German Subjectivist Sighted
Magnus Kempe
next time..]
In an amazing show of subjectivism, Oliver Bonten (Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D) writes:
: [about some individuals who create a welfare state and want all future
: generations to sacrifice for themselves]
: [these generations] have three choices: 1) (unwillingly) accept the system,
: 2) become a majority and change it or 3) leave. But not emitting theo-
: retical blubber about 'human rights'.
Your position amounts to: unlimited rule by the majority. That is not
new, just another variant of statism. FYI, slavery was made possible
by that kind of thinking [and there was a good majority of Germans
who supported Hitler, too -- which doesn't mean you do, or would have
done, of course -- I'm just pointing out examples of unlimited majority
rule; for more, check your history books.]
Now, the fun begins.
: Yes! Whose reality ? Yours, obviously. Reality is _not_ absolute. It is a
: construction of your brain and may well differ from realities construed by
: other brains. However, most reasonable people assume that there is a real
: world outside their mind, and that there are relations between their
: reality and the world outside.
Isn't that paragraph contradictory? (maybe that's because reality changed
while you where writing it.)
: > Property rights are a consequence of the right to life. [...]
: No!
Your view of reality does not allow you to say anything about what I
say: my reality has nothing to do with yours. Try to practice your
dogma consistently.
: > [...] For example, a woman owns her own body. That means
: > she is sole responsible for deciding whether she will abort, or not.
: At least this time, I agree completely. If this decision is free, uninfluenced
: by economic needs and other people's will (esp. of the child's father).
Do you mean this decision should be free of reality?
: Poorness is not their fault. Equality of chance, for all men, is essen-
: tial.
In which reality? Yours? How do you know it applies to all men?
: Shooting at robbers is no self-defense and thus immoral. Get a theft
: insurance, instead.
In some people's reality, shooting at innocents is self-defense. Of
course, I would call that subjectivism, but, as you clearly said,
reality is not absolute... Is theft real?
Wouldn't it be thrilling to live in brain-made realities? That way,
we wouldn't be subject to the "tyranny of reality"... Oh, well.
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar
to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
Kimmo Saarinen
>In an amazing show of subjectivism, Oliver Bonten (Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D) writes:
>: [about some individuals who create a welfare state and want all future
>: generations to sacrifice for themselves]
>: [these generations] have three choices: 1) (unwillingly) accept the system,
>: 2) become a majority and change it or 3) leave. But not emitting theo-
>: retical blubber about 'human rights'.
>
>Your position amounts to: unlimited rule by the majority. That is not
>new, just another variant of statism. FYI, slavery was made possible
No, not the unlimited majority. You assume that the majority is static but it
is not necessarily that. Of course the majority itself is always majority
but the majority is formed from the individuals, who can choose freely
their values (you own words) and thus their opinions. The majority rules,
but in many nations there are granded certain rights also for the minority.
So getting a majority in different situations is a process to collect the
people behind the ideas and it is a matter of selling the ideas (in some
way or not), people have their 'free will', you know.
>: Yes! Whose reality ? Yours, obviously. Reality is _not_ absolute. It is a
>: construction of your brain and may well differ from realities construed by
>: other brains. However, most reasonable people assume that there is a real
>: world outside their mind, and that there are relations between their
>: reality and the world outside.
>
>Isn't that paragraph contradictory? (maybe that's because reality changed
>while you where writing it.)
No it is not. You must make a distinction between the meanings of the
observers (individuals) reality and the reality of the world. They are not
necessarily the same at all. As I understood Olivier he ment that there is
a world with its reality and that what we call and consider as a reality
is only a view to that world. Some people are aware about that *fact*
some are not (as I can see).
>: > Property rights are a consequence of the right to life. [...]
>: No!
>
>Your view of reality does not allow you to say anything about what I
>say: my reality has nothing to do with yours. Try to practice your
>dogma consistently.
C'mon, even if our realities are our own and they can differ greatly
from each others there can be some overlaps and they can be shared.
The fundamental mechanism to construct the reality is still the same,
we talk (nearly) with same words, we have (nearly) the same meanings
of the words, we communicate -> we use our shared reality.
>
>: > [...] For example, a woman owns her own body. That means
>: > she is sole responsible for deciding whether she will abort, or not.
>: At least this time, I agree completely. If this decision is free, uninfluenced
>: by economic needs and other people's will (esp. of the child's father).
>
>Do you mean this decision should be free of reality?
What do you mean this time with the word 'reality' ?
>: Poorness is not their fault. Equality of chance, for all men, is essen-
>: tial.
>
>In which reality? Yours? How do you know it applies to all men?
Also in my reality too, this is politics, you know ! It is an opinion
(a value) that you can try to 'sell' to another man.
>Wouldn't it be thrilling to live in brain-made realities? That way,
>we wouldn't be subject to the "tyranny of reality"... Oh, well.
I live in my brain-made reality and I hope it has at least some
resemblance with the outside world (I have connections to it through
my senses, but can I trust them ?).
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
- Kimmo
--
Kimmo Saarinen ! e-mail ki...@vtsai2.sai.vtt.FI
Technical Research Centre of Finland ! Tel. +358 31 163 357
Medical Engineering Laboratory ! Fax 174 102
P.O.BOX 316, SF-33101 Tampere, Finland ! ... completely mad ...
Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D
This seems to be a very long article!
Long time passed since I read Magnus' reply to my first article, but at
least I finished my reply, after computer breakdowns and *lots* of adminis-
trative trouble.
This article will be subdivided into three sections, according to the topics
of my first article and the answers of Magnus into a political and a philo-
sophical section, and a section for replies to other postings. The
'In article <xyz> HUGO@HIRNI ( don't-know-who ) writes:' - lines will be
omitted, due to technical problems.
1) Political Section
>In an amazing show of subjectivism, Oliver Bonten (Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D) writes:
>: [about some individuals who create a welfare state and want all future
>: generations to sacrifice for themselves]
>: [these generations] have three choices: 1) (unwillingly) accept the system,
>: 2) become a majority and change it or 3) leave. But not emitting theo-
>: retical blubber about 'human rights'.
>
>Your position amounts to: unlimited rule by the majority. That is not
>new, just another variant of statism. FYI, slavery was made possible
>by that kind of thinking [and there was a good majority of Germans
>who supported Hitler, too -- which doesn't mean you do, or would have
>done, of course -- I'm just pointing out examples of unlimited majority
>rule; for more, check your history books.]
There is more than unlimited or most-limited majority rule. I did read my
history books well, and I know about the fatal consequences of unlimited
majority rule. But you want the state's influence cut to the absolute
minimum (police, army - anything else ?) Those are not the only alternatives!
