Being an objectivist should feel like having superpowers

[Brant Gaede]

100,000 American hospital patients die each year because of medical mistakes. All of them were under the care of a licensed physician.

--Brant

authoritarian doctors and nurses don't tangle with me any more--they used to because they were taking care of my mother or father, to their regret--you see, they're very smart and know immediately it doesn't work with me if I'm a patient; they did not know they were dealing with me when the patient buffered them until I came back at them--unfortunately, few people who aren't doctors have anything like my own medical background which includes internal medicine, surgery, patient care and emergency procedures: I learned chest compressions and mouth to mouth in 1965 when even lifeguards weren't using it yet (now just do chest compressions)

half of all medical pros graduated in the bottom half of their medical or nursing schools and even to the best doctor you're only one of many patients he's taking care of

[Brant Gaede]

It looks like I've driven Marcus off his thread if not out of OL entirely. I didn't want to do that. The problem is starting with the philosophy and utility of Objectivism as a valid and given starting point for discussion, at least one thing I absolutely will not tolerate or sanction or accept. It's the perfect philosophy so naturally out of that we can get the perfect man if only he would do this or that. It's just a variation of the John Galt posing common at NBI in NYC in the 1960s. You didn't feel like you were JG, whatever that might feel like, but you didn't want anyone to know you didn't match up. Being the best, having superpowers, etc., is just a dynamic extension of that. Marcus didn't and probably doesn't understand his position is a reductio ad absurdum of the first by trying to make this guy go, go, go. The guy is phony, either as an abstraction or some poor sod actually trying to comply with the dicta.

--Brant

try integrity: better mileage (more satisfaction, better life)

[tmj]

As a young maried couple my wife and I were fairly medically naive. Our first child required extensive medical treatment and hospital stays from birth. At first we looked to the hospital and staff for guidance and expertise. By the time she was eight , we 'fired' our surgeon, looking back I still don't know if respecting our wishes was an adminastrative/managment decision or that the doctor just didn't like us the way we didn't like him. As with most things, the more exposure one has to the medical profession the better one can know it and the more the aura diminishes.

[PDS]

It looks like I've driven Marcus off his thread if not out of OL entirely. I didn't want to do that. The problem is starting with the philosophy and utility of Objectivism as a valid and given starting point for discussion, at least one thing I absolutely will not tolerate or sanction or accept. It's the perfect philosophy so naturally out of that we can get the perfect man if only he would do this or that. It's just a variation of the John Galt posing common at NBI in NYC in the 1960s. You didn't feel like you were JG, whatever that might feel like, but you didn't want anyone to know you didn't match up. Being the best, having superpowers, etc., is just a dynamic extension of that. Marcus didn't and probably doesn't understand his position is a reductio ad absurdum of the first by trying to make this guy go, go, go. The guy is phony, either as an abstraction or some poor sod actually trying to comply with the dicta.

--Brant

try integrity: better mileage (more satisfaction, better life)

And, let's face it, the title of thread didn't exactly give it a forward blast of momentum.

You were indeed unusually harsh with Marcus, but then again, anybody who might start this particular thread should be made of pretty stern stuff.

I suspect he will not be run off too easily.

[Marcus]

I'm still here. First off, part of the problem is you some of you guys are starting off with the wrong idea of perfection.

Perfection, according to Objectivism, does not mean omniscience or even the lack of mistakes. Instead, it is a full, consistent committment to rationality.

Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute.

- Atlas Shrugged

And Brant, you are missing the point. My point was that consistently committing to excellence, on a daily basis, to one's fullest extent, is not only a value psychologically and selfishly, but it will make you a source of great values to others. This is the idea of the hero. Objectivism is not a philosophy for people who desire, on principle, to be "average". Nor for those who believe moral perfection is an impossible quest destined only to failure (malevolent universe). Maybe Epicureanism suits you. It's still rational (mostly).

My ideas have been blown out of proportion, miscontrued and even attacked on other parts of the forum. There are people here that, for example, have argued against the efficacy of charisma (to contrary of daily observation and countless scientific studies on the subject). This whole process is not new to me. But my goal is ultimately to get people to think of new innovative ways to apply objectivism and make new connections. If nothing else my ideas always get alot of response and attention.

