posted
The most self-contradictory thing about Rand is the fact that, while believing in people's right to freely associate, she doesn't recognize as legitimate the acts of a democratically-elected government. Why is a corporation somehow more moral than a democratically-elected government? One's usually bigger than the other, but that's not absolutely always true. Corporations use violence, so that's not a legitimate difference. It's often done indirectly, through political manipulation, (like in Guatemala, with the United Fruit Company) but they are definitely behind many people's deaths. Why not? If they can make more money with a particular person dead, why not kill them? There's nothing in the profit motive about mercy, or ethics, or morality.
That's the thing about the extreme economic conservatives. They miss the fact that the profit motive is like nuclear energy. It's very powerful, and only a fool wouldn't put some safety mechanisms in place. A soon-to-be-dead-from-radiation-poisoning fool, is the exact kind of fool I'm talking about.
You can't be an Objectivist without placing an arbitrary distinction between corporations and democratically-elected governments. Further, I submit that the distinction is based on nothing factual at all.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is a corporation somehow more moral than a democratically-elected government?
Actually, Rand does answer this, although not necessarily consistently, by defining "coercion" very narrowly. A government is empowered to use coercive force; a corporation is not. Rand would not, I suspect, defend a corporation's use of violence.
Rand would in fact argue that it is the job of a government to use violence to punish corporations that use violence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Rand would in fact argue that it is the job of a government to use violence to punish corporations that use violence.
Bear in mind, Tom, that I'm not speaking to you directly with this next point.
Let's say that this sentence of yours is factual, and that Rand believes in punishing violence with violence in that way. So? Corporations don't care if you imprison or kill their henchmen. Henchmen are a dime a dozen. Hire two to replace the one, and so forth. You have to hit corporations in the pocketbook, which is where it hurts. This is where taxes and regulations, so odious to extreme conservatives, come in. They have a function. When corporations won't/can't police themselves, it is the role of a democratically-elected government to do it for them.
Anybody ever seen the movie "Erin Brokovich" or read Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle"? That's why we have regulations. That's also part of why we have taxes, so we can pay regulators to...you know, REGULATE.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, I think most Objectivists would argue that this is precisely why corporations should not act as shields against personal liability. (I believe this is Lisa's position, in fact; she might even oppose the existence of corporations as legal entities in general, but I'm not sure.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For what it's worth, I think most Objectivists would argue that this is precisely why corporations should not act as shields against personal liability. (
Again, not directed at you (and thanks, by the way, for being a good Rand scholar. I've read her stuff, but not nearly as thoroughly), but...what, every single stockholder should go to jail, if the corporation kills through negligence? What about people whose pensions are from pension funds that own shares in the negligent corporation? Do they go to jail?
Also, calling Lisa an Objectivist is like calling OSC a Catholic. She disagrees with Rand a lot.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
She only disagreed with Rand about God. I think she's pretty much on board with everything else.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: She only disagreed with Rand about God. I think she's pretty much on board with everything else.
No, she disagrees with Rand about copyrights and intellectual property, as well, last I heard. She schooled me thoroughly on that point. It was quite eye-opening.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: She only disagreed with Rand about God. I think she's pretty much on board with everything else.
No, she disagrees with Rand about copyrights and intellectual property, as well, last I heard. She schooled me thoroughly on that point.
I don't think differing with Rand's views on intellectual property would disqualify someone from being an Objectivist.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:every single stockholder should go to jail, if the corporation kills through negligence?
Killing through negligence is different from killing through violence.
Involuntary manslaughter can result in prison time. I find the discussion of negligent homicide far more interesting, because it happens much more often.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I don't think differing with Rand's views on intellectual property would disqualify someone from being an Objectivist.
OK, I think Rand herself might disagree with that. Whatever, it's kind of like arguing whether Mormons are Christians.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:every single stockholder should go to jail, if the corporation kills through negligence?
Killing through negligence is different from killing through violence.