Majorities decide things which affect the society in general,
while individuals decide things which affect only them. Sub-societies may
govern themselves, e.g. states (of federations), cities, trade unions
etc. (You can't take this as a definition like a mathematical one, but this
is impossible in politics at all.) So, the majority cannot determine
what colours to wear, when to cut the hair or what type of sex with whatever
person to have (assuming voluntarity of both persons involved, here.)
A social system, and an economics, however, may depend on the fact that
everybody - at least unwillingly - plays his role in it. Thus, it is a
matter of majority decisions.
2) Philosophical section.
An optimization problem arises: a) I don't want to be misunderstood and
b) I don't want to post a philosophy book to this newsgroup.
I will have to find a compromise. And it will be bad, but I have no choice
(besides keeping closed).
>Now, the fun begins.
>
>: Yes! Whose reality ? Yours, obviously. Reality is _not_ absolute. It is a
>: construction of your brain and may well differ from realities construed by
>: other brains. However, most reasonable people assume that there is a real
>: world outside their mind, and that there are relations between their
>: reality and the world outside.
>
>Isn't that paragraph contradictory? (maybe that's because reality changed
>while you where writing it.)
You did not really understand me. Maybe I did not express myself clear enough,
but at least other persons on the net (Kimmo) understood me. For clarity, I
will first give an example:
Think of two neighbours, one of them a believing catholic, the other one
atheist. None of them will ever doubt that the other one exists, nor that his
and the neighbours house are real. Both - and most other people - assume then
that the houses and the men really exist and are part of a reality inde-
pendent of the human brain. (But they can never prove it!)
Now a flash of lightning hits the atheist's house and it is set on fire.
No one will doubt the reality of the flash of lightning and that of the fire.
BUT: to the atheist those are just natural events, he had had tough luck. The
catholic clearly will see that this is god's punishment for the atheist's
heresies. And this is absolutely evident to him, god and his interference
are as real as the houses, the men or the fire to him.
Maybe Magnus has no experience with people who cling to dogmas, like
some catholics (the 'some' put in to avoid conflict with heresy laws) or
some marxists (this 'some' put in for fairness, as marxism isn't protected
by heresy laws), or didn't try to understand them, or lost patience too
early. But these people really believe what they say, and more, they are
not able to see why their positions are not evident to other persons.
Now theory: There _is_ a 'reality' outside my - and all our - brain(s).
This cannot be proved, but it could possibly be falsified, if it weren't
true. All tries to falsify this hypothesis failed, so far. This qualifies
the hypothesis as a good basis for an epistemology, and as far as I am con-
cerned, I believe it's true, which reads: I take it as a working hypothesis
for my epistemology. But this doesn't imply that I know anything about it.
I do not even know that it exists, I believe it, as I said. Using perceptions,
we are only able to form an image of the reality. And we use a priori
principles to sort those perceptions, like identity and causality.
Those perceptions, especially their interpretations in terms of cause and
effect, are subjective. And they are anything we can get. Man's mind
('man' referring to individuals of our species, not only to males; I hope
the women out there dont't mind) is _not_ able to 'grasp' reality, if this
refers to the 'absolute' reality mentioned above. In this sense, Magnus'
axioms derive from some observations together with some built-in brain
functions interpreting those (and supplying causality relations). I don't
doubt we others are able to share his observations, but our brain functions
will be different and supply different causality relations, or maybe none,
or maybe extra ones.
>: > Property rights are a consequence of the right to life. [...]
>: No!
>
>Your view of reality does not allow you to say anything about what I
>say: my reality has nothing to do with yours. Try to practice your
>dogma consistently.
Yes. Your statement is a part of _your_ private reality image. Most other
people, at least here on the net, don't share it. This is a strong hint
that it doesn't reflect structures from the outside reality.
BTW, my epistemology is not a dogma. It arose from my scientific education,
developed steadily by _thinking_, and I am aware of the fact that I may
be wrong, though I have no indication for it at the time, and may have to
change my view of the world. Now I don't want to speak about the relation
between your axioms and Dogmas. :-)
>: > [...] For example, a woman owns her own body. That means
>: > she is sole responsible for deciding whether she will abort, or not.
>: At least this time, I agree completely. If this decision is free, uninfluenced
>: by economic needs and other people's will (esp. of the child's father).
>
>Do you mean this decision should be free of reality?
No. You may influence somebody someway without even noticing it, e.g. be-
cause you yourself can't be influenced the same way. Maybe it is even not
clear what 'influencing' is. This is a problem. But denying their exis-
tence doesnt't solve problems.
>: Poorness is not their fault. Equality of chance, for all men, is essen-
>: tial.
>
>In which reality? Yours? How do you know it applies to all men?
I didn't write: "Equality of chance is essential for all men", I wrote:
"Equality of chance, for all men, is essential". I consecute it from:
"All men are born free and equal". Most people will agree with me, I think.
This is a strong hint that this views reflect properties of the reality
outside.
>: Shooting at robbers is no self-defense and thus immoral. Get a theft
>: insurance, instead.
>
>In some people's reality, shooting at innocents is self-defense. Of
>course, I would call that subjectivism, but, as you clearly said,
>reality is not absolute... Is theft real?
This is my opinion, yes. You may think different about it. But as a
question of _public_ moral and _public_ laws, this is subject to _public_
decision, which usually means that the people we vote to make the law
will decide. In the USA, you may shoot at people walking around uninvitedly
on your private ground. In western Germany, it is a crime. Both is possible
in a democratic state.
>Wouldn't it be thrilling to live in brain-made realities? That way,
>we wouldn't be subject to the "tyranny of reality"... Oh, well.
What do we live in, then? Did you really read my article, or did you just
flame? The only drawback is that we can't choose our perceptions, only their
interpretation. Besides, this is why I decided to become a mathematician, years
ago. Mathematicians just set axioms according to their wishes and then live
in completely brain-made worlds. Now, what is the brain? Material, evolved
in billions of years. Subject to laws of biochemistry and physics. What a
pity!
3) Some other remarks.
In anothe article, you wrote:
>[...] The obvious goal is to prevent any individual
>to claim that the group is more important than the individuals, that he
>is the voice of the group, and to proceed to any action he wishes, under
>the cover that the group, and the voice of the group, is not subject
>to morality.
Is this all equivalent? Can't a group be more important than the individual
and be subject to morality, too? Can't someone claim that the group is more
important than he himself without claiming that he is the voice of the group?
This 'voice of the group', BTW, is not the group. It is the ultimate ego-
ist. An absolute individual, abusing the group idea for his benefit.
>Nope. A judgment is substantiated -- i.e. it is objective. An opinion is
>just that: an opinion -- i.e. it is no claimed to be objective.
This is just a definition of terms. And: your judgments _claim_ to be
objective. I don't think they are, as I don't see their evidence.
>Compare West-Berlin to East-Berlin (I know, I know, that is only
>semi-capitalism, but that should be sufficiently convincing..)
The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) is far from Laissez-faire capitalism.
