Stillbirth of reason: Altruism


eva matthews

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

... putting lipstick on a pig.

Come on Eva.

You've used this metaphor a gazillion times now.

The lipstick is wearing off and the pig lost interest.

I know you have better stuff in you.

:smile:

Michael

Michael,

Perhaps I'm belaboring the point with a tired metaphor, or perhaps i'm using the same metaphor for the same situation which occurs over and over.

Lots of the language employed by hard- core randites dresses up patently wrong ideas in philosophical drag in order to appear high-minded. By doing this, they bunker themselves against common, factual observations with beliefs of purportedly high principle. Then, they proclaim these beliefs to be 'axiomatic', thereby untouchable.

In other words, reading Atlas, i was duly impressed to t he extent of pondering, yes, this author is capable of writing real philosophy in a non-fiction format! So my position is not 'dissent' from Rand's writings; rather, a questioning that first involves the stripping away of the useless rhetorical gestures to find both agreement and disagreement.

After all, pigs are an excellent source of meat. My point is the lipstick doesn't make the pork chop any tastier.

Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following video shows the power of prewired empathy in the human brain. It's hard not to tear up when you watch it. The mirror neurons, sense of fairness, a feeling of saying no to suffering, wonder at the sheer decency of a man in a bad spot, and so on are firing on all levels in the brain. I know I teared up, but I'm a wuss about stuff like this.

It's a mistake to think this is what Rand meant by altruism.

But it's also a mistake to think this should be a higher value than productive heroism--which is what Rand's point is all about. When she says altruism, she means an ethics that promotes things like that video as the highest level of goodness mankind should aspire to, with productive achievement and concern with one's own life as incidental, if not a necessary evil.

When you believe that, when you think strong appeals to empathy (and/or biological altruism) are the more important side, that's where the bad guys grab you and manipulate you. And what they do has nothing to do with what nabbed you. It's sweet poison. You nibble at feel-good vibes, then get hooked into someone's power game (then get eaten).

Both empathy and productive achievement are important to human life (in my world, at least), but rational ethics helps keep them in a proper hierarchy so the bad guys can't use powerful feelings and rationalizations (and word games) to entrap victims with bait and switch.

Michael

>>>>>Both empathy and productive achievement are important to human life (in my world, at least), but rational ethics helps keep them in a proper hierarchy<<<<<<

If 'productive achievement' in any particular case calls for team effort, then cooperative altruism becomes more important. To the extent that tasks can be broken down and measured on an individual basis, then individualism is prioritized.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael wrote:

It's hard not to tear up when you watch it.

end quote

That is odd. It does invoke a positive emotional response. But if J.R. Ewing had just made a bundle off a day pumping oil a normal response to his gloating might be, “’F’ you man.” I may be reading in a medical diagnosis but the poor, ersatz lottery “winner,” could have been mentally ill, perhaps with debilitating depression.

Huh? What’s that? JR is griping that the guv’mint should get their share for gambling proceeds.

I wonder what the guy bought with the money and how long it lasted? A lot of depressed people try to lessen their misery with pills or booze but he may have only had a pharmaceutical street seller to give his money to. But I won’t negatively speculate beyond that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eva wrote:

Lots of the language employed by hard- core randites dresses up patently wrong ideas in philosophical drag in order to appear high-minded. By doing this, they bunker themselves against common, factual observations with beliefs of purportedly high principle. Then, they proclaim these beliefs to be 'axiomatic', thereby untouchable.

I like your use of “bunker” as a verb, Eva. “Bunker themselves” describes a common practice of people who are cultish in their personal epistemology. I spent a portion of my life trying to “automatize,” “integrate” and to lose my “false premises,” until all my knowledge turned into “The Force.” Combine that with self-imposed obedience to the “highest authority” Ayn Rand and it can be stifling. Very few people who are not in direct contact with “authority” who reinforce obedience, will remain in such a state and I think few are here on Objectivist Living. Unfortunately, the “true believers” need a kick in the butt.

“This is Jeopardy, Battle of the Decades!” Gotta go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once crassly asked an Evolutionary Psychologist something, and had the following, remembered exchange, if gay people do not pass on their genes, why do they keep showing up . . . you know, why are they continually born? He answered, “Because they give humans an evolutionary advantage. Gay-ness is passed on because it is an advantage.”

An advantage? Bullshit! How? Are they smarter? Is just one of them so much smarter that it matters? But if they don’t pass on their genes, their “smartness” would only be an advantage for one or two generations. Right?

