Benevolent Egoism, Anyone?


anthony

Recommended Posts

This is not meant to be preachy - or more precisely, not as preachy as I can be capable of :rolleyes: ,- but take it as you will.

I've been thinking about politeness, civility, goodwill, and tolerance some more, since the subject is coming up a lot here.

Frankly, I think that civility can be over-rated. When it becomes a forced, artificial, prescription, it can lead to dishonesty; a kind of get along at all costs, thing.

(I recall the shocking hypocrisy of adults when I was a boy. The Brits, particularly.)

In close quarters, as on a forum, it definitely oils the wheels of discourse, though.

But also, if being coldly polite denies good-natured joshing (ribbing?), then we could become a pretty pompous lot, losing the fun of social intercourse.

Benevolence is a far grander concept. "Well-wishing", if my Latin is correct, connotes, for me, seeing no threat in others, identifying with their pain, and their pleasure, and encouraging them to do well.

It is a celebration of the best in all of us, and an acknowledgment that we are not super-human. It affirms that we're all 'in this' together. Some basic respect for others - unless or until, it's not deserved - is part and parcel of this.

All these "we's", and "others" appear to contradict Objectivism's central tenet of egoism. Until one stops to think about it, that is.

I've commented somewhere that good-will towards men, is actually born out of egoism - the more egoist and conscious one becomes, the more one is aware of life as a whole: its incredible potential and achievement, and even its proud failures.

This gives the lie, I believe, to those who attack O'ism's 'dog-eat-dog', 'rugged and selfish individualism'. Not only is benevolence a 'natural' and rational consequence of egoism, but without the corresponding goodwill, egoism is not worth a damn, for me.

And also, ironically, genuine benevolence can hardly be arrived at from egoism's polar opposite, altruism.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight, as I was reading some pieces in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, I happened across this passage that appeared in Orwell's newspaper column, "As I Please," on January 7, 1944.

Looking through the photographs in the New Year's Honours List, I am struck, (as usual) by the quite exceptional ugliness and vulgarity of the faces displayed there. It seems to almost the rule that the kind of person who earns the right to call himself Lord Percy de Falcontowers should look at best like an overfed publican and at worst like a tax-collector with a duodenal ulcer. But our country is not alone in this. Anyone who is a good hand with scissors and paste could compile an excellent entitled Our Rulers, and consisting simply of published photographs of the great ones of the earth. The idea first occurred to me when I saw in Picture Post some "stills" of Beaverbrook delivering a speech and looking more like a monkey on a stick that you would think possible for anyone who was not doing it on purpose.

I am curious whether Orwell's remarks, especially about Lord Beaverbrook looking like "a monkey on a stick," would pass Phil's civility test. Would Phil have told Orwell that there is no good reason to insult a person on the basis of his appearance? Would Phil have held up his own supposedly polite style as a model that Orwell should have followed?

Ghs

Addendum: I have posted my remarks on this thread because it is more suited to a general discussion of civility and insults than other threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight, as I was reading some pieces in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, I happened across this passage that appeared in Orwell's newspaper column, "As I Please," on January 7, 1944.

Looking through the photographs in the New Year's Honours List, I am struck, (as usual) by the quite exceptional ugliness and vulgarity of the faces displayed there. It seems to almost the rule that the kind of person who earns the right to call himself Lord Percy de Falcontowers should look at best like an overfed publican and at worst like a tax-collector with a duodenal ulcer. But our country is not alone in this. Anyone who is a good hand with scissors and paste could compile an excellent entitled Our Rulers, and consisting simply of published photographs of the great ones of the earth. The idea first occurred to me when I saw in Picture Post some "stills" of Beaverbrook delivering a speech and looking more like a monkey on a stick that you would think possible for anyone who was not doing it on purpose.

I am curious whether Orwell's remarks, especially about Lord Beaverbrook looking like "a monkey on a stick," would pass Phil's civility test. Would he have told Orwell that there is no good reason to insult a person on the basis of his appearance? Would Phil have held up his own supposedly polite style as a model that Orwell should have followed?

Ghs

Beaverbrook did look like a monkey, and he knew it. I wonder if this was published in one of his newspapers.

Surely you realize that civility towards the powerful, practiced by journalists, becomes servility via deference in very short order. Orwell certainly did.

It has nothing to do with debate between frenemies in internet correspondence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not meant to be preachy - or more precisely, not as preachy as I can be capable of :rolleyes: ,- but take it as you will.