Involuntary manslaughter can result in prison time. I find the discussion of negligent homicide far more interesting, because it happens much more often.
I really wonder what Objectivists, and Rand herself, would say to that.
What if a state has mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for a particular type of involuntary manslaughter? Should all the stockholders get jail time? Is that the Objectivist belief?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Howdy! Welcome to Hatrack. Now I mean this nicely, but you'll probably face some skepticism that you're someone looking to actually participate community-wise `round here, since your toe-dipping in the water so to speak was to go resurrection on some really nakedly political stuff in some big ways. That's fine, but I'm just offering some friendly advice: be prepared for that perception, and it might be wise not to get too upset if you encounter it (and I'm not suggesting you have). BlackBlade has touched on this, so I guess I'm just echoing. Anyway.
Thank you! very much appreciated
I'll have my valium handy.
What do you think woiuld constitute "participate community-wise"?
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Participating in threads that weren't so completely political would be a start, or at least weren't so politically your hot-button issues.
Don't get me wrong, it's fine if a poster wants to focus on a few issues n' stuff, perception wise. I was just commenting on the idea that when you throw in a few other factors, such as multiple thread resurrection all on very limited topics in a short period, very aggressive participation in those threads, and no participation elsewhere, well, it just gets you an image. That's my perception, and I think it may be the perception of some of the rest of HR, but I could very well be mistaken. You'll find out for yourself one way or another!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For what it's worth, I think most Objectivists would argue that this is precisely why corporations should not act as shields against personal liability. (I believe this is Lisa's position, in fact; she might even oppose the existence of corporations as legal entities in general, but I'm not sure.)
I do.
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For what it's worth, I think most Objectivists would argue that this is precisely why corporations should not act as shields against personal liability. (
Again, not directed at you (and thanks, by the way, for being a good Rand scholar. I've read her stuff, but not nearly as thoroughly), but...what, every single stockholder should go to jail, if the corporation kills through negligence?
Corporations don't kill people. People kill people.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Also, calling Lisa an Objectivist is like calling OSC a Catholic. She disagrees with Rand a lot.
I'm an Objectivist; not a Randian or a Randroid or Randite. I disagree with Rand; not with Objectivism.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: She only disagreed with Rand about God. I think she's pretty much on board with everything else.
No, she disagrees with Rand about copyrights and intellectual property, as well, last I heard. She schooled me thoroughly on that point. It was quite eye-opening.
The question of whether intellectual property exists, qua property, is external to Objectivism. If it's property the same as any other property, then Objectivism says one thing about it. If it isn't, Objectivism says another thing about it. Rand had one view, and she stated the Objectivist view according to that.
It seems you weren't schooled sufficiently.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't even really agree with objectivism, I don't think. You agree with a grab-bag of objectivist ideals that is designed pretty much to be compatible with your orthodox judaism, ignoring or bypassing those points at which the two are completely incompatible.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Scott: You forgot the Kool-Aid they serve with said donuts.
We get actual wine. So do the Episcopalians.
Ayn Rand did manage to ignore the fact that nobody is going to listen to a four hour speech on the radio.
Kids...
Actually, back before the advent of TV ubiquity, people did just that. Nowadays, of course, that's true. People have the attention span of a squirrel with ADHD. You'd be hard pressed to get people to listen to a 15 minute speech on the radio. But Rand was lucky enough to have died before seeing that sort of thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried to Google up some but came up short. I'd be very surprised that four hour speeches were common ever. Even War of the Worlds, a pretty compelling story that freaked a lot of people out, clocked in at only 60 minutes.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 lasted three hours. First candidate gets 60 minutes, then the second candidate gets 90 minutes, and the first candidate gets 30 minutes more as a rejoinder.
Before the time of radio, yes, but I think it's still an interesting contrast to our current political debates where candidates are lucky to get three minutes in their answer.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't think.
QFT
Your surrender of maturity and exchange is duly noted.