[Ellen Stuttle]

try integrity: better mileage (more satisfaction, better life)

Which means what? You keep saying "integrity," and "reason," even on science threads, as if those words were all one needed for epistemology, but I don't recall your discussing what you mean by either. (Maybe you have provided a discussion which I missed, but if so, you don't link to it that I've noticed.)

Ellen

[moralist]

Marcus writes: I'm still here.

I'm glad you didn't leave, Marcus. :smile:Different views are what makes this forum interesting.

First off, part of the problem is you some of you guys are starting off with the wrong idea of perfection.Perfection, according to Objectivism, does not mean omniscience or even the lack of mistakes. Instead, it is a full, consistent commitment to rationality.

I see perfection as a verb rather than as a noun. To me it's a continuing process which will never be finished. I also see a "commitment to rationality" as answering to objective reality which is greater than myself, in that it is something which I did not subjectively create, and to which I can only subjectively respond. Greg

[Brant Gaede]

try integrity: better mileage (more satisfaction, better life)

Which means what? You keep saying "integrity," and "reason," even on science threads, as if those words were all one needed for epistemology, but I don't recall your discussing what you mean by either. (Maybe you have provided a discussion which I missed, but if so, you don't link to it that I've noticed.)

Ellen

These are common words with common meanings.

Reason is the application of logic to facts. I'll go with Rand's definition of logic, if anyone cares.

Please clue me in as to where you are in discussions about epistemology per se so I can see if I might go and post there.

Nathaniel Branden's last book, which he obviously gave up on, was to be about integrity. He wanted apropos thoughts and references so I sent him an email suggesting working off "The Fountainhead."

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I'm still here. First off, part of the problem is you some of you guys are starting off with the wrong idea of perfection.

Perfection, according to Objectivism, does not mean omniscience or even the lack of mistakes. Instead, it is a full, consistent committment to rationality.

Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute.

- Atlas Shrugged

And Brant, you are missing the point. My point was that consistently committing to excellence, on a daily basis, to one's fullest extent, is not only a value psychologically and selfishly, but it will make you a source of great values to others. This is the idea of the hero. Objectivism is not a philosophy for people who desire, on principle, to be "average". Nor for those who believe moral perfection is an impossible quest destined only to failure (malevolent universe). Maybe Epicureanism suits you. It's still rational (mostly).

My ideas have been blown out of proportion, miscontrued and even attacked on other parts of the forum. There are people here that, for example, have argued against the efficacy of charisma (to contrary of daily observation and countless scientific studies on the subject). This whole process is not new to me. But my goal is ultimately to get people to think of new innovative ways to apply objectivism and make new connections. If nothing else my ideas always get alot of response and attention.

Well, this thread is almost 60 posts long so far. You're mostly responsible for that.

Michael handles these sorts of things much better than I do, as you must know by now.

If I wanted to get rid of you I'd have started a thread entitle "Marcus" like I did that horrible troll called Eva Mathews who has reappeared on Rebirth of Reason under another name. I don't want to get rid of you.

Rand's idea of rationality is rather linear. I believe in the occasional rational use of irrationality, even ranting and raving or intuitive leaps. Regardless, you can see you and I are still not on the same boat. I can say the same thing about "excellence." Let me give an exagerated example: if I were a genius and President of the United States capable of wonderful foreign policy strokes, I wouldn't do most of it. Why? Because I'd have to consider sustainability--that the next President might be a mediocrity or worse, so foreign policy would need to be based not only on the present but on what could come from that after the genius was gone. Now I know you might exclaim, "but that is excellence!" Not the point. The point is I can't have in my mind doing excellence but doing a job, a task, with the focus on the task not how excellent it all was hopefully going to be. And sure I'd do my very best but I'd not have in my mind being the best. Your mindset is best for sports and business--competition. It can have its uses if it isn't over-generalized. You are positing an Objectivist suit of clothes for Objectivists--all very formal and such--but some may want to play basketball. Or, you are positing a uniform right for basketball playing, but some of us have to go to the office or want to surf. This is all another way of saying "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are drempt of in your philosophy."

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Nor for those who believe moral perfection is an impossible quest destined only to failure (malevolent universe).

