There's a Reason this Hits Home

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To the reader,

I don't mind if someone disagrees with Rand, but I can't take someone seriously who refuses to try to understand what she meant before going on a mission to school everyone else on her shortcomings.

The proper sequence for me is get it right first, then criticize, not find a pet theory and play word games to support it.

But at least we can have some fun while working it all out.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If you come to Objectivism tangentially already filled up to the ears with, say, libertarianism, you're not likely to get Rand quite right for that reason. The conservatives, not libertarians, are the worst. As for myself, I can't really do the Objectivist catechism for I deliberately stopped studying it over four decades ago, but I don't speak Objectivism with a foreign accent. If you get deep enough into the catechism you may never get out. You can get in deeper than that with Atlas Shrugged, for sure if your name is Ayn Rand. She made that world and in it she stayed.

--Brant

[moralist]

You can get in deeper than that with Atlas Shrugged, for sure if your name is Ayn Rand. She made that world and in it she stayed.

--Brant

Her value to me was the practical inspiration to literally build my own world and to enjoy living in it.

[Selene]

Frank, out of curiosity, did you ever read the Burns book?

A...

[anthony]

That is a subjective 'selfishness', FF, out of context of one's life and reality. It's whatever you want it to be, and many people would proudly call themselves "unselfish" for doing such service to others as you list. They are right.

Your version is much to say:

I'm doing something, it gives me reward, pleasure or gain in the moment - therefore, whatever I do is selfish.

My dogs know as much.

"Out of context of one's life and reality"? Who would be in a better position to know the full context of a man's life than that man himself? Why is my friend's preference to continue working as an accountant any more subjective than John Galt's decision to take his own life to spare Dagny physical pain?

If a man cannot trust his own preferences as being right, proper or objective, to whom should he turn? You?

No, I wouldn't be able know his innermost thoughts, and nor would you.

To repeat the writer, "Most men live lives of quiet desperation". I think it has some truth. How does one really know what a man thinks and feels? Not even his wife. But for your friend to continue in what (you've portrayed) as repetitive drudgery, is not actually a choice, it could well be simply that, a continuation, like a comfort blanket.

Only knowing the "full context of one's life" - and I'm not so sure that many have the self-knowledge to deeply know that - is not sufficient; you have to be extremely honest about which values are true and worth holding and pursuing - to you - then to nurture the virtues essential to gain them, and then act towards them.

If, that is, rational selfishness, not this skin-deep-everything-goes type, is one's conviction.

Contrary to what you say FF, merely acting on something doesn't indicate selfishness, it could be fear (or other emotions) or instantly gratifying pleasures, or often others' opinions and expectations of one, that motivate one.

You brought up Mother Teresa as an exemplar of servitude which she performed "selfishly" and with pleasure in your view. Years ago, I read excerpts from her diary. All I remember now, is the loathing she expressed for her existence in those sordid streets. It's a mistake to make a superficial reading of - apparently - fulfilled individuals who dedicate their lives to duty to others.

Can't you see it? Galt clearly loved Dagny to the degree that it would not be a self-sacrifice to lose his life to save her, therefore to do so, selfishly. A value he perceived in her which equalled the high worth he held in his life. Which is an excellent rebuttal of those who claim that love is selfless.

This discussion keeps reminding me of Wilde - A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No, I wouldn't be able know his innermost thoughts, and nor would you.

Tony,

You just nailed my main beef with FF's dogma. He presumes this proves one, but not the other. In other words, we can't know what's inside a person's mind, so how do we know he is not acting selfishly?

But by the same token, how do we know he is?

FF seems to think actions are the guide, but he arbitrarily assigns selfishness to all actions performed by an agent. Why? Here we go into argument by proclamation, which means: just because I said so.

Here are a few examples from this thread:

I've come to the conclusion that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's best to assume that people do what makes them happy (or happier).

Why is it best?

Just because FF said so...

That's the only reason he gives.

(Oh... OK... Mises said it as a proclamation and I left that out of this quote. But that's just a second-hand proclamation. Why did Mises say that in the quote? Because he said so. The end. And FF imitated this.)