“Yes,” he replied. “There may be a higher incidence of genius in gays. Or not. Or their genius expressed in human society may mean more to the society. The advantage they pass on to humanity, is that they help take care of children in a primitive society, without being a competitor for mates.”

So they take care of the kids?

“More or less,” he said. “They may be hunters or scholars, but they gave an evolutionary advantage to the clan to which they belong. More kids survive when they are around.”

Jeez. Thanks, Man. Let me think about it. I think I understand.

end of old remembrance.

That is cool. They do not procreate but their genes are passed on by their brothers and sisters. This advantage is cleary JUST for conceptually thinking humans and not the reason for homosexual behavior and genetic longevity in the lower animal kingdoms.

Peter,

i have many disagreements with EvoBio. Following Leowentin and Gould, I believe that much of their work is a just-so tale. In any case, the discipline reeks with counter-narratives that break down hopelessly into antinomies, hence useless polemic.

A good example of this would be how altruism became an evolution-adaptive trait. In other words, our distant ancestors learned that cooperation and high-risk sacrifice of young males (war, hunting) permitted the society to flourish.

This I accept on face value. We'd be far better off as a society had many of the fissiles over at SoR sacrificed themselves overseas, in an attempt to secure economic resources for the collective good. But I digress....

Yet Kant's observation that we're hard-wired cuts across this grain, as well as that of Rand. Our altruistic tendency must not be ignored, per Rand, nor glorified, per Comte, but rather understood as competing with our natural desires and sense of uniqueness.

In other words, our interior capacities fight it out and come to a negotiated balance; it's useless to speak of one 'winning'.

So even in the 'ought' category as defined by Hume, rand is clearly wrong to call for a one-sided victory for the self-interest side.

To this end, much of modern research psychology --the stuff that I'm already beginning to do!-- sharply contradicts the "more-self esteem -is-better" assumption that dominates the popular version. All we can say in this regard is that Branden's 'Pillars' is consistent with Rand's vision of altruism as secondary.

Again, as Rand said, "Look at your assumptions". I find hers, in this instance, severely lacking.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before anyone goes soft on Comte, remember he's the guy who wrote that each infant born, is born into 'service'. As it is right and proper that he should be.

How altruism ever gained its connotation of 'the good' is beyond me. Not knowing its origin, bad premises, bad thinking - and selective, subjective thinking- is my estimate.

Comte was just writing like the father-figure of modern sociology that he was. The 'service' of which he speaks is the network of obligations that envelop him/her from the day of birth.

EM

Eva, This is unworthy of your undoubted intellect. A "network of obligations": to whom?

To his/her parents, sure- to some point or degree in the future.

From the extracts I've read of his, I think you are making the same error A.Comte made. i.e.

"See all this? Well, other people built it! To fit in, you must pay it back to the past, forwards to the future, and to anyone who 'needs' it presently."

It's the old story of the metaphysical 'given' and the man-made. In many ways they coincide or overlap.

A child born in New York City realises as he grows that it was all the doing of man -as individuals and voluntary groupings of individuals. But for all intents and purposes, NYC was then, and is still, a metaphysical 'given' to him as much as a mountain range.

As with his culture and language and so on.

Millions of individuals in concert or alone have 'given' to what we have today. To the ones we know of and value, is owed no more than our admiration and respect. Mostly, they're anonymous (as I for one will be one day).

However, I think it's their selfishness and independent minds to be most thanked:

Can you really believe they did it all for you or I?

Whether personally or in the abstract?

What network of obligations?

whYNOT,

First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work.

Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists".

Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase.

My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite.

This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home.

Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'.

Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct.

Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity.

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Rabbi Hillel used to say:

If I am not for myself, then who is for me?

If I am only for myself, then what am I?

If not now, then when?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck selfishness. Rand stood for reason and individual freedom. She was infinitely more humanitarian than you are. If you can't get that you haven't read Rand or you haven't read Rand with goodwill and an open mind. Regard for the welfare of others is part of human nature when it is freely given. Propagandizing regard for others to steal wealth from producers is not altruism it is theft and a lie. Stop trying to justify your own moral choices by trashing Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, as Rand said, "Look at your assumptions". I find hers, in this instance, severely lacking.

EM

Check your premises is the exact wording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greek or learn to be Greek? Is culture hard wired or learned?

