Objectivism and Children

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This explanation is for the reader, not Bob.

The altruism Ayn Rand bashed was a doctrine of ethics. (The philosopher who came up with it--Comte--is not important to this point.) In Objectivism, ethics is "a code of values to guide man's choices." The key word here is "choices." By that, Rand specifically meant conceptual volition.

In other words, ethics concerns values you choose on purpose with the conceptual part of your mind, not your innate responses. So the altruism Rand bashed was the doctrine that you should choose the welfare of others over yourself as the morally superior principle. Note that "choose" here means conceptually choose, not behave automatically.

(And don't think this intellectual poison isn't used for persuasion by people who like power and want to rule over you. It's used all the time. Rand was 100% correct to attack it as fiercely as she did.)

In biological altruism, volition is not included because the behaviors dealt with are automatic, even going to the gene level. For a very good discussion of this, see Biological Altruism at The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I don't mind people disagreeing with Rand or criticizing her. But when people graft meanings on to her words that she didn't mean, and they leave out her own meanings, their arguments are nothing to take seriously.

But don't take my word for it. Look it up and think this stuff through for yourself.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I don't mind people disagreeing with Rand or criticizing her. But when people graft meanings on to her words that she didn't mean, and they leave out her own meanings, their arguments are nothing to take seriously.

Show me how it's better (in any frame of reference of your choosing) if all of us practice pure egoistic action - consistently, compared to say 90% egoistic, 10% altruistic.

Simple question.

Oh, and by 'graft meanings on to her words that she didn't mean' I assume you refer to the actual quotations of her own words I provide???

Bob

[anthony]

I don't mind people disagreeing with Rand or criticizing her. But when people graft meanings on to her words that she didn't mean, and they leave out her own meanings, their arguments are nothing to take seriously.

Show me how it's better (in any frame of reference of your choosing) if all of us practice pure egoistic action - consistently, compared to say 90% egoistic, 10% altruistic. Simple question. Bob

if I may...

Now you're getting down to figures, yeah, we can talk. Settle for 91% - 9% ?

Deal?

But seriously, if I were to put my own interpretation on Rand's complete meaning, I think she'd say something like: "I am not so much against altruism, as I am for rational egoism."

That's my take. She tended to emphasize affirmatives, instead of negatives.

If you are not too hooked on biological altruism, then would you consider this proposition:

What can you fault in 100% egoism, coupled with 100% good-will(and sometime help) for others, as an aspiration?

All of your own making - 100% original, without pre-determinist 'hard-wiring'or endorphins.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

Bob is not interested in the issue. He is interested in winning arguments and calling Rand an idiot. If that means distorting her meaning, he'll do it. Like he has done here.

He's done this ever since I have seen him post.

And no amount of explaining, quotes, reasoning, discussion keeps him from repeating the error.

He's a Don Quixote, his steed is "I'm right even when I'm wrong," and his windmill is Ayn Rand. (At least he's not as insulting with pseudo-macho yawp as he used to be.)

If you agree with him that Rand was screwed up in the head, he gets happy and stops discussing. I've seen it happen more than once. (That's the "truth" he seeks.) If not, he goes on and on repeating the same errors of meaning and trying to belittle the person he is talking to, belittle Rand, and belittle people who like her ideas.

But carry on. Maybe you'll be able to get better results. Who knows?

Michael

[Xray]

Quote from the above:

"When you bring children into the world, you sacrifice your own sovereignty, and become a means to an end: the end, the primary concern of the children." (Ayn Rand)

From this it can be inferred that parenthood would qualify as 'altruistic' (in Rand's sense).

[anthony]

From this it can be inferred that parenthood would qualify as 'altruistic' (in Rand's sense).

Yes, we've been through this already.

What first springs to mind is the possible false dichotomy she was indulging herself in: That egoists can't be parents, or parents, egoists.

Then, as long as egoists are the minute minority, population groups won't be affected. But if they became a majority? By her pronouncement, numbers would dwindle..but she'd have known this, surely?

Also, the puzzlingly high degree of, well - respect - she showed for parenthood; that raised properly, a child would and must divert all of an adult's attention, at a self-sacrificial cost. (Raising a child comes with rewards and responsibilities, but it just isn't that hard - or self-abnegating.)

I think this was her own subjective assessment. She didn't appreciate children enough to have any, and never understood parenting, and in her case she would certainly have been distracted from her work if she had had a child - what would have been her output, then?

But one size doesn't fit all.

Tony

[Selene]

Tony:

One of the searing problems with cultist Objectivists, is their inability to think for themselves, which has always baffled me.

Good post.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Tony:

One of the searing problems with cultist Objectivists, is their inability to think for themselves, which has always baffled me.

Good post.