If in the absence of coercion an individual repeats or continues in an activity, negative vibes aside, there is no reason to suppose that person is not acting selfishly.

But, by this standard, there is no reason to suppose that a person is acting selfishly, either. To know for sure, one has to be inside the person's head. The only standard given is FF says so.

On the other hand, if they came back again and again, no matter how unhappy their vibes appeared to be, it is obvious that they are acting to increase satisfaction/fulfillment of life's purpose.

Obvious to whom? Is FF in that person's head to know what that person's life purpose is? So why is it obvious "that they are acting to increase satisfaction/fulfillment of life's purpose"? FF says so. That's all.

... he prefers what he is doing now to any alternative. A person who acts to realize his preferences is acting selfishly.

How does FF know this guy's preference? FF says so, apparently confusing lack of obstacle with active choice (blanking out unconscious habit or compulsion). And even if that were true, why is acting to realize a preference acting selfishly? Why can it not be unselfishly and the guy get no personal satisfaction at all, only misery?

FF says so.

All actions are directed toward the goal of increasing one's contentment, gratification, pride or comfort.

Why? FF says so.

... all actions are aimed at increasing happiness.

Why? FF says so.

People will not continue to perform an activity if it produces only misery.

Why? FF says so.

I'm not discussing the truth or falsehood of the dogma. I'm merely pointing out the arbitrariness of how it is presented.

Saying something does not make it so. And using a double standard on saying so merely compounds the error.

(Unfortunately, Rand does a lot of argument by proclamation, too. ITOE is full of this from the very first page.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If Greg is wrong, there's not much to be done. Is Francisco is wrong you have his arguments and logic you can deal with.

Thank you, Francisco.

As for Greg, it's something else--metaphysics without the epistemology served up take it or leave it.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Greg is ultimately into self-responsibility and only speaks for himself. It's not the whole Objectivist enchilada, but it's a big chunk. I haven't seen him misrepresent the ideas of another person. He disagrees with people and has his own dogma (including that quirky "deserves" thing), but he is honest in the way he portrays the meanings of others. If he gets someone's ideas wrong, I am confident it will be because he didn't understand something correctly. I've only seen him get unreasonable with people who have called him nasty names.

FF uses his dogma and word games to misrepresent what another person is getting at so he can win an argument. He speaks in the name of others and speaks in error, then gets stubborn about it.

Greg's type does not irritate me. There is always room for us to disagree. Granted, he's a little preachy and a lot quirky, but he frames his statements as being his view, not the view of others.

FF irritates me because he's always trying to prove someone is wrong according to his misrepresentations of the ideas or intended meanings of others. It goes beyond disagreement and into purposeful misrepresentation. Oh... he quotes people, but he lades the quotes with word games, embeds clear meanings of others with his dogmas and says they thus mean the contrary, ignores contexts, excessively nit-picks, etc. It's a competitive thing and he constantly fudges in order to win.

What does he win? He gets to scratch some neurotic itch or other, but, ultimately, damned if I know. In trying to win at all costs, he sets up more lose-lose situations than anybody I have seen--at least in a long time.

I get a good feeling from Greg even if I don't get all that much intellectual stimulation. I get very little from FF other than the irritation of someone saying "you're wrong" to everything. It's like the "Why?" game of a little kid. Everything you say, the kid asks, "Why?" Well, everything anyone says, FF says, "You're wrong."

Greg will say I disagree with you (and you get what you deserve ), but carry on. FF will say (over and over) you're wrong while getting it wrong himself.

Other people's mileage and irritation factors may vary, but those are mine.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

And once again, have you noticed we are not talking about the topic of the thread, but instead about FF?

It's always that way.

That's by design.

That's part of the payoff.

And that's what irritates me.

(Think Phil Coates always finger-wagging and telling people how to behave. Then everyone talks about Phil. "You're wrong" in the FF manner is the same damn tactic, but different form.)

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

No, I wouldn't be able know his innermost thoughts, and nor would you.

