Reading Atlas Shrugged
Ragman
University library had nothing at all, but one of the municipal libraries
had Atlas Shrugged, which i'm now trawling my way through. I hate reading
fiction, but given the lack of other material it's the only tool i have to
get a fuller idea of Objectivism. While my highest joy is in learning
something new, I'm really finding this book tedious. Although its given me
an appreciation for the roll of what are essentially capitalistic engineers,
or the 'Prime Movers of society' I think it does so in a very distorted
manner.
My first BIG question pertains to Rand's concepts of selfishness and
alturism. To paraphase their dictionary meanings as:
Selfishness - Regarding one's self at the expense of others.
Alturism - Regarding others at the expense of one's self.
Rand arbitarily changes the meaning of selfishness to only 'Regarding one's
self' without giving equal adjustment to alturism by removing the 'expense
of one's self'. From that bias she attacks alturism and i wonder why.
Neither do i see selfishness as the illustrated value in the capitalist
heros but the ability to find and maintain 'honesty in oneself'.
So far i've read the first third, so havn't got to any of the John Galt
stuff yet. I'll no doubt post more after i see what he's got to say.
Ragman
Dave Odden
> My first BIG question pertains to Rand's concepts of selfishness and
> alturism. To paraphase their dictionary meanings as:
>
> Selfishness - Regarding one's self at the expense of others.
> Alturism - Regarding others at the expense of one's self.
>
> Rand arbitarily changes the meaning of selfishness to only 'Regarding
one's
> self' without giving equal adjustment to alturism by removing the 'expense
> of one's self'. From that bias she attacks alturism and i wonder why.
You need to do some more dictionary work. The propery way to do this is to
extract deictionary definitions, verbatim, from a number of dictionaries,
and keep only the shared content. Rand did not alter anything. Try it and
see.
Charles Novins
news:40f3...@news.comindico.com.au...
> Since HPO dropped out I've searched the libraries for Rand's work. The
> University library had nothing at all, but one of the municipal libraries
> had Atlas Shrugged, which i'm now trawling my way through. I hate reading
> fiction, but given the lack of other material it's the only tool i have to
> get a fuller idea of Objectivism. While my highest joy is in learning
> something new, I'm really finding this book tedious. Although its given
me
> an appreciation for the roll of what are essentially capitalistic
engineers,
> or the 'Prime Movers of society' I think it does so in a very distorted
> manner.
CHARLES NOVINS:
I'm like you in preferring my philosophy (and most reading) in non-fiction
format. I read ATLAS almost last, not first, in my discovery of
Objectivism. As I've repeated many times, I urge you to pick up the AYN
RAND LEXICON, a fully indexed and cross referenced,
straightforward-as-it-gets exposition of Objectivism. If you want
inspiration (and there's nothing wrong if you do), certainly go with the
fiction. But if you're more in learning or info-gathering mode, the LEXICON
has no peer.
RAGMAN:
> My first BIG question pertains to Rand's concepts of selfishness and
> alturism. To paraphase their dictionary meanings as:
>
> Selfishness - Regarding one's self at the expense of others.
> Alturism - Regarding others at the expense of one's self.
>
> Rand arbitarily changes the meaning of selfishness to only 'Regarding
one's
> self' without giving equal adjustment to alturism by removing the 'expense
> of one's self'.
CHARLES NOVINS:
What she really did was to simply take the word very, very literally, as in
"for the self." The "dictionary meaning" you cite, which is not consistent
across dictionaries, and is usually not even the only definition listed, is
more like social baggage that has become attached. The "fuck everyone else"
aspect of the definition doesn't really flow naturally from the word itself.
RAGMAN:
From that bias she attacks alturism and i wonder why.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Probably because it was the philosophy of altruism that was most closely
associated with the greatest mass murders of all human history. Assuming
(and it's a fair assumption, but I'll entertain exceptions) that Stalinist
Communism caused the greatest (or largest) mass murder in history, there is
little mystery in why she chose to see altruism the way she did.
In short, I don't doubt that Rand challenged some definitions of words (I
think she conceded this), but I disagree that she did so, as you say,
"arbitrarily."
Charles Novins
news:bWEIc.32306$2T2....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> You need to do some more dictionary work. The propery way to do this is to
> extract deictionary definitions, verbatim, from a number of dictionaries,
> and keep only the shared content. Rand did not alter anything. Try it and
> see.
CHARLES NOVINS:
But isn't a dictionary less than authoritative in such matters? If people
are generally using a term in a certain way, doesn't that usage become
"right" in a certain sense? Doesn't the dictionary just need to "catch up"
as it were?
I thought Rand conceded that the term "selfish" had acquired an untoward
meaning, and that she was trying to rescue it.
Randroid Terminator
wrote:
Of course it's tedious to you, the story's already been ruined for you
because you've had the solution to the mystery doled out to you in
newsgroups or other places. How exciting it was, at the age of about
17, to read AS for the first time without a clue as to where the novel
was going or how it would end, or even if John Galt was a real person
in the novel, or a myth.
As for the rest of your criticism, AS is a thinly-veiled political
diatribe, so naturally it's going to contain a distorted presentation
of truths.
I'm surprised an Australian is receptive to it at all.
--
Dave Odden
> But isn't a dictionary less than authoritative in such matters? If people
> are generally using a term in a certain way, doesn't that usage become
> "right" in a certain sense? Doesn't the dictionary just need to "catch
up"
> as it were?
Dictionaries are not authoritative, but my point was to emphasize the
plurality of dictionaries (i.e. there is no such thing as "the dictionary"
except when you're at home in a home that has only one dictionary). The term
"the dictionary definition" is a non-referring expression -- but there are a
*collections* of dictionary definitions. Ragman's claim that the dictionary
definitions are:
Selfishness - Regarding one's self at the expense of others.
Alturism - Regarding others at the expense of one's self.
is simply not true. You might be able to find a dictionary definition of
"selfish" which includes the element of editorializing, but that isn't a
universal feature of dictionary definitions of these terms.
In fact, best practice in lexicography is that dictionaries should *not*
"catch up" in conveying attitudes. They may report attitudes, but they are
not supposed to convert attitude to definition. Thus a good dictionary
definition would tell you what the word means, and could also inform you
that selfishness is looked down upon,but it should not distort the literal
definition by imposing inaccurate connotations such as "at the expense of
others". Of course that's old school lexicography.
> I thought Rand conceded that the term "selfish" had acquired an untoward
> meaning, and that she was trying to rescue it.
I recall something like that but right now I don't know where. You would
have to check the exact wording -- from an ITOE-aware POV, she could not
have said such a thing about meaning. On the other hand, if she wrote that
other thing before she had fully sorted out issues about "meaning" in ITOE,
she might have not distinguished literal meaning and connotation, which is a
very common mistake. The literal meaning is what it is (though it may change
over time -- like the term "liberal" has). The connotations that some people
attach to words are totally separate, and have entirely to do with people's
attitudes. So for example the meaning of "member of the Republican party"
would not change one bit if the overwhelming majority of Americans become
Democraps and took up loathing Republicans as their main sport.
Arnold
"Randroid Terminator" <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:69c6f09sk5iqtj69p...@4ax.com...
>
> As for the rest of your criticism, AS is a thinly-veiled
political
> diatribe, so naturally it's going to contain a distorted
presentation
> of truths.
>
> I'm surprised an Australian is receptive to it at all.
Watch your mouth!
--
Altruism isn't about giving a beggar a dime, it's about
whether you have the right to exist if you don't.
[ Paraphrase Ayn Rand.]
Arnold
Randroid Terminator
wrote:
>
>"Randroid Terminator" <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>message news:69c6f09sk5iqtj69p...@4ax.com...
>>
>> As for the rest of your criticism, AS is a thinly-veiled
>political
>> diatribe, so naturally it's going to contain a distorted
>presentation
>> of truths.
>>
>> I'm surprised an Australian is receptive to it at all.
>
>Watch your mouth!
I almost forgot about you, shame on me. I was referring to his
receptivity to the beneficial industrialist. Most people would see an
industrialist in terms of his charitable output, if positively at all,
not in terms of his productive output, the latter being taken for
granted. Rand is saying, in effect, that you no longer have the
leisure of taking them for granted when they can withdraw the product
of their minds at any time.
But Rand was such an "American" novelist, specifically American in a
way that other American novelists, such as Mark Twain, couldn't even
begin to approach, that I'm always surprised when a non-American
responds positively to her novels at all.
--
Ragman
> CHARLES NOVINS:
...
> As I've repeated many times, I urge you to pick up the AYN
> RAND LEXICON, a fully indexed and cross referenced,
> straightforward-as-it-gets exposition of Objectivism.
I'll look out for it, though may not feel i need it if i can recognise
enough in AS.
I am getting a good idea of Rand's philosophy and why she wrote, esspecially
in the time she did.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> What she really did was to simply take the word very, very literally, as
in
> "for the self."
I recognise that and actually agree with the realignment of the definition.
However, it wasn't until i first read about O that my understanding of
Alturism was suppose to involve self neglect. In practice i find great
reward in extending my help or services to practically anyone who honestly
needs it. It's a practical thing not an idealogical thing. I enjoy doing
the things i do and enjoy them more when i'm doing it for some else. People
usually feel indebted and force some amount of payment on whether i want it
or not.
I'm dirt poor, always have been. I've become quite happy to experience
life as such. There are philosophical relms to explore here which are
largly impossible while desires for money are of ones concern. So in that
sense I don't see myself as neglectful, even though most would. However,
what's a philosopher without grand schemes and visions, and what do these
amount to without the vehicle of money? Obviously not much unless you're
someone like Gandhi (who i'd like an objectivists view on if anyones
willing). So thus i am here, finding many aspects of O converging within my
own philosophies and granting permission for me to act on these visions.
