Hypothesis: Dictators aren't altruists

[Selene]

Yes, it can do that. I don't think ignoring human differences which exist and lumping all behavior which isn't rationally self-interested into a single category is a good solution!

Ellen

That works.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Et tu, Brante?

By which I mean a willingness to sophistrize human differences out of existence in order to keep the Procustean bed of O'ist terminology.*

Ellen

Very nice Ellen!

I heard it in my mind as Bran-tay also because of the Et Tu.

* Procrustean bed also procrustean bed n.[

Thanks. And oops! Didn't see the misspelling.

Ellen

[merjet]

Dictators are often altruists AND predators.

That's...different. Could you elaborate?

Barack Obama, wanna-be-dictator, is a predator on the "haves" so he can be an altruist to the "have-nots." If you seek an example of a real dictator, you could start here.

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, it can do that. I don't think ignoring human differences which exist and lumping all behavior which isn't rationally self-interested into a single category is a good solution!

Ellen

That works.

Curses!

--Brant

I'll think of something!

[Brant Gaede]

--the robber is a taker, not a trader

--the shooter is insane, though if a soldier he might be deluded

--the scientist is not a scientist

--the researcher is smart

--etc.]

But are they altruists, according to you?

According to Tony, there are two categories, rational egoists and everyone else, and all those who aren't rational egoists are altruists.

Ellen

Seriously I can't agree with Tony if you put it that way. I can't call someone who screws up being a "rational egoist" an altruist consequent to not so innocent but ill-advised action like that guy who stole a loaf of bread. There are quite ethical scientists who badly perform at home, I'm sure, so I can't call them rational egoists on the basis of their scientific work. We can say certain actions are altruistic or sacrificial without calling the actor a second-hander or social metaphysician consequently. Or sometimes we can love and respect and deal with the actor without sanctioning the action. Thus we avoid argumentum ad hominems. That's the best argument against these two, simplistic categories. They cannot be improved by adding more categories. There is a great in-between and I think this is why Nathaniel Branden stopped using the term "social metaphysician." In 1976 he said it was an obsolete classification abstraction of no practical utility or much other use.

--Brant

did I win our argument? (Dazed and Confused.)

[anthony]

According to Tony, there are two categories, rational egoists and everyone else, and all those who aren't rational egoists are altruists.

Ellen

According to Ellen there are ___? categories. How many? And name them, please.

I went to lengths in #91 to explain the array of types and combinations, but your simplest way out is to insist I've created a mutually exclusive dichotomy. Is it not self-evident that this is a spectrum, and I've indicated that?

(Btw - These aren't "categories", they are concepts and principles. That explains the narrow limits of the concepts as you perceive them. So I'm clear, are you getting at O'ism or at my interpretation?)

Oh and "ignoring human differences which exist" is gratuitous. Do we need to identify moral philosophy-before- we arrive at "human differences"...or not?

[Ellen Stuttle]

We have major tree work scheduled here for tomorrow, starting early, and I might be too tired afterward to post.

I'll get back to the thread when I can.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

We have major tree work scheduled here for tomorrow, starting early, and I might be too tired afterward to post.

I'll get back to the thread when I can.

Ellen

Are going going to use your axe?

--Brant

[anthony]

"Isn't that the root of every despicable action?

Not selfishness, but precisely the absence of self.

-.-.

They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They're concerned only with people.

They don't ask "Is this true?" They ask "Is this what others think is true?"

-.-.

After centuries of being pounded with the doctrine that altruism

is the ultimate ideal, men have accepted it the only way it

could be accepted. By seeking self-esteem through others.

By living second-hand.

-.-.

Men were taught to regard second-handers - tyrants, emperors, dictators -

as exponents of egoism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego,

themselves and others."

['The Nature of the Second-Hander', For the New Intellectual]

[anthony]

The polarity between "self" and absence of self is clear in Rand's writing.

But I don't think for a second she wasn't aware that people shift in that polarity, and that the simplest existence can't be sustained without some presence of self. To the extent that man is self-directing, nothing has to be fixed or forever.