Marcus,

I reject that dichotomy.

I believe a quest for moral perfection is a sound recipe to wallow in shame, after the stage of pointing the finger at others settles down, not a journey in a malevolent universe.

I believe we live in a wonderful universe.

On rethinking Rand's formulation of "unbreached rationality," I used to know what that meant.

After a lot of reading about neuroscience, psychology, etc., I no longer do.

(In fact, I now know about my own rationality and can use it effectively in ways that I never knew about before, but that's another issue.)

Does that mean I am now evil?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

try integrity: better mileage (more satisfaction, better life)

Which means what? You keep saying "integrity," and "reason," even on science threads, as if those words were all one needed for epistemology, but I don't recall your discussing what you mean by either. (Maybe you have provided a discussion which I missed, but if so, you don't link to it that I've noticed.)

Ellen

These are common words with common meanings.

Reason is the application of logic to facts. I'll go with Rand's definition of logic, if anyone cares.

Please clue me in as to where you are in discussions about epistemology per se so I can see if I might go and post there.

Nathaniel Branden's last book, which he obviously gave up on, was to be about integrity. He wanted apropos thoughts and references so I sent him an email suggesting working off "The Fountainhead."

--Brant

This I-know-not-what on the current Harriman thread. It's like, hello? Put that in a text on scientific method?

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Does that mean I am now evil?

Michael

Well . ..

You do own this joint, so I better not say.

--Brant

thoroughly intimated intimidated

[Brant Gaede]

try integrity: better mileage (more satisfaction, better life)

Which means what? You keep saying "integrity," and "reason," even on science threads, as if those words were all one needed for epistemology, but I don't recall your discussing what you mean by either. (Maybe you have provided a discussion which I missed, but if so, you don't link to it that I've noticed.)

Ellen

These are common words with common meanings.

Reason is the application of logic to facts. I'll go with Rand's definition of logic, if anyone cares.

Please clue me in as to where you are in discussions about epistemology per se so I can see if I might go and post there.

Nathaniel Branden's last book, which he obviously gave up on, was to be about integrity. He wanted apropos thoughts and references so I sent him an email suggesting working off "The Fountainhead."

--Brant

This I-know-not-what on the current Harriman thread. It's like, hello? Put that in a text on scientific method?

Ellen

I went over the first 80 posts there a few days ago without finding much of anything about what we are talking about and gave up. I'll tackle the rest.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's something I want to explain in my position that has changed over the years. It starts with a quote from Ronald Merrill from The Ideas of Ayn Rand (p. 15):

The constant thread which runs through all of her work is the problem of the moral individual trapped in an evil society.

And to extend this further, he says (p. 46) about The Fountainhead:

To use a central character who is morally perfect makes it difficult to center the story on an internal moral conflict. Adopting a hero who has no psychological problems rules out centering the story on psychological conflict.

. . .

Rand resolved this problem in The Fountainhead by removing Roark from the lead role. In the novel as it exists, Roark is "off stage" for over half of the book. Instead, Dominique Francon becomes the real protagonist. The plot-theme of the book now becomes something different: "How would imperfect people react to the ideal man?"

Can you imagine applying this to your life on a personal level instead of just letting it be a plot device? Rather than internalizing the world and learning about yourself to the deepest levels so you can achieve wisdom, you spend your time noticing how the world reacts to your own perfection.

That sounds like the epitome of social metaphysics.

Not the book. If you live like that.

I have no problem accepting the myth of morally perfect people qua mythology. And I even think the concept is useful as an archetype (a broad template that leaves out the messy details or a horizon that serves as a compass, not a destination), but to use it as a standard to impose on yourself is self-sacrifice of the highest order to someone else's idea of perfection.

That's how it works in practice with human beings--as can be observed over and over throughout history, both big and small.

People live in waves, not flat lines. That's simple biology. Their morality has to have this identification built into it, or the person will try to use a moral standard for a high point when he is at a low point (or vice-versa) and the results will be catastrophic.

Getting back to the first quote, what happens when you no longer believe society is evil?