> RAGMAN:
> From that bias she attacks alturism and i wonder why.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Probably because it was the philosophy of altruism that was most closely
> associated with the greatest mass murders of all human history. Assuming
> (and it's a fair assumption, but I'll entertain exceptions) that Stalinist
> Communism caused the greatest (or largest) mass murder in history, there
is
> little mystery in why she chose to see altruism the way she did.
>
I liken communism to an Einstien-Bose Condensate, remove enough energy from
the populas and they'll all fall in line, they'll loose any will of their
own, but only after you dispose of the higher energy radicals.
Coming back to Rand, i think she makes it obvious though that the alturists
in Atlas aren't so selfless. But i would say that good nature within any
populas under any rule will still stay intact and that the levels of its
expression would only differ. People want to be happy even if they're
conditioned against it and the knowledge of it. I'd say this too of
technology. I don't think technology has made any difference to happiness.
I can't imagine that a caveman would have lived his life entirely miserable
for want of a gameboy. On the contrary i think the life of the caveman
would be a far richer experience.
Bob
> University library had nothing at all, but one of the municipal libraries
> had Atlas Shrugged, which i'm now trawling my way through. I hate reading
> fiction, but given the lack of other material it's the only tool i have to
> get a fuller idea of Objectivism. While my highest joy is in learning
> something new, I'm really finding this book tedious. Although its given me
> an appreciation for the roll of what are essentially capitalistic engineers,
> or the 'Prime Movers of society' I think it does so in a very distorted
> manner.
>
> My first BIG question pertains to Rand's concepts of selfishness and
> alturism. To paraphase their dictionary meanings as:
>
> Selfishness - Regarding one's self at the expense of others.
> Alturism - Regarding others at the expense of one's self.
>
> Rand arbitarily changes the meaning of selfishness to only 'Regarding one's
> self' without giving equal adjustment to alturism by removing the 'expense
> of one's self'. From that bias she attacks alturism and i wonder why.
You are correct, by leaving off the qualifier you just mentioned, Rand
equated the morally negative term "selfishness" with the morally
neutral "self-interest".
She also did the same thing with "altruism" and "self-sacrifice",
incorrectly equating the former with the latter. To give a pair of
shoes to a poor man was tantamount to committing hari-kari.
One might be able to overlook these grave errors were they not the
foundation for objectivist ethics.
But read on, brave soul!
Bob
> "Dave Odden" <od...@ling.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:bWEIc.32306$2T2....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > You need to do some more dictionary work. The propery way to do this is to
> > extract deictionary definitions, verbatim, from a number of dictionaries,
> > and keep only the shared content. Rand did not alter anything. Try it and
> > see.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> But isn't a dictionary less than authoritative in such matters? If people
> are generally using a term in a certain way, doesn't that usage become
> "right" in a certain sense? Doesn't the dictionary just need to "catch up"
> as it were?
Only when more that 0.5% of people are using a certain term the
"right" way.
>
> I thought Rand conceded that the term "selfish" had acquired an untoward
> meaning, and that she was trying to rescue it.
Then what term would we use in its place? Are you saying that
"Regarding one's self at the expense of others" does not exist, and
therefore doesn't merit definition?
No, "selfishness" is fine the way it is presented in most
dictionaries.
Ken Gardner
>But isn't a dictionary less than authoritative in such matters? If people
>are generally using a term in a certain way, doesn't that usage become
>"right" in a certain sense? Doesn't the dictionary just need to "catch up"
>as it were?
>I thought Rand conceded that the term "selfish" had acquired an untoward
>meaning, and that she was trying to rescue it.
Exactly. See her introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness.
Ken
Ragman
Randroid Terminator:
> I'm surprised an Australian is receptive to it at all.
>
Bit of a racist statment isn't it?
The way our governments pushing, there won't be that much different left
between us. The fact that your weapon's megalyth Hallyburton (sp?) was the
primary financier for our new transcontinental railway has only just been
leaked into the public domain and arn't i piss of with wonder of it's deals
and motivations.
Ragman
Dave Odden
> > I'm surprised an Australian is receptive to it at all.
> Bit of a racist statment isn't it?
No, since Australians aren't a race (if he assumed that you were Walpiri,
that would be a different matter). Besides, Malenoid / Terminator is just an
anti-Objectivist troll, so you can automatically discount everyting he says.
Robert J. Kolker
Ragman wrote:
> Randroid Terminator:
>
>
>>I'm surprised an Australian is receptive to it at all.
>>
>
>
> Bit of a racist statment isn't it?
Australian is not a race, it is a nationality. Next thing you will be
characterizing anti-French remarks as racist.
If you hate the French, raise one arm. If you -are- French, raise both
arms.
During the late and unlamanted second world war the National Anthem
among French women went like --- Oh Wolfgang!..
Bob Kolker
ah3133
> University library had nothing at all, but one of the municipal libraries
> had Atlas Shrugged, which i'm now trawling my way through. I hate reading
> fiction, but given the lack of other material it's the only tool i have to
> get a fuller idea of Objectivism. While my highest joy is in learning
> something new, I'm really finding this book tedious. Although its given me
> an appreciation for the roll of what are essentially capitalistic engineers,
> or the 'Prime Movers of society' I think it does so in a very distorted
> manner.
>
> My first BIG question pertains to Rand's concepts of selfishness and
> alturism. To paraphase their dictionary meanings as:
>
> Selfishness - Regarding one's self at the expense of others.
> Alturism - Regarding others at the expense of one's self.
>
> Rand arbitarily changes the meaning of selfishness to only 'Regarding one's
> self' without giving equal adjustment to alturism by removing the 'expense
> of one's self'. From that bias she attacks alturism and i wonder why.
it's impossible for her to make that adjustment, because according to
her, altruism is logically flawed in such a way that the only way to
be truly altruistic would be to not acknowledge your own existence. in
'the fountainhead' she wrote, "to say 'I love you', one must know
first how to say the 'I'." the necessary reference to the 'I' is in
itself contradictory to the notion of selflessness, which makes
altruism an iherently unattainable goal
Randroid Terminator
wrote:
Bit of a paranoid statement isn't it?
--
Randroid Terminator
I am not anti-Aussie. I just think their women are hot, mainly due to
being deprived by Aussie males who couldn't fuck their way out of a
paper bag.
--
Arnold
>
> Randroid Terminator:
>
> > I'm surprised an Australian is receptive to it at all.
> >
>
> Bit of a racist statment isn't it?
If you think there is a connection between ideas and race,
then my compatriot, it is you who is the racist. Hitler
thought the same way, and never tried to reason with Jews.
Has it occurred to you that genetics is not open to our
choice, but cultural ideas are? Anything open to choice is
open to judgment, whereas one's "choice" of race is not.
This ploy to shut out dissent is a left wing ploy that
needs to be exposed.
--
--
Religion refers to the relationship between man and his
God.
Political philosophy deals with the relationship between
man and man
We should not confuse the two.
Arnold
Ragman
Sorry, i forgot that O's only aknowledge literals. What would be your
concise term for a generalistic comment upon people of any particular
nation?
I'm still learning of Malenoid's views. I'll learn it based on what he
posts, not what anyone else might say, that would just be bandwagoning
wouldn't it?
Ragman
Robert J. Kolker
Ragman wrote:
>> Sorry, i forgot that O's only aknowledge literals. What would be your
> concise term for a generalistic comment upon people of any particular
> nation?
Stereotypical. Ethnist. Anything but racisist. Race is genetic. The
others are cultural. Since a person can reject his cultural once he has
reached full intellectual autonomy, he can be held responsible for the
culturally based values he holds and espouses. I am not saying it is
easy to give up the culture of one's childhood, but it is possible.
Bob Kolker
Ragman
"Mummy, why do some people want other people to buy dirty potatoes?"
"Arnold" <arnold...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gikJc.1555$K53...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
...
> Has it occurred to you that genetics is not open to our
> choice, but cultural ideas are? Anything open to choice is
> open to judgment, whereas one's "choice" of race is not.
> This ploy to shut out dissent is a left wing ploy that
> needs to be exposed.
> --
Maintaining that we have free will, the individual's ability to exercise
that is impared to the degree of their own imperfections. As "no one's
perfect" (but the closer you aim, the closer you get) all will be slave to
the limited options we can cognise. There will always be an amount of
apparent determinism in any decision. If one cannot see enough (or any)
options to make a proper choice, are there any valid judgments on them or
their actions? All we can acknowledge is their imperfection and in doing so
must acknowledge our own.
Limits to freedom (i doubt there are other kinds) are the cause of evolution
as all beings seek to express the highest will by overcoming their
impediments. Those that fail to overcome their impediments fail in
evolution. That is the theme i recognise in Rand's writing.
As a reincarnationist, genetics too are open to choice. As i maintain that
the soul is the source of free will, it is also free to choose the limits
and liberties, physical and otherwise, involved in its manifestation.
However it does this within the options presented unto it for that very
incarnation. It may have the option of incarnating into a particular race,
but it cannot be born as heir to the world richest family if they cannot
have kids.
Ragman
Randroid Terminator
wrote:
>
>"Ragman" <dis...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
>news:40f5...@news.comindico.com.au...
>>
>> Randroid Terminator:
>>
>> > I'm surprised an Australian is receptive to it at all.
>> >
>>
>> Bit of a racist statment isn't it?
>
>If you think there is a connection between ideas and race,
>then my compatriot, it is you who is the racist. Hitler
>thought the same way, and never tried to reason with Jews.
>Has it occurred to you that genetics is not open to our
>choice, but cultural ideas are? Anything open to choice is
>open to judgment, whereas one's "choice" of race is not.
>This ploy to shut out dissent is a left wing ploy that
>needs to be exposed.
>--
Godwin's law.
--
Randroid Terminator
wrote:
No, it would be rational because it is the Objectivist way of life.
--
Charles Novins
posts,
CHARLES NOVINS:
No you won't. You said his posts, so that means past and present. Try
Googling and you will quickly see that reading his posts will take the rest
of your life, along with that of your offspring.