I've been thinking about politeness, civility, goodwill, and tolerance some more, since the subject is coming up a lot here.

Frankly, I think that civility can be over-rated. When it becomes a forced, artificial, prescription, it can lead to dishonesty; a kind of get along at all costs, thing.

(I recall the shocking hypocrisy of adults when I was a boy. The Brits, particularly.)

In close quarters, as on a forum, it definitely oils the wheels of discourse, though.

But also, if being coldly polite denies good-natured joshing (ribbing?), then we could become a pretty pompous lot, losing the fun of social intercourse.

Benevolence is a far grander concept. "Well-wishing", if my Latin is correct, connotes, for me, seeing no threat in others, identifying with their pain, and their pleasure, and encouraging them to do well.

It is a celebration of the best in all of us, and an acknowledgment that we are not super-human. It affirms that we're all 'in this' together. Some basic respect for others - unless or until, it's not deserved - is part and parcel of this.

All these "we's", and "others" appear to contradict Objectivism's central tenet of egoism. Until one stops to think about it, that is.

I've commented somewhere that good-will towards men, is actually born out of egoism - the more egoist and conscious one becomes, the more one is aware of life as a whole: its incredible potential and achievement, and even its proud failures.

This gives the lie, I believe, to those who attack O'ism's 'dog-eat-dog', 'rugged and selfish individualism'. Not only is benevolence a 'natural' and rational consequence of egoism, but without the corresponding goodwill, egoism is not worth a damn, for me.

And also, ironically, genuine benevolence can hardly be arrived at from egoism's polar opposite, altruism.

Tony

Tony, Objectivism is as Objectivists do. I wonder if part of your thoughts came after the recent exchange between Brant and Phil, about the everyday habit of joking and engaging with the random people we meet briefly in everyday situations. I do this too,and always have, just lifelong habit from nature and nurture. As I get older I realize more what an emotional lift there is from these brief connections - disproportionate to their briefness and inconsequentiality. It keeps the universe benevolent - or, as the scientists could likely prove, raises the natural, irrational level of optimism that got us up on our hind legs and out of Africa and onto the Internet.

You are still in Africa but I think you know what I mean.

Carol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight, as I was reading some pieces in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, I happened across this passage that appeared in Orwell's newspaper column, "As I Please," on January 7, 1944.

Looking through the photographs in the New Year's Honours List, I am struck, (as usual) by the quite exceptional ugliness and vulgarity of the faces displayed there. It seems to be almost the rule that the kind of person who earns the right to call himself Lord Percy de Falcontowers should look at best like an overfed publican and at worst like a tax-collector with a duodenal ulcer. But our country is not alone in this. Anyone who is a good hand with scissors and paste could compile an excellent entitled Our Rulers, and consisting simply of published photographs of the great ones of the earth. The idea first occurred to me when I saw in Picture Post some "stills" of Beaverbrook delivering a speech and looking more like a monkey on a stick that you would think possible for anyone who was not doing it on purpose.

I am curious whether Orwell's remarks, especially about Lord Beaverbrook looking like "a monkey on a stick," would pass Phil's civility test. Would he have told Orwell that there is no good reason to insult a person on the basis of his appearance? Would Phil have held up his own supposedly polite style as a model that Orwell should have followed?

Ghs

Beaverbrook did look like a monkey, and he knew it. I wonder if this was published in one of his newspapers.

Surely you realize that civility towards the powerful, practiced by journalists, becomes servility via deference in very short order. Orwell certainly did.

It has nothing to do with debate between frenemies in internet correspondence.

I said nothing about "internet correspondence." I merely asked if Orwell's remark was civil. Do you regard it as civil to describe someone as "a monkey on a stick"? You say that Beaverbrook knew that he looked like a monkey. Okay, suppose someone knows he is a fat slob. Is it then not an insult to call him a fat slob?

Suppose Phil knows that most of his posts are bland and pedantic. Would it then be civil for me to call them bland and pedantic?

If you have standards of civility in matters of writing, then state what they are. Your ad hoc musings will get us nowhere.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight, as I was reading some pieces in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, I happened across this passage that appeared in Orwell's newspaper column, "As I Please," on January 7, 1944.

