There's a Reason this Hits Home

[Francisco Ferrer]

Your words, Post #88:

"Everywhere else, except for FF-Land, people realize that humans can commit the same act for different reasons at different time."

I have never said that people cannot. So I do not know whom the comment is directed towards.

Now you're lying.

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

Why? FF says so.

... all actions are aimed at increasing happiness.

Why? FF says so.

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

Michael

All you have to do is quote me or someone in "FF-Land," as you put it, who denies that "that humans can commit the same act for different reasons at different time." You have not done this.

Yes, it is entirely possible that John Galt was acting against his values by threatening to kill himself. Perhaps his highest value was to keep himself alive at any cost. But I see no indication from the author that Galt's threat was empty, or that he wasn't willing to give up his life to avoid a world in which Dagny was tortured. Under the circumstances his going through with the threat would have been selfish. His self-destruction would equal selfishness.

In the absence of contrary evidence, there is no reason to assume that people do not want the objects their actions are directed towards. Where is the evidence that people go to restaurants, theme parks, or parties in order to be near the things that they would prefer to avoid?

Rand writes, "Life can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action. The goal of that action, the ultimate value which, to be kept, must be gained through its every moment, is the organism’s life."

If people spend years acquiring food, clothing and shelter in the pursuit of destroying their happiness or bringing their lives to a quick end, it would probably occur to them sooner than later that their efforts are grossly inefficient.

[Brant Gaede]

Since we're doing Galt (Rand) we can assume everything he does or would do is selfish, but in the context of her fiction.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes, it is entirely possible that John Galt was acting against his values by threatening to kill himself. Perhaps his highest value was to keep himself alive at any cost. But I see no indication from the author that Galt's threat was empty, or that he wasn't willing to give up his life to avoid a world in which Dagny was tortured. Under the circumstances his going through with the threat would have been selfish. His self-destruction would equal selfishness.

I really don't want to prolong this, but what on earth are you talking about? Nobody said Galt was acting against his values. You really like the strawman argument, don't you?

Here's the deal. Galt would neither be acting for or against his values by offing himself. The way he said it, if Dagny were tortured, he would be without values and without the possibility of getting or holding them. So he would have no reason to live. Here's how he said it:

"I don't have to tell you," he said, "that if I do it, it won't be an act of self-sacrifice. I do not care to live on their terms, I do not care to obey them and I do not care to see you enduring a drawn-out murder.

There will be no values for me to seek after that — and I do not care to exist without values.

At root, that's neither selfish or unselfish in Rand's meaning. That's being a victim in an unlivable world and checking out.

Newsflash:

When a person commits suicide, there is no self anymore. There's nothing to be selfish or unselfish with. In any reading of AS, even in the worst interpretation, Galt was smart enough to know that.

All you have to do is quote me or someone in "FF-Land," as you put it, who denies that "that humans can commit the same act for different reasons at different time." You have not done this.

Now you're lying to yourself since (for some damn reason) I believe you're sincere, but I just did that in the previous post. So the only logical explanation is you are suffering from self-deception.

As an aside, I'm probably doing a lousy job of seeing the world through FF's eyes.

It looks like I'm getting better.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - I object to the meaning of the word "evidence" as FF uses it.

He is not referring to reality when he says "evidence."

He is referring to statements.

Words.

It seems like this is not the case at times, but anytime you bring up reality, he does a switcharooney with the meanings of words and harps on them. Then off he goes with strawmen.

I do not exclude reality from the concept of evidence and it's awkward to communicate with someone who does.

Frankly (forgive the pun ), I don't think he would know that seeing a snake is evidence of the presence of a reptile even if it bit him. That's a quip, but I'm serious.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

A three-fer?

An Ellen Moore of logic?

An Ellen Moore of libertaranism?

An Ellen Moore of Objectivism?

This could be awesome.

--Brant

call in an appraiser

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I can live with Ellen Moore. Just so long is FF's real name is not David Elmore.

That's a competitive dude from old SoloHQ days who hates my guts, lives in the Atlanta area, and reasons in an identical goofball manner as FF.

The only difference is that Elmore gets emotional and FF almost never does.

It would be a real pisser if FF were this dude.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Regardless, this thread has run dry.

Because of the SOLOHQ reference I just realized it's the tenth aniversery of all that crap in that place that did real damage to Objectivism.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Yes, it is entirely possible that John Galt was acting against his values by threatening to kill himself. Perhaps his highest value was to keep himself alive at any cost. But I see no indication from the author that Galt's threat was empty, or that he wasn't willing to give up his life to avoid a world in which Dagny was tortured. Under the circumstances his going through with the threat would have been selfish. His self-destruction would equal selfishness.

