Is Ayn Rand Relevant Anymore?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]orion wrote:

And again:

You have not even studied “altruism”.

Altruism is a very distinctive set of ideas put forward by Auguste Comte. It is the crede that you only live to serve others, that you have no right over your own body and property and that the government should invent a “religion of humanity” in order to indoctrinate people with those ideas.

Does that in any way, shape or form resemble a modern welfare state with a public school system?

Because it seems to me that it does.

The fact that you attack her attack on altruism is a telling sign that you have already been brainwashed as to have accepted a warped concept of “altruism” even though she herself claims that that is not what she is against.

So what is your point really?

That you have neither read Rand nor Comte but that you strongly dislike her?

Point taken.

[/quote]

In depth study of ideas which are widely known is unnecessary. Comte is not the only person who speaks of an idea called altruism, though he may have coined the term. In fact, this is so true that most dictionaries define it as “the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others” or something along these lines. Not even every philosopher agrees. Broad and Maclagan’s definitions are closer to the one in the dictionary. Democracy didn’t always mean what we imagine today. If I used the word ‘archetype’ would you insist on Jung’s definition?

So, much like Rand does in her essay on altruism, your act of supplying the definitions you want to use and insisting that they are the only one has only muddied the waters. A convenient distraction from the point that Ayn Rand is not merely an outspoken advocate of free markets (which is fine, and I think the only thing that many people know about her) but an ideologue pushing notions that most people know* are not just wrong but evil.

What warped concepts of altrusim have I accepted? That people have a moral responsibility to contribute to society and help others? I am a real sicko.

If you want to accuse me of not knowing much about altruism, how come you aren’t aware of the other altruist philosophers? I guess you are as ignorant as me. That’s ok, though, I won’t insult you over it.

In response to you and Headhunter, I have indeed read Ayn Rand (and have no idea who Saul Alinsky is). I am a little bit ashamed to have wasted so much time on it, but I did. Two of them were entirely for personal gain, as I wrote papers to win scholarships (ahhh high school) on Anthem and The Fountainhead (which I obviously read because I recalled a scene from in an earlier post). I thought that I should read Atlas Shrugged because it was on some list of influential books but couldn’t finish. I also read most of the essays in The Virtue of Selfishness, but again, couldn’t finish as this seemed more pie-in-the-sky than Marx. Everyone behaving selfishly in his own self-interest would obviously cause people to step on each other. Again, she had plenty of energy to invest in writing fiction describing how horrible collectivism is, but we are never given a look at what an objectivist world would be like… probably because it’s too far fetched.

  • I say know because most people use something called their ‘emotional intelligence’ or ‘intuition’ to tell them that if they saw someone being hurt or stranded they would see it as their responsibility (which they cannot choose to ignore) to help this person, even if their rational, self interested faculty argued that they would be late for work and would certainly lose money. A criticism of urban living is that people sometimes watch while someone gets assaulted or mugged and do nothing. Everyone instinctively knows this is wrong. But hey, maybe we are just so influenced by the biblical verse ‘do not stand by and watch your brothers blood be spilt’ so much that our natural, objective desires for self aggrandizement have been stifled? But even if that’s true, I think we are better off that way.
62

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
He would act very rational in disregarding the rights of his peers if his aim is to aggrandize himself.

You can act rationally when pursuing goals but you cannot have rational ultimate goals.

Those are highly subjective and the fact that lots of people share the same goals is indicating that the members of a species share lots of subjective goals, not that goals are, can or even should be objective.
[/quote]

What is your definition of a Man? To be a definition means that everyone can agree to the notion. For ex, Aristotle (as I am sure you know) defines Man as the animal that thinks via concept-formation, the rational animal. Man is the animal that abstracts from percepts to form concepts.
[/quote]

And he uses those concepts to eat, drink and fuck, i.e. as means to an end but not as an end in and of itself.

Insofar we are rational beings that pursue irrational goals. Since these goals might not be the same everyone LMs point still stands.

63

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

And again:

You have not even studied “altruism”.

Altruism is a very distinctive set of ideas put forward by Auguste Comte. It is the crede that you only live to serve others, that you have no right over your own body and property and that the government should invent a “religion of humanity” in order to indoctrinate people with those ideas.

Does that in any way, shape or form resemble a modern welfare state with a public school system?

Because it seems to me that it does.

The fact that you attack her attack on altruism is a telling sign that you have already been brainwashed as to have accepted a warped concept of “altruism” even though she herself claims that that is not what she is against.

So what is your point really?

That you have neither read Rand nor Comte but that you strongly dislike her?

Point taken.

[/quote]

In depth study of ideas which are widely known is unnecessary. Comte is not the only person who speaks of an idea called altruism, though he may have coined the term. In fact, this is so true that most dictionaries define it as “the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others” or something along these lines. Not even every philosopher agrees. Broad and Maclagan’s definitions are closer to the one in the dictionary. Democracy didn’t always mean what we imagine today. If I used the word ‘archetype’ would you insist on Jung’s definition?