And West-Berlin is economically part of the FRG. In fact,
the FRG restricts property rights more than any other western country.
Look at article 15 of the constitution. (I think it's 15.) The opinion
is common here that the FRG's wealth is the merit of both the social system
and the market economics.
>*If* you had read the American Constitution, you would have known
>that the Founding Fathers did set a date to end slavery. But you
Aha! Why didn't they end it immediately? I guess, it was impractical at
the time. What would you say if we decide to discuss about your ideas
in 200 years?
>: [...] What we presently know from hard sciences is that
>: physical dualities really exist. Its time to accept that dualities exist on
>: philosophical and social level [...]
>
>Nope. Physical dualities do not exist -- there is no proof of that. Some
>irrational physicists have come up with irrational explanations of
>their observations, but that is because they reject the laws of identity
>and causality. Not all physicists subscribe to this kind of mysticism,
>fortunately.
Most physicists do. And: using quantum mechanics and relativity they can
plan experiments, predict the results and then verify them. Without QM
and relativity this does not work. Explain why the mathematics of QM
fit to the observations. As I explained above, identity and causality are
principles of our brains, not of the reality outside them. This gives a
strong hint that those ideas can't be too far from reality outside, for we
would have been wiped out by the evolution if our brains were too bad.
But the argument applies only to phenomena bigger than molecules and
smaller than stars. (Some philosopher called this range 'mesocosmos'.)
>In article <12...@rwthinf.UUCP> you write:
>: [...] And dont't tell me it's impossible to apply this to
>: the 'advanced' perceptions of abstracts like ideas and theories.
>
>Abstractions are not perceptions.
I said 'perceptions _of_ abstracts'. You perceive abstracts. Otherwise
you wouldn't know them.
In a personal letter, you mailed me your premises:
1>Reality exists, independently of man's mind.
2>Our senses are reliable.
3>Knowledge with certainty is possible.
1: What can you know about it? This is the crucial point.
2: What about hallucinations? And what does 'reliable' mean? Does it mean
they show objective truths? Or that they are doing their best in per-
ceiving whatever they can get? And is the brain working on the per-
ceptions reliable?
3: Yes, but about what? I know for certain that I am writing an article now
but I don't know that terminal and computer are what I think they are.
I don't even know that 'writing' is what I think it is.
>I know you disagree. I also know that you haven't the faintest idea
>why you disagree. You just feel like it. Because you are an emotionalist.
The people on the net will agree that I know well why I disagree. I have good
reasons for disagreeing. And I am not an emotionalist. I don't trust emo-
tions if I don't understand where they arise from.
>Another thing that you will emotionally reject: emotions are the integrated
>product of your premises. Emotions are not primaries.
Emotions are not primaries, right. But not as product of premises, as well,
as long as this means a merely rational origin. Man (see above) is an ani-
mal, thus supplied with drives, and they are primaries. They are even
primary to thoughts, as rationality alone can give no reasons. You
have a reason to live, to eat, to work etc., and by rationality alone
those reasons can only reduced to 'irrational' primaries, or to nothing.
Emotions involve drives _and_ rational premises.
Now it would be time to finish, but I have some more words to say.
Magnus has no understanding of historical processes and how the state of
our world evolved. His view is static, as-is. For example he rejects the
british laws according to which trade union membership is mandatory
without taking into account how they arose: by a voluntary (in his terms)
consent between employers and trade unions, after the unions fought for
it. The same applies to his judgement about the swedish society and
societies in general. He never takes into account that social systems
were installed because of bad experiences with other economies or after
successful (economic) fights of the underprivileged. Bismarck installed
the german system of social insurances in order to reduce the socialist's
influence on the workers. It failed, but didn't he do this voluntary, in
Magnus definitions? He didn't fear revolutions, he feared strikes.
Then, his starting point is false. Political philosophy is a matter
of practical philosophy, i.e. ethics. This can't be done by just
deriving from axioms. Mathematics-like axioms are free to set as one
needs them (and they don't contradict each other), but cannot claim to
reflect the reality. Science-like axioms are basic laws of nature, which
have to be empirically verified - and this by lots of people, not a single
man. As we have seen, your axioms cannot be verified by the people here
on the net. So we can't take them as a starting point for a political theory.
Thirdly, he uses illegal arguments. I didn't store the article, sorry, but I
remember a statement like
>Existence exists. To falsifie this, you need existence.
and others of that structure. Logically, this goes like:
Statement: A
Proof: ( not A ) proved => A
But this is logically incorrect. Read Goedel. An unprovable statement need not
to be false. Besides, the existence of existence is a meta-existence. Of
course you are free not to distinguish the levels of 'meta-', but then
you are in duty to prove that this doesn't lead to logical contradictions.
And you are likely to run into contradictions. If you distinguish them,
your statement is a triviality and has no consequences.
Besides, epistemology does not allow hypotheses which are unrejectable.
But, according to Magnus' 'proof', it is impossible to prove that exis-
tence does not exist, if it does not exist. Thus his statement is illegal
in the sence of epistemology.
And, as Magnus is a man of reality, he must surely see that it is practically
impossible to govern a country in a way that many people don't have more
to lose than their lives. Because he can't stop a revolution by claiming
his moral rights. Even if he is right. This doesn't justify revolutions,
but men (see above) of practice must take this into account.
To those who read so far, thanks for your patience.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Good Evening, Oliver -- f...@dacth51.bitnet
>"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar
> to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
>-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
Isn't this exactly what the above cited 'enemies' will state about themselves?
Robert Nagler
>>: Poorness is not their fault. Equality of chance, for all men, is essen-
>>: tial.
>>
>>In which reality? Yours? How do you know it applies to all men?
>
>I didn't write: "Equality of chance is essential for all men", I wrote:
>"Equality of chance, for all men, is essential". I consecute it from:
>"All men are born free and equal". Most people will agree with me, I think.
>This is a strong hint that this views reflect properties of the reality
>outside.
I apologize for stepping into this seemingly hot debate from the outside,
but I find this statement a bit disturbing. I assume "consecute" means
"follows from" (no arrogance intended, just trying to make things clear).
The statement "All men are born ... equal" is false. We know this from
genetic research and from common sense: Tom Selleck vs. The Elephant Man,
Albert Einstein vs. Ronald Reagan, etc. The phrase "from each according
to her/its/his ability, to each according to his/its/her need" clearly
states that people are not equal and, secondly, there exists a means for
establishing the differences, i.e. determining each person's abilities
and needs.
The capitalist creed might read: "from each according to his need".
More explicitly, capitalists define a relative system of needs vs. abilities
and communists assume the existence of an absolute reference point, needs vs.
needs and abilities vs. abilities. The latter system comes from the
Christian (Robin Hood) value system whereas the former is derived from the
enlightened writings of John Locke et al.