I really don't want to prolong this, but what on earth are you talking about? Nobody said Galt was acting against his values. You really like the strawman argument, don't you?

Good. Then we can agree that Galt's actions serve as an example of human behavior directed toward the goal of increasing one's contentment, gratification, pride or comfort..

Here's the deal. Galt would neither be acting for or against his values by offing himself. The way he said it, if Dagny were tortured, he would be without values and without the possibility of getting or holding them. So he would have no reason to live. Here's how he said it:

"I don't have to tell you," he said, "that if I do it, it won't be an act of self-sacrifice. I do not care to live on their terms, I do not care to obey them and I do not care to see you enduring a drawn-out murder.

There will be no values for me to seek after that — and I do not care to exist without values.

At root, that's neither selfish or unselfish in Rand's meaning. That's being a victim in an unlivable world and checking out.

Galt did not care to exist without values. Galt acted to avoid a world in which there were no values for him. Therefore, Galt's intention to kill himself in the event of Dagny's torture was pro-value. It wouldn't be an act of self-sacrifice. It would be the opposite.

Newsflash:

When a person commits suicide, there is no self anymore. There's nothing to be selfish or unselfish with. In any reading of AS, even in the worst interpretation, Galt was smart enough to know that.

Then we agree that it is not the self after death that is acting to bring about an end to a life; it is the pre-death self. The pre-death self may find life under particular conditions unsatisfactory and act to shorten it. Life in certain contexts is not to everyone's liking and the decision to terminate one's life is individual, personal and selfish.

All you have to do is quote me or someone in "FF-Land," as you put it, who denies that "that humans can commit the same act for different reasons at different time." You have not done this.

Now you're lying to yourself since (for some damn reason) I believe you're sincere, but I just did that in the previous post. So the only logical explanation is you are suffering from self-deception.

No, you did not show that I have expressed words that in any way resemble the position that "that humans can commit the same act for different reasons at different times." Just as people may eat for different reasons (to avoid starvation, to be polite, to take one's mind off a problem), people may commit suicide for a variety of reasons: to avoid physical pain, to escape mental anguish, to prevent someone else from being tortured.

As an aside, I'm probably doing a lousy job of seeing the world through FF's eyes.

It looks like I'm getting better.

Michael

In the interest of boosting the moderator's self-esteem, allow me to say you are getting better every day.

[moralist]

Regardless, this thread has run dry.

Because of the SOLOHQ reference I just realized it's the tenth aniversery of all that crap in that place that did real damage to Objectivism.

--Brant

Forget about organized collectivized bureaucratized Objectivism. (an oxymoron! )

No one can do any real damage to you implementing Ayn Rand's ideas and ideals and virtues in your own life.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

btw - I object to the meaning of the word "evidence" as FF uses it.

He is not referring to reality when he says "evidence."

He is referring to statements.

Words.

It seems like this is not the case at times, but anytime you bring up reality, he does a switcharooney with the meanings of words and harps on them. Then off he goes with strawmen.

I do not exclude reality from the concept of evidence and it's awkward to communicate with someone who does.

Frankly (forgive the pun ), I don't think he would know that seeing a snake is evidence of the presence of a reptile even if it bit him. That's a quip, but I'm serious.

Michael

There is no sense of FF a human being, just a well programmed computer talk back. This makes him invulnerable to anything thrown at him--her?--from gross insult (no reference available) to logic. If what you say is true he deals with logic by shape-shifting his material. I don't know about that. That level of analysis is beyond valuing for me about selfish/selfless. That I would crack my brain to say you won an argument about one point or another with him or vice versa is a luxury and indulgence I personally cannot afford the time for, which is not at criticism in any way about what you do for we aren't the same person.

In rereading the scene between John and Dagny in which he explains why he'll kill himself because of X, Y and Z if A happens, I am struck by the fact that he's asking her to pretend to be on the looters' side to save their asses but he, God Galt, by implication, will not do any pretending--for that would de-God him--not for her; not for anybody. How easy it would be for him, as a human being, to do an Alan Greenspan with even broader powers, and simply do what the looters have been doing all along and take the world's collectivistic ediface down even faster until he could free her up and both take off--something like that. (And why is his name still on the mailbox downstairs?) More Rand contrivance. You cannot use this jerk--that's what he'd be in real life but he's God in the novel (nevermind God is a jerk) as a primary reference for human behavior and motivation. Both Francisco d'Anconia and John Galt are two great prima donnas in that story with all the strikers also but to lesser extents as they are lesser characters. Dagny is a different category because the whole novel is basically about her and her consort, Hank Rearden. Dagny and Hank. Ayn and Nathaniel? The mind boggles.