I sit here typing on a computer I do not have the capacity to invent. The temperature inside my home is agreeable. I am not sick. I am older than any of my male ancestors ever lived to be (except my father, who is still alive) and it looks like I'm good for another 30 or 40 years. I'm well-fed to the point of being overweight. I have a woman I love dearly and who loves me right back, with a couple of kids ditto. In other words, I live a life of extreme wealth compared to most humans of the past.

Also, human population growth is booming. Longer lives and more of the little suckers. Somebody out there in society is doing something right.

I can't see that as evil. In my view of good and evil, it would be tacky and ungrateful for me to call it evil. An evil society would not allow that to exist except for the political elites.

So what do you do for excitement around here? Now I need a good villain to fight.

(Just joking with this last. I do have a few villains and they really piss me off. )

Michael

[PDS]

Believe it or not, I think Greg almost gets it right upthread: perfection (perfecting?) is best viewed as verb, not a noun.

This is somewhat similar to what the Greeks meant by the noun eudamonia, or "an ability which suffices for living well". I find this formulation to have far less baggage than the formulation in the OT.

[Brant Gaede]

Roark is the real protagonist of The Fountainhead. It's potency vs impotency. The impotence of evil theme suffuses Rand's philosophical work and both her great novels. Roark gets it up and the others get it down, except for Dominique who stuck around.

--Brant

this led to some problems

[moralist]

PDS writes:

This is somewhat similar to what the Greeks meant by the noun eudamonia, or "an ability which suffices for living well". I find this formulation to have far less baggage than the formulation in the OT.

I'd never heard of that term, but it fits. Human flourishing is indeed connected to virtue.

Eudaimonia (Greek: ευδαιμονία [eu̯dai̯monía]), sometimes anglicized as eudaemonia or eudemonia /juːdɨˈmoʊniə/, is a Greek word commonly translated as happiness or welfare; however, "human flourishing" has been proposed as a more accurate translation.[1] Etymologically, it consists of the words "eu" ("good") and "daimōn" ("spirit"). It is a central concept in Aristotelian ethics and political philosophy, along with the terms "aretē", most often translated as "virtue" or "excellence", and "phronesis", often translated as "practical or ethical wisdom".[2] In Aristotle's works, eudaimonia was (based on older Greek tradition) used as the term for the highest human good, and so it is the aim of practical philosophy, including ethics and political philosophy, to consider (and also experience) what it really is, and how it can be achieved.

There is an unbreakable bond between doing what's morally right and living well...

"Let those who favor my righteous cause and have pleasure in my uprightness shout for joy and be glad and say continually, Let the Lord be magnified, Who takes pleasure in the prosperity of His servant."

(Psalms)

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

try integrity: better mileage (more satisfaction, better life)

Which means what? You keep saying "integrity," and "reason," even on science threads, as if those words were all one needed for epistemology, but I don't recall your discussing what you mean by either. (Maybe you have provided a discussion which I missed, but if so, you don't link to it that I've noticed.)

Ellen

These are common words with common meanings.

Reason is the application of logic to facts. I'll go with Rand's definition of logic, if anyone cares.

Please clue me in as to where you are in discussions about epistemology per se so I can see if I might go and post there.

Nathaniel Branden's last book, which he obviously gave up on, was to be about integrity. He wanted apropos thoughts and references so I sent him an email suggesting working off "The Fountainhead."

--Brant

This I-know-not-what on the current Harriman thread. It's like, hello? Put that in a text on scientific method?

Ellen

I went over the first 80 posts there a few days ago without finding much of anything about what we are talking about and gave up. I'll tackle the rest.

--Brant

Just that one post of mine? On that whole thread? Did I propose putting anything into a text--a different category of writing?

--Brant

am I intruding on your turf?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roark is the real protagonist of The Fountainhead. It's potency vs impotency. The impotence of evil theme suffuses Rand's philosophical work and both her great novels. Roark gets it up and the others get it down, except for Dominique who stuck around.

--Brant

this led to some problems

Brant,

I agree that the theme of the impotence of evil is a strong one in The Fountainhead. But I agree with Merrill that Dominique is the real protagonist. She moved from Point A to Point B inside herself. Roark was the hero of the story, but like with Galt, the heavy lifting (the protagonist) in the storytelling went to the woman.