Capitalism (as I see it) lays the responsibility of living standard (quality)
at the feet of the provider/consumer. The tools, or wherewithall, of the
provider are not merely the provider's responsibility but are directly
related to those of his/her/its ancestors. The origin of our species was
neither capitalist nor communist which confounds the discussion immensely.
The affirmative action program in the U.S. is an example trying to
adjust the wrongs of former systems. Justice has not prevailed and the
minorities are still in a bad way probably as a direct result of these
affirmative action programs.
[This last statement is clearly an unsubstantiated opinion, je m'excuse.]
The other side of the problem is the democratization of the western world:
People have been trained to believe that they are equal. Each and every
one of the "against Magnus Kempe" crowd would agree with this statement.
In reality [skip the "my reality vs your reality" stuff], as demonstrated
above, we are all different by birth (which as they say, makes the world
go around). The crux of the matter is that no one including the leaders
of the Russian Revolution are willing to admit this fact to the populace,
that is, you, person A, are inferior to person B, therefore person B
must produce more than you. A ranking of production abilities and
living requirements for all individuals according to a set of criteria
is clearly possible (although time consuming) but is counter-productive
to the goals of any government. The rulers would be thrown out before
they started.
In the good old days, it was easy to determine who was naughty and who
was nice. The judgement was made either by the church or the king (sometimes
both). Today, we leave this judgement to the ruling class which supposedly
in a democratic society is the populace. The ruling class not wanting
to disturb the status quo establishes--instead of an absolute ranking--
a middle. The populace is satisfied, because the majority (the masses)
are the middle, or mediocrity. I'm ok. You're ok. The superior class
(the minority) has the choice to conform to the mediocrity (now don't be
too smart Peter, go slowly) or be outcast. The lower class (not workers)
is treated with pity (oh, look at those poor starving Africans). The
children of the mediocrity do not strive for betterment: They are good
enough.
Nietzsche wrote about these same ideas over 100 years ago and we have yet to
come to grips with the reality of the situation. We are producing fewer
and fewer stellar individuals (beyond genetic freaks like Michael Jackson
and Brigitte Bardot). The society is crumbling before our eyes and we
are powerless to stop it. No one wants to (or can) say he is better than
the rest unless there is an obvious distinguishing physical characteristic
(e.g. facial features). Even our arguments are becoming weaker (as mine
clearly are). Capitalism could have saved us from this obvious downfall
but a complimentary political system was (and has not) developed to support
this ideal economic system (as has been nicely demonstrated by both sides
of the current flaming session).
Jeff Dalton
>The other side of the problem is the democratization of the western world:
>People have been trained to believe that they are equal. Each and every
>one of the "against Magnus Kempe" crowd would agree with this statement.
Why do you say that? I, for one, have said nothing about equality.
But here I'm inclined to follow Magnus and say: define equality.
Do you really think that those who say "all men are equal" have
somehow failed to notice that some people are stronger, faster,
smarter, etc than others? I would think it much more likely
that they have a different notion of equality in mind.
Magnus Kempe
: [...] The phrase "from each according
: to her/its/his ability, to each according to his/its/her need" clearly
: states that people are not equal and, secondly, there exists a means for
: establishing the differences, i.e. determining each person's abilities
: and needs.
That statement is a collectivist statement, i.e. it is not a definition
of man's nature and of the proper principle guiding society.
: The capitalist creed might read: "from each according to his need".
Totally wrong. The inexorable law of laissez-faire capitalism is
To each according to his ability.
In the rest of his message, Nagler tries to oppose collectivism to
Nietzschean individualism. That is a false choice. These two ideologies
are the opposite of the same coin: either self-sacrifice, or cannibalism
-- i.e. either one sacrifices oneself to others, or one sacrifices others
to oneself.
There is another way, out of such irrationalities: *no* sacrifice at all.
That is the capitalist way of life, called *rational* self-interest.
Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Jeff Dalton
>Robert Nagler writes:
>: [...] The phrase "from each according to her/its/his ability, to each
>: according to his/its/her need" clearly states that people are not equal
>: and, secondly, there exists a means for establishing the differences,
>: i.e. determining each person's abilities and needs.
>That statement is a collectivist statement, i.e. it is not a definition
>of man's nature and of the proper principle guiding society.
Oh, I see. Anything that isn't a definition of man's nature
*and* of the proper principle guiding society is a colectivist
statement (you did say "ie"). So "apples are a kind of fruit"
is a collectivist statement.
And, of course, the statement, whether colectivist or not, does assume
that people are not equal as far as ability or need is concerned.
>: The capitalist creed might read: "from each according to his need".
That does look wrong, I'm afraid.
>Totally wrong. The inexorable law of laissez-faire capitalism is
>
> To each according to his ability.
You wish. Note, by the way, that Marx also said "from each according
to his ability, to each according to his work". "To each according
to his work" is closer to an accurate description of capitalism
(because ability that's not used gets nothing), but then there are
still those who get without working (because their parents worked
or because their parents stole, just for example).
>In the rest of his message, Nagler tries to oppose collectivism to
>Nietzschean individualism. That is a false choice. These two ideologies
>are the opposite of the same coin: either self-sacrifice, or cannibalism
>-- i.e. either one sacrifices oneself to others, or one sacrifices others
>to oneself.
For someone who cares about the proper use of words and concepts,
Magnus, you sure use words like "cannibalism" in bizarre ways.
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>You wish. Note, by the way, that Marx also said "from each according
>to his ability, to each according to his work".
Actually, Marx said "to each according to his *need*".
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Dr. Sanio
>But here I'm inclined to follow Magnus and say: define equality.
>Do you really think that those who say "all men are equal" have
>somehow failed to notice that some people are stronger, faster,
>smarter, etc than others? I would think it much more likely
>that they have a different notion of equality in mind.
I completely agree to that. Anyway, it's a rather common confusion of
terms that "equality of humans" implies lack of differences.
I never found anybody asserting that all humans are identical.
The essence of this discussion was that all humans, irrespectively
their descendance, race, sex etc. have some fundamental rights,
mainly life, dignity ..
That's what Markus, too, agreed.
Markus, as I understood him, stated the right of property to be fundamental,
too, and unlimited, in addition, where most of the other contributors disagreed.
Equality in the notion of the democratic movements of the 18th/19th century
simply meant the same right for men (which actually meant males!) to do
contracts and trade, for example, without interference of guilds, aristocrats,
or the church, speaking and publishing freely, without censorship and so on.
This is Markus' beloved principle of Laissez-Faire Capitalism.
In that concept women, children, slaves, non-european natives (e.g. Red Indians
in the U.S. and the colonial populations) were explicitly excluded.
The problem of poverty was as well not regarded to have anything to do with
rights or dignity of humans ("tough luck", as Magnus would state).
Therefore, it remained rudimentary and mainly led to an oligarchy of white weal-thy males. The extension of the concept evolved out of the movements of the
underprivileged groups, which claimed for their part of the share.