To repeat the writer, "Most men live lives of quiet desperation". I think it has some truth. How does one really know what a man thinks and feels? Not even his wife. But for your friend to continue in what (you've portrayed) as repetitive drudgery, is not actually a choice, it could well be simply that, a continuation, like a comfort blanket.

Only knowing the "full context of one's life" - and I'm not so sure that many have the self-knowledge to deeply know that - is not sufficient; you have to be extremely honest about which values are true and worth holding and pursuing - to you - then to nurture the virtues essential to gain them, and then act towards them.

If, that is, rational selfishness, not this skin-deep-everything-goes type, is one's conviction.

Contrary to what you say FF, merely acting on something doesn't indicate selfishness, it could be fear (or other emotions) or instantly gratifying pleasures, or often others' opinions and expectations of one, that motivate one.

You brought up Mother Teresa as an exemplar of servitude which she performed "selfishly" and with pleasure in your view. Years ago, I read excerpts from her diary. All I remember now, is the loathing she expressed for her existence in those sordid streets. It's a mistake to make a superficial reading of - apparently - fulfilled individuals who dedicate their lives to duty to others.

Can't you see it? Galt clearly loved Dagny to the degree that it would not be a self-sacrifice to lose his life to save her, therefore to do so, selfishly. A value he perceived in her which equalled the high worth he held in his life. Which is an excellent rebuttal of those who claim that love is selfless.

This discussion keeps reminding me of Wilde - A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

If we cannot know a person' innermost thoughts, then our conclusions should be based on what we can objectively observe about him, specifically his actions.

If we see someone in despair, we can offer him suggestions for a remedy, but if he persists in his present course of action, on what basis would we conclude that he has chosen wrongly? It is simply not true that what makes one person happy will result in the happiness of an entirely different human being.

Should my friend Bill the accountant abandon a career of drudgery? Only he can answer that. You refer to his work as a "comfort blanket." What is the point of giving up the blanket if he finds life less satisfactory without it?

You write, "You have to be extremely honest about which values are true and worth holding and pursuing - to you - then to nurture the virtues essential to gain them, and then act towards them." Very gwell, but how would we determine that a given individual has not chosen values that are true and worth holding and pursuing - to him? Didn't you start off by saying, "I wouldn't be able know his innermost thoughts"?

Again, I ask, how exactly do you measure the depth of a person's selfishness and distinguish the bone deep variety from the skin deep? How can you know that what would not give you a reward (filling out IRS forms for clients) would not be rewarding to a different sort of person?

What about irrational fears? Should people act or not act on the basis of such feelings? I have a lifelong aversion to heights. I do not like theme park rides, glass elevators or precipices. It is true that I am doing myself no physical harm by standing on the edge of a cliff. But if I am happier not doing it, why is that a less rational choice?

If at a family reunion I nod my head or smile politely when someone makes a political comment that I reject, I am simply more motivated by the desire to avoid discord than the desire to make a convert.

If Mother Teresa really and truly loathed walking through the streets of Calcutta then she would have commanded first her left foot and then her right foot to leave the city and find fulfillment elsewhere. As in the case of accountant Bill, words speak louder than actions.

If Galt loved Dagny to the degree that it would not be a self-sacrifice to lose his life to save her, then why couldn't Mother Teresa love the poor of Calcutta to the degree that it would not be a self-sacrifice to lose her life to save them?

See the video in Post #1.

[Francisco Ferrer]

No, I wouldn't be able know his innermost thoughts, and nor would you.

Tony,

You just nailed my main beef with FF's dogma. He presumes this proves one, but not the other. In other words, we can't know what's inside a person's mind, so how do we know he is not acting selfishly?

But by the same token, how do we know he is?

It is a reasonable assumption that people act to increase their satisfaction. Ice cream is popular because it gives people pleasure. If it produced an opposite emotion people would stop consuming it.

FF seems to think actions are the guide, but he arbitrarily assigns selfishness to all actions performed by an agent. Why? Here we go into argument by proclamation, which means: just because I said so.