Adam

How did Ayn Rand, who was a Very Smart Lady, permit herself to become a den mother to a group with so many losers and second-handers? I have often wondered about that. Square in the loser category -- None other than Pope Leonard.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Adam,

You might have seen this one, from Nathaniel Branden - Philosophical principles are no substitute for thinking, yet many Objectivists act as if they were.

(MSK takes the same line, and I agree.)

Thanks.

[bmacwilliam]

What can you fault in 100% egoism, coupled with 100% good-will(and sometime help) for others, as an aspiration?

Excellent question!

There's actually nothing wrong with this, and in fact, this is my point. I actually agree with this. Micheal can't seem to parse this. The only problem happens in the quibbling over definitions, but this is the crux of it. This quibble is the key.

It is pretty clear to me that you cannot do things "coupled with 100% good-will(and sometime help) for others" without actually commiting the vile mortal Objectivist sin of altruism. You do end up sacrificing a greater value for a lesser value sometimes. But the point is that this is OK sometimes. It's not morally evil or even neutral. It is GOOD to do this sometimes. I am with you here, but I do not pretend to define these clear altruistic actions away.

What I don't buy is the dismissal of these actions as not being 'real' altruism. "My love for my husband means I please him really just for my own selfish reasons" and other nonsensical backflips. I call bullshit on this because it is bullshit.

What is also an interesting question is why I believe she did this. I don't like the answer, although admittedly this part of my assessment is somewhat speculative.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

From this it can be inferred that parenthood would qualify as 'altruistic' (in Rand's sense).

Yes, we've been through this already.

What first springs to mind is the possible false dichotomy she was indulging herself in: That egoists can't be parents, or parents, egoists.

Then, as long as egoists are the minute minority, population groups won't be affected. But if they became a majority? By her pronouncement, numbers would dwindle..but she'd have known this, surely?

Also, the puzzling degree of, well - respect - she showed for parenthood; that raised properly, a child would and must divert all of an adult's attention, at a self-sacrificial cost. Raising a child comes with rewards and responsibilities, but it just isn't that hard.

I think this was her own subjective assessment. She didn't appreciate children enough to have any, and never understood parenting, and personally would certainly have been distracted from her work if she had had a child - what would have been her output, then?

But one size doesn't fit all.

Tony

In other words, she was wrong. Clearly and obviously wrong. Where have I heard this before??

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's actually nothing wrong with this, and in fact, this is my point. I actually agree with this.

Wow.

I just read this and thought to myself, am I being unfair to Bob? Is he really interested in discussing the ideas instead of repeating Rand was wrong (crazy, disconnected from reality, etc.) ad nauseam like a parrot?

In other words, she was wrong. Clearly and obviously wrong. Where have I heard this before??

Heh.

Michael

[anthony]

In other words, she was wrong. Clearly and obviously wrong. Where have I heard this before?? Bob

Bob, I thank all the gods that she could be wrong sometimes - otherwise I'd have to worship her as superhuman, and I don't do worship.

[bmacwilliam]

I just read this and thought to myself, am I being unfair to Bob? Is he really interested in discussing the ideas instead of repeating Rand was wrong (crazy, disconnected from reality, etc.) ad nauseam like a parrot?

Dumb idea is dumb.

If a good Objectivist can't be a parent, and a good parent can be an Objectivist, then I think something's wrong no??

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

In other words, she was wrong. Clearly and obviously wrong. Where have I heard this before?? Bob

Bob, I thank all the gods that she could be wrong sometimes - otherwise I'd have to worship her as superhuman, and I don't do worship.

Cool, fair enough, but may I humbly suggest you don't argue that she was right AND wrong about the SAME issue on the SAME thread please?

Bob

[anthony]

In other words, she was wrong. Clearly and obviously wrong. Where have I heard this before?? Bob

Bob, I thank all the gods that she could be wrong sometimes - otherwise I'd have to worship her as superhuman, and I don't do worship.

Cool, fair enough, but may I humbly suggest you don't argue that she was right AND wrong about the SAME issue on the SAME thread please? Bob

And I (humbly) retort that:

1. You should separate the philosophy from the philosopher, if that's what is causing you problems.

2. Understand the hierarchical nature of Objectivism. Egoism is a central principle; the applications of it are peripheral and will vary with an individual's context and values - we think for ourselves.

Read the thread once more, and you'll see I said she was "flat-out wrong", somewhere. (If she made child-rearing and egoism mutually exclusive.)

Her initial statements about egoism and children are indefensible. That won't stop me trying to understand them better - to look at it from all angles.

Tony

[Xray]

From this it can be inferred that parenthood would qualify as 'altruistic' (in Rand's sense).

Yes, we've been through this already.