So, much like Rand does in her essay on altruism, your act of supplying the definitions you want to use and insisting that they are the only one has only muddied the waters. A convenient distraction from the point that Ayn Rand is not merely an outspoken advocate of free markets (which is fine, and I think the only thing that many people know about her) but an ideologue pushing notions that most people know* are not just wrong but evil.

What warped concepts of altrusim have I accepted? That people have a moral responsibility to contribute to society and help others? I am a real sicko.

If you want to accuse me of not knowing much about altruism, how come you aren’t aware of the other altruist philosophers? I guess you are as ignorant as me. That’s ok, though, I won’t insult you over it.

In response to you and Headhunter, I have indeed read Ayn Rand (and have no idea who Saul Alinsky is). I am a little bit ashamed to have wasted so much time on it, but I did. Two of them were entirely for personal gain, as I wrote papers to win scholarships (ahhh high school) on Anthem and The Fountainhead (which I obviously read because I recalled a scene from in an earlier post). I thought that I should read Atlas Shrugged because it was on some list of influential books but couldn’t finish. I also read most of the essays in The Virtue of Selfishness, but again, couldn’t finish as this seemed more pie-in-the-sky than Marx. Everyone behaving selfishly in his own self-interest would obviously cause people to step on each other. Again, she had plenty of energy to invest in writing fiction describing how horrible collectivism is, but we are never given a look at what an objectivist world would be like… probably because it’s too far fetched.

  • I say know because most people use something called their ‘emotional intelligence’ or ‘intuition’ to tell them that if they saw someone being hurt or stranded they would see it as their responsibility (which they cannot choose to ignore) to help this person, even if their rational, self interested faculty argued that they would be late for work and would certainly lose money. A criticism of urban living is that people sometimes watch while someone gets assaulted or mugged and do nothing. Everyone instinctively knows this is wrong. But hey, maybe we are just so influenced by the biblical verse ‘do not stand by and watch your brothers blood be spilt’ so much that our natural, objective desires for self aggrandizement have been stifled? But even if that’s true, I think we are better off that way.[/quote]

I do not really quibble about definitions, YOU do.

She was very much against what Comte called altruism, she was not against what you call “altruism” so you bait and switch if you claim that she was.

Also, game theory tells us that the most selfish (and somewhat intelligent) people cooperate. The dichotomy on which your argument is based is simply nonexistent when the very selfishness of people makes them form comunities.

If you have read the Fountainhead you know that the protagonist cooperated quite frequently, but on his terms and not on anybody elses.

And, finally, to claim that I have the moral duty to help anyone is nothing but slavery in disguise.

64

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

And again:

You have not even studied “altruism”.

Altruism is a very distinctive set of ideas put forward by Auguste Comte. It is the crede that you only live to serve others, that you have no right over your own body and property and that the government should invent a “religion of humanity” in order to indoctrinate people with those ideas.

Does that in any way, shape or form resemble a modern welfare state with a public school system?

Because it seems to me that it does.

The fact that you attack her attack on altruism is a telling sign that you have already been brainwashed as to have accepted a warped concept of “altruism” even though she herself claims that that is not what she is against.

So what is your point really?

That you have neither read Rand nor Comte but that you strongly dislike her?

Point taken.

[/quote]

In depth study of ideas which are widely known is unnecessary. Comte is not the only person who speaks of an idea called altruism, though he may have coined the term. In fact, this is so true that most dictionaries define it as “the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others” or something along these lines. Not even every philosopher agrees. Broad and Maclagan’s definitions are closer to the one in the dictionary. Democracy didn’t always mean what we imagine today. If I used the word ‘archetype’ would you insist on Jung’s definition?

So, much like Rand does in her essay on altruism, your act of supplying the definitions you want to use and insisting that they are the only one has only muddied the waters. A convenient distraction from the point that Ayn Rand is not merely an outspoken advocate of free markets (which is fine, and I think the only thing that many people know about her) but an ideologue pushing notions that most people know* are not just wrong but evil.

What warped concepts of altrusim have I accepted? That people have a moral responsibility to contribute to society and help others? I am a real sicko.

If you want to accuse me of not knowing much about altruism, how come you aren’t aware of the other altruist philosophers? I guess you are as ignorant as me. That’s ok, though, I won’t insult you over it.

In response to you and Headhunter, I have indeed read Ayn Rand (and have no idea who Saul Alinsky is). I am a little bit ashamed to have wasted so much time on it, but I did. Two of them were entirely for personal gain, as I wrote papers to win scholarships (ahhh high school) on Anthem and The Fountainhead (which I obviously read because I recalled a scene from in an earlier post). I thought that I should read Atlas Shrugged because it was on some list of influential books but couldn’t finish. I also read most of the essays in The Virtue of Selfishness, but again, couldn’t finish as this seemed more pie-in-the-sky than Marx. Everyone behaving selfishly in his own self-interest would obviously cause people to step on each other. Again, she had plenty of energy to invest in writing fiction describing how horrible collectivism is, but we are never given a look at what an objectivist world would be like… probably because it’s too far fetched.