I do not ask you to accept my word on faith but to observe. People act to increase their happiness. People repeat actions that bring them pleasure and avoid actions that bring pain. If this were not true, then we would see just as many people consuming thorns and thistles as ice cream.

I've come to the conclusion that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's best to assume that people do what makes them happy (or happier).

Why is it best?

Just because FF said so...

That's the only reason he gives.

(Oh... OK... Mises said it as a proclamation and I left that out of this quote. But that's just a second-hand proclamation. Why did Mises say that in the quote? Because he said so. The end. And FF imitated this.)

We could consider the theory that all human action is completely random. But it does not take much observation to realize that because certain activities tend to be repeated (consuming food, sleeping, being with others) and certain other activities tend to be avoided (placing one's fingers in a flame), that actions which produce positive feelings are repeated and actions which cause displeasure and bodily damage are not.

If in the absence of coercion an individual repeats or continues in an activity, negative vibes aside, there is no reason to suppose that person is not acting selfishly.

But, by this standard, there is no reason to suppose that a person is acting selfishly, either. To know for sure, one has to be inside the person's head. The only standard given is FF says so.

If a child puts ice cream into her own mouth, it is more likely that she is acting to give herself pleasure than her sister. But, without reading her thoughts, it is clear that certain actions, by the fact that they are repeated, indicate positive results in the person performing them.

On the other hand, if they came back again and again, no matter how unhappy their vibes appeared to be, it is obvious that they are acting to increase satisfaction/fulfillment of life's purpose.

Obvious to whom? Is FF in that person's head to know what that person's life purpose is? So why is it obvious "that they are acting to increase satisfaction/fulfillment of life's purpose"? FF says so. That's all.

The repetition of certain activities establishes that human behavior is not random. For example, humans, for the most part, prefer to eat rather than starve. The fact that animals prefer to eat than not eat, be warm rather than cold, etc. may be largely the result of inherent evolutionary mechanisms in the nervous system to foster survival. The fact that some human ignore those mechanisms and engage in behavior that is self-destructive indicates that some feelings can overpower the survival mechanism. Other behaviors may be the result of a need for community.

The repeated activity of going to a church (rather than an ice cream parlor) means that some part of the brain is being given a positive response by church-going. Otherwise, people would not repeat it. The act of satisfying that need is selfish.

... he prefers what he is doing now to any alternative. A person who acts to realize his preferences is acting selfishly.

How does FF know this guy's preference? FF says so, apparently confusing lack of obstacle with active choice (blanking out unconscious habit or compulsion). And even if that were true, why is acting to realize a preference acting selfishly? Why can it not be unselfishly and the guy get no personal satisfaction at all, only misery?

FF says so.

If Biil gets only misery form doing Activity A yet nonetheless repeats Activity A, even though he is under no threat to perform it, then Bill must prefer the misery of A to the non-misery of non-A. By acting on his preferences Bill is demonstrating selfishness.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm only going to do one of these. This is just too easy.

If Biil gets only misery form doing Activity A yet nonetheless repeats Activity A, even though he is under no threat to perform it, then Bill must prefer the misery of A to the non-misery of non-A. By acting on his preferences Bill is demonstrating selfishness.

Why?

Dogma.

Because FF says so.

That's the alpha and omega of the argument.

It's entirely possible for a person to act consistently with a miserable result without choosing any preference at all. People can be observed doing it all the time.

But only if FF says so and he ain't sayin'. So in FF-Land they ain't doin'.

And it's entirely possible for a person to prefer self-destruction.

But only if FF says so and he ain't sayin'.

Instead, FF says acting on preference is selfish. That self-destruction is selfish.

Why?

FF says so, thus it must be so.

Period.

Maybe we should reconfigure reality and the Law of Identity according to FF's say-so.

Instead of "A is A," we change it to "A is FF says."

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe we should reconfigure reality and the Law of Identity according to FF's say-so.

Instead of "A is A," we change it to "A is FF says."