RAGMAN:
not what anyone else might say, that would just be bandwagoning wouldn't it?
CHARLES NOVINS:
With Mal, it's the Cliff Notes or death.
Dave Odden
> Sorry, i forgot that O's only aknowledge literals.
Not literally. Recognising a usage is not the same as condoning it.
> What would be your
> concise term for a generalistic comment upon people of any particular
> nation?
"Stupid" is pretty concise.
Dave Odden
> I'm still learning of Malenoid's views. I'll learn it based on what he
> posts, not what anyone else might say, that would just be bandwagoning
> wouldn't it?
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that you can also learn Kant's "views" by
reading his works (note the referential ambiguity), but why would you want
to?
Randroid Terminator
Never felt the need to partake in the Cliff Notes. Are you contending
for Ragman's support? I'll admit, Objectivism needs all the support it
can get.
--
Robert J. Kolker
Ragman wrote:
> As a reincarnationist, genetics too are open to choice. As i maintain that
> the soul is the source of free will,
You invoke an entity (soul) whose existence is not in evidence. To make
your blather meaningful, you must firt define soul and then show that it
exists.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
Does he have a choice? (Just to clarify what you are blathering about).
Fred Weiss
x
x
x
x
x
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
>
> Does he have a choice? (Just to clarify what you are blathering about).
Of course he does.
Bob Kolker
Ragman
>
> Stereotypical. Ethnist. Anything but racisist. Race is genetic. The
> others are cultural.
Point taken :-)
> Since a person can reject his cultural once he has
> reached full intellectual autonomy, he can be held responsible for the
> culturally based values he holds and espouses. I am not saying it is
> easy to give up the culture of one's childhood, but it is possible.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
Ha, too easy, everyone knows Australia has no culture to start with ;-)
Ragman
Robert J. Kolker
Ragman wrote:
>
> Ha, too easy, everyone knows Australia has no culture to start with ;-)
That have the barby, mate. That is not to be despised. Besides any
country whose population is upside down and still competes successfuly
in the boat races can't be all wrong.
Bob Kolker
Bob
>
> it's impossible for her to make that adjustment, because according to
> her, altruism is logically flawed in such a way that the only way to
> be truly altruistic would be to not acknowledge your own existence.
She said that altruism is logically flawed because it negates
causality, not existence.
> in
> 'the fountainhead' she wrote, "to say 'I love you', one must know
> first how to say the 'I'."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=platitude
The implication of the statement is that love is not an act of giving,
as it is normally thought of as, but an act of gratifying one's own
ego needs, that to say "I love you" is essentially to say "I love
myself".
My advice is not to incorporate that little insight into a Valentine's
day card you maight send to your honey. "Dear lovemuffin, you(I) are
the love of my life, but I know that deep in your(my) heart, you(I)
know that when I say I love you(me), I'm really just paying tribute to
all the swell aspects of my own personality that you(I) happen to
possess, too! I love you(me)."
Her reply: See you in divorce court, you selfish bastard.
> the necessary reference to the 'I' is in
> itself contradictory to the notion of selflessness, which makes
> altruism an iherently unattainable goal
Only when you equate altruism with self-sacrifice, which is the
gravest of objectivist errors. Altruism was invented my man to
counteract selfish excesses of which he was not previously aware. It
was not invented to obliterate the self.
Bob
Spoken with the blunt over-reaching authority that is objectivism.
Would you say, then, that Americans do not, generally speaking, share
any bona fide cultural trait that differentiates them from, say, the
French, or that Chinese do not have any bona fide culteral traits that
differentiate themselves from Canadians?
You above statement nullifies every statement that an objectivist
might say about what makes America great. Obviously, certain
nationalities are more open to objectivism, it isn't surprising to me
that Australia is one of them, considering that the notorious
arch-conservative Rupert Murdoch is from there and that the land down
under was part of the infamous "Coalition of the Willing."
Mal's statement was not bigoted, it was, at worst, mistaken.
Eudaimonus
news:aa2332b1.04071...@posting.google.com...
> The implication of the statement is that love is not an act of giving,
> as it is normally thought of as, but an act of gratifying one's own
> ego needs, that to say "I love you" is essentially to say "I love
> myself".
This is crazy talk at worst, ignorance at best. One must love oneself in
order to love others, because it is only as a part of one's own life can one
value the life of another.
As Aristotle put it - one seeks after actions that are yours and noble and
fine, and those of one's (proper) friends are of such a quality.
Love is neither an act of "giving" nor of "gratifying one's own ego needs"
but is, in a sense neither, and in a sense both. It is the incorperation of
the genuine good of another into one's conception of own's own genuine good.
"You must live well so that I can live well" is love. "I must live poorly
so that you can live well" is co-dependancy.
Bob
>
> > I'm surprised an Australian is receptive to it at all.
> >
>
> Bit of a racist statment isn't it?
>
I think "bigoted" is the term you want to use, but it's not even that.
Obviously certain nationalities exhibit specific bona fide cultural
traits, in this case it is "receptiveness to objectivism." There are
many countries in the world where objectivism is not exactly catching
fire, and it's not for lack of a free press or lack of philosophical
sophistication.
Given, as you point out, australia's similar capitalistic bent, it's
not surprising to me that you've at least given Rand the time of day.
On a different note, have you noticed how nobody opposing objectivism
has suggested here that you not read it? Contrast that with
objectivists who have told you outright to accept, at face value,
their request that you immediately discount everything that Mal says.
Charles Novins
> has suggested here that you not read it? Contrast that with
> objectivists who have told you outright to accept, at face value,
> their request that you immediately discount everything that Mal says.
CHARLES NOVINS:
What? Both you and Mal never cease your insipid whining about how you were
"victimized" by Objectivism. If that's not advising people "not to read"
it, I don't know what is.
Mal plays by the general rules of Usenet pretty well (for example, linking
to a source) but his overall, explicit position (I know because I've asked
him) is that he's under no obligation to make his prose understandable to
anyone, with the possible exception of the person he's addressing at the
moment. People "discounting what Mal says" is a consequence I believe he
explicitly accepts.
Dave Odden
> Would you say, then, that Americans do not, generally speaking, share
> any bona fide cultural trait that differentiates them from, say, the
> French, or that Chinese do not have any bona fide culteral traits that
> differentiate themselves from Canadians?
Obviously they do. Do you hate America? Just asking.
> You above statement nullifies every statement that an objectivist
> might say about what makes America great. Obviously, certain
> nationalities are more open to objectivism, it isn't surprising to me
> that Australia is one of them, considering that the notorious
> arch-conservative Rupert Murdoch is from there and that the land down
> under was part of the infamous "Coalition of the Willing."
By that same reasoning you should be surprised at an American who is open to
Objectivism. After all, this is the nation that produced Ralph Nadir, John
Kerry and Malenoid. BTW your attempt to draw a connection between
right-wingers and Objectivism makes less sense that drawing a connection
between Bill Clinton and the Nazi Party.
The fact of someone being Australian is *not at all* a valid reason to be
surprised at their politics, or their hair color. If they talk with a
Brooklyn accent, that would be a valid reason to be surprised. You can't get
anything at all about politics from geography.
> Mal's statement was not bigoted, it was, at worst, mistaken.
Does that mean "stupid"?
Randroid Terminator
I'm considering the amount of industry there is in Australia. Perhaps
there is more than I thought. And the citizenry consists in such a
morally relaxed crowd, that I don't see them being interested in Rand
at all, in the main. But there are always the exceptions.
--
Randroid Terminator
Let's just say that I'm very good at rooting out most of Objectivism's
evils as they manifest themselves in various Randroids. The truth of
their souls announces itself when confronted with competent
opposition.
--
Arnold
As i maintain that
> the soul is the source of free will, it is also free to
choose the limits
> and liberties, physical and otherwise, involved in its
manifestation.
> However it does this within the options presented unto it
for that very
> incarnation. It may have the option of incarnating into
a particular race,
> but it cannot be born as heir to the world richest family
if they cannot
> have kids.
If you are going to talk this primitive spook stuff, I
won't bother reasoning with you.
--
The greatest obscenity is mindlessness.
It is the source of irrationality, and irrationality
is the source of mans most despicable acts.
Arnold.
David Buchner
> As a reincarnationist, genetics too are open to choice.
The End.
Ken Gardner
>What? Both you and Mal never cease your insipid whining about how you were
>"victimized" by Objectivism.
Me too. Especially Bob, who at least writes somewhat clearly most of
the time.
Ken
ah3133
> ah3...@ah77.cjb.net (ah3133) wrote in message news:<25cc3ade.04071...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > it's impossible for her to make that adjustment, because according to
> > her, altruism is logically flawed in such a way that the only way to
> > be truly altruistic would be to not acknowledge your own existence.
>
> She said that altruism is logically flawed because it negates
> causality, not existence.
causal agency assumes existence. you must exist before you can cause
something to happen. to negate one is to negate the other.
>
> > in
> > 'the fountainhead' she wrote, "to say 'I love you', one must know
> > first how to say the 'I'."
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=platitude
>
> The implication of the statement is that love is not an act of giving,
> as it is normally thought of as, but an act of gratifying one's own
> ego needs, that to say "I love you" is essentially to say "I love
> myself".
either way you define it, you still implictly assume the existence of
an "I", which is a measure of selfishness which makes true altruism
impossible.
>
> My advice is not to incorporate that little insight into a Valentine's
> day card you maight send to your honey. "Dear lovemuffin, you(I) are
> the love of my life, but I know that deep in your(my) heart, you(I)
> know that when I say I love you(me), I'm really just paying tribute to
> all the swell aspects of my own personality that you(I) happen to
> possess, too! I love you(me)."
>
> Her reply: See you in divorce court, you selfish bastard.