A person may rob another, on one occasion, recognize the terrible harm to himself, and recoil from ever doing it again. Or, go on to become a career criminal - and abnegate his self, permanently.

A person might once dishonestly manipulate another person to his subjective advantage; but, to continue day after day with a large number of people in society, would be the mark of a dictator: self-less, altruist.

He's one who's completely renounced his own consciousness in the 'mass-consciousness' he imagines.

That he serves them, or they serve him - is immaterial ultimately. Distinctions disappear in this collective blob where everyone is sacrificed to everyone else, existing by each others' standards and through each others' consciousness.

[anthony]

The world is upside down for me right not because I agree with Ellen.

This dichotomy is vastly oversimplified and I find the attempt to fit bloody dictators under the heading of "altruist" to be forced as all get out--unless we are talking about their propaganda methods.

I'm not sure rational egosim versus altruism can be applied to a thug. I think this is one of those cases of: Which is he? One or the other? And the answer is neither.

He's a friggen's bully who gets an emotional rush from dominating and destroying others. Whether he started out that way or grew into it is irrelevant to his final state. Thugs exist just like I described right now. Big or little, they exist that way in their fundament. There's no deeper philosophical there there. They are bullies because they think being a bully is good (until they literally get their asses whipped and the become sniveling cowards). They are bullies qua bullies as ends in themselves.

And oh, do they exist...

Michael

Michael:

There can't be a bully who is not an altruist second-hander. (But most altruists are not bullies). He's the most primitive type, is all.

The humanity of a person is self-evident, so "ignoring human differences" as Ellen suggests, is a specious argument. The question is what are that person's over-riding principles?

Otherwise we might as well chuck out both philosophy and morality as superfluous.

Per Rand, the link of altruism to thugs, bullies and dictators is in their consciousness, their mind independence - or lack of. To cause pain or deprivation (of any kind) to others, signifies a (twisted and perverted) dependence on them, his victims. It can only be maximum evasion of one's knowledge of reality and human nature and selfhood. That's altruism (altruism-collectivism, to be precise) at its most fundamental as I see it.

Obviously, one doesn't meet a person, and by appearance or first words, think: "Ah- an altruist!" Similarly to building concepts, one observes and absorbs all one can of him or her, recognises his distinctions and differences, and gradually forms an opinion, which could become an assessment of their character, and eventually, of their morality.

At which stage one may judge them as morally excellent or deficient - and more likely a mixture. One begins with a human being qua human being and only much later with attentive focus - discovers his guiding principles (which he may not know himself).

A known bully or dictator, however, has already made plain to us his morality - and guaranteed, he is fundamentally altruist-collectivist - over and above: also a sadist, a coward, and all round bad guy.

If we cannot challenge the thug and his followers intellectually and by principle, we may as well give up and go home.

[BaalChatzaf]

He's a friggen's bully who gets an emotional rush from dominating and destroying others. Whether he started out that way or grew into it is irrelevant to his final state. Thugs exist just like I described right now. Big or little, they exist that way in their fundament. There's no deeper philosophical there there. They are bullies because they think being a bully is good (until they literally get their asses whipped and the become sniveling cowards). They are bullies qua bullies as ends in themselves.

My Uncle Jack of blessed memory was a bombardier in the 8 th Air Force and he told me triggering a load of 500 pounders on the Germans was one of the joys in his life. He claimed to be Adolph Hitler's worst enemy: A Jew with a Norden Bomb Sight.

It was not bullying. It was revenge. And screw the collateral damage.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

According to Tony, there are two categories, rational egoists and everyone else, and all those who aren't rational egoists are altruists.

In post 81 Tony called everyone else second-handers or practitioners of "other-ism." That results in a lot of heterogeneity in the "everyone else" category, e.g. altruists versus what Ayn Rand called "traditional egoists" here.

[Brant Gaede]

According to Tony, there are two categories, rational egoists and everyone else, and all those who aren't rational egoists are altruists.

In post 81 Tony called everyone else second-handers or practitioners of "other-ism." That results in a lot of heterogeneity in the "everyone else" category, e.g. altruists versus what Ayn Rand called "traditional egoists" here.