Michael

Works for me. I don't have to read most of it consequently. Much less reply to it. Generally I like to avoid ivy-towerism. The people upstairs think they know what's going on down on the ground and pass moral-intellectual judgments on mere abstractions floating by like clouds. Sometimes they get it right, but not being God it's usually too much trouble for me to sort it all out. That's one reason, maybe, Greg has another, maybe, Francisco doesn't provide us with any real-life-his-life integration with what he says here. He and Greg do share a rock-hard obdurateness while the rest of us swoop in and out reconning the battlefield occasionally dropping ordinance as metaphysics (Greg) collides with epistemology (Francisco) complimenting each deficiency in the other with the other deficiency. I gotta root for Greg. Helps put food on my table and a roof over my head. I'm no dummy.

You're hitting FF with epistemology. If you're doing it right it's like poking jello with a knife. If you're doing it wrong we're going to have a real metaphorical sword fight. Yep, them metaphors can getcha, getcha, getcha!

--Brant

war is hell, but not on the Internet here; here it's somewhere between interesting and silly

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

And once again, have you noticed we are not talking about the topic of the thread, but instead about FF?

It's always that way.

That's by design.

That's part of the payoff.

And that's what irritates me.

(Think Phil Coates always finger-wagging and telling people how to behave. Then everyone talks about Phil. "You're wrong" in the FF manner is the same damn tactic, but different form.)

Michael

Nobody can top Phil. I do hope he's doing well but glad he's not here. He went off the tracks in a truly damaging way with what he said and how he said it. Francisco is easy. He doesn't attack people. Greg is harder. He attacks just about everybody but doesn't use logic or much reason so it is so easily refuted shame on anyone who can't. Don't read and reply or just don't reply and they both stop for they can't go on without help from the beyond. (I can't either, but I don't want pity, I want to think I'm "HOWARD ROARK INTELLECTUAL".) Phil came with real, corrosive acid he spread all over the place and it worked for he was well integrated with his idea of reality and reason albeit full of crap. So was James Taggart in the torture room.

--Brant

I'm now trying to spice up my posts and expand my readership with sex--works for novelists and I love sex ("win/win")--for instance, how to do it better with Dominque than Howard did and all night long (see?--it's working!)

[Mikee]

I think Francisco is tangentially addressing a serious mistake I think many if not most objectivists make. Assuming irrationality on the part of those they disagree with. You cannot know what is in the minds of others, their experiences, their values, even how they define the words they use. Assuming they are stupid or irrational is a serious mistake. It makes most objectivists' arguments about anything irrelevant from the pov of changing peoples minds.

[Selene]

--Brant

I'm now trying to spice up my posts and expand my readership with sex--works for novelists and I love sex ("win/win")--for instance, how to do it better with Dominque than Howard did and all night long (see?--it's working!)

 

 

[moralist]

I think Francisco is tangentially addressing a serious mistake I think many if not most objectivists make. Assuming irrationality on the part of those they disagree with. You cannot know what is in the minds of others, their experiences, their values, even how they define the words they use. Assuming they are stupid or irrational is a serious mistake. It makes most objectivists' arguments about anything irrelevant from the pov of changing peoples minds.

Insightful point, Mike.

I don't assume Frank is either stupid or irrational just because our views are different. And that's because people who are both intelligent and rational can still choose to live by bad values. Frank behaves like he has had lots of government education. And if I were to hazard a wild guess from reverse engineering his behavior and his expressed values...he's likely a public sector bureaucratic employee. This may explain why he dares not say anything about his life as it would blow his cover!

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Not bad, Adam. I think I could write the "rape" scene for modern audiences without the "rape"--that could be used in a movie remake and Dominique still gets what she really wants the way she wants it--gotta respect Rand. You can't change her character or the only romantic interest will be between Roark and Wynand. (Roark: when are we going to go below and get it on? Wynand: we aren't going to get it on. Will you marry me? Keating can have Stonehenge Stoneridge and God damn him!) That just won't work and the whole novel collapses for it's based on the pretense that the romantic-sexual relationship between Dominique and Howard is primary and not between Wynand and Roark, but since they are both alpha males you'd need to queenify Wynand, completely in the wrong way. He did get queenified eventually, by Rand's version of reality, but that was the end of him.

