the means" not being a way to white-wash what would otherwise stand on its own as wrong? (Made up examples and counterfactuals don't count here, because they are part of the attempt to create a loop hole.)
----------------

Within, ethics are threefold: consequental (includes utilitarian), deon (duty) and virtue (includes agency).
>>>I don't see a conflict between deontological ethics and virtue ethics.<<<

Later in your post you said, "Aren't virtues nothing but internalized rules...?" Rand was very opposed to duty that came from the outside: Duty to God, Duty to your fellow man, Duty to the Fatherland, etc. Isn't a sacrifice of something of great value to you to the nation, for example, done out of duty, almost like a case of "the end (good of the nation) justifies the means (your loss)? If a man were to voluntarily accept duty to the nation as a virtue, and then he practices it, making a sacrifice where he steals from some group to give to his country, wouldn't his sacrifice (say he knew he'd be caught and punished) be consequential, deontological and virtue-based? That way of categorizing is a confusing muddle to me.

But, like your mother said, virtues are internalized rules and I might, while serving my self-interest, make a rule for myself (no more desert till I lose 5 pounds). When I see those around me eating ice cream, it will clearly feel like a rule, like a bleak and unfriendly duty, to not join them. It will be virtue.

I'd say that deciding between a duty to ones best interests versus duty to something or someone else isn't represented in those three, but should be. (Rand might have rejected using the word "duty" in any way other than to an outside organization or person). And Rand was a strong proponent of agency.

To my mind, those three divisions are interesting but muddled. They don't seem to deal with the essence of the issue. Rand wasn't someone who would come along and categorize all things in an area the way a collector would. She was always staying focused on the essence or purpose of a thread that she could trace back to the more fundamental abstractions and alway with a strong sense of purpose - not an academic or dispassionate approach.
----------

Rand would say, "man qua man" as a way of emphasing that the objective understanding of man's nature as the standard being used. Life that is proper to Steve Wolfer is going to include many of his preferences to which he should be true - things unique to him as an individual - but none should contradict what is proper for all of those that are human beings (e.g., choosing reasoning over emotionalism as the tool of cognition or choosing to avoid things that would harm his health). Without reference to human nature in this fashion, it wouldn't be possible to make an ethical code that would be universal, objective and have specific content.

I think that this is a complexity that some Objectivists don't get - this philosophy of and for the individual but pulled from human nature, and used to craft the rules proper to a society.

Here is an example of Rand in this area: "Man’s life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there’s only one price that pays for man’s survival: reason." [emphasis mine]
----------------

And another example:

The Objectivist ethics holds man’s life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man.

The difference between “standard” and “purpose” in this context is as follows: a “standard” is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man’s choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. 'That which is required for the survival of man qua man' is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose—the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being—belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own.

Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life. [emphasis mine]

Post 30

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 9:25am

Fred,

One thing I like to point out about textual communication is that it strips out emotion on both ends. In face to face communication, you can see the other person's face and hear thier tone of voice. Trust is built much faster face to face, verses with text we tend to assume the worst possible interpretation of the other's words.

For example, it would be a foolish to try to make up with or seduce a new intimate partner over text... somehow everything you type backfires getting interpreted in ways you could never imagine. Something is bothering the person that doesn't get resolved in the text messages that would quickly be resolved face to face.

So anyways, to me this whole ordeal is water under the bridge... My personality for example, I know I can say whatever I'm thinking, sometimes quite premature, sloppy even. Its not professional. I drive too fast on the rocky road, and get a little banged up... but I think we still make it to our destination.

Post 31

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 10:23am

Steve,

Yes, a hard-line consequentialist would say that Robin Hood was acting ethically.

OTH, a deontologist would say, 'staling any particular is wrong for whatever purpose, because we have a rule that says....and you're duty=bound to follow that rule.

Then the virtue- person would say, 'Standards of goodness transcend either duty or utility', thereby kicking the can down the road a little further.

>>>you said, "Aren't virtues nothing but internalized rules...?" <<<

Uhhh... I wrote that mom, second generation Greek, said that this particular trope still exists as an article of discussion. It's another way of saying that the dein/virtue distinction rings a bit hollow.

She further went on to remark that, re Parfit, 'It's about time that the Anglos finally figured out what our ancestral liaka knew 2000 years ago'.

Re 'qua': okay, she's using an attractive expression to say that we must consider humans as having a specific nature: anyer versus anthropon, so to speak. I agree. But at the same time, the qua must be explqained as to what, exactly she thinks that this specificity of all humans might be.

Or rather, should be? Here, I agree. A life of reason and respect for others. A life well-lived as opposed to simply living well (that's my Dworkinism for the day!).

'Is' might be different., which is what interests me as a psychologist wannabe. For me, it's a question of process: how do you go from what's obviously an adaptive heard mentality (anthropon) to that of a thinking individual (anyer)? What are the processes and conditions that favor individualism?