Tony was wrong in that he confused an actor with his action. Ironically, Ellen, by her examples, and maybe I, made the same mistake and so did Rand-Branden way back when-then with their in the as reported group psychological eviscerations of an errant member. Look, I rob a bank. That makes me a bank robber. That it's the action of a second-hander is problematic. Maybe I'm a Jew trying to get money to get my family out of Nazi Germany. The basic mistake is going prematurely into ad hominem-land and thinking you're still in idea-land.

--Brant

[Selene]

According to Tony, there are two categories, rational egoists and everyone else, and all those who aren't rational egoists are altruists.

In post 81 Tony called everyone else second-handers or practitioners of "other-ism." That results in a lot of heterogeneity in the "everyone else" category, e.g. altruists versus what Ayn Rand called "traditional egoists" here.

Tony was wrong in that he confused an actor with his action. Ironically, Ellen, by her examples, and maybe I, made the same mistake and so did Rand-Branden way back when-then with their in the as reported group psychological eviscerations of an errant member. Look, I rob a bank. That makes me a bank robber. That it's the action of a second-hander is problematic. Maybe I'm a Jew trying to get money to get my family out of Nazi Germany. The basic mistake is going prematurely into ad hominem-land and thinking you're still in idea-land.

--Brant

Excellent observation.

We all fall into that mental trap.

[Brant Gaede]

He's a friggen's bully who gets an emotional rush from dominating and destroying others. Whether he started out that way or grew into it is irrelevant to his final state. Thugs exist just like I described right now. Big or little, they exist that way in their fundament. There's no deeper philosophical there there. They are bullies because they think being a bully is good (until they literally get their asses whipped and the become sniveling cowards). They are bullies qua bullies as ends in themselves.

My Uncle Jack of blessed memory was a bombardier in the 8 th Air Force and he told me triggering a load of 500 pounders on the Germans was one of the joys in his life. He claimed to be Adolph Hitler's worst enemy: A Jew with a Norden Bomb Sight.

It was not bullying. It was revenge. And screw the collateral damage.

If you fight a war and aren't terribly pissed off at whom you're fighting you're probably in the wrong war if not on the wrong side.

--Brant

[anthony]

According to Tony, there are two categories, rational egoists and everyone else, and all those who aren't rational egoists are altruists.

In post 81 Tony called everyone else second-handers or practitioners of "other-ism." That results in a lot of heterogeneity in the "everyone else" category, e.g. altruists versus what Ayn Rand called "traditional egoists" here.

Tony was wrong in that he confused an actor with his action. Ironically, Ellen, by her examples, and maybe I, made the same mistake and so did Rand-Branden way back when-then with their in the as reported group psychological eviscerations of an errant member. Look, I rob a bank. That makes me a bank robber. That it's the action of a second-hander is problematic. Maybe I'm a Jew trying to get money to get my family out of Nazi Germany. The basic mistake is going prematurely into ad hominem-land and thinking you're still in idea-land.

--Brant

I think you have to read what I've posted in its entirety. Quoting one brief post is hardly representative or just. I refuse to be forced into a dichotomy, when I have made distinctions, galore.

Explicit, implicit...etc etc. One act, or a lifetime of acts...etc.

The behaviour of AR/NB isn't important to me, its their principles that count.

The only question is: do Objectivists hold to their moral base, or do they become political animals like everyone? You can't oppose a thug or dictator with what he does best - political force.

[Samson Corwell]

The polarity between "self" and absence of self is clear in Rand's writing.

But I don't think for a second she wasn't aware that people shift in that polarity, and that the simplest existence can't be sustained without some presence of self. To the extent that man is self-directing, nothing has to be fixed or forever.

A person may rob another, on one occasion, recognize the terrible harm to himself, and recoil from ever doing it again. Or, go on to become a career criminal - and abnegate his self, permanently.

A person might once dishonestly manipulate another person to his subjective advantage; but, to continue day after day with a large number of people in society, would be the mark of a dictator: self-less, altruist.

