RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 4:54pm

Joshua,

So, you're ardently awaiting Sarah's response, eh? Well, here it is. Although I don't know how vehement it is. I do hope I haven't gone and earned myself a reputation as a vehement disagreer.

Peaceful and coherent living is arguably not rooted in staking claim to others' lives. What I think you are arguing for is interdependence, i.e. person A makes bread which feeds person B while he builds machines that person A uses to make bread, etc. This is different from person A having a claim on person B's life, or vice versa. A claim on a life is for that life to live for the claimer.

If person A had a claim on person B's life, A would be able to demand that B provide him with machinery regardless of how much bread A provides B. Similarly, if B had a claim on A, B would be able to demand that A give him bread regardless of machinery given to A, or lack thereof.

What you are saying is that A has a claim on B while B also has a claim on A. In effect, B is living for A and A is living for B. A communist wet dream. In reality, however, this is a superfluous arrangement and is wide open for abuse, as 20th century Communism has shown. For brevity sake I'll leave off any arguments regarding the biological nature of man and the (in)ability to sustain the above mutual-claim relationship. If A lived for A, then the bread-machinery interdependence cycle is not only maintained, but improved. It is in A's interest to make sure that B stays satisfied with his bread supply, otherwise he doesn't get his machines to support livelihood. It is in B's interest to make sure A gets quality machinery, otherwise he doesn't get his bread.

Granted, in this simplified example, and ignoring any human nature factors, there is likely little practical difference between the communist arrangement and the capitalist arrangement. There is a vast difference when it comes to the ethics of the respective systems, and of course in reality human nature is a factor.

Regarding the use of reason in trade: William said it well with "As long as you do not sacrifice yourself in any way, and you do not ask the other person to do so either."

"Syllogism or die" was simply an exaggeration of what you seemed to be positing. By saying that it is "pointless" to try to persuade a person if they don't use reason you seem to be saying that if you can't use formal logic to get your point across, it's hopeless. A reasonable choice needn't be based solely on logic. People aren't Vulcans you know.

As far as preventing abuse of the appeal to emotion, that's left up to the morality of the appealer and punished by the appealee ceasing trade with the appealer.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 7/19, 5:16pm)

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 1:27pm

William, off the cuff, I have just answered a question similar to yours in an email to a non-Objectivist friend. Does it help/hurt your understanding any? ...

[Non-Obectivist friend],

The position of the philosophy (identifiable, only if you had read that short book on it) regarding others is called non-initiation of force. Others are there for us to trade with -- IF THEY AGREE TO TRADE. Folks who won't trade die (in advanced communities where someone grows your food, another builds your house, another makes your car, etc -- and you must trade with all of them or suffer).

The situation of the terrorist (Osama) who is planning a second genocide after successfully carrying out the first (911), brings up a situation where willful trade is out of the question. Radical Muslims don't care for the material prosperity that comes from free trade with others. Instead, they must be exterminated -- so that the rest of us can live free, making beautiful lives and friendships, and so on. It's not about sheer numbers (ie. more of us want freedom, so that makes it right), it's about individual-based values. All values are.

IN THE COURSE of eliminating those who seek your demise, there may be casualties (deaths of innocents). Everyone else's life is considered relative to your own. Life is the precondition for value -- your own life is where your own values can spring from (and from nowhere else; e.g. Biblical Commandments, Nature's beauty -- tarnished by mankind, animals, plants, outerspace). There is no such thing as something valuable that is not valuable in relation to an individual life.

In the general course of things, no human sacrifice ought ever be made. Once a subhuman savage gains enough ground to threaten free society -- then retaliation (which can hurt innocents, as well as the guilty) is required. This retaliation is not chosen, it is required. It's not as if there is a "choice" to ignore genocidal threats (a "choice" to not sacrifice innocents). The choice was already made by the savage. In this manner, the savage forces rational men toward one aim -- his own destruction.