>
> > the necessary reference to the 'I' is in
> > itself contradictory to the notion of selflessness, which makes
> > altruism an iherently unattainable goal
>
> Only when you equate altruism with self-sacrifice, which is the
> gravest of objectivist errors. Altruism was invented my man to
> counteract selfish excesses of which he was not previously aware. It
> was not invented to obliterate the self.
i'd like to meet this "man" who always claims he invented everything.
any definition of altrusim is going to implicitly involve voluntarily
placing more value on the judgement of some other person or thing than
you place on your own judgement. that relinquishment of autonomy, even
in the smallest capacity, is a self-sacrifice.
Randroid Terminator
Bah. Objectivists are still quibbling over what Rand meant by this or
that statement. She should have stuck to fiction writing.
--
Ragman
"Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2lmbshF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
Well what a handy argument it is for me that the soul can only be realised
by it's own incarnation. It's not you whom i have to prove it to, but me.
I have had enough experiences to recognises its existence.
However, if it interests you, let me breifly outline the structure and
process of man from a soul point of view as taught by Alice A Bailey.
Monad (Collective Soul)
Atma (Individual Soul)
Budha (Intuition)
Manasa (Intelectual Mind)
Astral (Emotion)
Etheric (Energy structure of physical matter)
Physical
The physical is held together by the etheric which is energised by emotion
that is organised by the intelect which is inspired by the intuition which
is fed from the will of the soul that is part of god.
In this teaching, one recognises that conciousness is expressed through all
matter, from the atomic to the universal. It literally speaks of
conciousness being expressed through atoms, however limited that
conciousness maybe. That conciousness seeks higher expression by organising
more complex arangments of matter. This is seen as evolutionary
conciousness. The human body is seen as the hierarchal collection of these
lesser developed conciousnesses (sorry for the clumsy word).
The levels impact upon their upper and lower neighbours. For example, a
physical force impacts upon the etheric structure which impacts upon the
emotion which impacts upon the mind... Or a more tangible example, light is
registered on the retina yeilding an energetic structure that registers an
emotion of what is seen which is cognised... The reverse is equally
possible. The mind envisions an action which is emotionalised into the
energy structures that say moves a hand to a cup of coffee.
The accuracy with which these messages are passed up and down depend on the
development and quality of those levels of being. If ones emotions are
shot, then they cannot cognises their environment with any accuracy, nor can
their body act in full accordance with what their mind wants it to do. This
mechanism is illustrated in Atlas Shrugged by Fransisco's lecture to Readen
on sexual desires being in accordance (or not) with ones strongest values.
Intuition, Soul and God are trancendant to the intelect and therefore cannot
be intelectualised with any real efficiency at all. Objectivism sees such
concepts as abstract in that there can be no value in even asking the
question of their existence. This is because O acknowledges perception as
the only source for gathering knowledge. Mystics accept both perception and
intuition as sources of knowledge.
Ragman
Ragman
"Randroid Terminator" <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r6tbf05uk0p0lvq83...@4ax.com...
...
> Are you contending for Ragman's support? I'll admit, Objectivism needs all
the support it
> can get.
Gee Mal, was that a confession?
Ragman
Robert J. Kolker
Ragman wrote:
> Monad (Collective Soul)
> Atma (Individual Soul)
> Budha (Intuition)
> Manasa (Intelectual Mind)
> Astral (Emotion)
> Etheric (Energy
Nice names. What do they mean? How would I find a Monad and what
properties does it have.
> The physical is held together by the etheric which is energised by emotion
> that is organised by the intelect which is inspired by the intuition which
> is fed from the will of the soul that is part of god.
Lovely. Perhaps you can indicate some empirical means of finding this
etheric and perhaps you will tell us what measurable properties it has
and how we might go about measuring them.
Bob Kolker
Ragman
>
>.... I was referring to his
> receptivity to the beneficial industrialist. Most people would see an
> industrialist in terms of his charitable output, if positively at all,
> not in terms of his productive output, the latter being taken for
> granted.
...
My receptivity to the 'beneficial' industrialist, as you say, is from the
point of purpose of their incarnation and how it affect the development of
humanity.
There was a doco on the building of the Hoover Dam on TV here the other
night. If there was ever a Rand hero, Frank Crow would be him. Crow
coordinated the big six contractors, was totally profit motivated and
generally hated by all the workers for letting over 100 of them die, many of
them needlessly. But it can't be denied that what he did for the American
west was phenomenal. Consider the globalising technology that has been
developed in the American west and the effect of this technology on
societies world wide. The world is marked by the potency of Crow's
existence, even if he was only after profit.
It is that potency i respect and am receptive to because i view such people
as highly evolved be they in industry, politics, religion or whatever.
Ragman
Bob
> "Bob" <bobv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:aa2332b1.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > On a different note, have you noticed how nobody opposing objectivism
> > has suggested here that you not read it? Contrast that with
> > objectivists who have told you outright to accept, at face value,
> > their request that you immediately discount everything that Mal says.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> What? Both you and Mal never cease your insipid whining about how you were
> "victimized" by Objectivism. If that's not advising people "not to read"
> it, I don't know what is.
First of all, I *never* said I was a victim; my claim was that I
bought into a bogus philosophy, and therefore take full responsibility
for the consequences, which I am not entirely pleased with. My
position is that I've graduated from objectivism, as most big boys and
big girls end up doing, upon examining it sans hubris.
I'll come clean with you today so we can put this to rest: I, Bob
Vogel, made an error when I accepted objectivism as the end-all be-all
in philosophy. Happy?
Secondly, I actually encouraged Ragman to go ahead, "Read on, brave
soul", without caveat. To you, my criticism of objectivism is
tantamount to actively discouraging anyone from reading it, an obvious
error. Granted, my statement implied that Ragman is a "brave soul" for
reading AS, and smuggles in my own estimation of it, but that's a far
cry from actively saying, "don't read this," especially when it was
prefaced by "Read on"!
Contrast that with objectivist culture that outright admonishes the
reading of "undesireable" books (especially works by former and
so-called neo-objectivists), and the numerous comments from
objectivists here that you shouldn't listen to such-and-such because
he's not a real objectivist or he's a troll, yada yada, it's just
weird, that a movement predicated on the resilience of human
rationality would be so xenophobic and backbiting.
Bob
"Australia has a prosperous Western-style capitalist economy, with a
per capita GDP on par with the four dominant West European economies."
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html
(Of course this could be "bad intelligence")
The urban populations are mostly concentrated on the eastern coast and
then the rest is "the bush" which is a lot when you consider it's the
sixth largest country in the world. I think it's the rural australian
that is the popular image in the states, and it's hard for americans
not to see aussies as anything but a bunch of rowdy hick crocodile
hunters. Thank Paul Hogan for obliging our need for simplicity.
Randroid Terminator
Ok, I'll do that next time I run into him at a Hollywood party.
--
Bob
> bobv...@aol.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<aa2332b1.04071...@posting.google.com>...
> > ah3...@ah77.cjb.net (ah3133) wrote in message news:<25cc3ade.04071...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > >
> > > it's impossible for her to make that adjustment, because according to
> > > her, altruism is logically flawed in such a way that the only way to
> > > be truly altruistic would be to not acknowledge your own existence.
> >
> > She said that altruism is logically flawed because it negates
> > causality, not existence.
>
> causal agency assumes existence. you must exist before you can cause
> something to happen. to negate one is to negate the other.
Wrong. Rand said that duty (the foundation of altruism) is an
"anti-concept" which is meant to replace and obliterate the legitimate
concept of Causality. She makes references as to the interdependency
of both concepts, but she did not say specifically that altruism
negates existence. It doesn't even make sense on a topical level.
This whole stupid argument over whether things exist or not was made
up as part of a smear campaign to make every other philosophy seem
insanely inferior to Rand's.
Existence exists. Wow.
>
> >
> > > in
> > > 'the fountainhead' she wrote, "to say 'I love you', one must know
> > > first how to say the 'I'."
> >
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=platitude
> >
> > The implication of the statement is that love is not an act of giving,
> > as it is normally thought of as, but an act of gratifying one's own
> > ego needs, that to say "I love you" is essentially to say "I love
> > myself".
>
> either way you define it, you still implictly assume the existence of
> an "I", which is a measure of selfishness which makes true altruism
> impossible.
But I don't think you realize how commonplace Rand's observation is.
Even the church teaches the importance of self-esteem in a loving
relationship. It's not exactly a ground-breaking or enlightening
concept.
>
> >
> > My advice is not to incorporate that little insight into a Valentine's
> > day card you maight send to your honey. "Dear lovemuffin, you(I) are
> > the love of my life, but I know that deep in your(my) heart, you(I)
> > know that when I say I love you(me), I'm really just paying tribute to
> > all the swell aspects of my own personality that you(I) happen to
> > possess, too! I love you(me)."
> >
> > Her reply: See you in divorce court, you selfish bastard.
> >
> > > the necessary reference to the 'I' is in
> > > itself contradictory to the notion of selflessness, which makes
> > > altruism an iherently unattainable goal
> >
>
> > Only when you equate altruism with self-sacrifice, which is the
> > gravest of objectivist errors. Altruism was invented my man to
> > counteract selfish excesses of which he was not previously aware. It
> > was not invented to obliterate the self.
>
> i'd like to meet this "man" who always claims he invented everything.
Man = Mankind in general; the human race.
> any definition of altrusim is going to implicitly involve voluntarily
> placing more value on the judgement of some other person or thing than
> you place on your own judgement.
Really? What you just said doesn't strike me so much as an insight as
an ad-hominem. I also find it funny that someone who started the ball
rolling by quoting Rand would appeal to the primacy of independent
judgement.
Find me a dictionary that "implies" that altruistic people can't think
for themselves. Ooops, I forgot, objectivists use lexical definitions.
Makes the job of obfuscation much easier.
> that relinquishment of autonomy, even
> in the smallest capacity, is a self-sacrifice.
No, it's not. Slitting my wrists and taking a warm bath is
self-sacrifice. Giving a homeless man a pair of shoes is altruism.