I'd be willing to tackle blowing up a housing project too, but that's a real toughie, and I'm not willing to really try until the check clears my bank.

--Brant

[anthony]

If Mother Teresa really and truly loathed walking through the streets of Calcutta then she would have commanded first her left foot and then her right foot to leave the city and find fulfillment elsewhere. As in the case of accountant Bill, words speak louder than actions.

If Galt loved Dagny to the degree that it would not be a self-sacrifice to lose his life to save her, then why couldn't Mother Teresa love the poor of Calcutta to the degree that it would not be a self-sacrifice to lose her life to save them?

See the video in Post #1.

I didn't mention that Teresa's words came over as having not the least love for the poor and diseased, rather, disgust. That's the effects of servitude and self-sacrifice for you. Of course you might argue she was getting something out of it (um, "selfishly"). Perhaps beneath her humble exterior, she rather enjoyed the adulation she received from people all over, feteing her for her sacrificial humility, as the pinnacle in morality. And it's a good bet she believed this was what God wanted her to do. So there's a 'good' and 'selfish' reason right there.

All that is why it's called *rational* selfishness, FF. Not by second hand esteem by millions of others, or supernatural- based.

By Kant's and other moralists' lights, receiving any benefit or pleasure from an altruist action can't be completely moral.

[Brant Gaede]

If Mother Teresa really and truly loathed walking through the streets of Calcutta then she would have commanded first her left foot and then her right foot to leave the city and find fulfillment elsewhere. As in the case of accountant Bill, words speak louder than actions.

If Galt loved Dagny to the degree that it would not be a self-sacrifice to lose his life to save her, then why couldn't Mother Teresa love the poor of Calcutta to the degree that it would not be a self-sacrifice to lose her life to save them?

See the video in Post #1.

I didn't mention that Teresa's words came over as having not the least love for the poor and diseased, rather, disgust. That's the effects of servitude and self-sacrifice for you. Of course you might argue she was getting something out of it (um, "selfishly"). Perhaps beneath her humble exterior, she rather enjoyed the adulation she received from people all over, feteing her for her sacrificial humility, as the pinnacle in morality. And it's a good bet she believed this was what God wanted her to do. So there's a 'good' and 'selfish' reason right there.

All that is why it's called *rational* selfishness, FF. Not by second hand esteem by millions of others, or supernatural- based.

By Kant's and other moralists' lights, receiving any benefit or pleasure from an altruist action can't be completely moral.

She was only a public hypocrite. That was her inside-out selfish public manifestation. What was going on inside in seeming contradiction was still her version and experience of selfish. An outside observer can say "selfless," which is what she wanted, but it's more accurate to say it's "crap" and "selfless" is its label. We can even say it's crappy selfishness. If you want to live a crappy life it's hard to call it crap just as it's hard to say "The Emperor," the supposed moral goodiness and superioritiness of selflessness, "is naked and he ain't pretty."

(It's too bad Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness didn't live up to its title for she immediately castrated the definition and damaged the idea thereby inside. "Rational self-interest" is sorta--mostly--correct but lacks rhetorical and polemical punch.)

--Brant.

[anthony]

No, I wouldn't be able know his innermost thoughts, and nor would you.

Tony,

You just nailed my main beef with FF's dogma. He presumes this proves one, but not the other. In other words, we can't know what's inside a person's mind, so how do we know he is not acting selfishly?

But by the same token, how do we know he is?

{...}

(Unfortunately, Rand does a lot of argument by proclamation, too. ITOE is full of this from the very first page.)

Michael

It goes further Michael. It is Francisco's *detachment* - the best I can put it - which absorbs me.

I don't want to make this about FFalone, since I see it very commonly all over. It appears as a belief that because man has consciousness, man's identification and assessment doesn't count. By this, a single man then must be biased and his best opinion must be "disqualified", out of hand. IOW, his possible objectivity and integrity mean little.

