| | Jay writes,
I know I am guilty of taking a more pragmatic approach toward achieving Objectivist goals.
This statement essentially states the error that underlies the conflict between Jay and others in the foregoing exchanges, which is the failure to constrain a chosen value to logical consistency with the strategy for attaining it.
Every entity has a specific identity and acts in a manner which is consistent with it. When a value is chosen, it may thus be attained only through a series of entity interactions which are causally consistent with its identity. This constrains the pursuit of any value to a strategy which is logically consistent with it, and simultaneously invalidates all others. This is the metaphysical basis of goal directed action.
Classes of entities sharing a similar essential attribute will act in a manner which is consistent with that attribute, ie. all round thing roll, etc. This constrains the pursuit of this class to a class of entity interactions which are causally consistent with the essential attribute, ie. rounding a surface creates an entity which can roll, etc. This is the metaphysical basis of principled action.
Since these results are derived directly from the notions of identity and causation they apply at the metaphysical level, and thus to all of reality, and thus there can be no exceptions to them.
Now, this completely invalidates the strategy of pragmatism, or acting "practically" since what is meant by this is that the strategies for attaining values do not need to be logically reconciled with the values intended for attainment, and it is the failure to see this as false that leads to the nonsense of defending freedom with conscription, property rights with taxation, etc.
Now Jay also writes,
The point is that I can see putting in a year of military service as being a price tag for living under the protection of the government. The matter still, however should remain a decision of the individual man or woman.
It is not fully clear from this that Jay crosses the value of freedom with the strategy of slavery, since one should pay for the services one receives, government services being no exception as long as those services are morally valid and voluntarily received, but in the context of an advocation of pragmatism it certainly invites this interpretation.
But, Jay writes also
The "my way or the highway" approach just doesn't work - particularly when one is in the minority . . . we not only fail to make progress, but we can easily lose ground to more obnoxious philosophical ideas . . .
Here the line is clearly crossed. That the advocates of reason are in the minority is merely a circumstance of history, and does not in any way affect the validity of rational philosophy, and thus constitutes no basis for its modification. Further, it is an horrendous mistake to think that such modifications are necessary to make it more palatable to the powers that be, since this necessarily requires the surrender of what is true and right to what is false and wrong and thus only furthers the cause of evil, and furthermore since there is no rational basis for doing so, corrupts the rationality, and in turn the moral character, of anyone who does so. If you want to lose ground against "obnoxious" (the correct word here is evil) philosophies then try surrendering ground to them, and see how much faster it advances than before.
It may seem daunting to have to stand alone, or with a small group, against the rest of the human race, and defend rational philosophy but if we don't do it there will be no one, and all hope will be lost. We are fated to this by history and there is nothing anyone can do about it so this is the way it will be.
(Edited by Robert E. Milenberg on 9/15, 1:16pm)
|
|