Your caveat "even in the smallest capacity" is the grave error which
all objectivists are guilty of. If I shove a buck-fifty in the
Salvation Army christmas pail, did I kill myself? No. But that's what
you're saying, that if I put so much as a nickel in that little red
bucket out of concern for my fellow man*, I'm guilty of "relinquishing
my autonomy".
* The use of the word "man" does not mean a specific man.
Fred Weiss
>... There was a doco on the building of the Hoover Dam on TV here the
other
> night. If there was ever a Rand hero, Frank Crow would be him. Crow
> coordinated the big six contractors, was totally profit motivated and
> generally hated by all the workers for letting over 100 of them die, many of
> them needlessly.
I recall seeing that or a similar documentary and I concur that it was
an exceptional story. You left out that he came in ahead of schedule
and under budget!
But I don't recall anything about his workers hating him or 100
"needless" deaths. If anything, the workers should have been extremely
grateful for the work and they lined up by the 1,000's for it (it was
during the Depression and jobs were scarce). No doubt there were
deaths but some of the work was inherently and extremely dangerous and
the workers knew that.
Fred Weiss
Bob
> "Bob" wrote:
>
> > Would you say, then, that Americans do not, generally speaking, share
> > any bona fide cultural trait that differentiates them from, say, the
> > French, or that Chinese do not have any bona fide culteral traits that
> > differentiate themselves from Canadians?
>
> Obviously they do. Do you hate America? Just asking.
No, just Nascar. That doesn't offend you, does it? Just asking.
I keed, I keed. Actually, I love America, it's a shame George Bush is
going to pass it through his small intestine before all is said and
done.
>
> > You above statement nullifies every statement that an objectivist
> > might say about what makes America great. Obviously, certain
> > nationalities are more open to objectivism, it isn't surprising to me
> > that Australia is one of them, considering that the notorious
> > arch-conservative Rupert Murdoch is from there and that the land down
> > under was part of the infamous "Coalition of the Willing."
>
> By that same reasoning you should be surprised at an American who is open to
> Objectivism.
Um ... right. What reasoning would that be, the reasoning of the
bizarro world?
MY reasoning goes: Americans are more open to objectivism than other
countries. A very similar economic, social, and political climate
exists in Australia. Therefore, it is not surprising that objectivism
has a receptive audience in Australia.
> After all, this is the nation that produced Ralph Nadir, John
> Kerry and Malenoid.
Meaning what? What does Mal have in common with Ralph "Nadir" and John
Kerry?
> BTW your attempt to draw a connection between
> right-wingers and Objectivism makes less sense that drawing a connection
> between Bill Clinton and the Nazi Party.
Well, I really wasn't making that attempt, but your previous
statements indicate a profound dislike of Kerry and "Nadir", and
you're an objectivist, right? So it seems the connection isn't
ironclad, but there is some truth to it, no?
I'm well aware that the right wing isn't radical enough for
objectivists. But I do think a discussion of objectivist politics
wouldn't be complete without at least one reference to Nazis. After
all, didn't a.m. talk show host Neal Boortz call democracy a "very
dangerous system" on several occasions? Yes, yes he did. And you know
who else Boortz likes to champion? Ayn Rand. Coincidence?
>
> The fact of someone being Australian is *not at all* a valid reason to be
> surprised at their politics, or their hair color. If they talk with a
> Brooklyn accent, that would be a valid reason to be surprised. You can't get
> anything at all about politics from geography.
Well, you're a little naive to think that people are all the same and
that all countries share similar political makeups. Are you
purposefully blurring your own vision?
>
> > Mal's statement was not bigoted, it was, at worst, mistaken.
>
> Does that mean "stupid"?
Is that what you really think?
Bob
> "Ragman" wrote:
>
> > I'm still learning of Malenoid's views. I'll learn it based on what he
> > posts, not what anyone else might say, that would just be bandwagoning
> > wouldn't it?
>
> Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that you can also learn Kant's "views" by
> reading his works (note the referential ambiguity), but why would you want
> to?
After all, he was a Kantian. Any we all know what THAT means -- he
enjoyed torturing small woodland creatures and was a pedophile, and
reportedly had a very small and painfully deformed penis.
Dave Odden
> After all, he was a Kantian. Any we all know what THAT means -- he
> enjoyed torturing small woodland creatures and was a pedophile, and
> reportedly had a very small and painfully deformed penis.
The use of the past tense suggests that he is dead. I have no direct
evidence about the other stuff though I don't disupute your claims; but
since he continues to post here, I assume he is not actually dead.
Dave Odden
> > After all, this is the nation that produced Ralph Nadir, John
> > Kerry and Malenoid.
> Meaning what? What does Mal have in common with Ralph "Nadir" and John
> Kerry?
Evaders. I'm glad to see you agree that Ralph is the pits.
> > BTW your attempt to draw a connection between
> > right-wingers and Objectivism makes less sense that drawing a connection
> > between Bill Clinton and the Nazi Party.
> Well, I really wasn't making that attempt, but your previous
> statements indicate a profound dislike of Kerry and "Nadir", and
> you're an objectivist, right? So it seems the connection isn't
> ironclad, but there is some truth to it, no?
No. None at all. If you'd like, I will repeat my dislike of Brent Bozell,
William Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Pat Roberts. I just wouldn't put Malenoid in
that group.
> I'm well aware that the right wing isn't radical enough for
> objectivists. But I do think a discussion of objectivist politics
> wouldn't be complete without at least one reference to Nazis. After
> all, didn't a.m. talk show host Neal Boortz call democracy a "very
> dangerous system" on several occasions? Yes, yes he did.
I don't understand. Are you saying that you don't know whether he did? Or
are you saying that you do know? At any rate, he is right. And the probpem
with the right wing is not that it isn't radical enough, but rather that it
is fascist and totally unprincipled.
> And you know
> who else Boortz likes to champion? Ayn Rand. Coincidence?
How could I possibly know? I don't even know who this guy is. It's a *fact*
that democracy is very dangerous (fortunately it has never been implemented,
it is so dangerous).
> > The fact of someone being Australian is *not at all* a valid reason to
be
> > surprised at their politics, or their hair color. If they talk with a
> > Brooklyn accent, that would be a valid reason to be surprised. You can't
get
> > anything at all about politics from geography.
> Well, you're a little naive to think that people are all the same and
> that all countries share similar political makeups. Are you
> purposefully blurring your own vision?
Did you decide to deliberately ignore what I actually wrote and just engage
the automatic knee-jerk machine? You're now criticising the position that
you've been pushing, only calling me naive for you having that view.
> > > Mal's statement was not bigoted, it was, at worst, mistaken.
> > Does that mean "stupid"?
> Is that what you really think?
Yes, I think it was stupid.
Bob
I don't disagree with the above. But Aristotle wasn't an objectivist,
was he?
Rand: Love is "the spiritual payment given in exchange for the
personal, *selfish* pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of
another man's character."
Not exactly the same thing, is it? Aristotle said "yours, noble and
fine" and rand says "selfish payment for virtues rendered."
Oh, be still my beating heart.
Ken Gardner
>First of all, I *never* said I was a victim; my claim was that I
>bought into a bogus philosophy, and therefore take full responsibility
>for the consequences, which I am not entirely pleased with. My
>position is that I've graduated from objectivism, as most big boys and
>big girls end up doing, upon examining it sans hubris.
Bob, your posts here and at HPO have only increased my certainty in
the truth of Objectivism. You are a clear and vivid example of what
can happen when a person rejects Objectivism and embraces a
non-objective philosophical outlook. It's an ugly sight.
[...]
Ken
Ragman
>
> Lovely. Perhaps you can indicate some empirical means of finding this
> etheric and perhaps you will tell us what measurable properties it has
> and how we might go about measuring them.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/index.html
Robert J. Kolker
Ragman wrote:
>>Lovely. Perhaps you can indicate some empirical means of finding this
>>etheric and perhaps you will tell us what measurable properties it has
>>and how we might go about measuring them.
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/index.html
Lame brained bullshit. Now make a quantitative prediction, not made by a
mainline theory and reference an experiment that corroberates it. No
fudging. Give us the math (noticable by its absence from your stuff) and
the specifics.
And also show that your stuff also predicts everything that -has been
correoberated- by experiment. I await with baited breath.
Show how your stuff accounts for the correct functioning of the GPS
system. Use your stuff to compute the specific heats of various materials.
Bob Kolker
Eudaimonus
news:aa2332b1.04071...@posting.google.com...
> Rand: Love is "the spiritual payment given in exchange for the
> personal, *selfish* pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of
> another man's character."
> Not exactly the same thing, is it? Aristotle said "yours, noble and
> fine" and rand says "selfish payment for virtues rendered."
Now, Aristotle distinctly claims that "Good men are both pleasant and useful
to each other". And Rand is claiming that one derives selfish pleasure from
the virtues of another man's character. In this they clearly and obviously
agree. Now, what you must be denying is that Aristotle believes the taking
of this pleasure creates some sort of obligation or right on the part of the
virtuous man as against the one who takes such pleasure. In the text, he
takes no direct stand on this issue, and he never asks that question.
However, the general tenor and certain specific passages indicate that his
answer would likely be "yes, of course". It is difficult to make sense of
his account of 'unequal' friendships without seeing him as making precisely
this assumption. Consider -
"The affection rendered in these various unequal friendships should also be
proportionate: the better of the two parties, for instance, or the more
useful or otherwise superior as the case may be, should receive more
affection than he bestows; since when the affection rendered is
proportionate to desert, this produces equality in a sense between the
parties, and equality is felt to be an essential element of friendship."
Note how he speaks of "when the affection rendered is proportionate to
desert", which speaks of affection being deserved. So it would seem he
would most likely agree that the affection that the friend gives to the
befriended is given as due to the befriended, such being earned by the
pleasure one takes in the virtue of the befriended".