Ed

Ed

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 5:17pm

Sarah,

Because of you I will give objectivism a fair shake.. On a serious note, I do understand your point and I am in no way promoting communismJ. I guess what I intended to say is that the claim we have on each other stems from the choices we make. We are responsible to each other to not infringe upon our neighbor�s rights. This is how society advances. I do not think that means we are living �for� each other.
It is hard for me to get past Howard Roark in the Fountain Head. When I think of objectivism, I think of Roark. Am I correct in thinking that or did Rand not intend for us to see Roark as the ideal man? He seemed so unhappy. He did live for himself. In her book, he came out on top. I am not so sure that would happen in real life though. Maybe that is why I am having a hard time understanding objectivism. But anyway, thanks for your response. Hope to read more. Jbrad

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 6:13pm

Josh,

One thing I can't do is give you an understanding of Objectivism. I haven't read Fountainhead so I can't comment on it, but as I understand it Rand did create her heros to embody her ideals.

If you're curious about Objectivism stick around and read whatever you can find. Ask honest questions and you'll get honest replies; subterfuge will get you nowhere. Take some time to think about it.

One thing I got from Objectivism, and elsewhere, is that your life and happiness are your responsibilities. What makes Roark happy isn't necessarily what will make you happy. No one knows what makes you happy better than you. It is irrelevant if you think Roark was unhappy because his happiness is independent of your opinions*. As long as you don't interfere with others' pursuits of happiness you have the right, and the personal responsibility, to pursue your own happiness.

Sarah

*I comment on this part of Fountainhead only because I've generalized what I've read in the heros of Atlas Shrugged.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 6:41pm

"In her book, he came out on top. I am not so sure that would happen in real life though. Maybe that is why I am having a hard time understanding objectivism."

Well, the book is fiction. Even though in the real world I'm afraid Roark would have been spending most of his life in prison, I liked the Fountainhead for the ideas and ideals it promoted.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 8:42pm

Sarah, The Fountainhead is such a fantastic book - you simply have to read it!

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 8:46pm

Fantastic book, try not to cringe too much when you reach the quarry scene though. I understand it from a literary standpoint but there's still something that kind of makes me go ick about it.

Just a thought.

---

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 4:47am

Sam,-
you think I've had more than one portrait on this site. I haven't and it hasn't been altered.

I don't believe you. When you wrote "I don't think that you really meant what you said" it seemed to me you were making a clever play on what I'd written and the portrait's smile widened and the eyes twinkled. I wont hear otherwise.

Bardel,-
I'm not exactly sure which case is proper so I'll use an upper case just to make you happy ok? lol

We're going to get along just great.

Then why do you continue to call her a monarch? Why not find a more appropriate title?

Because of what I'm telling you- 'saying' is the servant of 'meaning', not the other way around.

The point is that these are known to have two or more definitions depending on the context in which they're used.

Yeah. So the only thing in this mixed up muddled up shook up world you can hold fast to in 'meaning'. Everything else, grammar & definition, slips away. Am I right?

Where would we be if people said what they meant? That would be a huge impediment to communication in this language.
Do you really think it wouldn't be easier to understand people if they said what they meant? Do you think it's easier to have to look into what people are saying, take into account the context of the conversation, and then try to interpret what they really "meant"? It just seems so much more complicated that way.

Yes, it would be easier if we meant what we said but it would be robotic and deprived of the great richness that English has to offer, much like most computer programmers you'll meet. It's about functionality, it's not about ease.

I don't think this is a counter-example to my logic, I think that this is an instance where the author of the statement didn't make it explicit what he "meant" to say. The author is assuming that it is night, or raining, or any other setting that requires headlights.

Not at all. Nothing is stated about the need for headlights, only that there is a substitute should the need arise. If you're lead to believe in such a necessity it shows that your interpretation apparatus is broader than a concern merely for what is said.
What I'm trying to point out about the topic of this discussion, is that the phrase is misleading to anyone trying to learn about Objectivism
Well then we're cool.
I can see how it may be misleading.
But I don't agree that it must be a mistake.