Not to take this any further except to note that Atlas Shrugged is a pile of contrivances and there's no real point in rooting around with Galt did this and Galt did that for this reason or that one--NO! He didn't! You need to step back somewhat more and take in the whole show to get it as art and philosophy. It's just that as you can't really appreciate a painting with your nose against it commenting on a brush stroke saying that stroke puts the painting into the crapper. But finally I'm beginning to understand why Objectivism was created with this novel as its foundation--actually Galt's Speech. It's a one-two. The novel is the one and Objectiviism is the two. That "two" the philosophy as explicated on by Rand and Branden mostly in the 1960s. Without Branden it has shrivelled. Branden could have kept it going for another decade. If Peikoff could--he sorta did--Branden sure could have. Only one thing, though, Nathaniel would have been acting selflessly because the ego food was going rancid.

Now, to wrap this up. The aforementioned "one-two" needs a "one-two-three." Leonard Peikoff and his ARI monstrosity has effectively prevented creation of the "three" for nearly 30 years now since and because he ran David Kelley out of town on a specious philosophical rail covered with tar and feathers for the sake of Peikovian power and status. Peikoff is like an Aztec priest on top of the pyramid cutting out hearts off heads and kicking the bodies down the steps. Or he was. I think the knife has gotten heavy in his old hands and who's to take his place?

--Brant

anybody see the dif between what I do and FF does but why I wouldn't do this particular thing except reactively to what's been going on here, especially by him? (Value is where you find it or when you make it and this is a value to me if not to thee.)

[anthony]

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

The main drawback of forums is that one doesn't know much more about someone than the words the person expresses, without seeing him, his life and his actions to compare with his words - and then, mainly at fault is a kind of cyber-judgmentalism which gets passed upon the person, out of context of that totality.

To "judge", or evaluate, a person's rationality, integrity, etc., is always vital, but largely off forums, where someone may affect one's personal life directly, for good or worse.

But I think in forum mostly one should evaluate a person's character and good sense (or lack of) only for oneself (although I don't always stick to it). Acknowledging that this private assessment won't ever be complete and may be mistaken and never having enough evidence, one still can go on what evidence is available - for all that it matters ultimately.

An individual's ideas, obviously, are fair game: to debate, to fiercely oppose - or praise. Given the limitations of forum exchange and bearing in mind that no one is purely rational, in every minute .

Rand would stray on the side of not hesitating to pass overt judgments of individuals, to their faces usually, which has been sometimes imitated by we cyber-space Objectivists. But who can match Rand at her peak or her worst? To say nothing of the fact that in independent spirit it shouldn't be tried. And her complimentary judgments could be balanced with the others. (I can only conjecture what she would have been like on a forum...)

Having said as much, all we can go by are words, remembering that they are concepts, and that a man's concepts are the result of his value judgments - thought - and that thinking is an action, too (an "act of consciousness") which in turn might -or will- result in a physical action. If someone repeatedly voices some irrationality should one take him at his "word" and accept he wishes it to be manifested in actuality? One has no option but to.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No, you did not show that I have expressed words that in any way resemble the position that "that humans can commit the same act for different reasons at different times." Just as people may eat for different reasons (to avoid starvation, to be polite, to take one's mind off a problem), people may commit suicide for a variety of reasons: to avoid physical pain, to escape mental anguish, to prevent someone else from being tortured.

This is for the reader, not you, since it is very instructive of the shape-shifting word games you play.

We were talking about your claim that no actions are unselfish. My comment was in relation to that.

So, reader, imagine a world where you had to reestablish context for everything you say. Here's an example.

Imagine I was in a boat on a lake looking down at the water. Later I decide to write about it. I say something really original like "I was in a boat on a lake looking down at the water."

Then I say, "Suddenly a huge fish jumped into the air."

Do I really need to say the following?: "Suddenly a huge fish that was in the water I was looking at that was underneath the boat I was in jumped into the air."

And do I need to follow that with the following?: "I turned to my friend who was sitting in the boat I was in and asked if he saw that huge fish that was in the water I was looking at that was underneath the boat that he and I were in that jumped into the air."