Now, if Aristotle would say that the affection one gives to one's friend is
due one's friend on account of the pleasure which you take in their virtue,
how does that differ from what Rand said?
And I should add, Rand didn't say anything like "selfish payment for virtues
rendered" because 1) it is "spiritual payment" and "selfish pleasure" 2) it
is never stated in the quote that the virtues are "rendered", indeed, Rand
would surely, since she believes that one pursues virtue as a means to one's
own end which is one own's life, it would be entirely out of character to
consider the virtue that is giving pleasure to have been done _in order to_
give that pleasure, which your use of "rendered" implies.
Randroid Terminator
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And also show that your stuff also predicts everything that -has been
>correoberated- by experiment. I await with baited breath.
Have you been eating the bait again? Save it for the fish!
--
ah3133
> ah3...@ah77.cjb.net (ah3133) wrote in message news:<25cc3ade.04071...@posting.google.com>...
> > bobv...@aol.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<aa2332b1.04071...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ah3...@ah77.cjb.net (ah3133) wrote in message news:<25cc3ade.04071...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > causality, not existence.
> >
> > causal agency assumes existence. you must exist before you can cause
> > something to happen. to negate one is to negate the other.
>
> Wrong. Rand said that duty (the foundation of altruism) is an
> "anti-concept" which is meant to replace and obliterate the legitimate
> concept of Causality. She makes references as to the interdependency
> of both concepts, but she did not say specifically that altruism
> negates existence.
i'll concede that, but i will say that the very seperation of the two
is nothing but a floating abstraction. in reality, trying to seperate
existence from causality is equivalent to trying to seperate space
from time. it's physically impossible.
>It doesn't even make sense on a topical level.
granted, i've sent the discussion off course, but it does serve to
illustrate the absurdity of the concept ( or anti-concept ) of
altruism
> >
> > either way you define it, you still implictly assume the existence of
> > an "I", which is a measure of selfishness which makes true altruism
> > impossible.
>
> But I don't think you realize how commonplace Rand's observation is.
> Even the church teaches the importance of self-esteem in a loving
> relationship. It's not exactly a ground-breaking or enlightening
> concept.
ad populum
> > any definition of altrusim is going to implicitly involve voluntarily
> > placing more value on the judgement of some other person or thing than
> > you place on your own judgement.
>
> Really? What you just said doesn't strike me so much as an insight as
> an ad-hominem. I also find it funny that someone who started the ball
> rolling by quoting Rand would appeal to the primacy of independent
> judgement.
it wasn't meant to sound ad-hominem, i meant "you" in the general
sense. i would re-phrase it as "placing more value on the judgement of
some other person or thing than one places on one's own judgement."
>
> Find me a dictionary that "implies" that altruistic people can't think
> for themselves. Ooops, I forgot, objectivists use lexical definitions.
> Makes the job of obfuscation much easier.
not "can't", but "won't". the autonomous judgement is voluntarily
relinquished.
i won't obfuscate. i've made it simple and took the first definition
on the list at dictionary.com:
"Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness."
so (ignoring the synonym of "selflessness") there's two parts:
(1) "unselfish concern" - this implies a subject performing the act of
directing concern ( or interest, or regard ) away from oneself, and
toward someone or something other than oneself.
(2) "for the welfare of others" - this states the object of that
concern, which is the welfare, or well-being of others
when ones attention is directed toward the welfare of others, it
implicitly means that one places some value on their well-being of the
others, whatever that value may be. so let's consider that:
the altruist would say then when choosing between selfishness and
altruism, the choice comes down to:
ah3133 vs. others
but that's a false dichotomy, because it's impossible to focus my
concern, regard, or interest 100% on others, per se, unless i can deny
my own existence as a causal agent, which is impossible not to
acknowledge, because that would mean i wouldn't be here right now, and
that means there would be no ah3133 to be concerned with or to help
anyone, which would counteract my altruistic intentions. it would be
like trying to ask, "how can i help people in an alternate universe in
which i was never born?"
what you're really dealing with is a choice between:
ah3133 vs. (ah3133 + others)
now back to the original question of how judgement is released to
others:
when i'm selfish and put priority on ah3133, i have 100% judgement. i
authorize myself to be judge, jury, and executioner over my own
affairs.
but when i'm altruistic, the judge is the group, as a collective, not
me. by letting their well-being, their wants, needs, or fears
influence my judgement, it's no longer my judgement, but rather that
of the collective, the borg, and resistance is futile. i've
voluntarily given them decision-making power over my actions.
>
> > that relinquishment of autonomy, even
> > in the smallest capacity, is a self-sacrifice.
>
> No, it's not. Slitting my wrists and taking a warm bath is
> self-sacrifice.
this is a useless example, if we don't know your motive. if you're a
captured spy slitting your wrists so the enemy can't extract
information and endanger your country, then it's altruistic
self-sacrifice. if you do it because you want to escape the pain of
your life, then you're just being selfish, and not sacrificing
anything to anyone.
> Your caveat "even in the smallest capacity" is the grave error which
> all objectivists are guilty of. If I shove a buck-fifty in the
> Salvation Army christmas pail, did I kill myself? No.
it's not a matter of trying to kill yourself. it's a matter of trying
to erase yourself from existence, implicitly making decisions that
only benefit people in an alternate reality in which you do not exist.
>But that's what
> you're saying, that if I put so much as a nickel in that little red
> bucket out of concern for my fellow man*, I'm guilty of "relinquishing
> my autonomy".
if you're doing it to help poor people, or santa claus, then you're
letting the wants or needs of those people dictate your actions.
Ragman
>
> But I don't recall anything about his workers hating him or 100
> "needless" deaths. If anything, the workers should have been extremely
> grateful for the work and they lined up by the 1,000's for it (it was
> during the Depression and jobs were scarce). No doubt there were
> deaths but some of the work was inherently and extremely dangerous and
> the workers knew that.
>
> Fred Weiss
The doco i saw was one in a series of BBC doco's called the 7 Wonders of the
Industrialised World. I think this is the site for it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/industrialisation/hoover_dam_01
.shtml
There was a week long strike while the diversion tunnels were being build
because so many workers were getting knocked out by carbon-monoxide
poisioning due to inadequate ventilation. The strike busters were called in
and removed the workforce. A new workforce was hired at less pay, but hey
got venilation. Ex workers tried to sue but company doctors were instructed
to diagnose pnumonia.
In Australia, they're debating the concept of 'industrial man-slaughter'
which looks to jailing negligent employers. Most of the workers who died at
the Hoover Dam would have most certainly die more to negligence than
accident
As a work place it was very much suvival of the fittest, which suited Crow
because he got a very efficient workforce.
Ragman
Ragman
WOW! you read all that in just half a day???? Took me at least a year to get
a basic understanding of that material.
RTFM Bob. The maths, the predictions, the 'successful' experiements, are
all there. There's shitloads on that site aside from the techpapers link.
I suggest you look a bit to get any kind of clue as to what your wiping your
ass with.
Oh and if you want indipendant replication of experiements:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm
Ragman
Fred Weiss
> self-sacrifice. Giving a homeless man a pair of shoes is altruism.
> Your caveat "even in the smallest capacity" is the grave error which
> all objectivists are guilty of. If I shove a buck-fifty in the
> Salvation Army christmas pail, did I kill myself? No. But that's what
> you're saying, that if I put so much as a nickel in that little red
> bucket out of concern for my fellow man*, I'm guilty of "relinquishing
> my autonomy".
Bob persists in his deliberate confusion on this issue.
Giving a homeless man a pair of shoes is not necessarily altruism. You
could give him a pair you no longer wear and which are gathering dust
in your closet anyway. They are of little or no value to you - in fact
you welcome the opportunity to get them out of your closet. On the
other hand, giving a man the pair of shoes you just bought and which
you are eager to wear merely because you think he needs them more than
you do is altruism. And that is also a sacrifice, you are giving up a
higher value to you - the shoes - for a lesser value to you - this
man's need. A policy of giving up your values in this way is a policy
of self-sacrifice. It is equivalent to giving up your life for the
sake of others. In fact, you might as well just slit your wrists
because you take up space on this planet which other people need more
than you.
Ayn Rand is quite clear on this. So we continue to ask, on this as on
so many other issues pertaining to Objectivism, why does Bob persist
in his deliberate distortions?
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Ragman wrote:
> RTFM Bob. The maths, the predictions, the 'successful' experiements, are
> all there. There's shitloads on that site aside from the techpapers link.
> I suggest you look a bit to get any kind of clue as to what your wiping your
> ass with.
So you -say-. Now prove it.
Bob Kolker
Charles Novins
news:3672fde9.0407...@posting.google.com...
> Giving a homeless man a pair of shoes is not necessarily altruism. You
> could give him a pair you no longer wear and which are gathering dust
> in your closet anyway. They are of little or no value to you - in fact
> you welcome the opportunity to get them out of your closet.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Seriously, it's also a comment on capitalism that I have often tried -
unsuccessfully(!!!) - to give away various items I no longer want. Fred,
perhaps you can advise me about the best way to get rid of some of my books,
which have been a problem along the same lines.
The TIMES has reported on the fate of "donated" clothing, for which there is
zero demand even among the poorest of America's poor. The stuff is, in
fact, bundled up and sold at a profit, usually in Mexico.
FRED WEISS:
On the other hand, giving a man the pair of shoes you just bought and which
you are eager to wear merely because you think he needs them more than you
do is altruism.
CHARLES NOVINS:
It comes across more starkly when you give away resources that family or
friends could use. I see it as a betrayal to them, and thus a treason to
yourself, because you presumably value these people.
I think charity and charities are great, BTW, but it's amazing how the state
discourages such giving an dozens of ways.
FRED WEISS:
And that is also a sacrifice, you are giving up a
> higher value to you - the shoes - for a lesser value to you - this
> man's need. A policy of giving up your values in this way is a policy
> of self-sacrifice. It is equivalent to giving up your life for the
> sake of others. In fact, you might as well just slit your wrists
> because you take up space on this planet which other people need more
> than you.