  • I say know because most people use something called their ‘emotional intelligence’ or ‘intuition’ to tell them that if they saw someone being hurt or stranded they would see it as their responsibility (which they cannot choose to ignore) to help this person, even if their rational, self interested faculty argued that they would be late for work and would certainly lose money. A criticism of urban living is that people sometimes watch while someone gets assaulted or mugged and do nothing. Everyone instinctively knows this is wrong. But hey, maybe we are just so influenced by the biblical verse ‘do not stand by and watch your brothers blood be spilt’ so much that our natural, objective desires for self aggrandizement have been stifled? But even if that’s true, I think we are better off that way.[/quote]

I do not really quibble about definitions, YOU do.

She was very much against what Comte called altruism, she was not against what you call “altruism” so you bait and switch if you claim that she was.

Also, game theory tells us that the most selfish (and somewhat intelligent) people cooperate. The dichotomy on which your argument is based is simply nonexistent when the very selfishness of people makes them form comunities.

If you have read the Fountainhead you know that the protagonist cooperated quite frequently, but on his terms and not on anybody elses.

And, finally, to claim that I have the moral duty to help anyone is nothing but slavery in disguise.

[/quote]

Wait, let’s get this straight. I say “there is no altruism in Rand’s world” you say “of course not, look what she has to say about it” then I completely deconstruct her essay, show you all of the squirrels (misleading arguments to avoid dealing with real points), explain how she never answers the fundamental question of helping others, then on top of that, I explain how based on her philosophy no one will ever help each other. You introduced a definition, I rolled with it a bit while consistently offering a different one, arguing with you based on both definitions, and I am quibbling?

I am the one doing a bait and switch? It sounds like you deliberately mistook what I wrote (that Rand was against giving to others aka altruism in everyday English) to move the discussion into an arena you can more readily fight in. Ayn Rand would be proud of you, as this is exactly what she does in every fiction book he writes- she only describes the virtues of her system in a context in which the other option is Big Brother watching you. It is confusing at first, the eventually the arguments melt. Yours or Rand’s.

Umm read up on game theory more. Individuals may cooperate with each other, but not always. The classic game theory model of the prisoner’s dilemma is just that, a zero-sum game where the best thing to do is defect and slam your partner if you can. The stag hunt model is a bit more like what you are saying, but it is only one model and not everything fits into it. Nonetheless, an integral part of game theory’s cooperative games is that an outside force compels cooperation. Rand was against compelling forces like governments, so she would not have liked those models much, would she?

Besides, what’s that got to do with anything? These are more side points that mean nothing. Rand of course thought people could cooperate. But Rand’s ideas also leave room for individuals to deliberately harm others for their own advancement. Much like what happened on Wall Street. If you can find a way to reconcile egoism with a feeling of responsibility not to hurt others (even when doing so will make you rich and there are no consequences) I would love to hear it.

Do you know who formed communities? The first communities were strong individuals forcing weak individuals to farm newly domesticated grain products for them. These are called “slave holding societies”. Does this sound like something that fits into Ayn Rand’s ideas to you? That the “heroic man” chooses slavery in exchange for the protection of the king of the city? Sounds like this was a bad road for you to go down.

If you don’t have a moral responsibility to save someone’s life then I guess you don’t have many moral responsibilities. Also, while you are forcing me to prove every little point and definition (which I have done) I will ask you to prove that slavery is bad. Go ahead, prove it. Maybe you and Ayn Rand should throw in the towel and admit that there is nothing ‘objective’ about your ideas and that you merely have an emotional aversion to responsibilities because they remind you of some earlier time of oppression, and not because of some sort of sound logic and well thought out philosophy?

Some other ideas to ponder are these: the firemen who ran into the WTC to try to save people risked their lives for others. While Rand certainly offers them the right to do so, she would surely see them as fools for doing so. Why risk your own life to save someone who means nothing to you? The same for every soldier in history- Montesquieu points out that a rational army would run away. There is no such thing as heroism or self sacrifice in Rand’s world because while it is permissible, it is a sign of irrationality and stupidity.

65

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Sorry this is going to be long, but since it challenges everything I wrote I guess there’s a lot to respond to.

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Let me make sure I understand. In your introduction to this forum, in a post about Any Rand with several positive comments,

[/quote]

Also several negative, I thought maybe not to bother posting as it takes so little to uproot her ideas that the early comments of “people do not and cannot behave ‘rationally’ and ‘objectively’ all the time” were enough. But I thought that noting to the angry guys who “hate the federal gov’t” and accuse everyone who hasn’t bought into Rand’s ideas of “drinking the kool aid” that they will probably grow out of this might be sobering. When I was 16 and thought that I was the center of the world and no one mattered but me I also liked Ayn Rand. I really bought into it. A teacher pointed out some flaws (like how does one ‘ethical egoist’ deal with a conflict of interest he has with another ‘ethical egoist’) which led to unresolvable contradictions. My teacher pointed out that Rand is largely ignored for her philosophy by actual philosophers and logicians because of how inconsistent she is and her inability to answer direct criticism of her individual ideas.