I guess I should have figured it out sooner, but it's true! Central, vital precepts of objectivism ignored at convenience, and this is pretty much your only available response.
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 lasted three hours. First candidate gets 60 minutes, then the second candidate gets 90 minutes, and the first candidate gets 30 minutes more as a rejoinder.
Before the time of radio, yes, but I think it's still an interesting contrast to our current political debates where candidates are lucky to get three minutes in their answer.
And debate, dialogue, not one man making a speech.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once upon a time for a question mostly unrelated to this subject, I asked my father about perceptible changes in people's attention spans. He said that people's attentive capacity is largely the same, but that new media which has changed the face of the communicativeness of ideas and events has led this generation to value brevity. It is not about having a smaller attention span more than it is having an interest and availability to so much more information that the amount of time that one piece of information is tolerated depends on the time it has to share with other interests.
People sat down and listened to the radio when radio was not in time competition for other available sources of informational and interest input. It was something, where before there was nothing. A three hour speech on the radio, for the crowd it drew in at the time, was largely not competing in the same input environment. There was not a plethora of other things which we would want to run through, subjects of interest and entertainment, etc. You just had a radio, and perhaps a newspaper that had been gone through already. Today, it's different for <list millions of obvious reasons>.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wiki says the famous "fireside chats" were between fifteen and forty-five minutes in length. Hitler was by all accounts a hypnotically powerful speaker at least in person, but I can't find (in twenty seconds of Google) any indication of how long his speeches went on. During the war he was notorious for boring his listeners at Berchtesgaden near to tears by going on forever about trivial topics, but this is a very different context and besides, you could presumably be shot for not showing interest. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was preceded by a two-hour speech by some other politician whose name I forget, and whose speech has faded to utter obscurity; just because people were prepared to put up with longer speeches back in the day doesn't mean they didn't appreciate pith. Churchill's speeches are actually surprisingly long-winded, formed on a model of rhetoric that now appears rather old-fashioned, if you read the whole of them and not just the famous passages. "We shall fight on the beaches" is only the closing part of a much longer address that goes into considerable detail about the war in France. But again, the context here is that he was addressing Parliament and giving them the news, not trying to get elected; the correct comparison is a PowerPoint presentation of this quarter's sales figures, not an electoral debate.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't think.
QFT
Knock that off Lisa, you know better.
Oh, please. If Sam wants civility, he can be civil. Same with Steven. Steven has expressed his antipathy towards me in the past, and I don't expect anything better. Sam... as far as I can tell from the discussions that have gone on over in the Jewish Thing thread, he seems really not to realize that he isn't speaking in a way that demonstrates any interest in dialog. At least when I'm rude to people, I'm aware of it. I'm not sure which is worse.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Putting the lack of incivility in my post entirely aside, isn't this a pretty hypocritical statement? Under it, you're not entitled to any civility in the first place.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Putting the lack of incivility in my post entirely aside, isn't this a pretty hypocritical statement? Under it, you're not entitled to any civility in the first place.
In any given thread, I'm happy to be civil to people until they're uncivil to me. And you can go back and check if you want. The only exception I can think of is Clive, who I'll never be civil to.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't think.
QFT
Knock that off Lisa, you know better.
Oh, please. If Sam wants civility, he can be civil. Same with Steven. Steven has expressed his antipathy towards me in the past, and I don't expect anything better. Sam... as far as I can tell from the discussions that have gone on over in the Jewish Thing thread, he seems really not to realize that he isn't speaking in a way that demonstrates any interest in dialog. At least when I'm rude to people, I'm aware of it. I'm not sure which is worse.
It hardly matter what Samprimary, and steven want, *I* want civility on this board. It's what I have been tasked with maintaining. I have a lot of patience for people who are rude who are not trying to convey that feeling. I have far less for those who do know better, but chose to be rude anyway, so as to simply bait others into dropping the behaviors that separate us from the animals. That sort of things removes all pretext for discussion, and forces all conversations into this model.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't think.