Looking through the photographs in the New Year's Honours List, I am struck, (as usual) by the quite exceptional ugliness and vulgarity of the faces displayed there. It seems to almost the rule that the kind of person who earns the right to call himself Lord Percy de Falcontowers should look at best like an overfed publican and at worst like a tax-collector with a duodenal ulcer. But our country is not alone in this. Anyone who is a good hand with scissors and paste could compile an excellent entitled Our Rulers, and consisting simply of published photographs of the great ones of the earth. The idea first occurred to me when I saw in Picture Post some "stills" of Beaverbrook delivering a speech and looking more like a monkey on a stick that you would think possible for anyone who was not doing it on purpose.

I am curious whether Orwell's remarks, especially about Lord Beaverbrook looking like "a monkey on a stick," would pass Phil's civility test. Would he have told Orwell that there is no good reason to insult a person on the basis of his appearance? Would Phil have held up his own supposedly polite style as a model that Orwell should have followed?

Ghs

Beaverbrook did look like a monkey, and he knew it. I wonder if this was published in one of his newspapers.

Surely you realize that civility towards the powerful, practiced by journalists, becomes servility via deference in very short order. Orwell certainly did.

It has nothing to do with debate between frenemies in internet correspondence.

I said nothing about "internet correspondence." I merely asked if Orwell's remark was civil. Do you regard it as civil to describe someone as "a monkey on a stick"? You say that Beaverbrook knew that he looked like a monkey. Okay, suppose someone knows he is a fat slob. Is it then not an insult to call him a fat slob?

Suppose Phil knows that most of his posts are bland and pedantic. Would it then be civil for me to call them bland and pedantic?

If you have standards of civility in matters of writing, then state what they are. Your ad hoc musings will get us nowhere.

Ghs

Beaverbrook was a public figure, a proprietor of tabloids who refined the art of mudslinging, and he had the hide of a rhino against whatever was slung at him. Of course, his personal sensitivity or insensitivity are not to the point. I repeat, he was a public figure, and then as now was required to bear public incivilities, if not outright defamations. It came, and comes, with the territory.To answer your question, Orwell's simile is not especially civil, though it's one of the more civil things Lord Copper has been called.

"Matters of writing" is too vague, but I will answer to what I think is your intent. An internet forum is an interesting extension of the tradition of private correspondence among literary and intellectual figures, who shared and commented on these missives. With computers we can just do it faster.

The standards of civility were those of the times and of the individual writers, as they are now. We write each according to our own standards, and we may try to persuade others to adopt our standards, but we can't impose them. So I have my standards, you have yours, Phil has his and so on. Bottom line, Michael has his standards and it's his call.

There has seldom been any civility whatsoever in literary criticism, so if you are trying to introduce some, more power to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beaverbrook was a public figure, a proprietor of tabloids who refined the art of mudslinging, and he had the hide of a rhino against whatever was slung at him. Of course, his personal sensitivity or insensitivity are not to the point. I repeat, he was a public figure, and then as now was required to bear public incivilities, if not outright defamations. It came, and comes, with the territory.To answer your question, Orwell's simile is not especially civil, though it's one of the more civil things Lord Copper has been called.

"Matters of writing" is too vague, but I will answer to what I think is your intent. An internet forum is an interesting extension of the tradition of private correspondence among literary and intellectual figures, who shared and commented on these missives. With computers we can just do it faster.

The standards of civility were those of the times and of the individual writers, as they are now. We write each according to our own standards, and we may try to persuade others to adopt our standards, but we can't impose them. So I have my standards, you have yours, Phil has his and so on. Bottom line, Michael has his standards and it's his call.

There has seldom been any civility whatsoever in literary criticism, so if you are trying to introduce some, more power to you.

I agree with you for the most part, believe it or not. It is Phil, not I, who has insisted, time and again, that others should follow his undefined and inconsistent standards of civility.

By no means has incivility been limited to literary criticism (though it scarcely qualifies as "literary criticism" when a literary figure attacks a public figure for being ugly). Polemicism and insults were commonplace in philosophy from the 16th century through the 19th century. Here is a relevant post from last September. Aside from quoting a passage from Schopenhauer, it makes the point that Ayn Rand showed scant regard for civility when dealing with people with whom she disagreed.

The following passage is from my article "Ayn Rand: Philosophy and Controversy" (Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, pp. 195):

Another problem haunts Ayn Rand's philosophy. Rand was a sharp polemicist who gave no quarter to her adversaries. Many philosophers have retaliated by exiling her beyond the pale of respectable discussion. This is a mistake. Whether you like the woman or not, her brilliance and influence cannot be gainsaid. If Rand is to be excluded from serious consideration because of her polemicism, then why not exclude other polemical philosophers as well?