Right, it certainly helps that high schools require students to buy and read her books. Nonetheless, you are quoting opinion polls that people say the average man on the street feels Atlas Shrugged was influential in his life. Well, so what? No one acts upon these ideas. Also, the books which people read are her fiction in which the protagonist is so surrounded by evil and oppression that the most logical and heroic thing to do is “the objectivist solution”. They are so black-and-white that I think propaganda is an appropriate term. There is no book (to my knowledge) describing the objectivist utopia she wanted. People (whoever they are, and indeed mostly in high school) liked these stories, not her philosophies.

On a side note, as far as bestseller lists go, Mein Kamph is up there too, and continues to be so. Maybe millions of Americans are secretly Nazis? Bad reasoning.

She does not get to offer a definition of altruism. The essay that was posted is CLEARLY a response. She redefines altruism to meaning very strictly “self sacrifice for no good reason” which was probably not what anyone challenged her on. She says that the issue is not whether or not to give to a beggar, when that is clearly what people challenge her on. Her philosophy will not lead anyone to give to anyone else unless it is part of some plan for the giver to benefit in the end, like an investment. Objectively speaking, what does taking your resources and transferring them to someone else do for you? So why should you do it? A beautiful world to imagine, isn’t it?

I never called her an anarchist, you are reading something else. I said that her philosophy is identical to anarchism, but she herself rejects anarchism with no clear explanation. She does the same with libertarianism. I am not the only one who has this problem with her. I hate to do this, but look on wikipedia. Here is a link to Roy Childs (philosopher and researcher for the CATO institute in his lifetime) open letter to Ayn Rand http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html but there is more on wikipedia.

Egoism is about doing what you want to do with no one (not even a state… hmm anarchy?) to compel you to do differently. They use the jargon of “an individual agent ought to do what is in his best interest as a moral end” but for people on a bodybuilding forum, I think that defining egoism (which Rand states is the foundation of her ideology) as doing whatever you want with no one to stop you as sufficient. This is obviously ridiculous as (get this) some people have different values than other people, thus creating contradictions in rational courses of action. Even if values are somehow reduced to an objective reality, only one person can be in a certain place at a certain time doing a certain thing, and if someone else wants it, how do we resolve these conflicts? As someone else stated it would take a supra human force beyond whose judgment there was no appeal. But even that would really be a state or other compulsory force construct which Rand would reject. So it looks like her ideas exist purely in theory and cannot be realized even with divine intervention.

The future she warned us about was a socialist takeover. I see this could be comparable to healthcare, though I think it’s unfounded. Not that I like the idea of socialized medicine, I have lived with it abroad and don’t think it works so well. But what has happened on Wall Street is egoism at its finest. A group of individuals saw that they could increase their money and power (their means of self expression) in a costless way because someone else would bail them out. So they stepped on a few million people to get there. So what? They achieved their perfectly rational goal. So there are jobless, depressed, perhaps hungry people because of it. Why should that concern the egoist? If the unemployed guy would be as clever and capable as the banker he could have done the same thing.

But I agree with you in the end, because I think Ayn Rand would deplore this. Perhaps more because the government bailed people out using tax money more than that the big businesses ripped people off, but she wouldn’t be happy. This is, I think, the final nail in Ayn Rand’s coffin because a result that she would deplore could be a natural consequence of following her advice. In their time and place, the banks did the objectively correct thing of ripping us all off. They strove to achieve what was in their rational self interest. Their individual realization is a contradiction to ours, we cannot all be happy. So much for one objective reality that guides us all to self fulfillment.

I largely agree with you, but the Ayn Rand spell continues to hook people regardless. Perhaps they are just fond of semi trashy novels. Just don’t go telling Mike Mentzer she’s not relevant! Oh wait…nevermind

66

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
He would act very rational in disregarding the rights of his peers if his aim is to aggrandize himself.

You can act rationally when pursuing goals but you cannot have rational ultimate goals.

Those are highly subjective and the fact that lots of people share the same goals is indicating that the members of a species share lots of subjective goals, not that goals are, can or even should be objective.
[/quote]

What is your definition of a Man? To be a definition means that everyone can agree to the notion. For ex, Aristotle (as I am sure you know) defines Man as the animal that thinks via concept-formation, the rational animal. Man is the animal that abstracts from percepts to form concepts.
[/quote]

And he uses those concepts to eat, drink and fuck, i.e. as means to an end but not as an end in and of itself.

Insofar we are rational beings that pursue irrational goals. Since these goals might not be the same everyone LMs point still stands.
[/quote]

A rational person can’t pursue an irrational goal. He may make an error in judgment or assessment but that’s an error of knowledge. A rational person is not omniscient.

