About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 6:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In my quest to boil down my beliefs and expose the core, I wanted to know if this fits in with the objectivist credo. Thanks. Jbrad

 

 

Piety and Selfishness

 

In these few remarks I have talked of the causes of human infirmity and inconstancy, and why men do not abide the precepts of reason. It now remains for me to point out what course is marked out for us by reason, which of the emotions are in harmony with the rules of human reason, and which of the are contrary thereto.

 

As reason makes no demands contrary to nature, it demands that every man should love himself, should seek that which is useful to him-I mean; that which is really useful to him: he should desire everything which really brings man to greater perfection-and should, each for himself, endeavor as far as he can to preserve his own being. This is as necessarily true as that a whole is greater than its part.

 

Again, as virtue is nothing else but action in accordance with the laws of one’s own nature, and as no one endeavors to preserve his own being except in accordance with the laws own nature, it follows, first, that the foundation of virtue is the endeavor  to preserve one’s own being, and that happiness consists in man’s power of preserving his own being; secondly, that virtue is to be desired for its own sake, and that there is nothing more excellent or more useful to us, for the sake of which we should desire it; thirdly and lastly, that suicides are weak-minded, and are overcome by external causes repugnant to their nature.

 

Further, it follows that we can never arrive at doing without all external things for the preservation of our being or living, so as to have no relations with things which are outside ourselves. Again, if we consider our mind, we see that our intellect would be more imperfect if mind were alone, and could understand nothing besides itself. There are, then, many things outside ourselves which are useful to us, and are, therefore, to be desired.

 

Of such none can be discerned more excellent than those which are in entire agreement with our nature. For if, for example, two individuals of entirely the same nature are united, they form a combination twice as powerful as either of them singly.

 

Therefore, to man there is nothing more useful than man- nothing, I repeat, more excellent for preserving their being can be wished for by men than that all should so in all points agree that the minds and bodies of all should form, as it were, one single mind and one single body, and that all should, with one consent, as far as they are able, endeavor to preserve their own being, and all with one consent seek what is useful to them all. Hence, men who are governed by reason—that is, who seek what is useful to them in accordance with reason—desire for themselves nothing which they do not desire for the rest of mankind, and, consequently, are just, faithful, and honorable in their conduct.

 
Such are the dictates of reason, which I purposed thus briefly to indicate, before beginning to prove them in greater detail. I have taken this course in order, if possible, to gain the attention of those who believe that the principle that every man is bound to seek what is useful for himself is the foundation of impiety, rather than of piety and virtue. 
"The Ethics"-Spinoza


Post 1

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 8:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Given that Benedict de Spinoza rejected the concept of free will and believed that knowledge of $DEITY was the highest good, I personally do not think that his ideas are compatible with Rand's. He also borrows from the Stoics their reason vs. passion dichotomy.

Click here for a general summary of Spinoza's Ethics

Post 2

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 7:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The fact that Spinoza said some things Objectivists wouldn't accept doesn't tell us what they'd think of this particular passage.  To take it point by point:

As reason makes no demands contrary to nature, it demands that every man should love himself, should seek that which is useful to him-I mean; that which is really useful to him: he should desire everything which really brings man to greater perfection-and should, each for himself, endeavor as far as he can to preserve his own being. This is as necessarily true as that a whole is greater than its part.
Yes, for the most part.  I wonder if love is what people feel toward themselves.  Rand and Peikoff had objections to the standard necessary/contingent distinction, which he sets out in The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

[V]irtue is nothing else but action in accordance with the laws of one’s own nature
I think Objectivists would classify virtue as a character trait or a disposition rather than an action; they'd probably agree that a disposition to act this way is a virtue.

[N]o one endeavors to preserve his own being except in accordance with the laws own [of?] nature
Not always.  People can endeavor in the wrong way.  If you take this to mean if you'e endeavored successfully, then you've acted in accordance with the laws of nature, then yes.  This phrase "laws of nature" is a dangerous one, as it suggests that ethics is a set of unconditional commands and obligations; in that case, no.

[T]he foundation of virtue is the endeavor  to preserve one’s own being
In that life is what gives rise to the notion of virtue and any particular virtue traces back to this, yes.

[H]appiness consists in man’s power of preserving his own being
No.  Happiness is an emotion and not a proof that one is doing the right thing.  Rand's distinction between happiness as a standard (i.e. hedonism) and as a goal in The Objectivist Ethics comes to mind here.

[V]irtue is to be desired for its own sake, and that there is nothing more excellent or more useful to us, for the sake of which we should desire it
No.  Objectivists would say that virtue is a means to our success and happiness and that these are ends in themselves.

[W]e can never arrive at doing without all external things for the preservation of our being or living, so as to have no relations with things which are outside ourselves...There are, then, many things outside ourselves which are useful to us, and are, therefore, to be desired.

Yes.  We can only act on certain conditions.  I can't imagine anybody challenging this.

[I]f we consider our mind, we see that our intellect would be more imperfect if mind were alone, and could understand nothing besides itself.
Not at all.  Objectivism holds that consciousness entails and requires an object and that a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction.  That's part of what "Objectivism" means.  Since the situation is impossible, questions of better or worse just don't arise.

[I]f, for example, two individuals of entirely the same nature are united, they form a combination twice as powerful as either of them singly...the minds and bodies of all should form, as it were, one single mind and one single body
Here, too, Objectivists would give an emphatic no.  This is true in a lot of cases (having children, moving furniture), but as a general rule it sounds like the notion of "group mind" that Roark talks about in his courtroom speech.

[M]en who are governed by reason—that is, who seek what is useful to them in accordance with reason—desire for themselves nothing which they do not desire for the rest of mankind
In that they would want certain conditions to be met, such as the justice, faithfulness and honor that Spinoza mentions, yes.  They wouldn't want everything for the rest of humanity that they want for themselves, and they wouldn't make this a rule.  That sounds like Kant, the Objectivist Antichrist.

Peter


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.