Equality under the respect of the 200 years of the evolution of the rights of
humans can only mean, IMHO, that everybody has the right to live, and to live
in dignity. The first is simply logical, as nobody can enjoy any right without
being alive. The second is utterly complex. Lack of violence is essential,
that seems clear. Anyway, modern societies are not pacifist, simply the mono-
poly of using violence (except in case of immediate emergency, under some
conditions) is delivered to the state (justice, police, army), following
well-defined rules (laws), which vary in wide range all over the planet and
are subject to frequent change.
This leads to the problem of economic inequality. A certain minimum of material
goods (accomodation, food, clothes) is even necessary for survival, irrespec-
tively whether somebody is able to gain it by his own work or not (children,
old and disabled persons aren't, for example). Guaranteeing dignity (or even
life) to those people can only be done by active interference such as sub-
sidizing those persons.
Property gives the possibility to use the state's violence for ones own
means. So, it's naive when contracts are regarded as non-violent agreements,
the whole authority of the state (even the armed authority) stands behind a
simple contract or deal in order to enforce - if necessary - the rights of
the creditor, e.g. (This is not to be blamed, btw).
Taking away all the property of a debitor - even the existence minimum -
by legal action, e.g. is regarded as a violation of his dignity, anyway
(maybe of his life, too) and not possible in most democratic societies. Markus
might think about his statement ("no rights may ever conflict").
This is but one example how inequality of wealth (the same with age, knowledge,
skill, strength, eloquence, leader's charisma ..) causes inequity of power among
people and may violate fundamental rights of others.
Enforcing rights of humans can therefore, IMHO, only be carried out by keeping
a balance of power not only between the authorities and the individuals, but
also among the individuals. This may often mean restricting the freedom of
action of (in any respect) stronger people in order to defend the weak.
The fact of inequality of humans has to be taken in account when enforcing
and defending the basic rights, which they own and ought to be able to enjoy
equally.
es
Jeff Dalton
>In article <8...@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>You wish. Note, by the way, that Marx also said "from each according
>>to his ability, to each according to his work".
>Actually, Marx said "to each according to his *need*".
I know that. What I said was that Marx _also_ said "to each
according to his work". Of course, he wasn't talking about
the same situation in both cases.
Robert Nagler
the basis that there are no Objectivists. This is not a proof. Proof of
existence is simpler, therefore I lay a challenge: Show me an Objectivist.
If s/he is exists, my refutation is garbage. Failure to produce an
Objectivist implies that the refutation stands as a proof.
This note is long. To include all the relevant quotes, I would have to
have submitted a small thesis. I have spent a few hours on this subject.
The contents are of primary interest to so-called Objectivists, but there
may be some quotes and references which others may find stimulating.
DEFINITION OF AN OBJECTIVIST
"Our approach can best be summarized by my statement in the first
issue of The_ Objectivist_Newsletter (January 1962):
``Objectivism is a philosophical movement; since politics is a
branch of philosophy, Objectivism advocates certain political
principles---specifically, those of laissez-faire capitalism---as the
consequence and the ultimate practical application of its fundamental
philosophical principles...''" [Ran70, p. vii]
"A_government_is_the_means_of_placing_the_retaliatory_use_of_physical_
_force_under_objective_control---i.e., under objectively defined laws."
[Ran70, p. 331]
"[M]en must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the
law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what
penalty they will incur if they commit it." [Ran70, p. 332]
To conclude, Objectivism assumes the ability for the polity to create laws
objectively. The lawmakers therefore are Objectivists. For that matter,
each law must be definable such that it agrees completely with at least
one person's moral code, because "[c]ontrary to the fanatical belief of its
advocates, compromise does not satisfy, but _dissatisfies_ everyone"
[Ran70, p. 221].
"The guilt for the present state of the world rests on the shoulders of
those who are over forty years old today [Rand included] (with a very few
exceptions)---those who, when they spoke, said less than they knew and
said it less clearly than the subject demanded." [Ran70, p. viii]
Someone is not an Objectivist if s/he says "less than they know" or speaks
"less clearly than the subject demanded". In other words, non-Objectivists
are people who are less than honest in dealing with an issue. They do not
seek out all the facts before presenting an issue in writing, speech, or
any other media.
To conclude, an Objectivist is a rational being who acts without bias and is
ubiquitous in the search for truth. Anything less is clearly non-Objectivism
and said individual is not an Objectivist.
CASE STUDY OF PROCLAIMED OBJECTIVISTS
Magnus Kempe writes (>) on my previous note (:) that
> : The capitalist creed might read: "from each according to his need".
> Totally wrong. The inexorable law of laissez-faire capitalism is
> To each according to his ability.
> In the rest of his message, Nagler tries to oppose collectivism to
> Nietzschean individualism. That is a false choice. These two ideologies
> are the opposite of the same coin: either self-sacrifice, or cannibalism
> -- i.e. either one sacrifices oneself to others, or one sacrifices others
> to oneself.
I will not contend with his estimation that my statement is wrong. I did
not qualify it. Granted, he didn't ask me to elaborate. He oversteps
the objective bounds by stating my arguments are a comparison of "Nietzsche
individualism" (a phrase I neither used nor heard of before reading his note).
My claim was: "Nietzsche wrote about these same ideas over 100 years ago
and we have yet to come to grips with the reality of the situation."
Moreover, I was saying that Nietzsche discussed the very ideas of Objectivism.
I did not say Nietzsche was an Objectivist, that he was an
individualist, or that I am wholly enamored with Nietzsche.
Be that as it may, Magnus Kempe states my comparison is not a discussion of
Objectivism/Capitalism/Democracy as politico-economic system.
So when Rand summarizes her philosophy and philosphical yard stick as:
"The story of ``Atlas Shrugged'' presents the confict of two fundamental
antagonists, two opposite schools of philosophy, or two opposite attitudes
of life. As a brief means of identification, I shall call them the
``reason-individualism-capitalism axis'' versus the ``mysticism-altruism-
collectivism axis.''" [Ran70, p151]
She counters Magnus Kempe's metric (the infamous "coin"), because she puts
collectivism on a different coin (axis) from individualism. Nietzsche's
philosophy is a bit complicated to summarize in a few lines, but the following
may shed some light on his views of Collectivism and Mysticism:
"`Truth' as every prophet, every sectarian, every latitidinarian,
every Socialist, every Churchman understands the word, is conclusive
proof that not so much as a start has been made on that disciplining
of the intellect and self-overcoming necessary for the discovery of any
truth, even the very smallest." [Nie68, p. 171]
Magnus Kempe was less than honest when he claimed I was discussing Nietzchean
individual, because he compared Rand (Capitalism) and Nietzsche in a way
"less than the subject demanded" as I have shown here.
Who is John Galt? He is not Magnus Kempe.