He's one who's completely renounced his own consciousness in the 'mass-consciousness' he imagines.

That he serves them, or they serve him - is immaterial ultimately. Distinctions disappear in a collective blob where everyone is sacrificed to everyone else, existing by each others' standards, and through each others' consciousness.

Altruism is a form of selflessness, but selflessness is not a form of altruism.

[Brant Gaede]

I think you have to read what I've posted in its entirety. Quoting one brief post is hardly representative or just. I refuse to be forced into a dichotomy, when I have made distinctions, galore.

Explicit, implicit...etc etc. One act, or a lifetime of acts...etc.

The behaviour of AR/NB isn't important to me, its their principles that count.

The only question is: do Objectivists hold to their moral base, or do they become political animals like everyone? You can't oppose a thug or dictator with what he does best - political force.

No one is on trial here.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

An altruist is someone who holds that the good of everyone else is more important than his own--or maybe he preaches that but does not believe it for his own life.

Those are the only two meanings of altruist within this context that make any sense to me.

I don't see how that fits "thug."

Maybe you are watering down "altruist" to mean "bad guy in general"?

OK... that was loaded. Let me try it again.

Maybe you are broadening the concept of "altruist" to mean "bad guy in general"?

If so, go for it. But I don't use that meaning. I doubt Rand did, either.

Michael

EDIT: Here's an added thought. When Rand posited the Attila and the Witch Doctor as two of the prime movers in human history, in my understanding the Witch Doctor promoted holding a god or gods as more important than the individual. The Attila didn't really care. He just reaped the results, meaning he had to bash heads a little less to get and keep power if the Witch Doctor said the gods had chosen him to be the head honcho.

The modern-day Witch Doctor added altruism to God. At times he replaced God with society, or even served up a blend of the two, but the altruism was always attached to that. I don't recall altruism ever being a floating ideal as an end-in-itself cut off from everything else. And like yesteryear, the modern-day Attila still doesn't give a crap. He just wants the power.

[Ellen Stuttle]

According to Tony, there are two categories, rational egoists and everyone else, and all those who aren't rational egoists are altruists.

In post 81 Tony called everyone else second-handers or practitioners of "other-ism." That results in a lot of heterogeneity in the "everyone else" category, e.g. altruists versus what Ayn Rand called "traditional egoists" here.

Thanks for posting the link to #81, Merlin. Spares my searching. However, I think you overlooked both what I asked and an important feature of Tony's answer in describing his reply as "resulting in a lot of heterogeneity in the 'everyone else' category."

I had asked:

A question for those who think that there are only two categories, rational self-interest and altruism:

How do you classify [some examples]?

Tony replied, in full:

Seems as if you answered your own question by the examples you've pulled up.

Second handers, all of them. "Other-ism", in some way, and to some degree.

Then we can apply the fine sieve...

I don't know how to interpret that except by taking Tony to be saying that he classifies all the examples as instances of "altruism" - for which term he's using "second handers" and "other-ism" as equivalents.

Here, again, are the examples I gave:

omeone who robs a bank, a convenience store, liquor store, etc.?

Someone who goes on a shooting spree?

A climate alarmist scientist who plays games with data?

A researcher who knows climate alarmism is a sham but takes big grant money for heading a carbon sequestration project?

Lots of other possible examples of course, all of which you'll somehow have to shoehorn into the category "altruistic" if you want to argue that two categories are sufficient for all cases.

I can think of possible scenarios in which any of those actions is done for motives which I would think of as altruistic (by which I'd mean having the welfare of another person or persons as one's goal). But I'd say the likely motives would be non-altruistic but not rationally self-interested. (In some of the examples, I could think of scenarios in which the person was acting for what I'd call rationally self-interested motives.)

However, near as I can tell from reading Tony's subsequent posts, he includes all the "heterogeneity" of the "'everyone else' [except rational egoists] category" as examples of altruism, albeit it with possible complexities.

Or as Michael said in the post above:

Tony,

[...]

Maybe you are broadening the concept of "altruist" to mean "bad guy in general"?