Can you give me an example of a rational person, in knowledge of all the facts, pursuing an irrational goal? That strikes me as odd. It would be like me trying to complete a proof knowing that the end result would always be 2 + 2 = 5 (reductio ad absurdum).

67

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
He would act very rational in disregarding the rights of his peers if his aim is to aggrandize himself.

You can act rationally when pursuing goals but you cannot have rational ultimate goals.

Those are highly subjective and the fact that lots of people share the same goals is indicating that the members of a species share lots of subjective goals, not that goals are, can or even should be objective.
[/quote]

What is your definition of a Man? To be a definition means that everyone can agree to the notion. For ex, Aristotle (as I am sure you know) defines Man as the animal that thinks via concept-formation, the rational animal. Man is the animal that abstracts from percepts to form concepts.
[/quote]

And he uses those concepts to eat, drink and fuck, i.e. as means to an end but not as an end in and of itself.

Insofar we are rational beings that pursue irrational goals. Since these goals might not be the same everyone LMs point still stands.
[/quote]

A rational person can’t pursue an irrational goal. He may make an error in judgment or assessment but that’s an error of knowledge. A rational person is not omniscient.

Can you give me an example of a rational person, in knowledge of all the facts, pursuing an irrational goal? That strikes me as odd. It would be like me trying to complete a proof knowing that the end result would always be 2 + 2 = 5 (reductio ad absurdum).
[/quote]

I am saying that there are no rational end goals-

How would you determine that something is “rational”?

What Rand calls rational is a subjective value judgmenent in and of iitself.

68

I enjoy points from both sides. At least this is somewhat constructive.

If I recall correctly, the act of helping someone in society, the moral question was that it is left up to the individual. If it is something they value I.E a fireman rescuing others of his own volition, thats perfectly rational. Furthermore, saving say your wife or brothers life at the expense of your own is still rational based on the value judgement inherent.

Rand herself states people most certainley dont act ratoinally or objectively all the time. This is a cognitive choice. Furthermore, what can be considered rational at one point could be considered irrational at another as a discovery of the facts of reality changes conclusions. Thus the best prepared and most rational would be going through something like the OODA loop.

Sure her books may be black and white, but consider the time period in what she wrote. Of course one needed a standard of which to measure themself against and a middle ground could not be taken in a fictional format. Thats like saying BNW or 1984 are non valid because of the big brother context as well. While I dont feel its the best vehicle to deliver a PHILOSOPHY I think it is sufficient to get basic ideas across.

Would like to post more but i have to go

69

Alan Greenspan = John Galt + Francisco D’Anconia

Earlier, I made the assertion that Alan thinks of himself as the two fictional characters from her opus. It would seem logical. Here’s maybe a little bit more to add credance to this:

“L: I think it was Ron Paul who once told me that heâ??d asked Greenspan about his essay defending the gold standard, and that Greenspan had told him that he still believed everything he wrote in the essay.”

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16120.html

It just seems out of character for Alan to turn. He’s too brilliant. Its my bet that he intentionally collapsed the system (which is just beginning).

70

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
She has many relevant ideas but she arrives at them in a backwards manner.

Mostly I do not agree with her philosophy of objectivism because there is no solid ground to base it on – even axiomatically it is untenable.

She can offer no philosophical proof that even though we must accept existence, identity, and conscious as axiomatic concepts that are true by definition that they must naturally lead to “objectively based reality”.

Most likely reality is split in two: that which we can judge objectively via observation (quantitatively) or that which we can judge subjectively via our values (qualitatively). Most disagreements start with that knowledge that comes from subjective judgments.

If all knowledge were objectively based then we would have no cause to argue and if there wasn’t at least some knowledge that could be known objectively then we would have nothing to argue over.[/quote]

If existence, consciousness, and identity are axioms, then reality exists independently of man’s mind and is therefore objective. Man’s choice is whether to think objectively or not - if he choses not to do so, it is not a failure of reality to exist as it is.
[/quote]

And what of value judgements? By their very nature they must be subjective. Values are what cuases man to act and are no less a part of “reality” than obersevable facts.

Rand missed the bigger point: individual man will act in accordance with libertarian principles only if he values it as an end within himself. There is no objectively based reason why he would do so.

A Simple point of illustration: We can imagine a person who fully understands the priciples of natural rights in accordnce with economic law but we can also imagine why he may not fully act in accordance with them: because he values his own empowement over the natural rights of his peers and he understands how best to bring it about.

No amount of objectivity will lead a man to act one way or an other. Those values come from within individual man as a “subject of his own reality” and hence they must be subjective.

This does not mean that there are parts of reality that are not objectively known – simply put, we must find a philosphical method to distingusih which knowledge can be objectively rahter than subjectiely known.[/quote]

Bravo.[/quote]

There is so much wrong here, it is beyond belief. Wow! So a rational man could possibly choose to empower himself ‘over the natural rights of his peers’. So a rational man would intentionally act…irrationally. WTF?