Eva

Post 32

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 11:07am

Eva,

For me, it's a question of process: how do you go from what's obviously an adaptive heard mentality (anthropon) to that of a thinking individual (anyer)? What are the processes and conditions that favor individualism?

One can argue that its best to think for oneself rather than allow others to think for you. To come to your own conclusions rather than allow others to dictate them to you. But many or even most people don't have the time or maybe even intellectual capacity to come to their own conclusions without in some way taking other's messages as true without self-verification. Such I think will always exist, to some extent. There will always be some people who accept ideas without self-verification. This is particularly true in a world where people have a variety of aptitudes and ambitions, where they live in different places and hence have access to different information, and specialize in different areas of study and work.

So in the process of trying to help others identify and reject invalid ideas for themselves, lots of times there is no way to convince them. So some unverified invalid ideas are accepted by many last for a long time... it matters in practical how devestating the idea is to the population who accepts it, where they learn the hard way, thier population dwindles, and populations who don't accept it succeed and flourish.

Take global warming for example. Is it caused by man? Would warming actually be a bad thing? Whats worse, reducing the burning of fossil fuels or having more man-caused global warming? If global warming does get bad, will we in the future be able to figure out how to fix it? Which scientists who's life work revolves around these questions should I beleive? Because I don't have the time to puzzle out these answers myself.

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 1/22, 11:08am)

Post 33

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 11:51am

Eva,

But at the same time, the qua must be explqained as to what, exactly she thinks that this specificity of all humans might be. Or rather, should be?

Yes, it must be explained. And it is one of my favorite part of Objectivism - the way she knits together the metaphysics of human nature (identifying those traits that will act as the foundation for the next layer of understanding), then the epistemology from the viewpoint of what is required for the purpose at hand, to showing the way they seamlessly fit --- all by logic. I'm certainly not doing justice to an explanation of her approach. Sorry.
--------------

Psychology is my favorite field, but not in the area of research - I was a clinician and motivational psychology is where my fascination lies.

---------------

how do you go from what's obviously an adaptive heard mentality (anthropon) to that of a thinking individual (anyer)?

The individual came first, and the herd was an adaptation. I look at it that way, because for each organism that possesses consciousness of some sort, that is their primary means of survival. We, and all other conscious beings, must grasp reality and interpret it in ways that lead to acts that will further our survival. There are ameoba that can sense (are conscious of) nearby particles that might be food. The fact that we (humans) evolved from other primates who evolved from even earlier organisms who were already herd-adapted doesn't negate the relationship between the individual and the herd, where the individual is the primary unit and who uses the herd to further his well-being.

What evolves over time - that better answers your question - is that we learn, more and more, how to be individuals within a herd, giving up fewer and fewer options to the herd.

Options are the key. The 'higher' on the evolutionary scale we are in functionality/power - the greater the options we have to exercise. The more mature (versus juvenile) we are as individuals - the greater the number of options we have to exercise. The fewer government restrictions on an economy or people - the greater the number of options that can be exercised. The higher the level of self-esteem (versus acting out of defensiveness or compulsion) - the greater the options to be chosen from. This gradient of options is the path that evolution follows, that growth follows, that liberty follows, and that personal fullfilment follows.

Complexity suits purpose when it generates more options. When complexity increases without commesurate increases in options, when it begins to drive change in the wrong direction, it adds cost but not benefit, and there will be a kind of pressure for the components to reorganize so as to once again make complexity the handmaiden to options. Just another kind of movement towards more options, but with a larger bump - a revolution rather than the more gradual step-by-step process.

I believe this is the dance of evolution (genetic, memetic, whatever) - because it is out of increasing options that survival of the pattern of the phenotypes can find ever better fits to existing niches.

The individual has more options than some imaginary entity that only can live as a cell within a larger organism. But the individual may gain still more options if the net-net benefits of being in a herd out-weigh going it alone. And that is the dance. Make the purpose of herd-living be in the interest of the fullest life for each individual. (Note: this can't really be understood, completely, without doing so from the purpose of the individual - in other words, I'm rejecting the viewpoint of the individual being used to suit the purposes of the herd.)

Post 34

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 2:20pm

Sam:

We've had similar experiences. My summer jobs, when I was going to college, were in a steel fab plant, working for several summers as a laborer-- galvenize shop, prepping bridge girders, grinding bridge rockers, inspecting transmission tower components, and later in the office, translating blue prints into shop instructions for fabricating those tower components. After graduation, a little later in my career, as a consultant, I got to experience the paneled offices of the VPs of R&D at Beth Steel(and was more than a little shocked by what I found there), and later, as an outside contractor at Beth Steel's Bethlehem and Burns Harbor plants, as well as the Coke Works in Hellertown(working on their CEMS in the 90s.)