QFT
Knock that off Lisa, you know better.
Oh, please. If Sam wants civility, he can be civil. Same with Steven. Steven has expressed his antipathy towards me in the past, and I don't expect anything better. Sam... as far as I can tell from the discussions that have gone on over in the Jewish Thing thread, he seems really not to realize that he isn't speaking in a way that demonstrates any interest in dialog. At least when I'm rude to people, I'm aware of it. I'm not sure which is worse.
It hardly matter what Samprimary, and steven want, *I* want civility on this board. It's what I have been tasked with maintaining. I have a lot of patience for people who are rude who are not trying to convey that feeling. I have far less for those who do know better, but chose to be rude anyway, so as to simply bait others into dropping the behaviors that separate us from the animals. That sort of things removes all pretext for discussion, and forces all conversations into this model.
Or this one. Look, I'm sorry. But there are a few people here who are always instantly hostile to me, pretty much regardless of what I post. I could post "Hello, World," and here's what would happen. Kate would say it shows what a rotten person I am. Steven would make a juvenile personal attack against me (so would Kat, if she was around). Sam would make some sort of obnoxious comment to show how smart he is. The Rabbit would say something with a sneer.
Or any of them might simply not post. But if they did, that's what they'd post. And fine, I'm used to it. But don't come down on me when I respond in kind. Take a look at what I'm responding to.
(Right now, I'm wondering which of those lovely people will be the first to give a demonstration of what I just wrote.)
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure where I have suggested you were rotten. My speculations about the kind of person you are would not be anything I have any right to share publicly. I did try for some time to show you some kindness.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Looks like I jumped headlong into a wasp's nest! Who'd'a thought that (presumed) admirers of infinitely benevolent OSC would be so ... er, prickly? But of course I asked for it.
Well, it's hard to tell online with anyone, especially someone I haven't communicated with before, but nobody is infinitely benevolent-and Card is, well, decisively less benevolent now than he was, say, a decade ago. *shrug* A great deal has happened then-I'm just pointing out that 'infinite benevolence' seems pretty excessive.
Yes, I do tend to use words kinda loosely/hyperbolically sometimes - when I'm not trying to make a super-clear point.
I was very very impressed with the sense of life of the Ender Quartet; that tells me that OSC is (was(?)) deeply benevolent.
But infinite? Of course not. In fact, as I understand it, nothing is infinite; even infinity itself/ves is actually a process term.
Would you please give me some examples of his recent less benevolence. And if you're thinking about several ~genres~.. (ie: fiction, non-) ..in each, please.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was very very impressed with the sense of life of the Ender Quartet; that tells me that OSC is (was(?)) deeply benevolent.
PMH, Since you are new to the forum, you are very likely unaware that with this sentence you stuck your foot in the rotting remains of a horse that has already been beaten to death several times. If you wanted to be accepted in this community, I recommend that you spend a little bit of time getting to know us in less controversial threads before making such brazen controversial statements.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is that a dead horse, Rabbit? Are you talking about OSC's benevolence, or the fact that you can't know an author's personal characteristics from the works he produces?
How is that brazenly controversial?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ayn Rand never avoided anything in her work..
Are we talking about her novels here, or her other work? Because it's my understanding that in her novels, her non-selfish and therefore non-heroic people are almost uniformly straw men. I'd say that's avoiding something, wouldn't you? When your opposition is composed uniformly of incompetents or mustache-twirling villains you've created, well, your moral math is a bit off.