We soak up our ethics from the same well as our parents do. Humans have a built in inclination to rectitude but the details of rectitude are learned at home, along with our first language.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 'productive achievement' in any particular case calls for team effort, then cooperative altruism becomes more important. To the extent that tasks can be broken down and measured on an individual basis, then individualism is prioritized.

Eva,

I don't agree with this. According to a pretty good source, "cooperative altruism" is a synonym for biological altruism (see here in Animal Behavior Desk Reference: A Dictionary of Animal Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution by Edward M. Barrows).

cooperative altruism: See altruism (def. 2)

. . .

altruism, altruistic behavior: 2. Evolutionarily, an individual animal decreasing its own direct fitness while simultaneously helping a relative in a way that increases the relative's fitness. ... syn. biological altruism.

There are other places in that book where cooperative altruism is directly called a synonym of biological altruism.

In teamwork, there is no inherent decreasing of the fitness of one to benefit the fitness of the other. Maybe in a chain gang, but not in normal productive teams. On the contrary, specialization is usually the meat and potatoes of teams, and that means the fitness of each team member has to be increased, not decreased, individual by individual for the task at hand. Otherwise the team fails the productive endeavor.

In other words, in this kind of synergy, each individual is not diminished, but instead, needs to become qualified (increased) in order to fit in the team and do a job correctly.

This use of the term "cooperative altruism" is one of those cases where it is introduced to describe teamwork because "cooperation" sounds kinda cool and stuff. But since the term actually has a legitimate technical meaning (albeit in a different discipline), credibility get "loaned" to it from the biological use.

But the concept is not applicable to marketplace teams. In the market, this meaning is nonsense.

Maybe you can make a case when there is a strong vision or sacred story unifying the team on a mission from God (or something like that with other ideologies), or the cannon fodder of armed forces in war, but generally people work hard at improving (increasing) their abilities individually to be able to qualify for a team because of the benefit they will receive from doing their share of the work. In other words, they work on a common team goal in order to benefit themselves individually.

There is no decrease in that case. There is only increase.

That is one of the marvels of capitalism.

(btw - Don't ever say Ayn Rand was crazy about Hayek like you did over yonder. That's embarrassing. You almost made me want to go post there before people popped up and corrected the error. You are sassy and I like sassy. But it doesn't work when you stomp all over your own feet that way as you strut your stuff. :smile: )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all low lifes "over there".

Parrots of Rand not able to think for ourselves never mind achieve anything of value!

In Eva's "Brave New World" we are all mere Gamma fissiles who must now bow down and accede Eva's Alpha great intellectual prowess or face a lifetime of scorn for ever having the audacity of asking her "To back up her assertions with actual facts" or at least stop regurgitating non sequiturs.

Never mind that Rand is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Eva feels she could go toe to toe with her and show her whats correct and how lacking Rand is in her metaphysics! She would probably then take the conversation to her Lit department for a good laugh!

Next she will lecture Jonathan on how to paint!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 'productive achievement' in any particular case calls for team effort, then cooperative altruism becomes more important. To the extent that tasks can be broken down and measured on an individual basis, then individualism is prioritized.

Eva,

I don't agree with this. According to a pretty good source, "cooperative altruism" is a synonym for biological altruism (see here in Animal Behavior Desk Reference: A Dictionary of Animal Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution by Edward M. Barrows).

cooperative altruism: See altruism (def. 2)

. . .

altruism, altruistic behavior: 2. Evolutionarily, an individual animal decreasing its own direct fitness while simultaneously helping a relative in a way that increases the relative's fitness. ... syn. biological altruism.

There are other places in that book where cooperative altruism is directly called a synonym of biological altruism.

In teamwork, there is no inherent decreasing of the fitness of one to benefit the fitness of the other. Maybe in a chain gang, but not in normal productive teams. On the contrary, specialization is usually the meat and potatoes of teams, and that means the fitness of each team member has to be increased, not decreased, individual by individual for the task at hand. Otherwise the team fails the productive endeavor.

In other words, in this kind of synergy, each individual is not diminished, but instead, needs to become qualified (increased) in order to fit in the team and do a job correctly.

This use of the term "cooperative altruism" is one of those cases where it is introduced to describe teamwork because "cooperation" sounds kinda cool and stuff. But since the term actually has a legitimate technical meaning (albeit in a different discipline), credibility get "loaned" to it from the biological use.

But the concept is not applicable to marketplace teams. In the market, this meaning is nonsense.

Maybe you can make a case when there is a strong vision or sacred story unifying the team on a mission from God (or something like that with other ideologies), or the cannon fodder of armed forces in war, but generally people work hard at improving (increasing) their abilities individually to be able to qualify for a team because of the benefit they will receive from doing their share of the work. In other words, they work on a common team goal in order to benefit themselves individually.

There is no decrease in that case. There is only increase.

That is one of the marvels of capitalism.

(btw - Don't ever say Ayn Rand was crazy about Hayek like you did over yonder. That's embarrassing. You almost made me want to go post there before people popped up and corrected the error. You are sassy and I like sassy. But it doesn't work when you stomp all over your own feet that way as you strut your stuff. :smile: )

Michael

Michael,

My taking of 'cooperative altruism' from biology might seem a bit of a far-fetched neologism when applied to the social sciences. Nevertheless, our hard-wired, biological sense of alturism does match up into culturally- learned situations of cooperation in which one or more member is given the short end of the stick.

So yes, at one end you have the direct sacrifice of war, at the other a market rig-up in which there are positive benefits for all team players. Most every other situation fall in the middle, from cookie-baking volunteers to subordinates getting fired for taking the hit for their boss (Oh, so that's not 'pure' capitalism--just the way things work out!?)

Re markets: people are attracted to the idea of introducing marketing concepts into daily life precisely because no one gets sacrificed...uhhh...at least when things go well. Otherwise, just watch the finger pointing!

Sadly, but typically, the fusiles at 'SoR failed to see my sarcasm in the Rand v Hayek affair. For giggles, kindly consult the on-line marginalia of Rand in her copy of Roads'. Normally, there's an ancedote attached as to how she behaved towards him in public.

Even the venerable old Machan snivelled on, blithely unaware that there's far more at stake than a personal 'dislike' on her part. Oh, well, he's a 'philosopher', therefore unconcerned with economics as a theory.

In short, Rand refused to pay her intellectual debt to the only school of economics that insisted that all government intervention into the market created negative outcomes. Kindly remember, as well, that Hayek represented the entire Austrian School in the debate with Keynes, the Neo-classic.

Here, unlike the Rand rant, the differences were precise, and manifold. Here, both parties behaved with respect --although much was at stake.

OTH, the Rand stuff was a triviality. her hissyfit was all about Hayek never having uttered a philosophical statement on the metaphysical value of private property, and freedom. Doubtless he would have shuddered at the suggestion that taxation without personal permission is gang rape.

But again, the main issue by far is the development of a coherent economic theory as to why governmet participation in the market is bad. This was Hayek's baby and the real bread and butter. Without his work, Rand's metaphysics would not have even been published.

Eva

,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next she will lecture Jonathan on how to paint!

Paintings easy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record (and I hope I won't live to regret this :) ), I think Eva has a fine mind.

She's full of piss and vinegar and I resonate with that spirit. Not many of her conclusions, but I like her sass.

(I almost got my ass shot off in Paraguay once for being too sassy--long story, but ask me if I've learned. Hell no. I've merely refined it. :) )

I think she will get more careful as she goes along, so I see the growth of a beautiful mind as it matures and she calms down a little.

But I sure see some lumps in her future. Man I wince to think about it! I speak from experience as a kindred spirit.

(Oh God, I hope I don't regret saying this... :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all low lifes "over there".

Parrots of Rand not able to think for ourselves never mind achieve anything of value!

In Eva's "Brave New World" we are all mere Gamma fissiles who must now bow down and accede Eva's Alpha great intellectual prowess or face a lifetime of scorn for ever having the audacity of asking her "To back up her assertions with actual facts" or at least stop regurgitating non sequiturs.

Never mind that Rand is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Eva feels she could go toe to toe with her and show her whats correct and how lacking Rand is in her metaphysics! She would probably then take the conversation to her Lit department for a good laugh!

Next she will lecture Jonathan on how to paint!

Speaking of facts, I've told those people time and time again that I'm over in 'Psy'. 'Lit' is where I take their stuff to be analyzed for content.

Mom, in Psy, thinks they're useful for personality profiling on the 'deep end'.. I, OTH, favor the biomedical approach, but have failed to obtain samples.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record (and I hope I won't live to regret this :smile: ), I think Eva has a fine mind.

She's full of piss and vinegar and I resonate with that spirit. Not many of her conclusions, but I like her sass.

(I almost got my ass shot off in Paraguay once for being too sassy--long story, but ask me if I've learned. Hell no. I've merely refined it. :smile: )

I think she will get more careful as she goes along, so I see the growth of a beautiful mind as it matures and she calms down a little.

But I sure see some lumps in her future. Man I wince to think about it! I speak from experience as a kindred spirit.

(Oh God, I hope I don't regret saying this... :smile: )

Michael

Well, actually, i'm happy over here because i feel kindred spirits. So here's a little of my background:

I'm a 20 year old senior who will graduate this spring with a BS in Psych. Since 8, i've always been placed one year ahead of my 'normal' class, mainly because I tested high in math at a 'sweet pickle' age (family name). Small wonder--my dad researches and teaches theoretical (math-model ) Physics. Mom teaches & researches Psy, so i'm the quintessental campus brat.

Sissy defines herself as the next great poet. She lives on campus, I do not, preferring home, a five minute walk.

My hobbies are soccer, lit and philosophy. For some reason, i really don't care for film, but love plays. For music it's either opera, classic or the folk traditions of either Greece or Hungary. And don't forget Theodorakis!

Work-wise, I'm already involved in a project in reserach psy that will bypass my MA, encompass my PhD and post grad. As i might have mentioned, I've secured the funds.

My favorite philosopher is Deleuze, who seems to resemble Rand in many ways.

As for Rand, I absolutely adore her fiction because the characters exemplify strength and decisiveness. Yet I'm a bit skeptical as to how these characters have been transfigured into philosophical statements.

Politically, I'm a pragmatic libertarian in the manner of Hayek. Strange to tell, "Roads" is annotated on every page! The thrust of pragmaticiam is that some issues are far more important than others, and that causal relations--not metaphysics-- will determine where importance resides. I believ it's simply to drastically lower taxes with commensurate cuts in spending, and watch everything fall into place,

Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, but typically, the fusiles at 'SoR failed to see my sarcasm in the Rand v Hayek affair.

I don't know, Eva.

I'm in your corner, but when I start reading here and continue, it looks more to me like you stepped in it, then researched and tried to clean it up once you smelled it. :)

Here's where I differ from most others about you. I don't see the poo as important. (It's great for teasing, though. :) ) I see the research.

You did what most don't.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whYNOT,

First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work.

Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists".

Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase.

My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite.

This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home.

Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'.

Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct.

Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity.

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Eva: (Greetings, btw.) You write of "altruism versus individualism" as though you didn't see my quote earlier ("The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence").

Don't you see the significance of this conceptual 're-alignment'? Do you think - now you know it -that if Rand did not perceive, understand the threat it contains to the independent mind and reason, she would have cared a whit for altruism, one way or other?

You'd think I'd made the quotation up, or sumpin, the way you've cruised by it. Does it not sit well with your assumptions?

I know you know this, that everything Rand stood for, through politics and ethics, comes back to reason.

Rational egoism is its derivative, and egoism is NOT (to her) the direct opposite of altruism, as she said. Only indirect, I'd gather. Hierarchies, again.

This is one 'narrative' I feel Objectivists should be the first to dismiss, rather than accept the premise and get themselves tied in knots trying to soften and make more palatable, rational egoism - as we sometimes do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whYNOT,

First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work.

Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists".

Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase.

My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite.

This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home.

Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'.

Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct.

Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity.

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Eva: (Greetings, btw.) You write of "altruism versus individualism" as though you didn't see my quote earlier ("The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence").

Don't you see the significance of this conceptual 're-alignment'? Do you think - now you know it -that if Rand did not perceive, understand the threat it contains to the independent mind and reason, she would have cared a whit for altruism, one way or other?

You'd think I'd made the quotation up, or sumpin, the way you've cruised by it. Does it not sit well with your assumptions?

I know you know this, that everything Rand stood for, through politics and ethics, comes back to reason.

Rational egoism is its derivative, and egoism is NOT (to her) the direct opposite of altruism, as she said. Only indirect, I'd gather. Hierarchies, again.

This is one 'narrative' I feel Objectivists should be the first to dismiss, rather than accept the premise and get themselves tied in knots trying to soften and make more palatable, rational egoism - as we sometimes do.

Yes, whYNOT, I did cruse by 'independence'. I'll comment in full tonite, when I have more time.. For your part, kindly append additional fext & context for me to ponder.

Eva

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