If so, go for it. But I don't use that meaning. I doubt Rand did, either.

I don't think Rand did, despite her oft-repeated "mystical-altruist-collectivist axis."

I was planning to cite the discussion of Attila and the Witch Doctor, which Michael talks about in an "added thought."

Ellen

[Samson Corwell]

Tony,

An altruist is someone who holds that the good of everyone else is more important than his own--or maybe he preaches that but does not believe it for his own life.

Those are the only two meanings of altruist within this context that make any sense to me.

I don't see how that fits "thug."

Maybe you are watering down "altruist" to mean "bad guy in general"?

OK... that was loaded. Let me try it again.

Maybe you are broadening the concept of "altruist" to mean "bad guy in general"?

If so, go for it. But I don't use that meaning. I doubt Rand did, either.

Michael

EDIT: Here's an added thought. When Rand posited the Attila and the Witch Doctor as two of the prime movers in human history, in my understanding the Witch Doctor promoted holding a god or gods as more important than the individual. The Attila didn't really care. He just reaped the results, meaning he had to bash heads a little less to get and keep power if the Witch Doctor said the gods had chosen him to be the head honcho.

The modern-day Witch Doctor added altruism to God. At times he replaced God with society, or even served up a blend of the two, but the altruism was always attached to that. I don't recall altruism ever being a floating ideal as an end-in-itself cut off from everything else. And like yesteryear, the modern-day Attila still doesn't give a crap. He just wants the power.

What if the gods are individuals?

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] Nathaniel Branden stopped using the term "social metaphysician." In 1976 he said it was an obsolete classification abstraction of no practical utility or much other use.

Nathaniel Branden didn't permanently stop using the term "social metaphysician." He resurfaced it in one of his later books - off-hand, I think it was in Six Pillars, but I'm not sure if it was in that one. He attempted to strip the moralism and swear-word quality. I think the term would better have been permanently retired, indeed never put in motion to begin with.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

[...] Nathaniel Branden stopped using the term "social metaphysician." In 1976 he said it was an obsolete classification abstraction of no practical utility or much other use.

Nathaniel Branden didn't permanently stop using the term "social metaphysician." He resurfaced it in one of his later books - off-hand, I think it was in Six Pillars, but I'm not sure if it was in that one. He attempted to strip the moralism and swear-word quality. I think the term would better have been permanently retired, indeed never put in motion to begin with.

Ayn Rand considered the term a great improvement on her "second-hander." By mixing up fiction with philosophy you can end up with moralizing if you don't know what is going on. She looked upon herself above all as a moralizer which led to a gross philosophical corruption by intimidating those who didn't want to be subject to that--her close-in admirers who were constantly fearful as the sine qua non of seeing her in action and being part of her action taking on our intellectually and morally corrupt world. Quite exciting. An adrenaline rush of sorts.

--Brant

edit: a book-ended adrenaline rush with Rand behind and the world in front and one the happy-unhappy warrior

sort of like our recent wars

hence: individualism!

Edited September 19, 2013 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

[...] Nathaniel Branden stopped using the term "social metaphysician." In 1976 he said it was an obsolete classification abstraction of no practical utility or much other use.

Nathaniel Branden didn't permanently stop using the term "social metaphysician." He resurfaced it in one of his later books - off-hand, I think it was in Six Pillars, but I'm not sure if it was in that one. He attempted to strip the moralism and swear-word quality. I think the term would better have been permanently retired, indeed never put in motion to begin with.

Ayn Rand considered the term a great improvement on her "second-hander." By mixing up fiction with philosophy you can end up with moralizing if you don't know what is going on. She looked upon herself above all as a moralizer which led to a gross philosophical corruption by intimidating those who didn't want to be subject to that--her close in admirers who were constantly fearful as the sine qua non of seeing her in action and being part of her action taking on our intellectually and morally corrupt world. Quite exciting.

--Brant

Speaking as an expert on grass roots electoral politics, "social metaphysician" does not work at the local Election District level.

Second-hander is marginably presentable to the average prime voter.

However, there are much better archtyple code words that work.

A...