Furthermore whatever your admiration for Rand may be, just consider what you're saying. She's a human being, and you're saying she never avoided anything. That when it came to being self-aware and not flinching from the truth, she was infallible. Can you get your arms around just how hard a claim that is to take seriously?
hyperbolic/sloppy (of me) again
If I'd thought it necessary to use more words so as to be more precise, I'd'a said something like:
(For some reason, vis some path, and at some time in her life (early, I'd say)) AR realized that the (proper) point of philosophy is guiding Man's choices. (or maybe it'd be better to say that in another direction: She wanted to figure out what the ideal man was, so that she could portray that in her novels. She really wanted to; she didn't just want to come up with a pile of BS that might achieve some other end) (and then she realized that that's what philosophy is / ought to be)
Similarly, she realized that honesty (with herself, first) was the only way to achieve that (or anything real, for that matter).
And similarly, she realized that avoiding things is a form of dishonesty.
That's how her mind worked.
She wanted to achieve her goals; she did what she needed to do to do that.
People who read only enough of her to feel like they have something to shoot at miss that kind of thing, for some reason.
Now as to her characterization, I'm not a bit of an expert on fiction writing; I don't care that her characters don't seem like real people to many.. (I'm perfectly happy w/ her characterizations as relatively simple embodiments of virtues & vices; her goal, after all (IMHO) was not to portray the complex inner dynamics of multivalent sets of virtues and vices in a person.) (in general (ie, except where she did - eg, Roark) )
..and my primary interest is in her philosophy, not her fiction.
As to infallibility, she taught that - qua human - no one is infallible.. ..and that that fact gives rise to the need for various epistemological methods, such as paying attention to those little nudges from your subconscious that something's amiss (iow, non-avoidance), not allowing (seeming) contradictions safe-haven in one's mind, checking one's premises, etc.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm ignoring your two following assertions, since I just don't see the point of spending my time refuting things that you just pulled out of some orifice, when all you want to do is bash AR.
See, this is the kind of thing that's gettin' a bit nasty here, PMH, FYI-and pretty inappropriate given you've basically dragged up a half-decade old conversation now apparently to start fightin'. Bad form, man.
Well, ouch!
At that point in my reply, I had gotten pretty tired; tired enough to have rise to my consciousness that I was spending my time trying to reply thoughtfully to what really seemed to me to be pretty shallow, not very knowledge-based assaults. (from someone who almost certainly, as I said previously, did not approach AR w/ a desire to understand her)
Even in hindsight, outside of those feelings of the moment, I think that my comments were on point and appropriate.
Finally, my intent was not to start fightin'.. (I've had way plenty of that, I can assure you.)
..but rather to not let stand unchallenged, attacks on AR.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: Howdy, PMH! It's a pleasure having you on the board.
Thank you!
quote:
[snip]
My issue with Ayn Rand came when I tried her other stuff and I realized that all her fiction was a tool to espouse a world-view I disagree with fundamentally.
To the extent that espouse means to attempt to sway or convert, I honestly(*) don't think that that was her goal. (*: I mean, I do realize that ~everyone~ who disagrees with her thinks that.)
Her goal was to write fiction. (I don't actually know why.)
Fiction is art, and art is "a selective re-creation of reality according to the artist's own metaphysical value judgements".
IOW ;-) art is a concretization of the artist's view on the philosophical abstractions of reality - so valuable because the human mind responds to concretes much more readily/easily than - and in a different way from - abstractions.
quote:
As far as your argumentative style, it reminds me of the debates I've had with other objectivists that I find frustrating. It boils down to three things, presumption of the premises, and the use of strawman and hyperbole.
On the first point, maybe I can describe my issue in a way that you can relate. I may be reading your posts incorrectly, but it seems that you're an evangelical atheist.