(It was most apparent in OL's art threads, coming up as separation between existence and consciousness, concretes and concepts. In effect: "Who are you to judge?"

In art - a creation by one consciousness for an other's consciousness -- of all things.)

"Objective" is taken to mean by some, as 'impartial' or 'dispassionate' or 'removed'. Therefore one hears or sees a preponderance of surface detail and activity, outward show, passing by or demeaning the organ of identification within others and ourselves. Of course, detail matters. But that's a part of it.

How then, may a person with such detachment from consciousness, arrive at (or understand) rational selfishness?

(Rand identified the syndrome in ITOE, and put it down to mainly Immanuel's influence. I wouldn't know that myself, but as I think I mentioned to you before, I know the "syndrome" exists. The penetrating consequences are everywhere, to be seen most clearly in personal engagement between people and the politics of society).

I could be more articulate in expressing this idea, it's a work in progress and I apologize if it isn't clear. I only know it's supremely important.

Your "Know Thyself" is at the heart of it all.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think Francisco is tangentially addressing a serious mistake I think many if not most objectivists make. Assuming irrationality on the part of those they disagree with. You cannot know what is in the minds of others, their experiences, their values, even how they define the words they use. Assuming they are stupid or irrational is a serious mistake. It makes most objectivists' arguments about anything irrelevant from the pov of changing peoples minds.

Mike,

I agree with this, but there is another mistake I constantly see that compounds this: deducing reality from words.

In Objectivist epistemology (and in life, for that matter), the best way to use your brain--the higher part you can control through volition--is to observe reality, then consider it in words.

Or, since you have deeply-embedded lower-level words (like chair, sun, stick, run, eat, etc.), consider it in the lower-level words first as you are observing--a phase I call identify--then add considerations with wider abstractions on top of that.

In the other way of thinking, you look at what someone says, decide you want to play the "You're wrong" game (for whatever payoff you are seeking), then look at reality to try to find examples that don't fit according to a rationalization you develop so you can trounce the other guy with it. As the discussion turns to wider reality, you start blanking out whole chunks of things people observe because they don't fit your game. In other words, you try to deduce and limit observable reality from the words someone said because you want to prove them wrong (or sometimes right).

I see O-Land people do this constantly.

In the first manner of thinking, two people can use entirely different words and arrive at the same conclusion. At root, they seek to see what the other sees and the words are merely a form of communicating it.

In the second manner, two people can hold the same conclusion (or not), but constantly fight over the words--mostly because the words are directly connected to prioritizing the "You're wrong" game by at least one of them.

(Apropos, it's easy to get sucked into this even if you mostly use the first way of thinking. Humans have an emotionally-loaded cognitive bias against being told they are wrong in public. We are prewired to loathe it. So the moment someone says, "You're wrong," especially in front of others, a cortisol squirt slaps your adrenal cortex and off you go.)

This is a variation of the prevalent O-Land assumption you mentioned where the speaker thinks he or she is rational and everyone else is irrational. But instead of just an assumption so a person can feel good about getting on a soapbox and preaching, it turns into a competitive game.

Social-wise, it's intimidation and a fight. Reality-wise and wisdom-wise, it's a hamster wheel--lots of motion but it goes nowhere.

If O-Land people ever want to get into persuasion for real, they have to learn to see the world through the eyes of another to identify that person correctly, then go back to their own eyes to evaluate what they saw, then use their brains to come up with the reasoning and communication to persuade.

Ironically, despite all her preachiness, Rand did this well when she did it. That's why, even today, she persuades independent people whereas her progeny is having one hell of a time getting through. I have little doubt Rand's books convince more independent people each year to go in the direction of reason and rational self-interest as morality than all the lectures and writings of all other Objectivists combined.

That's why I'm especially interested in those who have read her, who incorporate some of her core ideas--usually for the better in their lives, but don't agree with everything. These are persuaded people in action, not just words.

