| | SW: I've never liked the epistemological or psychological premises behind the statement that people tend to do things first and then explain them later. People who make that statement, you will notice, rarely if ever mention any reasoning from the facts of a current context relative to a set of beliefs and then making a choice. And to further imply that our acts vary according to is watching the actor is a implication that we are all social meta-physicians.
To take the last point first, when I wrote Why they act depends on who "they" are and who is observing the action I only meant that different observers will interpret the actions differently. Also "they" was in quotes because different people act for different reasons. As you note, some of us are motivated by ideas. Just for example, I review numismatic books. Two of the nicest people in the hobby, John and Nancy Wilson, just placed three identical reviews of a book on paper money by a friend of theirs. I know that to be self-plagiarism. I write entirely different reviews for each placement. I learned the idea of "self-plagiarism" and understood its moral meaning. Thus, I avoid it. Someone else might also place different reviews of the same book in different venues simply for artistic reasons, unaware of the moral implications. That would be a different motive for the same act. Different people act for different reasons.
Myself, I place a lot of store in projection. That means that I recognize that I do it. But independent of that, we know ourselves best (if at all). Locke and Hume and you and I just guess what is in other people's heads. I learned about "the authoritarian personality" in a psychology class so long ago, that the paradigmatic defintion has changed. But the concept is constant. Working in security among police, army, and other guardians, I see this in operation: they have no idea what distant others think; they only see their own values reflected around them in other people like themselves. To them, "there are good people, and then there are perps." You might agree with the sentiment, but, I assure you that your definition of "good people" will be different. For instance, in the post about Google and Anti-Trust, the authoritarian response is that they should have known and obeyed the law like everyone else and been good citizens not perpetrators.
To bring this around to Atlas Shrugged, I agree with you that dramatic fiction can convey meaning on many levels. I only point out that people with whom this will resonate are a limited class. We believe that we are a highly effective class. Perhaps so. It remains to be demonstrated. Generally, the theaters will be packed with fans, as for Star Trek.
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/10, 5:57pm)
|
|