Roark had no character arc to speak of. He had an activity arc, to coin a phrase. His triumph was solely against others. There were no inner battles he fought and won. No temptations. No backstory with a hidden pain point to overcome. No moral choices to make so to speak.

They were pre-chosen. And I mean that in the passive voice. Rand says we choose values, but she did not show Roark choosing any moral principles. The ones he held were just part of him like his arms and legs. He chose technical things, jobs, Dominique, etc., but not moral principles.

(The technical term in writing I have encountered for a character without an arc comes from the Dramatica people--a steadfast character.)

The only candidate for a clunker of inconsistency in Roark's values was his love for Wynand (which was unconditional for all intents and purposes), but Rand did not present that as an inner conflict. It was just something that was.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Evil is not impotent when it is backed with planes, bombs, tanks and guns.

What Hitler and his buddies did to Europe was not Impotence. It was Evil backed with might. And the only way we got rid of it was to bring might of our own to the battle field. There was no guarantee that the Good Guys were going to win.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

The proposition by Marcus, of having superpowers, is certainly worth considering.

How true is it? I don't accept or believe he means, that an Objectivist "should" take a superior, elitist attitude to others - anything past the most fleeting of comparison has overtones of second-handedness, and therefore self-contradictory, I would think.

Objectivism clarifies understanding in the large scheme of existence, and clarifies the purpose of one's own existence - and the boundaries with others' existence. For a basic structure, it is unequalled. You get in one package not only the What?, but also the Why? and the How?

For the rest of it, the real thinking is only beginning for an individual.

"Feel like having superpowers", yes it can "feel" this way. I am not so certain on whether it "should", it just does.

After all, it's nothing beyond the range of all mankind. In another way, it is a 'power' which everybody possesses as their birth right, if they would only know it and choose to take it.

[moralist]

Tony writes:

The proposition by Marcus, of having superpowers, is certainly worth considering.

How true is it? I don't accept or believe he means, that an Objectivist "should" take a superior, elitist attitude to others - anything past the most fleeting of comparison has overtones of second-handedness, and therefore self-contradictory, I would think.

Objectivism clarifies understanding in the scheme of existence, and clarifies the purpose of one's own existence - and the boundaries with others' existence. For a basic structure, it is unequalled. You get in one package not only the What?, but also the Why? and the How?

For the rest of it, the real thinking is only beginning for an individual.

"Feel like having superpowers", yes it can "feel" this way. I am not so certain on whether it "should", it just does.

After all, it's nothing beyond the range of all mankind. In another way, it is a 'power' which everybody possesses as their birth right, if they would only know it and choose to take it.

Ah, that's the catch, Tony!

It's totally up to us whether or not we lay claim to it. And if we don't, there is no one else to rightfully blame.

Greg

[moralist]

Michael writes:

I sit here typing on a computer I do not have the capacity to invent. The temperature inside my home is agreeable. I am not sick. I am older than any of my male ancestors ever lived to be (except my father, who is still alive) and it looks like I'm good for another 30 or 40 years. I'm well-fed to the point of being overweight. I have a woman I love dearly and who loves me right back, with a couple of kids ditto. In other words, I live a life of extreme wealth compared to most humans of the past.

Also, human population growth is booming. Longer lives and more of the little suckers. Somebody out there in society is doing something right.

I can't see that as evil. In my view of good and evil, it would be tacky and ungrateful for me to call it evil. An evil society would not allow that to exist except for the political elites.

I share your appreciation for those simple things in life that make it a Paradise.

Greg

[moralist]

The impotence of evil theme suffuses Rand's philosophical work and both her great novels.

Evil is always impotent when confronted by genuine good. So it appears to be potent only as long as it does not encounter that which is truly good...

...but whenever is does, it's smackdown time.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Evil is not impotent when it is backed with planes, bombs, tanks and guns.

What Hitler and his buddies did to Europe was not Impotence. It was Evil backed with might. And the only way we got rid of it was to bring might of our own to the battle field. There was no guarantee that the Good Guys were going to win.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What did they create? Understanding what Rand meant* means a lot more nuance than you bring to the table. You have given no thought to what she meant so you go with an off the top common understanding misunderstanding. If not so you would have asked for an elaboration, but you never want elaborations only confirmations.

--Brant

*then there is criticism of her available