Ayn Rand is the self-proclaimed inventor of Objectivism ("her philosophy").
In 1966 she edited a book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" in which
she took in three other people as co-contributors (although she is the author
of the vast majority of the essays).
One could argue that these contributors must be Objectivists. Robert Hessen
contributed one article. His current whereabouts are unknown to me so I
will not discuss him at this time. Nathaniel Branden (of the Nathaniel
Branden Institute) wrote two articles. In November 1970, Rand reprinted
(and presumably re-edited) her book and added the following editorial note:
"P.S. Nathaniel Branden is no longer associated with me, with my
philosophy [Randism=Objectivism] or with ``The Objectivist''."
Who is John Galt? He is not Nathaniel Branden.
The third co-contributor wrote three essays. One of the essays was a
particularly strong diatribe against the state of the U.S. Monetary System:
"But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage
of bak reserves was causing a business decline---argued economic
interventionists ---why not find a way of supplying increased reserves
to the banks se they never need be short!... And so the
Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913.
.... The ``Fed'' succeeded: it stopped the gold loss [from Britain],
but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world..." [Rand70, p. 99-100]
The third contributor is Mr. Alan Greenspan head "economic interventionist"
at the "Fed". If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, as they say...
Who is John Galt? He is not Alan Greenspan.
In the same book Ayn Rand lambastes contemporary political figures. There
are few (one?) people for whom she shows any approval, let alone, claim that
any of the current politicians are Objectivists. Nevertheless, there is one
star on the horizon.
"The statists of both parties, who are now busy smearing Governer Reagan,
are anxious not to see and not to let others discover the real lesson and
meaning of his election: that the country is starved for a voice of
consistency, clarity, and moral self-confidence---which were outstanding
qualities of his famous speech...
As of this date, Governor Reagan seems to be a promising public
figure---I do not know him and cannot speak for his future [caveats
are always important to prophets]." [Ran70, p. 234]
I know most of you know who Reagan is, but I thought I should provide the
objective evidence that he is a "statist" and "less than honest".
"``Long committed to balanced budgets and fiscal integrity, Mr. Reagan
has overseen the creation of more new debt than the combined deficits
of all previous Presidents....
...While Mr. Reagan was committed to reducing the size and scope
of the Federal Government, the Federal civilian work force increased
during his Presidency by 150,000 growing to more than 3 million.''"
[Quoted in And88, p. 402-403]
Who is John Galt? He is not Ronald Reagan.
My final case in this study is the self-proclaimed prototypical Objectivist.
She has written: "The flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion,
and outright falsehood about capitalism [or any other cause - RJN] is such
that the young people of today have no idea (and virtually no way of
discovering any idea) of its actual nature." [Ran70, p. vii-viii] In other
words, she would never "misrepresent", "distort", "misinform", or even
state an "outright falsehood". For example, on the subject of evil governments
she writes:
"Just as the monarchs of France had to invoke ``The Divine Right Of
Kings,'' so the modern dictators of Soviet Russia have to spend fortunes
on propaganda to justify their rule in the eyes of their enslaved
subjects." [Ran70, p. 335]
A naive reader would assume that the worst modern dictators are in Soviet
Russia and they spend the greatest fortunes on propaganda otherwise she would
have chosen a more appropriate example. Unfortunately, the essay does
not contain the objective definition of "fortune" or "dictator". From
my scant reading on the subject of propaganda, I have found the following
example that I would call a "fortune":
"In 1971, an ``Armed Forces Journal'' survey revealed that the Pentagon
was publishing a total of 371 magazines at an annual cost of $57 million,
an operation sixteen times larger than the nation's biggest publisher."
[Her88, p. 20]
The Pentagon Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Commander-in-Chief could easily be
termed dictators in the Randian sense. The fortune here is in 1971 dollars,
one year after she (supposedly) re-edited her book. I can offer no estimates
as to the size of Tass and Pravda combined, but I would wager that this amount
(which excludes the budget for Film clips, Voice of America, and other media
such as the ad campaign "Be all that you can be, in the Army") is
vastly greater than that of Pravda and Tass.
Do you think Ayn Rand investigated her "subject" thoroughly and that she
did not say "less than she knew"? Granted, _she_ may have been misinformed.
A rationalist, such as Rand, must always be consistent as follows:
"Since there is no such thing as ``society,'' since society is
only a number of individual men." [Ran70, p. 320]
If there is no such thing as a ``society'' how can the following statement
make sense?
"When a society insists on pursuing a suicidal course, one may be sure
that the alleged reasons and proclaimed slogans are mere rationalizations."
[Rand67, p. 168]
Call it "poetic license", shall we?
Alas, contradictions abound.
"Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an
individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test
case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest
directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an
opportunity to be unjust." [Ran70, p. 256]
but,
"Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or
corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom."
[Ran70, p. 235]
An objective treatment of civil disobedience would use exactly_the_same_ words.
In the first case she makes it clear "in advance" when it should and
should not be done. In the latter case, the entire "it is ok" argument is
left to the reader in that s/he can infer from the word "mere" that there is
something more. An objective writer would have included the first statement
in one place and used a _reference_ to the "morally correct" definition in
the other. Oh well, writers make mistakes. Ensuring consistency of facts
and opinions throughout a document is laborious. Maybe she had a bad day.
Until this point, I have been keeping to the more theoretical applications
of her ideology. For the most part, one could construe my arguments as being
trite. Nonetheless, my final demonstration of Ayn Rand's lack of integrity
is demonstrated by her views on the Vietnam War.
"_This_ is the ugliest evil of the Vietnam war, that _it_does_not
_serve_any_national_interest_of_the_United_States---that it is a pure
instance of blind, senseless, altruistic, self-sacrificial
slaughter. _This_ is the evil---not the revolting stuff that the
Vietniks are howling about." [Ran70, p. 224]
I see. To Rand the "slaughter" of millions of Vietnamese (and a few U.S.
soldiers) is "self-sacrificial". Nazi slaughter, on the other hand, is
genocide. What happened to the "rights of man"? "Man is man" (even if he
is Vietnamese). She admits the U.S. was "wrong". She is outraged as follows:
"Nobody has proposed a goal which, if achieved, would terminate
that war---except President Johnson, who has offered a billion dollars
as a price for peace; _not_ a billion dollars paid _to_ us [the
self-proclaimed slaughterers], but a billion dollars paid _by_
us for the economic development of Vietnam [the slaughtered];
which means that we are fighting for the privilege of turning every
American taxpayer into a serf laboring part of his time for the benefit
of his [very dead] Vietnamese masters." [Ran70, p. 225]
To Rand, "the government is not the _ruler_, but the servant or _agent_
of the citizens..." As an "agent" of the people of the United States of
America "a government of laws not of men" attacked several countries,
a people, a land, just as Union Carbide "attacked" the people of Bhopal.