Nietzsche was an ardent polemicist, as was Marx, but both are taken seriously. The same is true of Arthur Schopenhauer, whose caustic attack on Hegel (the most respected philosopher of his day) was more vindictive than anything ever written by Rand. Consider these remarks by Schopenhauer:

If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece if mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.

Further, if I were to say that this summus philosophus...scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal before him, so that whoever could read his most eulogized work, the so-called Phenomenology of Mind, without feeling as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less right.

Ghs

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beaverbrook was a public figure, a proprietor of tabloids who refined the art of mudslinging, and he had the hide of a rhino against whatever was slung at him.

It could plausibly be argued that anyone who posts frequently on internet forums accessible to the general public thereby makes himself or herself a "public figure." The Age of the Internet has made the distinction between public and private individuals ( which was never very clear) virtually meaningless. One blogger can now reach more people, and be more widely known, than most "public" figures could 20 years ago.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beaverbrook was a public figure, a proprietor of tabloids who refined the art of mudslinging, and he had the hide of a rhino against whatever was slung at him.

It could plausibly be argued that anyone who posts frequently on internet forums accessible to the general public thereby makes himself or herself a "public figure."

Ghs

No. Frequent posters want to share their correspondence with as wide an audience as possible. Public figures are famous outside their own spheres, or forums. They are "celebrities".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

85.jpg

Beaverbrook did look a little like a monkey on a stick. Maybe it was his Canadian heritage. :lol:

Ghs

Poor Uncle Max! He was no oil painting that's for sure, but he left a lot of them to us, even though his decadent descendants are trying to steal them.

Carol

proud New Brunswicker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Would Phil have told Orwell that there is no good reason to insult a person on the basis of his appearance?

No. I basically agree with what Daunce has said on this thread. But 'incivility' is sometimes too tame a term for calling people names, outright untrue insults, food fights, Hatfield and McCoy holding of grudges, character assassination, escalation of conflicts to higher and higher and more frequent levels, the substituting or heat for light, playing 'gotcha', etc. These things go further and are not the same as clever joshing or humorous teasing. Or the clever public 'incivilities' of Mencken, Orwell, Churchill, etc.

> Ayn Rand showed scant regard for civility when dealing with people with whom she disagreed.

So? Do we slavishly follow her every personal trait or do we rise above the bad ones?

> It could plausibly be argued that anyone who posts frequently on internet forums accessible to the general public thereby makes himself or herself a "public figure."

I'm sure you are one who would do so.

> Phil, not I, who has insisted, time and again, that others should follow his undefined and inconsistent standards of civility.

Actually, I think I've defined them pretty well in a long series of posts stretching across several years. I won't claim to have consistently followed them 100%...but that doesn't make them false.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one believe that George and I and Ninth Doctor and a few others have been exhibiting benevolent egoism to an extraordinary extent over the last several years. I mean, consider: we have placed ourselves in the position of having to tolerate Phil's incivility day in and day out, without respite, and we have kept this up week after week, month after month, when those less benevolent would likely have given up in disgust. I think our behavior has been virtually saintlike.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I edited my post above to add a sentence about certain things not being comparable to Orwell, et al -->

But 'incivility' is sometimes too tame a term for calling people names, outright untrue insults, food fights, Hatfield and McCoy holding of grudges, character assassination, escalation of conflicts to higher and higher and more frequent levels, the substituting or heat for light, playing 'gotcha', etc. These things go further and are not the same as clever joshing or humorous teasing. Or the clever public 'incivilities' of Mencken, Orwell, Churchill, etc.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I edited my post above to add a sentence about certain things not being comparable to Orwell, et al -->

But 'incivility' is sometimes too tame a term for calling people names, outright untrue insults, food fights, Hatfield and McCoy holding of grudges, character assassination, escalation of conflicts to higher and higher and more frequent levels, the substituting or heat for light, playing 'gotcha', etc. These things go further and are not the same as clever joshing or humorous teasing. Or the clever public 'incivilities' of Mencken, Orwell, Churchill, etc.

Why do you exempt "the clever public 'incivilities' of Mencken, Orwell, Churchill, etc.?"

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Would Phil have told Orwell that there is no good reason to insult a person on the basis of his appearance?

No. I basically agree with what Daunce has said on this thread.

I asked about a "good reason to insult a person on the basis of his appearance." What was Orwell's good reason for saying that Beaverbrook looked liked a "monkey on a stick"?