This would get boring real fast.

In fact, if some readers get bored with FF's prose, it's because this is what you have to think like in order to catch his errors. Why? Because these are precisely the kinds of things FF switches around and cherry-picks all the time as he asks for "evidence" and claims he "disproves" this or that.

If one said in the context above: "Suddenly a huge fish jumped into the air," it's plausible he would claim fish can only jump from water, that no one needs a boat to see fish jumping, that it is perfectly plausible to fish without a friend, etc., so you are wrong.

Getting back to the topic, what is it I was talking about when I used the term "same act for different reasons"? My root was reasons based on selfishness AS OPPOSED TO reasons based on unselfishness. In FF-Land, people never act on reasons based on unselfishness and I disagree with his claim.

That's what I meant. Maybe I could have expressed it more artfully, but it's clear enough in context. I mean all actions for FF boil down to the same reason: selfishness.

And FF said so clearly. I quoted him saying it several times.

And anyone can see that, that is until you remove the context, i.e., leave out the boat, the water, the friend, and hell, maybe even the fish. (Or leave out his claim of a single underlying motive, selfishness, for all human actions.)

Now here is some Logic 101. If all actions boil down to the same reason, people cannot do things that boil down to a different reason. Duh. Newsflash again: "The same" is singular. When one claims there is only singular, one cannot claim there is plural.

Just because I did not describe selfishness versus unselfishness all over again in a discussion where the claim was unselfishness action does not exist, and did not use the term "boil down" or something similar, it is piss-poor reasoning to assume I was discussing "avoid pain" or "escape mental anguish" or whatever as my context. I would only discuss those in this discussion within the context of selfish versus unselfish. But he suddenly decided his claim was not the context any longer in order to win the argument in his head.

That is what I mean by playing word games versus correct understanding.

And, that is what I mean by he is lying to himself. I think he honestly believes his words games represent truth even as, on some level, he knows better.

Rand and Peikoff would characterize this as a concrete-bound mentality, but I believe it goes deeper. I think the root is a need to win imaginary competitions added to conceptual corruption.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Apropos, and this is for the reader once again, I have been studying The Sense of Style by Pinker. He makes an observation that is relevant to this discussion.

He talks about how to organize a bunch of ideas according to patterns. He came up with a term for these patterns: "arcs of coherence."

I've been doing a lot of thinking about this recently because I have been trying to see why some lists are boring while others are not. I concluded that lists underlie almost all conceptual thought and the secret sauce is in how you organize them and jazz them up. A random list with no organizing principle gets boring real fast.

For example, try to memorize this list of letters:

A R Q B L V P S U N Z K W C X O T B Q M R E U Z H L V E Y P.

It's easy to space out if you try (unless you do memory palaces ).

I can come up with all kinds of random items in lists. But they all would need to belong to some kind of organizing pattern to make them stick in memory and become intelligible abstractions the mind can work with. Without the organizing pattern, they become the mental equivalent of noise.

There are three main arcs of coherence according to Pinker, which he claims go back to Hume:

1. Relationship

2. Time

3. Cause and effect

He also mentioned attribution, which I believe is close to what Rand meant by describing an entity.

I won't go into all the different examples right now (maybe later if the discussion warrants it), but these patterns are ways to organize lists. And that includes lists of ideas and observations that occur during a discussion. Like say right here on OL.

As these are hidden structures, in a funny manner, they open another door for a shape-shifter word-gamer to win his imaginary battles.

If you are discussing a topic using relationship as the predominant pattern, like item X in relationship to premise Y, he can suddenly jump to cause and effect and claim X does not cause Y, so you are wrong. Or he can go to time and claim Y comes first in time before X, so you are wrong. And so on.

See? I'm FF's friend.

I'm giving him more tools to build epistemological sandcastles with and beat everybody.

Michael

[Selene]

I'm giving him more tools to build epistemological sandcastles with and beat everybody.

Michael

Thankfully reality's rising tide levels all sandcastles...

They are pretty eye catching for a while and then...

Frank has the pink shovel...

A...

[moralist]

And, that is what I mean by he is lying to himself. I think he honestly believes his words games represent truth even as, on some level, he knows better.

Rand and Peikoff would characterize this as a concrete-bound mentality, but I believe it goes deeper. I think the root is a need to win imaginary competitions added to conceptual corruption.

Michael

Your analysis is insightful, Michael.

Imaginary is the only kind of competition in which Frank has a chance, so he is driven to seek it as a means to validate himself.