The size and scale of those enterprises never struck me as anything like a 'one man' show-- even if, at its base, it was all mostly dependent on the ideas and visions of a surprisingly small few.

I'm sure the locker rooms were quite an education as well.

regards,

Fred

Post 35

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 3:25pm

Steve,

I agree with you that....

>>>What evolves over time - that better answers your question - is that we learn, more and more, how to be individuals within a herd, giving up fewer and fewer options to the herd.<<<

Yet, imho, but it's not just learing, as such. Rather, my belief, following Deleuze --and yes! --Kant Crit#3, is that the sense of personal freedom is innate.

For the sake of argument, this may approximate Rand's view of the 'primacy of the individual', at least in his or her own eyes!

Surely, however, one cannot extend the viability of the individual back to any time beyond the rather immediate present. Industrialization has created the circumstances for individual survival. Moreso--industrialization demands a strong personal identity in order to survive.

Whereas once jobs were what you did within the community, now you have to find one! Even when sissy and I got summer jobs for extra cash, the whole experience was completely degrading. Then, once in, you have to conform to the heard or be gone. So it's a very delicate double flux--and I'm just experiencing it as a summer triviality! So what's it like in the real world!?

So here, I'm being somewhat ruthlessly Humean; which side of the fork are we on, today? My solution is to say that we need to develop our innate individualism in the right way, by emphasizing the very positive virtues of which Rand speaks.

In other words, somewhat askew of Rand, but certainally not a real dissent, the qua-ness of which Rand speaks is an admirable goal, or a potential.. It's not real, lived experience as it exists today. For someone who's soon to be a psychologist, this makes all the difference in the world.

Eva

(Edited by Matthews on 1/22, 3:28pm)

Post 36

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 4:58pm

Eva,

I don't follow you when you say, "...the sense of personal freedom is innate." I have a "sense" of personal freedom that varies with my circumstances. It is like a background feeling. If my bank account is flush it is likely to be a stronger sense of personal freedom, as compared to seeing far more bills coming in than income would make me feel less free. In a different context, when I'm out doing a long distance sail, my sense of personal freedom is very high. When I get myself obligated to a number of social or business commitments, I might start feeling tied down. I'm not sure how this would be "innate."
------------------------

Surely, however, one cannot extend the viability of the individual back to any time beyond the rather immediate present.

The interaction between the interests of the individual and the herd go back far beyond our industrial age. I'll certainly grant you that the requirements and the elements change with the technological/cultural/economic context, but there is still the question to be asked about what belongs to the individual and what belongs to the herd. We see dogs, cattle, meer cats, chimps, and every animal that has a social context observes boundaries between individual and herd.
-------------------------

...we need to develop our innate individualism in the right way, by emphasizing the very positive virtues of which Rand speaks.

I'm not sure what the "innate" does in your statement. But I clearly agree that developing character strengths, and self-esteem are important... and more so the higher the technological stage of civilization with its more fluid, fast-paced economies, and its much higher levels of specialization. And because it is much more likely to call for "mind" work more than "muscle" work and that requires higher levels self-esteem.
--------------------------

... the qua-ness of which Rand speaks is an admirable goal, or a potential.. It's not real, lived experience as it exists today. For someone who's soon to be a psychologist, this makes all the difference in the world.

You need to elaborate on that some because I'm not following you. That man's nature and the nature of the world is what it is, we should use reason direct our lives where we have choices.

That is:

A.) Required, to some degree,

B.) An admirable goal, in that it can be pursued and it's practice improved,

C.) Real - it is a statement of our nature,

D.) Lived experience, in that as a clinician some of the people I saw needed more reason, and less emotionalism, or denial.

Are we talking past each other on some aspect of "qua-ness"?

Post 37

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 5:22pm

FederalReserve/FDIC vs private banking

So while looking over the code, I noticed that the "Deleted" posts were just flagged as so. The actual posted messages were still there. So I was able to restore the "Deleted" posts...

Ludwig von Mises

Post 38

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 6:22pm

Fred:

I guess we're getting off topic but it seems to be varying anyway.

I wasn't in the dramatic area of the blast furnaces a la Rearden but was in the cold reduction line where the steel billets were rolled into large coils. We maintained the huge rolling mills that successively reduced the thickness of the plate. Then they were annealed to make the steel more malleable.

Most of the millwrights were from Eastern Europe and were hard working and appreciative of their new circumstances. It wasn't a particularly happy period for me, being 3,000 miles from home and not knowing anyone, but I got my act together and returned to study engineering. Other summer jobs were in the rain forests of B.C. timber cruising in a province-wide forest inventory. Again, there were many highly trained silviculture specialists from Jugoslavia, for instance, taking much more lowly positions such as party chiefs but they did what they had to do.

Sam

Dean: Fixed spellcheck bug

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 1/23, 12:29pm)

Post 39

Thursday, January 23, 2014 - 8:29am