>
> Ayn Rand is quite clear on this. So we continue to ask, on this as on
> so many other issues pertaining to Objectivism, why does Bob persist
> in his deliberate distortions?
CHARLES NOVINS:
Well, Bob sees people donate shoes, and then they don't die right there on
the spot, so he concludes it's all OK. You're asking Bob to think
abstractly, and it isn't fair, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Randroid Terminator
wrote:
I don't see what has Freddie so upset, the BBC episode obviously made
Crow out to be a hero.
--
Randroid Terminator
Yes, the skeptic's response demonstrating an utter unwillingness to do
one's own thinking.
--
Robert J. Kolker
Randroid Terminator wrote:
>
> Yes, the skeptic's response demonstrating an utter unwillingness to do
> one's own thinking.
He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. If you bother to read
his shit, it is nonsense from start to finish. It is the old Galilean
Etheric shit in new clothing.
Bob Kolker
Letterman
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:jhngf0941v3r82og9...@4ax.com...
Shame on you for relying on whim instead of logic. There are many examples
of what happens to a person when they abandon Objectivism. Alan Greenspan
comes to mind. There are also examples of what happens when they don't. A
case that you understand is ... your favorite Randroid (you know who).
Ken Gardner
[...]
>Ayn Rand is quite clear on this. So we continue to ask, on this as on
>so many other issues pertaining to Objectivism, why does Bob persist
>in his deliberate distortions?
When one attacks straw men, it is often because one realizes that the
real ones fight back.
Ken
Fred Weiss
> "Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
> news:3672fde9.0407...@posting.google.com...
> > Giving a homeless man a pair of shoes is not necessarily altruism. You
> > could give him a pair you no longer wear and which are gathering dust
> > in your closet anyway. They are of little or no value to you - in fact
> > you welcome the opportunity to get them out of your closet.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Seriously, it's also a comment on capitalism that I have often tried -
> unsuccessfully(!!!) - to give away various items I no longer want. Fred,
> perhaps you can advise me about the best way to get rid of some of my books,
> which have been a problem along the same lines.
The problem with books is that you are supposed to read them. They
really have very little other uses. And the simple fact, despite the
undying hopes of myriads of authors down through the ages, is that
most books aren't worth reading. Or, let's put it this way more
kindly, most people aren't interested in reading them.
> The TIMES has reported on the fate of "donated" clothing, for which there is
> zero demand even among the poorest of America's poor. The stuff is, in
> fact, bundled up and sold at a profit, usually in Mexico.
And I doubt the profit is much. Yeah, America's poor got standards,
doncha know. Ya think they'll take any ol' stuff you throw at 'em? But
you're right. It is capitalism at work. Much basic stuff, like food
and clothing, has gotten so (relatively) cheap in America and is
produced in such profusion, that you can hardly give it away. Like,
who would want your old Epson 8088 computer?
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Well, Bob sees people donate shoes, and then they don't die right there on
> the spot, so he concludes it's all OK. You're asking Bob to think
> abstractly, and it isn't fair, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Mea culpa. Btw, have you noticed Bob's curious variation on
Malenoidisms? Whereas Malenoid literally makes things up out of thin
air and throws it out there, I guess hoping against hope that no one
will notice, Bob's speciality is chronic misquoting. He'll take
something Ayn Rand said, twist it around a bit so it does sound
vaguely like something she said, but sufficiently distorting her
meaning so he can make some stupid point about it. And then he has the
audacity to fling at us, "Oh, you think that the only way to reject
Objectivism is because someone doesn't understand it".
Well...err...Bob...
Btw, Charles, (from some post of yours a couple of weeks ago): "Janet
Jackson's apocalpytic breast"!!! (which launched you on some lovely
rant against the FCC). ROTFL. That should get some kind of award.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:24:29 GMT, "Ragman" <dis...@dodo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> But I don't recall anything about his workers hating him or 100
> >> "needless" deaths. If anything, the workers should have been extremely
> >> grateful for the work and they lined up by the 1,000's for it (it was
> >> during the Depression and jobs were scarce). No doubt there were
> >> deaths but some of the work was inherently and extremely dangerous and
> >> the workers knew that.
> >>
> >> Fred Weiss
> >
> >The doco i saw was one in a series of BBC doco's called the 7 Wonders of the
> >Industrialised World. I think this is the site for it
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/industrialisation/hoover_dam_01
> >.shtml
> >
> >There was a week long strike while the diversion tunnels were being build
> >because so many workers were getting knocked out by carbon-monoxide
> >poisioning due to inadequate ventilation. The strike busters were called in
> >and removed the workforce. A new workforce was hired at less pay, but hey
> >got venilation. Ex workers tried to sue but company doctors were instructed
> >to diagnose pnumonia.
> >
> >In Australia, they're debating the concept of 'industrial man-slaughter'
> >which looks to jailing negligent employers. Most of the workers who died at
> >the Hoover Dam would have most certainly die more to negligence than
> >accident
There was no negligence. The workers were obviously fully aware of the
dangers (why else did they strike) and Crow was also obviously quite
willing to pay them more to incur the risks. He was also obviously
willing to better ventilate the tunnels (at added cost) but the
workers then got paid less. I dunno, did the workers come out ahead?
I thought you were referring to the other very dangerous work that was
involved in building the dam such as dealing with the explosives, etc.
and which also resulted in injuries and I assume some deaths.
This "industrial man-slaughter" issue is just nonsense and is designed
as nothing more than yet another way to bash businessmen. And it will
not benefit workers. The end result will be just as it was at Hoover
Dam, lower pay and/or replacement of workers. There are men more than
willing to take on dangerous work - if they are paid well for it. To
then turn around and charge the companies with negligence is a gross
injustice.
I saw a documentary on some of the incredible new machinery they are
now using in some logging operations. My guess is that the companies
would probably prefer to use men and probably happy to pay the wages
involved, but with the added costs of injuries, suits, and insurance,
the machinery is probably a better deal. So who benefits from it?
Fred Weiss
Ragman
Since i began studying O, I've wondered how a proponant of a be all, end
all, philosophy actually learns anything new. Even though O should work in
such a case, the fault in human character seems more to tend toward self
rightious ignorance of any challenging concept. This is exactly what you
display.
You have asked me for material to support what i have said. I gave the the
sources. You reject that without any objective analysis and ask me to prove
it as if it were all my findings, all my work. By that logic, Bob, I'd like
you to prove to me all the math, all the physics, all the chemistry, all
the biology etc that has ever been discovered in the history of humanity
Ragman
Randroid Terminator
Robert J. Kolker
Randroid Terminator wrote:
>
> Prove it.
Read it and see for yourself. This joker provides the evidence.
Bob Kolker
Randroid Terminator
Bob
>
> >First of all, I *never* said I was a victim; my claim was that I
> >bought into a bogus philosophy, and therefore take full responsibility
> >for the consequences, which I am not entirely pleased with. My
> >position is that I've graduated from objectivism, as most big boys and
> >big girls end up doing, upon examining it sans hubris.
>
> Bob, your posts here and at HPO have only increased my certainty in
> the truth of Objectivism.
One would expect as much, that when a system is under attack, the
faithful circle the wagons. You don't understand your own psychology,
do you? You'd be shocked to find out that without demonizing all other
systems, your own would be nowhere.
You should give people here more credit than to try to impress upon
them that an idealogue's devotion was ever in doubt.
Bob
> bobv...@aol.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<aa2332b1.04071...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > ...Slitting my wrists and taking a warm bath is
> > self-sacrifice. Giving a homeless man a pair of shoes is altruism.
> > Your caveat "even in the smallest capacity" is the grave error which
> > all objectivists are guilty of. If I shove a buck-fifty in the
> > Salvation Army christmas pail, did I kill myself? No. But that's what
> > you're saying, that if I put so much as a nickel in that little red
> > bucket out of concern for my fellow man*, I'm guilty of "relinquishing
> > my autonomy".
>
> Bob persists in his deliberate confusion on this issue.
>
> Giving a homeless man a pair of shoes is not necessarily altruism. You
> could give him a pair you no longer wear and which are gathering dust
> in your closet anyway.
What brand are the shoes, Fred? Size 9 or 9-1/2? Are the shoes given
on a Wednesday or a Friday? Is it an act of altruism if the shoes were
bought at K-mart, two year ago, or at Wal-mart, just yesterday? Do the
weather conditions come into play when defining altruism?
> They are of little or no value to you - in fact
> you welcome the opportunity to get them out of your closet. On the
> other hand, giving a man the pair of shoes you just bought and which
> you are eager to wear merely because you think he needs them more than
> you do is altruism.
How do you know I'm "eager to wear" them? Why would you assume that I
bought the shoes for myself and was somehow motivated to give them up?
> And that is also a sacrifice, you are giving up a
> higher value to you - the shoes - for a lesser value to you - this
> man's need. A policy of giving up your values in this way is a policy
> of self-sacrifice. It is equivalent to giving up your life for the
> sake of others.
Again, you assume that I covet the shoes.
> In fact, you might as well just slit your wrists
> because you take up space on this planet which other people need more
> than you.
I'm glad objectivism has people like you to dispell the myth that
objectivists are a bunch of Nazis.
>
> Ayn Rand is quite clear on this.
So what? Perhaps you could follow her lead and stop obfuscating the
issue with made-up conditionals and false assumptions.
Charles Novins
> > could give him a pair you no longer wear and which are gathering dust
> > in your closet anyway.
"Bob" <bobv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aa2332b1.04071...@posting.google.com...
> What brand are the shoes, Fred? Size 9 or 9-1/2? Are the shoes given
> on a Wednesday or a Friday? Is it an act of altruism if the shoes were
> bought at K-mart, two year ago, or at Wal-mart, just yesterday? Do the
> weather conditions come into play when defining altruism?