What first springs to mind is the possible false dichotomy she was indulging herself in: That egoists can't be parents, or parents, egoists.

One gets the baffling result that parenting is immoral.

For if altruism is considered as immoral and parenting is considered as altruistic, it follows that parenting is immoral.

I think this was her own subjective assessment. She didn't appreciate children enough to have any, and never understood parenting, and personally would certainly have been distracted from her work if she had had a child - what would have been her output, then?

But one size doesn't fit all.

It was her subjective assessment, no doubt; but since Objectivism doesn't give the subjective a productive place in its system ("The subjective means the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional" http://aynrandlexico...bjectivism.html), this could explain why Rand thought that her personal preferences are an 'objective' size that fits all. .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

There was the shining presence of motherhood with happy kids and all in Galt's Gulch.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Xray,

There was the shining presence of motherhood with happy kids and all in Galt's Gulch.

Michael

One mom and two kids? Not exactly population maintaining. And the two little kids. Who would they play with?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Xray,

There was the shining presence of motherhood with happy kids and all in Galt's Gulch.

Michael

One mom and two kids? Not exactly population maintaining. And the two little kids. Who would they play with?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Let's keep perspective. How many of us recall the family life of just ONE other philosopher? (Beside George, that is.)

Or what they thought about children? I'm sure I don't, and who cares, anyhow.

If Ayn Rand hadn't been only too happy to answer every snap question fired at her, all we could focus on would be her writing.

Therefore, her candidness 'set her up' sometimes, unfortunately.

But does it compromise Objectivism? Not at all I believe. As for AR being subjective in some areas, therefore any less an Objectivist - ridiculous.

Tony

[Selene]

Lol...

Actually Tony, Karl Marx had a really bizarre family life. He had a son, who might have been Engels and his two daughters married some really despicable son-in-laws.

His wife was a remarkably intelligent woman and, if memory serves me correctly, they lived in a lovely seaside town in England and on the surface, were a textbook family.

Underneath that surface maintained by his wife were some serious health problems in one of his daughters as well as other issues.

Adam

[anthony]

Lol... Actually Tony, Karl Marx had a really bizarre family life. He had a son, who might have been Engels and his two daughters married some really despicable son-in-laws. His wife was a remarkably intelligent woman and, if memory serves me correctly, they lived in a lovely seaside town in England and on the surface, were a textbook family. Underneath that surface maintained by his wife were some serious health problems in one of his daughters as well as other issues. Adam

Damnation, Adam: I just knew I was setting myself up with that challenge! Not everyone has as rough a memory -or a knowledge base - as mine.

[caroljane]

Lol...

Actually Tony, Karl Marx had a really bizarre family life. He had a son, who might have been Engels and his two daughters married some really despicable son-in-laws.

His wife was a remarkably intelligent woman and, if memory serves me correctly, they lived in a lovely seaside town in England and on the surface, were a textbook family.

Underneath that surface maintained by his wife were some serious health problems in one of his daughters as well as other issues.

Adam

My impression of Great Thinkers' family lives is that they sit around Thinking and Writing while their remarkably intelligent partners schlep the laundry and the children around and develop good relationships with the local pawnshop.

Hey, it worked for me.

[Selene]

Lol...

Actually Tony, Karl Marx had a really bizarre family life. He had a son, who might have been Engels and his two daughters married some really despicable son-in-laws.

His wife was a remarkably intelligent woman and, if memory serves me correctly, they lived in a lovely seaside town in England and on the surface, were a textbook family.

Underneath that surface maintained by his wife were some serious health problems in one of his daughters as well as other issues.

Adam

My impression of Great Thinkers' family lives is that they sit around Thinking and Writing while their remarkably intelligent partners schlep the laundry and the children around and develop good relationships with the local pawnshop.

Except for the pawnshop, that sounds like Marx's family. The son-in-laws were abusive and looking to parlay money out of Marx.

[caroljane]

Lol...

Actually Tony, Karl Marx had a really bizarre family life. He had a son, who might have been Engels and his two daughters married some really despicable son-in-laws.

His wife was a remarkably intelligent woman and, if memory serves me correctly, they lived in a lovely seaside town in England and on the surface, were a textbook family.

Underneath that surface maintained by his wife were some serious health problems in one of his daughters as well as other issues.

Adam

My impression of Great Thinkers' family lives is that they sit around Thinking and Writing while their remarkably intelligent partners schlep the laundry and the children around and develop good relationships with the local pawnshop.

Except for the pawnshop, that sounds like Marx's family. The son-in-laws were abusive and looking to parlay money out of Marx.

Thank Galt, my daughter-in-law although she may not think highly of me , has never been anywhere near abusive, A perk of never having thought about economics. One of many.