I guess I have to cop to that. (You think?!)
although I would, of course, say Objectivist, rather than just atheist
...and - believe it or not - I have honestly found Objectivism to be a wonderful, beautiful thing - the most such in an arbitrarily long time -- and I want to share that.
quote:
I'm also guessing that you've been in a religious debate or two. When someone uses doctrine to prove the existence of God, I'm sure you reject it off hand because in order for the proof to work, you need to first believe in the divinity of the doctrine. Unfortunately, you're using the same form of proselytization in your defense of Ayn Rand. You defend her definitions as best because of their "precision." Her observations on the human condition best reflect the "truth" and "reality." But in order for us to ascribe to objectivism or even just to the merit of Ayn Rand's work, we have to first agree with you that her interpretation of altruism and selfishness are correct, and we need to also believe that her observations reflect reality. If we don't believe those things--as I don't--we're stuck at step one. I can continue to reject objectivism without a second thought because you have done nothing to convince me that the premises are correct.
Yes -- except for the following.
In a tolerable amount of time, all I (or anyone) can do is state my opinions and understanding - and give some supporting analysis - a step or two away from the thing I'm commenting on.
To explain any single tenet of Objectivism (properly), I would have to take it all the way down to percepts - and I would have to do the same with any words/concepts that I might have to use on that journey whose fuzzy colloquial meaning aren't sufficient for the purpose.
A large part, at least, of epistemology would have to be explained on the way as well.
And even then, very few if any people would be able to get it on one - or a small number of - readings.
So I think that all one can do is to state disagreement, say a little bit as to why, and leave it to the reader to decide for himself whether that little bit is motivating for him to look into the serious works on Objectivism more deeply for himself offline.
quote:
Instead, what you've done is imply that a failure to agree with Ayn Rand makes us narrow minded or that we have no care for reality.
I don't do that with Lisa - and I don't intend to do that with anyone who seems to have something cogent & knowledge-based to say.
There are, however, many comments that just simply don't seem to me to fit that.
And to those, I think it's appropriate to react to them for what they are.
quote:
This allows you to create a strawman out of folks who disagree with you. "Ayn Rand talks about reality. You don't agree with Ayn Rand. .'. You don't care about reality." This isn't true, and it's frustrating to be made into a strawman.
Finally you are using some hefty hyperbole, as Rakeesh points out. You say that OSC is infinitely benevolent and that Ayn Rand never avoided anything in her work. Considering your defense of Ayn Rand and objectivism on the whole rests upon the assumption that it is precise and is a direct reflection of reality, I hope you can understand why I find your argument unconvincing. It's what we (in the competitive speech and debate community) call a performative contradiction. If we're supposed to believe that objectivism is rooted in reality, then wouldn't it make sense that the arguments defending it be firmly rooted in reality as well?
I think I covered this adequately in an earlier reply.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Why is that a dead horse, Rabbit? Are you talking about OSC's benevolence, or the fact that you can't know an author's personal characteristics from the works he produces?
How is that brazenly controversial?
The particular dead horse I'm referring to is the one that starts something to the effect "OSC wrote my favorite book, How could he possibly [u]fill in the blank[/u], (examples: "believe Mormon doctrine", "be against gay marriage", "write those inflammatory political essays"). And while PMH didn't say any of those things, what he said was as a isolated statement was totally innocuous. But he said opened that door. I just thought it would be nice to warn him he was stepping into a mine field.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm perfectly happy w/ her characterizations as relatively simple embodiments of virtues & vices...
As long as you realize that this is avoiding something by definition, that her characters are symbols rather than real people -- and thus poor straw men that "represent" people rather than resembling anything like real people -- I have no problem with this.
But think for a moment about why it is so much easier to write a polemic full of "embodiments" whose words and actions do not necessarily need to ring true.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
An ethical code is a set of principles to guide one's choices.. ..which, if followed, will achieve the end of The Good.
What then would be the point/status of an ethical code which, by its very nature, is to be followed only part of the time?
What part of the time?
None of these statement is self evident.
Human beings are social animals. We have developed ethical and moral systems to help us regulate selfishness in order to make social interaction possible.
If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I also want to mention this, tangentially to how it was mentioned in the other thread.
quote:You are using "altruism" in the modern colloquial squishy sense; she was using it in the precise philosophical sense -- because she was trying to understand the issues deeply.
"precise philosophical sense," .... according to Rand, yes.