CHARLES NOVINS:
In a swirl of revelation, Bob discovers that context matters....
>
BOB VOGEL:
> How do you know I'm "eager to wear" them? Why would you assume that I
> bought the shoes for myself and was somehow motivated to give them up?
CHARLES NOVINS:
...and yet, determining what parts of the context matter still eludes him
somehow....
BOB VOGEL:
> I'm glad objectivism has people like you to dispell the myth that
> objectivists are a bunch of Nazis.
CHARLES NOVINS:
....but he doesn't let the debate get out of hand (and the heck with this
Godwin character)...
Tomm Carr
> My first BIG question pertains to Rand's concepts of selfishness and
> alturism. To paraphase their dictionary meanings as:
>
> Selfishness - Regarding one's self at the expense of others.
> Alturism - Regarding others at the expense of one's self.
>
> Rand arbitarily changes the meaning of selfishness to only 'Regarding one's
> self' without giving equal adjustment to alturism by removing the 'expense
> of one's self'. From that bias she attacks alturism and i wonder why.
First of all, you have to realize that any word has different meanings
in different contexts. A casual glance at my dictionary revealed five
definitions of selfish, only one of which had the "at the expense of
others" part.
Regardless, as with most philosophical discussions, the meanings of key
words used are often not the common ones found in dictionaries. When
Rand uses the word "selfishness," she does not use the dictionary
definition. This is fine...she goes to great length to give us the
definition she means. You obviously inferred the difference from the
story which is why you wonder. In "Selfishness - The Unknown Ideal" she
gives the specific definition.
TommCatt
--
We should...be able to see that our interest would be best
served not by asking the state to promulgate our values but
by forbidding the state to promulgate any values at all.
If the state can espouse some value that we love, it can,
with equal justice, espouse others we do not love.
- Richard Mitchell
Charles Novins
news:cSjLc.2949$Fj6.2279@lakeread07...
You obviously inferred the difference from the
> story which is why you wonder. In "Selfishness - The Unknown Ideal" she
> gives the specific definition.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Now it's my turn to be dense. This is a gag, or what?
Bob
> > fred...@papertig.com (Fred Weiss) wrote in message
> news:<3672fde9.0407...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Giving a homeless man a pair of shoes is not necessarily altruism. You
> > > could give him a pair you no longer wear and which are gathering dust
> > > in your closet anyway.
>
> "Bob" <bobv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:aa2332b1.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > What brand are the shoes, Fred? Size 9 or 9-1/2? Are the shoes given
> > on a Wednesday or a Friday? Is it an act of altruism if the shoes were
> > bought at K-mart, two year ago, or at Wal-mart, just yesterday? Do the
> > weather conditions come into play when defining altruism?
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> In a swirl of revelation, Bob discovers that context matters....
Have I ever indicated otherwise? When Fred "Kant" address the issue,
he makes up contexts of his own.
> >
>
> BOB VOGEL:
> > I'm glad objectivism has people like you to dispell the myth that
> > objectivists are a bunch of Nazis.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> ....but he doesn't let the debate get out of hand (and the heck with this
> Godwin character)...
Well, Chaz, what would you say to Fred: "In fact, you might as well
just slit your wrists because you take up space on this planet which
other people need more than you."
That's what I call context. Kinda tells the whole story, doesn't it?
It says, "I'm a lover of life, but I'm not above wishing death of poor
people. Well, voluntary death, anyway."
And, yes, screw Godwin. When Fred just lobs them up like that, he
can't hide behind some nebulous usenet convention to prevent people
from calling him for what he is. Or as Ken puts it, [insert "A is A"
here].
Fred quacks like a duck.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Randroid Terminator
.
.And, yes, screw Godwin. When Fred just lobs them up like that, he
.can't hide behind some nebulous usenet convention to prevent people
.from calling him for what he is. Or as Ken puts it, [insert "A is A"
.here].
.
.Fred quacks like a duck.
Just plonk them all, their posts are worthless.
--
Bob
> > personal, *selfish* pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of
> > another man's character."
>
> > Not exactly the same thing, is it? Aristotle said "yours, noble and
> > fine" and rand says "selfish payment for virtues rendered."
>
> Now, Aristotle distinctly claims that "Good men are both pleasant and useful
> to each other". And Rand is claiming that one derives selfish pleasure from
> the virtues of another man's character. In this they clearly and obviously
> agree.
They do not! Aristotle condemned selfishness in his Politics,
believing it an unhealthy extreme of self-interest: "for surely the
love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and not given in vain,
although selfishness is rightly censured".
Randroid Terminator
.
.They do not! Aristotle condemned selfishness in his Politics,
.believing it an unhealthy extreme of self-interest: "for surely the
.love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and not given in vain,
.although selfishness is rightly censured".
Interesting. For Aristotle, nature implants attributes in man and
probably for other living beings, organized beings which are
teleologically oriented (i.e., toward final causes). These attributes
were not implanted "in vain," a term which Kant used in the Critique
of Judgment to describe much the same scenario:
"In it [i.e., organized nature], nothing is in vain, without [natural]
purpose, or to be ascribed to a blind mechanism of nature [i.e.,
efficient causes]." (ยง66)
If there is a natural, teleological purpose to selfishness, then why
is it to be "rightly censured"? And why then was Rand such a great fan
of Aristotle's?
As for the last question, I don't really care why she did or thought
this or that, her thinking was not so much hopelessly disorganized as
it was organized toward some bizarre purpose of her own creation.
But the former question entails an answer which is found in Kantian
morality.
The answer is that while all organized (living) beings are organized
in accordance with a plan and a purpose, although it is plan internal
to the organized being and not external to it (neither that of God nor
any other Watchmaker; nor is it a hylozoic property, that is, the
result of some "universal life force"), that plan is to be uncovered
by Reason and found, through a process of pure rational reflection,
to be a regulative principle.
What purpose then does Reason serve nature? None. It would, as Kant
famously remarked, be more naturally propitious for humans if they
were organized in accordance with the happiness principle and ruled by
instinct rather than reason. Reason, it seems, serves its own plan and
own purpose outside the bounds of nature. Therefore, it serves a plan
outside the bounds of natural purposes, such as that given to
selfishness. And that is why we must govern our selfishness, using
reason, and not be governed by it.
--
Steven O.
>> in 'the fountainhead' she wrote, "to say 'I love you', one must know
>> first how to say the 'I'."
>
>The implication of the statement is that love is not an act of giving,
>as it is normally thought of as, but an act of gratifying one's own
>ego needs, that to say "I love you" is essentially to say "I love
>myself".
Well, no, or maybe yes, but not in the cynical way that I think you
are reading it (which is evident from the rest of your post, which
I've elected to omit for brevity).
My paraphrase of that wonderful line from The Fountainhead is, "To say
'I love you', one must first have a moral and spiritual center which
appreciates the value and beauty of life at all. I must first
discover the meaning of life for myself, and only then can I hope to
discover, in you, those things which are, in fact, beautiful and life
sustaining."
Put another way, if I don't have a sense of my own worth, it's
unlikely I'll really be able to appreciate anyone else's worth. It
doesn't mean, "I love myself, so I'm only going to appreciate you to
the extent that you reinforce my narcissistic sense of being better
than everyone else." (At least, it should not mean that, and if that
really *is* what Rand meant, then she screwed up, but that's not how I
read the passage.)
Steve O.
Steven AATT Domain DDOOTT com
To send an e-mail, substitute @ for AATT, a . for DDOOTT, and OpComm for Domain
Standard Antiflame Disclaimer: Please don't flame me. I may actually *be* an idiot, but even idiots have feelings.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, aspiring to liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
Charles Novins
> Well, Chaz, what would you say to Fred: "In fact, you might as well
> just slit your wrists because you take up space on this planet which
> other people need more than you."
>
> That's what I call context. Kinda tells the whole story, doesn't it?
> It says, "I'm a lover of life, but I'm not above wishing death of poor
> people. Well, voluntary death, anyway."
>
> And, yes, screw Godwin. When Fred just lobs them up like that, he
> can't hide behind some nebulous usenet convention to prevent people
> from calling him for what he is. Or as Ken puts it, [insert "A is A"
> here].
>
> Fred quacks like a duck.
CHARLES NOVINS:
I have practically no idea what you're talking about. At least in the
beginning, your ravings were somewhat coherent, if ill-informed and
clueless. Now, I can't even make out what you intend to say. Try to calm
yourself and your anti-Rand-frenzy.
Fred wants to kill people...with their consent ("voluntary death"). Is that
it?
Like others here who shall go unnamed (Give us an "M!" Give us an "A!"),
you remain a lurid weirdo hanging around a newsgroup where, by definition,
almost no one gives a rats-ass what you have to say, a most intelligent use
of your time and energy that, like it or not, informs everyone's view of
you..
So at least try to keep it coherent, so we can at least observe you as a
psych-case.
YOUR TRANSLATOR:
Now that I'm DEAD, I understand this guy's mind.
Charles Novins
> Just plonk them all, their posts are worthless.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Oh, that's a riot. Live your life in an Objectivist newsgroup (or two!) and
killfile everyone there.
Mal, you're just wigging out. You aren't a nit-wit but somehow it's become
your goal.
Randroid Terminator
<taxs...@free-market.net> wrote:
."Randroid Terminator" <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
.news:gpqag0palgf8g4h35...@4ax.com...
.> Just plonk them all, their posts are worthless.
.
.CHARLES NOVINS:
.Oh, that's a riot. Live your life in an Objectivist newsgroup (or
two!) and
.killfile everyone there.
.
.Mal, you're just wigging out. You aren't a nit-wit but somehow it's
become
.your goal.
I am the one wigging out? You commonly author posts containing such
literary masterpieces as "boink" and "Blahahah," and little else but
insults such as the "nit-wit" comment. That's why your worthless posts
are plonked on HPO and soon they'll be plonked here.
--