As an aside, I'm probably doing a lousy job of seeing the world through FF's eyes. But every time I try like here, off he goes into a competition and even wants to use my statement to back up his rationalizations in a "You're wrong" game against another (in this case, against Rand). I don't play that game for my main epistemology and that creates the conflict.

Michael

[Selene]

Folks:

I have sparingly communicated with Frank in the "back channel."

One real problem, other than his sophistic selfishness, is him being "mysterious" at a significantly high level.

I am not going to say evasive because I have no facts to make the judgment.

Greg notes it and then "spins" it his fresh way.

I can respect anonymity, however, the sophistic crap just started to smell too rancid for me.

A..

[Brant Gaede]

Folks:

I have sparingly communicated with Frank in the "back channel."

One real problem, other than his sophistic selfishness, is him being "mysterious" at a significantly high level.

I am not going to say evasive because I have no facts to make the judgment.

Greg notes it and then "spins" it his fresh way.

I can respect anonymity, however, the sophistic crap just started to smell too rancid for me.

A..

Well, take away his avatar and whadda ya got? Molasses!?

--Brant

if you have to choose, choose Greg; it's like choosing money (never mind the headache; that's what aspirin's for), leave the ad hominem

[Francisco Ferrer]

I'm only going to do one of these. This is just too easy.

If Biil gets only misery form doing Activity A yet nonetheless repeats Activity A, even though he is under no threat to perform it, then Bill must prefer the misery of A to the non-misery of non-A. By acting on his preferences Bill is demonstrating selfishness.

Why?

Dogma.

Because FF says so.

That's the alpha and omega of the argument.

It's entirely possible for a person to act consistently with a miserable result without choosing any preference at all. People can be observed doing it all the time.

But only if FF says so and he ain't sayin'. So in FF-Land they ain't doin'.

And it's entirely possible for a person to prefer self-destruction.

But only if FF says so and he ain't sayin'.

Instead, FF says acting on preference is selfish. That self-destruction is selfish.

Why?

FF says so, thus it must be so.

Period.

Maybe we should reconfigure reality and the Law of Identity according to FF's say-so.

Instead of "A is A," we change it to "A is FF says."

Michael

In Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle wrote, “Every action and pursuit is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.”

That both individual humans and animals act to maintain or improve their condition can be confirmed through innumerable behavioral and demographic studies. To take the simplest example, the fact that people almost universally prefer to stay warm rather than freeze indicates that human behavior with respect to shelter is pro-survival.

If Aristotle’s theory is in error, there should be some evidence to the contrary. Yes, a certain portion of the population commits suicide or engages in life-shortening behavior. But as Cicero observed, “When a man's circumstances contain a preponderance of things in accordance with nature, it is appropriate for him to remain alive; when he possesses or sees in prospect a majority of the contrary things, it is appropriate for him to depart from life.”

Are there, for example, a significant number of people who purposely marry the person who makes them less happy or take the job that makes them less well off or watch the television programs they find less entertaining?

To return to the example of Bill the accountant, in the absence of contrary evidence, we can say that Bill’s tending to work rather than not work is a manifestation of a preference, i.e., the “liking of one alternative to another.” Why place greater weight on Bill’s pro-work actions than his anti-work words? Because it is his actions not his words that have an actual effect on his life.

To judge by Bill’s words, he is miserable. He has said so. He has specifically criticized the burden of his job. Yet he returns to it again and again. If his words are true, then his choice to work is a choice to be miserable—or to escape the greater misery of not working. The vital point is that it is self-chosen and thus a selfish choice. I refer to the part of the mind that makes such decisions as the “self” but other terms may be used as well.

I have already acknowledged that people make choices which still leave them miserable. And I have explicitly said that self-destruction may be seen as a selfish choice (see the reference to Galt). Whatever the end result, when one action is selected over another, the actor demonstrates his desire that a certain condition be brought about or continued. The misery experienced in that condition may in the actor’s evaluation be less bad than any alternative. For Bill doing accounting may be less miserable than not doing it.

Going back to Post #1, acting in a way that is superficially unselfish may be deeply satisfying to the actor.