As Ms. Rand says: there is no conflict between men when both accept reason and objective reality. Someone MAY be wrong in their assessment OF reality, but that simply means that reality will show them the error of their ways…such as the notion that you can spend more than you earn FOREVER or that reality can be cheated and conned.

Lifty, I’m surprised you’d say such dumb things.
[/quote]

The problem we are having is essentially one of definitions:

I do not believe man is capable of acting irrationally since by definition all actions must be rationally thought out (voluntary human action only). What praxeology attempts to distinguish is that ends, in and of themselves, can never be judged objectively since all people value ends subjectively by their own scale of values. We cannot say that the ends chosen are either rational or not. What we can say is whether the means chosen will result in the desired end.

For example, knowing what I know about natural law and economics, will adherence to these principles bring about a world in which I want to live? Is this necessarily a rational end? No. How can we even begin to judge values as rational or not? We can imagine there are those people who desire the exact opposite of what I would desire.

Voluntary human action is always rational but the ends themselves are not.

Also, rational action does not necessarily mean that the means chosen will result in the desired end. People are capable of erring, however, we could not call it irrational to make mistakes.

71

So, when a mother suffering from post-partum depression drowns her infant son and all his siblings in a bathtub, she is acting rationally?

72

[quote]milod wrote:
So, when a mother suffering from post-partum depression drowns her infant son and all his siblings in a bathtub, she is acting rationally?[/quote]

Depends on what motives she had.

Now we might prevent her from doing that because we know that she is in a very volatile state and will most likely change her mind but that does not change that killing her child would be an effective means to an end.

And yes, killing babies is wrong but that has little to do with the rationality of an act.

73

[quote]elano wrote:
I fucking hate the federal government trying to tell me what I can and can’t do. Unfortunately it is a machine that can’t be stopped. Even if republicans do get elected do we really expect them to scrap the new healthcare plan? The federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in the economy. It’s not their job.[/quote]

I’m not sure the Republicans are the ones to be calling for either. There is not a dimes worth of a difference between the two parties. If the Republicans do get elected, which they will as Obama in one year has done so much damage to not be able to recover from and unless the Republicans completely screw it up they should be able to get into office.

However, the Republicans are not going to shrink the government by any means. George Bush is the only President in about 90 years to have a negative net gain on taxes, and that was only 1%. Which is not bad, but remember Harding in 1921 when they had a recession he cut taxes in half as well as regulations in about half.

74

[quote]milod wrote:
Ayn Rand was never relevant, so, no.[/quote]

Pretty much.

75

[quote]PublickStews wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:
Ayn Rand was never relevant, so, no.[/quote]

Pretty much. [/quote]

Think much?

76

Greetings all, and I hope the holidays find you happy and healthy.

It is a busy time, and I had pretty much decided to put this thread behind me. I find myself with a little time, so I think I’ll take one more at bat.
I usually take a civil tone in posts and replies, or at least I try. There was just something about jglickfields post that annoyed me.

Most of the regular posters on PWI have been around for some time. We get to know one another’s basic philosophies. This is generally good in that we do not have to type pages of background in order to set the frame and groundwork for our posts. There seems to be a lot of newcomers lately, and this has somewhat changed that particular dynamic.

At the beginning of this thread, HH throws out the premise of Atlas Shrugged and its parallels to current events. Fair enough. The floor is open. Everyone is welcome. I opened with the following:
“I find it hard to believe anyone could have more respect for Ayn and her intellect than myself. Having said that, I believe she put too much faith in mans ability to act in his rational self interest. The philosophy was so powerful because it was the antithesis of the emerging green meme (worldview) with its pluralistic, elitist, yet big brother tendency, and it was a great evolution from the amber or mythic meme with its literal interpretation of mythic structures and its ethnocentric tendencies. Plus, it directly challenged the primary weapon of both camps, which was the evoking of altruism (self sacrifice) for the “greater good.”
I believe that Ayn simply underestimated, or simply was not aware of the internal stages of development and all the cultural inputs. And again, she overestimated the ability of people to instantly throw off the effects of these inputs and immediately begin to adopt a philosophy of rational self interest.”

In short, I simply acknowledged my respect for her intellect and proceeded to give my critique of her philosophy, both good and bad. I followed it up with the following:
“I would suggest that anyone able to fully appreciate Rand might start to expose themselves to Ken Wilber. Not that they share the same philosophy, but I think that Ken does an excellent job of giving those who appreciate the basics of Ayn’s philosophy a means to transcend yet include her teachings. More importantly, he gives one a way to orient such a philosophy, assign it an “address” and “altitude” so that you can establish an orientation with others of different viewpoints and be able to have effective communication with them.”