Suppose I said that you look like the Pillsbury Dough Boy. Would you regard this as an unjustified insult? If so, how would my insult differ from Orwell's insult?

You and Carol will need to do a lot better than to appeal to some vague standard about public figures. Or, at the very least, you will need to explain why it is okay to insult public figures but no one else. The notion of a "public figure" is a legal standard used in defamation law. It has absolutely nothing to do with civility per se.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand showed scant regard for civility when dealing with people with whom she disagreed.

So? Do we slavishly follow her every personal trait or do we rise above the bad ones?

I want to be sure I understand this. You would have advised Ayn Rand to be more civil in her writing. Is this, in essence, what you are saying?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could plausibly be argued that anyone who posts frequently on internet forums accessible to the general public thereby makes himself or herself a "public figure."

Ghs

No. Frequent posters want to share their correspondence with as wide an audience as possible. Public figures are famous outside their own spheres, or forums. They are "celebrities".

Nancy Pelosi and most other politicians are not "famous outside their own spheres." They are not famous for anything other than being politicians, but they are regarded as "public figures" nonetheless.

Indeed, most local politicians are not famous at all, but they are still regarded as public figures.

I have published three books on atheism. Does this make me a public figure? If so, how does publishing a book differ in principle from publishing thousands of posts on the Internet?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Phil, not I, who has insisted, time and again, that others should follow his undefined and inconsistent standards of civility.

Actually, I think I've defined them pretty well in a long series of posts stretching across several years. I won't claim to have consistently followed them 100%...but that doesn't make them false.

I'm afraid I don't take notes on your posts, nor do I commit them to memory. Perhaps you would be so kind as to summarize the rules of civility that you have defined "pretty well." Or at least direct us to some relevant posts via links.

The fact that you found it necessary to explain all this in "a long series of posts" does not bode well, but we shall see.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lady Godiva was a public figure.

Let's see more of her.

--Brant

I can hear the incivilities now

And now, to divert your attention from the brewing storm on this thread, a musical interlude...

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dJWBpq2dCF0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this the topic of David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism? There is a thread on OL about it here.

Merlin,

Thanks. I am going to order it immediately, along with one or two of his others. I have been meaning to, for too long. From excerpts by him, David Kelley seems like the most significant post-Randian philosopher, and to think that I had not heard of him until a few years ago.

My other gotta-read is also Ghs' ATCAG.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony, Objectivism is as Objectivists do. I wonder if part of your thoughts came after the recent exchange between Brant and Phil, about the everyday habit of joking and engaging with the random people we meet briefly in everyday situations. I do this too,and always have, just lifelong habit from nature and nurture. As I get older I realize more what an emotional lift there is from these brief connections - disproportionate to their briefness and inconsequentiality. It keeps the universe benevolent - or, as the scientists could likely prove, raises the natural, irrational level of optimism that got us up on our hind legs and out of Africa and onto the Internet.

You are still in Africa but I think you know what I mean.

Carol

Carol,

I realise now I was over-dismissive of politeness and civility. It was an attempt to put them in their (I think) rightful place beneath benevolence, but not to diminish them. Self-evidently, I hoped to show, the second embraces the former.

There is an obvious danger, when objectifying these concepts, that one cuts off their real human roots, and creates a disconnect. But the act of identification remains crucial.

'Courtesy' - which I favour over 'civility' - is increasingly important to me. (Just when it appears to be becoming more rare in my daily life.)

Is it to do with getting older?

Some, I believe.

That "emotional lift", as you put it, of unsolicited human contact, is wonderful, and of value to us all.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've defined [standards of civility] pretty well in a long series of posts stretching across several years. I won't claim to have consistently followed them 100%...but that doesn't make them false.

I'm afraid I don't take notes on your posts, nor do I commit them to memory. Perhaps you would be so kind as to summarize the rules of civility that you have defined "pretty well." Or at least direct us to some relevant posts via links.

I have begun the all-points-bulletin-review of the long series of posts. Phil at SOLO. Phil at RoR. Phil at OL. Phil's independent productions.

Here's my strategy:

  • search for & download all seventy-four thousand posts
  • apply sophisticated text-search algorithms
  • assemble a volunteer Council Of Editors & Reviewers
  • identify the principles of the Standards Of Civility
  • offer for sale each principle for five dollars
  • publish each paid-for principle on OL, SOLO, and RoR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now