Using Rand's version of objective logic, the people of Bhopal should pay
Union Carbide for Union Carbide's "blind, senseless, altruistic,
self-sacrificial slaughter."
Who is John Galt? He is a fictional character in a book. In the book,
he discovered (created) a fictional land in which fictional characters could
live. Plato's Republic is an example of a fictional land. The difference
between Plato and Rand is that Plato admitted the fictional land did not
and probably could not exist while Rand contends "[t]he United States was
the first _moral_ society in history." The problem today is that "it is
capitalism's alleged champions who are responsible for the fact that
capitalism is being destroyed without a hearing, without a trial, without
any public knowledge of its principles, its nature, its history, or its
moral meaning."
The problem I claim is that Objectivism is an _economic_ system. Moral or
not, it has no political basis without a polity composed of Objectivists.
The United States has no Objectivists, thus if it were founded on purely
Objectivist principles (which it was not) it could not survive. So-called
Objectivists fail to check their premises: Who is John Galt?
References:
[And88] Annelise Anderson & Dennis L. Bark eds, "Thinking About America:
The United States in the 1990s", Hoover Institution 1988, CA.
[Foo87] Michael Foot & Isaac Kramnick, "The Thomas Paine Reader",
Penguin 1987, England
[Her88] Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky, "Manufacturing Consent:
The Political Economy of the Mass Media", Pantheon 1988, NY.
[Nie68] Friedrich Nietzsche, "Twilight of the Idols/The Anti-Christ",
Penguin 1968, England
[Ran70] Ayn Rand, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", Signet 1970, NY.
[I list this as 1970, because there is a quote in the book (noted
in the above text) which is dated November 1970. The publisher
was only generous enough to tell me the first printing was in November
1967 clearly before Rand's note.]
Magnus Kempe
writes:
: I this note I refute the existence of Objectivism as a political system on
: the basis that there are no Objectivists. This is not a proof. Proof of
: existence is simpler, therefore I lay a challenge: Show me an Objectivist.
: If s/he is exists, my refutation is garbage. Failure to produce an
: Objectivist implies that the refutation stands as a proof.
Ayn Rand defined Objectivism. Everything she wrote defines the basic
principles of Objectivism, as well as many evaluations of the state of
the world, including its history, up to her last talk. She was *the*
Objectivist. Period.
After that, any self-proclaimed Objectivist brings his own *interpretation*
of her work, and, if he wants to call himself an Objectivist, with
intellectual honesty, he should not contradict what she said. Any
interpretation is just that: an interpretation. If it's contradictory,
it's not Objectivism.
To refute the existence of Objectivist principles in politics because
nobody *is* Ayn Rand, is a mere rationalization for the following wish:
that a theory should be invalidated after its author's death, because
nobody can be exactly the same person as the author. But knowledge is
not subjective: an objective principle may be grasped and integrated by
many different individuals. Any one individual who grasps the principles
of Objectivism, and lives by it, may properly qualify himself as an
Objectivist.
: "The guilt for the present state of the world rests on the shoulders of
: those who are over forty years old today [Rand included] (with a very few
: exceptions)---those who, when they spoke, said less than they knew and
: said it less clearly than the subject demanded." [Ran70, p. viii]
Note that she counted herself among "the very few exceptions," not among
the guilty. She did speak clearly enough.
: He [me, Magnus] oversteps
: the objective bounds by stating my arguments are a comparison of "Nietzsche
: individualism" (a phrase I neither used nor heard of before reading his note)
If so, then you haven't done your homework: Nietzsche did indeed propose
something he considered to be the ultimate egoist. Your reference to him
implied that you agree, at least partly, with him -- as is evident from your
next statements:
: My claim was: "Nietzsche wrote about these same ideas over 100 years ago
: and we have yet to come to grips with the reality of the situation."
: Moreover, I was saying that Nietzsche discussed the very ideas of Objectivism
The only common ground between Objectivism and Nietzsche is the reference to
a concept of "individualism". Objectivism holds that no man should ever be
sacrificed. Nietzsche held that the ideal man may sacrifice anyone he wishes
-- i.e. he advocated moral cannibalism.
: I did not say Nietzsche was an Objectivist, that he was an
: individualist, or that I am wholly enamored with Nietzsche.
You did say that he "discussed the very ideas of Objectivism," and
you referred to "genetical wonders" such as M. Jackson and B. Bardot.
Such references, when made in connection with Nietzsche, necessarily
imply agreement with his theory of "superior men." His theory is just
the other side of the coin we all know so well: he advocated moral
cannibalism vs. altruism. But both sides propose sacrifice, either to
the others, or of the others.
The ethical principles of Objectivism reject the very idea of sacrifice.
That is why Objectivism is opposed to all forms of collectivism and
individualist cannibalism.
: Magnus Kempe was less than honest when he claimed I was discussing Nietzchean
: individual, because he compared Rand (Capitalism) and Nietzsche in a way
: "less than the subject demanded" as I have shown here.
You have only shown that you didn't understand the issue.
: Who is John Galt? He is not Magnus Kempe.
Right. I'm Magnus Kempe. I'm not a fictional character. Noone claims to
*be* John Galt: that would be imitation, not self-assertion.
: One could argue that these contributors [to _Capitalism: UI_] must be
: Objectivists.
No. Their contributions were coherent with Objectivist principles. Period.
That didn't necessarily imply that they had perfectly integrated *all*
principles of Objectivism.
: The third contributor is Mr. Alan Greenspan head "economic interventionist"
: at the "Fed". If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, as they say...
How many 1929's style crashes have you witnessed since Alan Greenspan has been
the head of the Federal Reserve Bank? Has the Federal Reserve Bank changed
its policy since he got there? Give me facts. Not out-of-context jokes. I
don't know whether he is an Objectivist or not, but I know what he has done
at the head of the Federal Reserve Bank; do *you* know?
: [stuff about Ronald Reagan]
Ayn Rand just said that he had made a good speech, and won some election
in California. She also said, but you failed to mention *that*, that
Reagan was *not* a laissez-faire capitalist. She said it as soon as she
got evidence of it, but noone *ever* claimed that Reagan was an Objectivist
(he wouldn't understand philosophy, it seems.)
: The Pentagon Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Commander-in-Chief could easily be
: termed dictators in the Randian sense.
The adjective you are looking for is "Objectivist," not "Randian." The US
DoD *protects* all US citizens, and does *not* kill them. That is not the
case of the Red Army (do Kronstadt and Ukraine ring a bell, for example?)
Don't equate bloody communism with the system of a country that first
proclaimed the rights of its citizens to their own lives -- that is obscene.
Soviet Russia has never recognized any right, not even for its own citizens.
: A rationalist, such as Rand, must always be consistent as follows:
: "Since there is no such thing as ``society,'' since society is
: only a number of individual men." [Ran70, p. 320]
: If there is no such thing as a ``society'' how can the following statement
: make sense?