I assumed my stance was clear enough, but I sense the need to further clarify. I am a great admirer of Ayn’s intellect, yet I do not use her philosophy as the compass by which to navigate. For those that are not familiar with Ken Wilber’s work, he is a modern (living) philosopher who I think has done an exceptional job codifying the various philosophies and worldviews that have formed throughout our history, as well as the evolution of religious and spiritual thought. One of the basic observations he has written of is the common progression of “worldviews” that all cultures seem to progress through regardless of the location, geography, and endless other factors. These worldviews in order are as follows; Magic, Mythic, Rational, Pluralistic/Relativistic, Integral/Holistic. All cultures and individuals seem to follow this route, at least until they stagnate at one particular level. Magic would correlate to aboriginal like cultures or early childhood (think Santa and the tooth fairy or monsters in the closet). Mythic would correlate to absolutist, fundamental, literal religious based worldview (think radical Islam or hardcore creationist Christianity). Rational is relatively new, coming about in the last three hundred years or so. Correlates would be the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the advent of democracy, etc. I believe this worldview is presented in its most pure, absolute (and unattainable) form in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
Next in line is Pluralistic/Relativistic worldview that most notably took form in the hippie movement of the sixties and has continued on in the Green movement and the far left social movement. All points of view are valid. Everyone gets a trophy. Life is one endless meeting where everyone is heard and nothing constructive gets done.
The integral/holistic worldview is far more rare. This is where one begins to take a step back and see the big picture. Different worldviews are not judged right or wrong specifically, but in a contextual framework.
Think of each stage as a step on a ladder. Each rung is important in that you have to transcend one to get to the next. With each new step you not only transcend but include (hopefully the best of) all previous steps.

If anyone is still reading (and I understand if you are not) my respect for Ayn is that she encapsulated the rational worldview in its purest and most idealistic form. In doing so, I believe she helped hundreds of thousands to make the transition from mythic to rational in their worldviews. Rational being an essential rung on the ladder, she in her own way helped those that have since moved up and on.

I think it necessary to add that, at least in my opinion, that rational is the most developed and solidified worldview to date. As previously stated, I believe it set the tone in which democracy was attainable, slavery was ended, universal suffrage became a reality, and much of world hunger and disease were eradicated. Pluralistic/relativistic is yet to be fully formed, and is still cycling between extremes of socialism and elitism.

With all of this in mind, I therefore find Ayn Rand relevant. I also understand why someone still at the Mythic worldview would not. They have not passed that rung of the ladder so they don’t get it. Someone at the pluralistic/relativistic stage is in the unique position in that this worldview tends to try to equalize all worldviews and in the process they deny any hierarchy or value structure. Those who are at the integral/holistic stage acknowledge her contribution and validity in the overall picture. They apply the good and leave the bad.

With all of this said, maybe the following quote becomes clearer in context:
“We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and all giants have feet of clay.
Rand was imperfect, but she better classified and clarified the emergent objective/rationalist point of view better than anyone before her. Yes, she came off as an insufferable bitch. However, she still is, in my opinion one of the top 10 intellects of all time.”

This is where jglickfield, in a continuation of his first posting ever on our forum, proceeded to call me out for such an obvious ignorant assertion, and proceeded to give me his list of better choices, having no idea who might occupy my other nine slots.
This is the internet and nonsense like this happens every day. Normally, I would just ignore it. This time I did not.
I make a habit of keeping certain books on hand that represent in some form or fashion the various worldviews. I do my best to re-read each book approximately once a year. In doing so, I have read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead approximately eight times each. I would not consider myself an expert on these books, but I do know what Rand does and does not say. Having read jglickfields previous posts, it was clear to me that he does not. Either he has forgotten with time, misunderstood from the beginning, or has simply never read them himself and is simply regurgitating what he has seen and heard elsewhere.

Debate anything at all, but do your homework. I give jglickfield less slack because I detect in his writing that he is an intelligent person. Therefore, I hold him to a higher standard.

As for those with the one liners like the previous poster, if you have nothing more to add than what amounts to the equivalent of a drive by shooting, don’t bother.

If you are still awake and with me, thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

77

JEATON, good post overall, though I am highly skeptical of the validity of the “ladder” description of world views.

Respect to anyone who tries to dissect human history from an intellectual framework. In the end I believe ideas are all that matter, anyway.

To paraphrase Bruce Lee (yet again): Keep the good ideas and ignore the bad.

Does anyone really believe that freedom and liberty are not good ideas?

78

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JEATON, good post overall, though I am highly skeptical of the validity of the “ladder” description of world views.

Respect to anyone who tries to dissect human history from an intellectual framework. In the end I believe ideas are all that matter, anyway.

To paraphrase Bruce Lee (yet again): Keep the good ideas and ignore the bad.

Does anyone really believe that freedom and liberty are not good ideas?[/quote]

A ladder is a poor metaphor for actual application, yet it makes for a good visual.
A better visual may be a “Russian Doll”. Worldviews are nested hierarchies (a whole, within a whole, within a whole). Each one stands on its own, whole unto itself, yet containing the previous whole and being a part of the proceeding whole.