Actually, I was quite surprised when I learned that her definiton of altruism was the same as Comte's original.. ..because it is definitely the case that she judged that in order to (think and) speak intelligibly, she had to analyze the terms & concepts that were in currency - and decide whether they were good enough to use as-is, or had to be refactored (or whatever).
She couldn't've managed to think very well using "altruism"'s colloquial meaning of caring about others & being nice to them, nor "selfish"'s of caring only for oneself, being greedy, willing to step on whomever in order to achieve one's ends, etc.
So she analyzed them into their constituent parts.
For instance, for "selfish", there's rational self interest, which includes/raises the issue of one's relationship to others - in areas including values/wealth.. (Should one give to others who have less / need / want more than they have? Should one not? Is it optional? When it it warranted? Should one take from others? (cf. the Chinese morality, If you fall for my selling you a pig in a poke, it's your own damn fault.))
..general stance towards others.. (initial benevolence with constant judgement? hostility? bottomless forgiveness?
..etc.
quote:
I'm sure she would have/did describe it the exact same way, but she is doing so by inventing, arbitrarily and for herself
She did not invent arbitrarily nor subjectively nor solipsistically.
quote:
, the definition of what consists of a 'precise philosophical sense,' much in the same way that she invents new definitions of concepts like 'rationality' and expect any nominal assumption of the term in others to have to hinge on her own, or be wrong.
Well, one can use whatever words one wants - to mean whatever he wants -- as the postmodernists have shown, taught, exemplified. One just can't do cognition that way.
One - obviously, I would think - has to know - and tell (ie: explicitly define) what he means by the terms he uses -- and those meanings had better be good clean quality concepts if he's to be able to think effectively with them.
It's appropriate for one who has gone through such a process to consider other, differing definitions to be wrong; if he didn't, then what the hell use was it for him to go through all that work in the first place?
quote:
Outside of this, she does not have a precise philosophical sense of anything.
so you say
quote:
Objectivism is seen as worthless by serious philosophy
You know, I've heard that.
quote:
, and most serious academic philosophers can tell you exactly why.
I have seen one allegation of that; I'm working my way through it.
quote:
Rand is not a philosopher and her work shouldn't be regarded as philosophy in any kind of formal sense.
so you say
quote:
She refused to engage in any actual scholarly or academic discussion and refused to debate or publish her philosophy in any scholarly way.
I think that's true.
Of course, that had a lot to do with the fact that she judged them to be doing something other than developing a guide for actual human beings' actual choices in actual reality; she didn't value them or their opinions.
Not being a professional philosopher myself, I can barely (under)stand( to read) them myself; I don't know about you all.
quote:
She attempted some kind of 'refutation' of the categorical imperative once and wrote a few desultory 'philosophical' pieces (not academic pieces, just not fictional stories)
and cribbed heavily and haphazardly from existing philosophers she fancied
I take it you mean other than learning from them.
quote:
(even if she didn't quite really understand them).
want to support that?
quote:
Whenever the objectivist ethics become a topic of philosophical review, they get demolished, because the premises and implicit premises contain at least eight fatal flaws
I think that's the one I referred to above.
quote:
, and she bases her ethics on the agent-relative position, but she offers no argument for it, only a bald assertion.
which was objection #i in the above, right? (which I think you basically just copied, right?)
Her analysis showed that values arise (solely) from the fact that Man is a mortal being with free will.. ..who thus must act in ways that further his life if he is to maintain it.
That's support enough for me; what am I missing?
quote:
It was also noted, at length, that rand claimed a proof for her brand of ethical egoism, and her proof drew necessarily upon a premise which was basically ethical egoism. Essentially, begging the question in a pretty observable way.