: "When a society insists on pursuing a suicidal course, one may be sure
: that the alleged reasons and proclaimed slogans are mere rationalizations"
: [Rand67, p. 168]
If you had *some* intelligence, you would have understood that the second
statement means: "if a number of individual men insist, together [by majority
rule, for example] on pursuing a suicidal course..."
: The problem I claim is that Objectivism is an _economic_ system.
Is this for grins? Objectivism is a philosophy, concerned with metaphysics,
epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics. Economy is part of ethics and
politics, but it's only a *part*.
: The United States has no Objectivists
I *know* Objectivists in the USA. You must have missed them.
Jamie Andrews
>come to grips with the reality of the situation. We are producing fewer
>and fewer stellar individuals (beyond genetic freaks like Michael Jackson
>and Brigitte Bardot).
Oh god... you mean THEY'RE THE BEST WE CAN DO?
Okay. That's it, I'm convinced.
Kimmo Saarinen
>writes:
>: termed dictators in the Randian sense.
>
>The adjective you are looking for is "Objectivist," not "Randian." The US
>DoD *protects* all US citizens, and does *not* kill them. That is not the
>case of the Red Army (do Kronstadt and Ukraine ring a bell, for example?)
>Don't equate bloody communism with the system of a country that first
>proclaimed the rights of its citizens to their own lives -- that is obscene.
>Soviet Russia has never recognized any right, not even for its own citizens.
Magnus, Magnus, you say that you are objective ! Why do you then have
different interpretations for DoD and Red Army ? They both say they are
defending People From The Evil, although the enemies are different.
You failed to see the army as a tool of dominating people for keeping
the current way of living alive, so if there is some revolutional kind
of movement in USA also the DoD or National Guard (still army) will
use force against its own citizens too (it has happened). Be realistic,
or objective (if you prefer that more).
Do you really know, or have you only an opinion, that Sovjet Russia
(correction : Sovjet Union) has never recognized any right ? They have.
The right for education and the right for work, for example. Okay, I
have to admit, that I don't have exact knowledge about those rights,
but still.
In you attitudes for everything is irritating me your religious
way of thinking : "I am right and whatever you will say it is wrong",
"There is no inconsistency in my thinking, and if there is, it's due of
your misunterstanding etc.", "I don't have any prejudices, although I
say that ..." and so on. With you way of discussing you leave a bad
taste in my mouth. I don't like double-facedness of yours.
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
> our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
> -- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
- Kimmo
Dave Kennard
:principles of Objectivism, as well as many evaluations of the state of
:the world, including its history, up to her last talk. She was *the*
:Objectivist. Period.
:
:After that, any self-proclaimed Objectivist brings his own *interpretation*
:of her work, and, if he wants to call himself an Objectivist, with
:intellectual honesty, he should not contradict what she said. Any
:interpretation is just that: an interpretation. If it's contradictory,
:it's not Objectivism.
I conclude from this that 'Objectivism' is indeed a religion, with
Rand as its messiah.
--
+-+ +-+ +- | | Regards, Dave Kennard.
| | | | | |/ Dept. 30820, STC Telecommunications, Oakleigh Road South,
|-+ | | | |\ New Southgate, LONDON. N11 1LU, England, UK, (etc..)
| \ +-+ +- | |Voice (+44) 01-945-2195 <ro...@tcom.stc.co.uk>
Robert Nagler
behaviour on this (or any) _public_ network. I would like an immediate
public apology to this news group for your libelous statement:
"If you had *some* intelligence, you would have understood..."
I am unfamiliar with the libel laws in Sweden, but I can tell you that
unless I receive a public apology, I _will_ look into them.
My apologies to the other participants of this news group for making such
strong statements. I, in no way, wish to curtail freedom of speech and/or
debate as long as it does not encroach upon individuals' rights.
Magnus Kempe
: [I wrote]
: :After that, any self-proclaimed Objectivist brings his own *interpretation*
: :of her work, and, if he wants to call himself an Objectivist, with
: :intellectual honesty, he should not contradict what she said. Any
: :interpretation is just that: an interpretation. If it's contradictory,
: :it's not Objectivism.
:
: I conclude from this that 'Objectivism' is indeed a religion, with
: Rand as its messiah.
Wrong conclusion. Ayn Rand *created* Objectivism. No other person may
claim to be the *voice* of Objectivism. But *everybody* is free to
verify whether what she wrote and said *was* objective.
Ayn Rand asked each man to use his faculty of reason, and rejected any
recourse to "intuition" or "revelation." She said many times
Don't take anything I say on faith,
Make me prove everything I say.
Accordingly, each man is free to understand the proofs, to try to reject
them, or to integrate them into his body of knowledge, without ever
appealing to faith. She is the one philosopher who showed that scientifical
knowledge is not the same as a witch-doctor's claims to knowledge by
mystic revelations; that is her greatest achievement.
Any person looking for rational arguments in favor of individual rights
should read her works. Any person who rejects altruism and collectivism,
but doesn't know why such ideologies should be rejected, should read her
books. She wrote one book exclusively devoted to political principles,
which is
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
(with accompanying essays by N. Branden, R. Hessen, and A. Greenspan).
Jeff Dalton
>the head of the Federal Reserve Bank?
So? There weren't any before he took over either.
mel...@peun32.uucp
Magnus writes :
She (Ayn Rand) is the one philosopher who showed that scientifical
knowledge is not the same as a witch-doctor's claims to knowledge by
mystic revelations; that is her greatest achievement.
. . . . Ehhhh.... David Hume ?
_____ _ _
/ / / / / /
/ _ _ / / / _ / / _ _
__/ (_)_(-_ _/ / / (-_/_/_ (_)_/ )_
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Joe Mellon, DCT2, Nixdorf Computer AG uucp : mello...@nixpbe.uucp |
| 55 Pontanusstrasse, 4790-Paderborn, |
| Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Tel : (Deu)- 5251 - 146478 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
David Wright
#Ayn Rand defined Objectivism. Everything she wrote defines the basic
#principles of Objectivism, as well as many evaluations of the state of
#the world, including its history, up to her last talk. She was *the*
#Objectivist. Period.
#
#After that, any self-proclaimed Objectivist brings his own *interpretation*
#of her work, and, if he wants to call himself an Objectivist, with
#intellectual honesty, he should not contradict what she said. Any
#interpretation is just that: an interpretation. If it's contradictory,
#it's not Objectivism.
Thanks, Magnus, I understand the arguments at last. "Objectivism" is a
*religion*, with one true prophet. In that case, there is no point in
arguing about it: one either believes or one does not. Those who do will
not accept any idea that goes against their belief.
I suggest that those who want to carry on the arguments about Objectivism
call a vote for a eunet.religion and carry on the discussion there.
Regards, "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity"
David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
d...@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW