Hypothesis: Dictators aren't altruists


Samson Corwell

Recommended Posts

My two cents: What matters (and is interesting) is that dictators preach altruism. Whether they practice it, or even think they're practicing it is irrelevant.

Whether a dictator is a pragmatic altruist or not, iow? I would take this a step further, ND.

A dictator is an altruist par excellence. No better example than he.

Facepalm.
?

You have a counter argument, SC?

"Altruism" is an overstuffed word. I wouldn't call Ellsworth Toohey an altruist even by the Randian definition since he didn't practice what he preached. Tony, what would you call this dude?

Disclaimer: I am not arguing against Objectivist egoism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My two cents: What matters (and is interesting) is that dictators preach altruism. Whether they practice it, or even think they're practicing it is irrelevant.

Whether a dictator is a pragmatic altruist or not, iow? I would take this a step further, ND.

A dictator is an altruist par excellence. No better example than he.

I don't agree. A dictator could easily be a self-deluded Nietzschean superman, an unprincipled 'irrational egoist', who has a genius for saying what needs saying to get 'the people' to do his will. As a result he gets rewards most people want: money (Mein Kampf was a best seller, it made Hitler rich), women falling at his feet, glory, and so on.

The point is, what did he have to say? Could he preach individualism, self-interest, etc.?

I hope I don't drift the thread here, but by way of example, consider that Hitler is said to have been an atheist, based on a few sentences from the book Table Talk, which is awfully unreliable but let's concede the point for arguments sake. Are religious types who bring this up as an attack on atheism justified? You can quote Hitler at great length saying he's on a mission from Christ, and otherwise invoking Christianity as being on his side, in sources that were publicly available in his lifetime. Does it not suffice that the people manning the concentration camps believed he was a Christian? That therefore Christianity was no sufficient deterrent to genocide? Do we really need to be inside Hitler's head?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,Regarding your #25, I'm not an Objectivist. I don't think Samson is either.Ellen

Thank you, I had that figured quite a long time back. I was applying the generous 'Royal We', as in "we Objectivists". ;)

I don't know why you'd have needed to figure it, since I've said it plenty of times. As to "we Objectivists," I think that you should speak for yourself and not presume to speak for all who do consider themselves Objectivists.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Altruism" is an overstuffed word.

All the terms individually in the BAD rubric - mystical, altruist, collectivist axis - are overstuffed. The rubric came to be used simultaneously as a catechism and as a magic incantation for dismissing opposition. Objectivists I knew would especially quail at having something they said called "mystical."

Note that even you, in speaking on an Objectivist board, add:

Disclaimer: I am not arguing against Objectivist egoism.

Do you have a feeling that you might be misunderstood if you don't say that?

I wouldn't call Ellsworth Toohey an altruist even by the Randian definition since he didn't practice what he preached.

The Rand who wrote The Fountainhead didn't call Toohey an altruist. She called him a second-hander. That usage, of course, was carried over into Objectivism, and amplified into the term of damnation, "Social Metaphysician."

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Altruism" is an overstuffed word.

All the terms individually in the BAD rubric - mystical, altruist, collectivist axis - are overstuffed. The rubric came to be used simultaneously as a catechism and as a magic incantation for dismissing opposition. Objectivists I knew would especially quail at having something they said called "mystical."

I'm glad you agree. "Collectivist" is one I'm very wary of and it seems to encompass unrelated concepts at times. Those words are great for bludgeoning people over the head with and warping discussions into being about completely different topics, but they have little place in a conversation pursuing the truth unless they're used appropriately.

Note that even you, in speaking on an Objectivist board, add:

Disclaimer: I am not arguing against Objectivist egoism.

Do you have a feeling that you might be misunderstood if you don't say that?

Yes. I was afraid that Tony might misinterpret me. I don't wish to be seen as anti-Objectivist or anti-Rand.

I wouldn't call Ellsworth Toohey an altruist even by the Randian definition since he didn't practice what he preached.

The Rand who wrote The Fountainhead didn't call Toohey an altruist. She called him a second-hander. That usage, of course, was carried over into Objectivism, and amplified into the term of damnation, "Social Metaphysician."

Ellen

Second-hander makes more sense. Although I can't understand how metaphysics plays into it. Weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents: What matters (and is interesting) is that dictators preach altruism. Whether they practice it, or even think they're practicing it is irrelevant.

Whether a dictator is a pragmatic altruist or not, iow? I would take this a step further, ND.

A dictator is an altruist par excellence. No better example than he.

I don't agree. A dictator could easily be a self-deluded Nietzschean superman, an unprincipled 'irrational egoist', who has a genius for saying what needs saying to get 'the people' to do his will. As a result he gets rewards most people want: money (Mein Kampf was a best seller, it made Hitler rich), women falling at his feet, glory, and so on.

The point is, what did he have to say? Could he preach individualism, self-interest, etc.?

Well, he could preach whatever he wanted, but it wouldn't make him a rational egoist - and in fact proves him the opposite. As soon as one gets to the point of "saying what he needs to get 'the people' to do his will"- then surely this is a 'power-luster'?

If so, then he exists through and by others. (By definition.) Hardly a rational egoist.

I checked my interpretation of the 'broadest sense' of altruism-collectivism (for, by and through, others) with Stephen Boydstun quite recently, and he confirmed that this was indeed Rand's meaning. (For whatever reasons, I had never found purchase for this interpretation on the forums when I have brought it up previously. Belatedly, thank you, Stephen.)

Living by others' standards, and through their acceptance or adulation is a chasm away from a rational egoist's mind independence.

As I've been trying to say, we Objectivists are left with a quite wishy-washy concept of altruism, if it only contains service to others. We then may become fixated on this, at the expense of the rest.

In which case, collectivism-altruism would relate more to the political sphere, than the ethical... and we would surrender our rational moral base.

The second-hander, the power-luster (Toohey) and all forms of egoless 'egotist', fall under that one concept, to my way of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,Regarding your #25, I'm not an Objectivist. I don't think Samson is either.Ellen

Thank you, I had that figured quite a long time back. I was applying the generous 'Royal We', as in "we Objectivists". ;)

I don't know why you'd have needed to figure it, since I've said it plenty of times. As to "we Objectivists," I think that you should speak for yourself and not presume to speak for all who do consider themselves Objectivists.

Ellen

Nah - obviously I speak for all Objectivists. How can you believe otherwise?

Incidentally, I enjoy your "sieve" metaphor and intend borrowing it. Something like mining gold, one has the coarsest sieve above for rocks, the next finest beneath it for stones and the next finest beneath that for pebbles - and so on. At the bottom you get only the dust and separate it from the gold dust. Excellent imagery for showing how those highest concepts (uh, sweeping assertions) relate downwards through subconcepts to basic personal experience and one's senses. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he could preach whatever he wanted, but it wouldn't make him a rational egoist - and in fact proves him the opposite. As soon as one gets to the point of "saying what he needs to get 'the people' to do his will"- then surely this is a 'power-luster'?

If so, then he exists through and by others. (By definition.) Hardly a rational egoist.

Um, no. Egoism and altruism are far from being the only positions out there.

As I've been trying to say, we Objectivists are left with a quite wishy-washy concept of altruism, if it only contains service to others.

Ever thought that maybe it is more than one concept that is bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samson, I reformatted your post #55 so what you're replying is outside the quote boxes.

Samson Corwell wrote:

"Altruism" is an overstuffed word.

All the terms individually in the BAD rubric - mystical, altruist, collectivist axis - are overstuffed. The rubric came to be used simultaneously as a catechism and as a magic incantation for dismissing opposition. Objectivists I knew would especially quail at having something they said called "mystical."

[sC] I'm glad you agree. "Collectivist" is one I'm very wary of and it seems to encompass unrelated concepts at times. Those words are great for bludgeoning people over the head with and warping discussions into being about completely different topics, but they have little place in a conversation pursuing the truth unless they're used appropriately.

Note that even you, in speaking on an Objectivist board, add:

Disclaimer: I am not arguing against Objectivist egoism.

Do you have a feeling that you might be misunderstood if you don't say that?

[sC] Yes. I was afraid that Tony might misinterpret me. I don't wish to be seen as anti-Objectivist or anti-Rand.

I wouldn't call Ellsworth Toohey an altruist even by the Randian definition since he didn't practice what he preached.

The Rand who wrote The Fountainhead didn't call Toohey an altruist. She called him a second-hander. That usage, of course, was carried over into Objectivism, and amplified into the term of damnation, "Social Metaphysician."

Ellen

[sC] Second-hander makes more sense. Although I can't understand how metaphysics plays into it. Weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,Regarding your #25, I'm not an Objectivist. I don't think Samson is either.Ellen

Thank you, I had that figured quite a long time back. I was applying the generous 'Royal We', as in "we Objectivists". ;)

I don't know why you'd have needed to figure it, since I've said it plenty of times. As to "we Objectivists," I think that you should speak for yourself and not presume to speak for all who do consider themselves Objectivists.

Ellen

Nah - obviously I speak for all Objectivists. How can you believe otherwise?

Incidentally, I enjoy your "sieve" metaphor and intend borrowing it. Something like mining gold, one has the coarsest sieve above for rocks, the next finest beneath it for stones and the next finest beneath that for pebbles - and so on. At the bottom you get only the dust and separate it from the gold dust. Excellent imagery for showing how those highest concepts (uh, sweeping assertions) relate downwards through subconcepts to basic personal experience and one's senses. Thanks.

Excellent imagery for showing how you mushily transform dust into stones.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he could preach whatever he wanted, but it wouldn't make him a rational egoist - and in fact proves him the opposite. As soon as one gets to the point of "saying what he needs to get 'the people' to do his will"- then surely this is a 'power-luster'?

If so, then he exists through and by others. (By definition.) Hardly a rational egoist.

Sure, and isn't this exactly what Gail Wynand was? I don't think you can call him an altruist, however. The Banner preached it, but "don't confuse me with my readers".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he [a dictator] could preach whatever he wanted, but it wouldn't make him a rational egoist - and in fact proves him the opposite.

There's your presumption - that there are two possible categories and only two, so if he isn't a rational egoist, obviously he's an altruist.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he could preach whatever he wanted, but it wouldn't make him a rational egoist - and in fact proves him the opposite. As soon as one gets to the point of "saying what he needs to get 'the people' to do his will"- then surely this is a 'power-luster'? If so, then he exists through and by others. (By definition.) Hardly a rational egoist.

Sure, and isn't this exactly what Gail Wynand was? I don't think you can call him an altruist, however. The Banner preached it, but "don't confuse me with my readers".

Wynand was the man who "wasn't born to be a second-hander."

Shades of lingering notions of born aristocrats.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he [Hitler] could preach whatever he wanted, but it wouldn't make him a rational egoist - and in fact proves him the opposite.

There's your presumption - that there are two possible categories and only two, so if he isn't a rational egoist, obviously he's an altruist.

Ellen

The coarse sieve, remember?

Ha, I'm having fun with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he [Hitler] could preach whatever he wanted, but it wouldn't make him a rational egoist - and in fact proves him the opposite.

There's your presumption - that there are two possible categories and only two, so if he isn't a rational egoist, obviously he's an altruist.

Ellen

The coarse sieve, remember.

Your excuse for woosy thinking.

I changed "Hitler" to "a dictator," per a correction you made and I saw before you deleted it.

Enjoy the rest of the day. Duets-then-dinner-out day here, so I have to scoot.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,Regarding your #25, I'm not an Objectivist. I don't think Samson is either.Ellen

Thank you, I had that figured quite a long time back. I was applying the generous 'Royal We', as in "we Objectivists". ;)

I don't know why you'd have needed to figure it, since I've said it plenty of times. As to "we Objectivists," I think that you should speak for yourself and not presume to speak for all who do consider themselves Objectivists.

Ellen

Nah - obviously I speak for all Objectivists. How can you believe otherwise?

Incidentally, I enjoy your "sieve" metaphor and intend borrowing it. Something like mining gold, one has the coarsest sieve above for rocks, the next finest beneath it for stones and the next finest beneath that for pebbles - and so on. At the bottom you get only the dust and separate it from the gold dust. Excellent imagery for showing how those highest concepts (uh, sweeping assertions) relate downwards through subconcepts to basic personal experience and one's senses. Thanks.

Excellent imagery for showing how you mushily transform dust into stones.

Ellen

It's only imagery, and needs some working on. It does demonstrate the methodology of identification from principles, leaving one with the gold dust of reality at the bottom. Quite clear to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents: What matters (and is interesting) is that dictators preach altruism. Whether they practice it, or even think they're practicing it is irrelevant.

Whether a dictator is a pragmatic altruist or not, iow? I would take this a step further, ND.

A dictator is an altruist par excellence. No better example than he.

Facepalm.
?

You have a counter argument, SC?

"Altruism" is an overstuffed word. I wouldn't call Ellsworth Toohey an altruist even by the Randian definition since he didn't practice what he preached. Tony, what would you call this dude?

Disclaimer: I am not arguing against Objectivist egoism.

I'd call him collectivist-altruist, as I've argued. I think it's important to mention that altruism cannot ever be practised, consistently and completely.

Reality, in one's sacrifice of consciousness or sacrifice of existence would be a harsh judge. Altruism can only be practised occasionally, or paid lip-service to - or preached, or forced. In the case of the dictator, a shrewd one would know he can gain mastery over men's 'souls' by advocating a 'virtue' men cannot live up to. The master and the willing follower both need each other - one to gain power, the other in a desperate attempt to find purpose in life. Interdependent as they are, they're different sides of the same coin, authoritarianism, another concept beneath altruism-collectivism.

Samson, btw it's not my first concern that you are pro or contra Objectivism. What's critical is that you don't misinterpret it, and after that argue with a strawman. These abstractions are fundamental to O'ism, and I've not been able to convince you of the extended scope and hierarchy of collectivism and altruism. (And if I think you're wrong for now, wth! My basic mantra is that if I am not ever wrong, I'm not trying hard enough to get it right. I may often be wrong.)

Oh, and I don't speak for anyone but myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he could preach whatever he wanted, but it wouldn't make him a rational egoist - and in fact proves him the opposite. As soon as one gets to the point of "saying what he needs to get 'the people' to do his will"- then surely this is a 'power-luster'?

If so, then he exists through and by others. (By definition.) Hardly a rational egoist.

Sure, and isn't this exactly what Gail Wynand was? I don't think you can call him an altruist, however. The Banner preached it, but "don't confuse me with my readers".

He was quite the altruist, as were Keating, Toohey, et al. Each sacrificed their lives as second-handers--Keating for the approval of others and Wynand and Toohey for power. By objectifying the actual nature of the human organism individually expressed--a reasoning being and one would hope, a productive one, they go together, one gets the idea of the first-hander egoist exemplified by Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. Ironically, this puts her first great novel as more important than her greatest for no one will ever quite get Atlas Shrugged in its multi-layered, faceted glory and power without experiencing and understanding this foundation. The literary transition is secondary, but its true of that, too. You can see this in today's investment advisory world with many going "Wow!" over how prescient AS is having been published over 50 years ago. It's all about economics and politics with a big blank-out for the underlying egoism even amongst very egoistic people. The egoism meshes, but they don't recognize that's the real source of the attraction. No time for introspection or philosophy, which explains many libertarians, even many implicit libertarians who couldn't even explain individual rights' theory if it slapped them in the face. An even smaller libertarian sub-set can't even come up with the non-aggression principle. These go with the (economic) force and general anti-governmentalisms. (I don't want to get started on non-intellectual purported Objectivists going through Objectivist motions as a kind of faux exercise. They've been around since the late 1950s.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did those characters really "sacrifice" their lives?. They spent their lives in getting what they wanted most - and they are shown to be despicable in what they wanted - but their little egos were as real, if not as admirable, as anyone else's. Did Lilian R. "sacrifice" her life|? Ha. She got what she wanted for as long as she could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He [Wynand] was quite the altruist, as were Keating, Toohey, et al. Each sacrificed their lives as second-handers--Keating for the approval of others and Wynand and ... which explains many libertarians, even many implicit libertarians who couldn't even explain individual rights' theory if it ... )

--Brant

Nicely said. Thanks!. I don't mean to bend your ear, but I took the Basic Principles class as a high school senior in 1966-1967. (Anthem was passed to me in an algebra class in the spring of1966.) So, I have been with this a while; and you are 100% right that newbies come to Objectivism via Atlas Shrugged and it takes them time to discover and absorb Ayn Rand's other works. Myself, after Anthem and The Fountainhead, I read FNI and VOS before tackling Atlas. I read Atlas twice through in succession. And, of course, there was no movie version.

In that context, it was easy to see Lilian Rearden as a second-hander. Nominally smart enough to have her own life, she chose to lie in the bathtub reading intellectual magazines, rather than actually being a producer. More to the point, her goal was to destroy Hank Rearden, to drag him down, degrade him. She wanted to see him drunk, i.e., not in control. because she had no life of her own. But I understood all of that from a pyramid of concepts based on Anthem to The Fountainhead.

You are correct about the relationship between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I say that in the context of polls by the ARI (I think; maybe another or others). Many long-time admirers from the early days recognize The Fountainhead as a complete, and consistent work. If I may, to me The Fountainhead is like Kilimanjaro or Fuji, whereas Atlas is (appropriately) like the Rockies. I mean, from Alaska to Chile, the Rockies as the backbone of the Americas are complex with very many microclimes and micro-ecologies, whereas the other two are isolated and iconic. So, with Atlas Shrugged, the experienced Objectivist can perceive the inter-personal relationships echoic of The Fountainhead. ( Dagny Taggart is very much a female Howard Roark.) The newbie sees only the politics of Directive 10-289.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did those characters really "sacrifice" their lives?. They spent their lives ...

Indeed, they did sacrifice their lives. They had no lives of their own. See my comments above about Lillian. I am sure that you will agree that James had no life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct about the relationship between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I say that in the context of polls by the ARI (I think; maybe another or others). Many long-time admirers from the early days recognize The Fountainhead as a complete, and consistent work. If I may, to me The Fountainhead is like Kilimanjaro or Fuji, whereas Atlas is (appropriately) like the Rockies. I mean, from Alaska to Chile, the Rockies as the backbone of the Americas are complex with very many microclimes and micro-ecologies, whereas the other two are isolated and iconic. So, with Atlas Shrugged, the experienced Objectivist can perceive the inter-personal relationships echoic of The Fountainhead. ( Dagny Taggart is very much a female Howard Roark.) The newbie sees only the politics of Directive 10-289.

Michael:

Excellent analogy! Perfectly on point!

I saw The Fountainhead movie and then sought out the book.

My best friend, quarterback of our football team, classmates and "brother" handed me his copy of Atlas and said he thought I would love it.

Rest is history.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

n control. because she had no life of her own. But I understood all of that from a pyramid of concepts based on Anthem to The Fountainhead.

You are correct about the relationship between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I say that in the context of polls by the ARI (I think; maybe another or others). Many long-time admirers from the early days recognize The Fountainhead as a complete, and consistent work. If I may, to me The Fountainhead is like Kilimanjaro or Fuji, whereas Atlas is (appropriately) like the Rockies. I mean, from Alaska to Chile, the Rockies as the backbone of the Americas are complex with very many microclimes and micro-ecologies, whereas the other two are isolated and iconic. So, with Atlas Shrugged, the experienced Objectivist can perceive the inter-personal relationships echoic of The Fountainhead. ( Dagny Taggart is very much a female Howard Roark.) The newbie sees only the politics of Directive 10-289.

Elegant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did those characters really "sacrifice" their lives?. They spent their lives in getting what they wanted most - and they are shown to be despicable in what they wanted - but their little egos were as real, if not as admirable, as anyone else's. Did Lilian R. "sacrifice" her life|? Ha. She got what she wanted for as long as she could.

And ended up with--nothing. Just because you don't or can't experience and know and honor the inherent value of your basic humanity doesn't mean you'll not pay the price of that--a tremendous price. And just because you do, a la a Randian or other hero, to the max, doesn't mean life won't run you over with an "act of God" and destroy you as in a true tragedy, not the forest coming to your castle.

--Brant

"Come, let us reason: 'Dear Rand, grant us thinking; make it critical . . .'"

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