Is that further down in the same ref., or do I need to ask for another?
quote:
I suppose in the end an Objectivist who is insistent enough on claiming the awesomeness of Objectivism as a philosophy, and hold to the measure of Rand as a user of terms and ideas in 'precise philosophical senses' will, of course, decide that if if serious, academic philosophy finds Objectivism flawed and invalid, then serious academic philosophy and the culture of serious academic philosophers are wrong and irrational.
I'm open to evidence to the contrary.
quote:
The best catchall description of hardcore objectivists I've ever heard was "(S)he imagines her/himself to be part of some small, privileged group that has the wisdom and penetration to see past some absurd lie(s) that the rest of the doe-eyed, unaware plebs consume without thinking."
Sounds crazy, doesn't it?
One would have to learn what she taught in order to decide for himself. (and yes, study enough of academic philosophy to judge that as well. Question is, how to decide how much of one's time it's worth his spending on that. I myself think I've spent enough -- but, as I say, I'm open. Say to someone why can honestly say that some academic philosopher has helped him live his life better.)
quote:One would have to learn what she taught in order to decide for himself. (and yes, study enough of academic philosophy to judge that as well. Question is, how to decide how much of one's time it's worth his spending on that. I myself think I've spent enough -- but, as I say, I'm open. Say to someone why can honestly say that some academic philosopher has helped him live his life better.)
Me!!
I'm open to any one who can convince me that reading Ayn Rand has made them live their lives in ways I would agree are better. I can point to several friends of mine who, as a result largely of Ayn Rand's influence, made choices that most of us would agree were unethical.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't think.
QFT
Knock that off Lisa, you know better.
Oh, please. If Sam wants civility, he can be civil. Same with Steven. Steven has expressed his antipathy towards me in the past, and I don't expect anything better. Sam... as far as I can tell from the discussions that have gone on over in the Jewish Thing thread, he seems really not to realize that he isn't speaking in a way that demonstrates any interest in dialog. At least when I'm rude to people, I'm aware of it. I'm not sure which is worse.
It hardly matter what Samprimary, and steven want, *I* want civility on this board. It's what I have been tasked with maintaining. I have a lot of patience for people who are rude who are not trying to convey that feeling. I have far less for those who do know better, but chose to be rude anyway, so as to simply bait others into dropping the behaviors that separate us from the animals. That sort of things removes all pretext for discussion, and forces all conversations into this model.
Or this one. Look, I'm sorry. But there are a few people here who are always instantly hostile to me, pretty much regardless of what I post. I could post "Hello, World," and here's what would happen. Kate would say it shows what a rotten person I am. Steven would make a juvenile personal attack against me (so would Kat, if she was around). Sam would make some sort of obnoxious comment to show how smart he is. The Rabbit would say something with a sneer.
Or any of them might simply not post. But if they did, that's what they'd post. And fine, I'm used to it. But don't come down on me when I respond in kind. Take a look at what I'm responding to.
(Right now, I'm wondering which of those lovely people will be the first to give a demonstration of what I just wrote.)
And when I notice posters are needlessly rude or hostile, I do things about it. Are you asserting that you have been mistreated in this thread? If so, I'll go back over it, but otherwise I have to go off what others report to me, and what I myself find in my own browsing. I'm not omnipresent. I never say, "Oh there goes Lisa complaining about being mistreated AGAIN!" I take every single incident seriously. You feeling comfortable here is every bit as important as my feeling so. That's why I'm telling you to stop so as to remove yourself from the problem. If you remain a part of the problem, I have to deal with you along with every other aspect of that problem.
I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm coming down on egregious breaches of the TOS, while ignoring nuanced ones. It has to be that way because by its very nature a nuanced breach is harder and takes more time to identify. The only way these problems will ever be solved is with two principles.
1: You yourself show restraint and talk with me when I or another poster feels you've stepped out of line.
2: Report to me when you feel other posters are stepping out of line.
If everybody did those two things, we wouldn't have sustained periods of ill will. Posters would either check themselves or leave.
Anyway, long post short. Do you feel anybody besides yourself has breached the TOS in this thread?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