The place where the Russian Doll analogy fails is that within nested hierarchies, with every greater height (or depth) comes less span (width). The thing to remember is that at each emergent level, you both transcend the previous level while still including it in the greater whole.

I’ll think about it a minute and see if I can get any more confusing…

79

Actually the Babushka Model does make sense if you take the very smallest babushka as the “magic” world view. The next bigger doll that encapsulates that would be your “mythic” world view, and so on…

My skepticism is not within the model but rather why world views must necessarily start out as “magic” and lead to “mystic”, etc.

I also have a problem with the definition of the “rational” world view. This, of course, comes from my own belief that humans, by their very nature, must always act rationally. Irrational action is impossible when we consider that we are only talking about actions directed toward some valued end.

I think where most philosophers fail is in their attempt to reconcile metaphysics with axiology. For example, there is no reason why an Objectivist metaphysics – existence in identity – should naturally lead to an ethic of “rational” self interest. Rand’s ultimate conclusion, at least in my mind, would bring us back full circle to a subjective ethic – which, in the end, she asserts is not the case. If survival is man’s ultimate end then there is no ethic to speak of because every man is out for himself and “your morals be damned.”

Instead, perhaps man is attempting to transcend survival to some ultimate higher end goal…? I think of the humanities as an example where man does exactly this – for example, developing the arts and sciences. These are the things that makes life worth living and provide a distraction from day-to-day survival. There are, of course, prerequisites man must first develop before he can develop these other transcendent distractions.

80

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Actually the Babushka Model does make sense if you take the very smallest babushka as the “magic” world view. The next bigger doll that encapsulates that would be your “mythic” world view, and so on…

My skepticism is not within the model but rather why world views must necessarily start out as “magic” and lead to “mystic”, etc.

I also have a problem with the definition of the “rational” world view. This, of course, comes from my own belief that humans, by their very nature, must always act rationally. Irrational action is impossible when we consider that we are only talking about actions directed toward some valued end.

I think where most philosophers fail is in their attempt to reconcile metaphysics with axiology. For example, there is no reason why an Objectivist metaphysics – existence in identity – should naturally lead to an ethic of “rational” self interest. Rand’s ultimate conclusion, at least in my mind, would bring us back full circle to a subjective ethic – which, in the end, she asserts is not the case. If survival is man’s ultimate end then there is no ethic to speak of because every man is out for himself and “your morals be damned.”

Instead, perhaps man is attempting to transcend survival to some ultimate higher end goal…? I think of the humanities as an example where man does exactly this – for example, developing the arts and sciences. These are the things that makes life worth living and provide a distraction from day-to-day survival. There are, of course, prerequisites man must develop before he can develop these other transcendent distractions.[/quote]

Yes, you are seeing the bigger picture. Unfortunately, any confusion or misalignment that comes after is more likely due to my explanation rather than the model.

The descriptions I use are more of a “mashup” of terms used by a long and distinguished group of psychologists, socioligist, anthropologist, developmental theorist, etc. Names would include, but not be limited to Huston Smith, Plotinus, Stan Grof, John Batista, James Mark, Baldwin, Aurobindo, Pascual-Leone, Patricia Arlin, Jan Sinnot, Jane Loevinger, Jenny Wade, Erik Ericson, Don Beck, Clare Graves, Robert Kegan, Kohlberg, Habermas, Foucault, Piaget, Gillagan, just to mention a very short list.
The common thread that unites them all is a belief, most based in hard research, that cultures and individuals all progress through the same basic levels of development. The names may change.
I could have easily used the terms sensation, perception, impulse/emotion, image, symbol, concept, rule/role, formal, vision-logic, psychic, subtle, causal, and non-dual.
I hope that helps a little rather than muddying the waters further.

What I really like about Wilber is that he takes this two dimensional pregression and puts it into a three dimensional model. He calls it AQAL, which is an acronym for All Quadrants, All Levels, Lines, States, and Types.
It is far too encompassing to explain here, but the concerns you are having are addressed therein. The most brief of outlines would have you begin by taking a piece of paper and draw a large + sign on it, dividing it up into four quadrants. In the upper left write I (internal/subjective). Lower left put We (cultural/intersubjective). Upper right put It (behavioral/objective). Lower right put Its (social/interobjective).
You now have a content-less framework in which you can not unpack any entity, event, phenomenon, etc and begin examining it through four lenses rather than the usual one.

Using politics as an example, you can now take a platform or issue and break it down. Begin anywhere, but for the sake of simplicity I will start in the upper left. Using for example section 8 housing. I first take into account my own internal level of development, whether I want to call that integral or vision logic (probably wishful thinking). I also continue to do the same with all stakeholders taking into account internal and external factors of behavioral, social, cultural, etc.
Where it gets interesting is you further break down each quadrant inter levels, lines and states. (levels of development, lines of intelligence, and temporary states of being).

Again, the best I can do is plant a seed of interest. The worst is more likely in that I just confuse the hell out of the issue. If you have an interest, I suggest you pick up A Brief History of Everything and go where it leads you.