This is the behavior of a person who loses in real life.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Earlier in the thread I asked, "How would an objective observer know the difference between a man selfishly devoting himself to others and a man selflessly devoting himself to others?"

The only response I received was, "Watching whether he is displaying boredom and agony as opposed to happy vibes?" (followed by a happy vibes emoticon).

If this is true it means that the face reveals not only one's mood but one's evaluation of the self as well. In theory, happy vibes will be found on the faces of selfish people. Boredom and agony are the looks displayed by unselfish people.

By this measure the most selfish people I've ever encountered were in Protestant denominations that allow singing and most especially in church youth groups. Who would have thought worshiping God could make people so selfish?

[Brant Gaede]

But, again: everybody tries to act selfishly. That's the actor's perspective. In this context an observer may denote the act seems to be selfless or selfish. There are two different layers in this heirarchy with the actor's at the top and the observer's below.

selfish

________________

selfish selfless

I think selfishness can be objectively demonstrated--not selflessness. It's a self acting, afterall.

Because valuing is involved all these actor's acts respecting choice are subjectively valued for the act and the result. The result may be a disaster. Opps!

Now, if a person qua human being is being addressed we can say X is good and Y is bad for human being. If bad we can say it was a selfless act per the result. The fireman runs into the burning house and doesn't come out. The selfless hero.

A man qua man is not a man unto himself. It's the idea of a man. Or, Man and a man. Man and a woman. Man and a child. A man, a woman and a child. That's three. There is only one "Man" and that's for each of the three. By understanding these three we come to understand the idea of man. There's the objectification and acting against that objectification could be described--or argued about--as objectively selfless. You can't say a suicide is objectively selfless to a man, only to Man. Man is the actor who cannot act. Existentially Man does not exist, but he's in each and everyone, along for the ride.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Then we agree that it is not the self after death that is acting to bring about an end to a life; it is the pre-death self. The pre-death self may find life under particular conditions unsatisfactory and act to shorten it. Life in certain contexts is not to everyone's liking and the decision to terminate one's life is individual, personal and selfish.

I can't let this go, either.

We are talking about John Galt here.

There is no self after death.

Not in Rand's conception.

A choice and act to not have a self is not selfish. Nor unselfish. It is anti-self.

And even that statement is not taking into account Rand's meaning of selfish as life-affirming through values.

Michael

[Selene]

Then we agree that it is not the self after death that is acting to bring about an end to a life; it is the pre-death self. The pre-death self may find life under particular conditions unsatisfactory and act to shorten it. Life in certain contexts is not to everyone's liking and the decision to terminate one's life is individual, personal and selfish.

I can't let this go, either.

We are talking about John Galt here.

There is no self after death.

Not in Rand's conception.

A choice and act to not have a self is not selfish. Nor unselfish. It is anti-self.

And even that statement is not taking into account Rand's meaning of selfish as life-affirming through values.

Michael

Very nice refutation Michael.

[Brant Gaede]

How about the Zombies?

I had to have my fence electrified.

--Brant

scared in Tucson

[Francisco Ferrer]

Then we agree that it is not the self after death that is acting to bring about an end to a life; it is the pre-death self. The pre-death self may find life under particular conditions unsatisfactory and act to shorten it. Life in certain contexts is not to everyone's liking and the decision to terminate one's life is individual, personal and selfish.

I can't let this go, either.

We are talking about John Galt here.

There is no self after death.

Not in Rand's conception.

A choice and act to not have a self is not selfish. Nor unselfish. It is anti-self.

And even that statement is not taking into account Rand's meaning of selfish as life-affirming through values.

Michael

We agree that there is no self after death. I explicitly said so: "It is not the self after death that is acting to bring about an end to a life; it is the pre-death self."

Why should the self exist in agony? If one prefers nothingness over agony, that is a selfish preference, made by the person who is about to actualize nothingness. It is a choice that reflects the evaluation that life is no longer worth living. It is a choice intended to benefit one person above all others, oneself.

If one truly wanted to be anti-self, the choice would be to allow the self to remain in a torturous existence.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Un-friggin'-believable.

Talk about lame!

A is not A.

A is FF Says.

But wait! There's more!

FF Says One Thing Today is FF Says Different Tomorrow.

FF is not just the spokesman for the only constant in reality (FF Says).

FF is reality.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw:

GOTCHA!

Michael

[dldelancey]

You fellas are basically in agreement, and yet you keep arguing. It's better than reality TV.

Except for the point re: how to objectively tell the difference between a person acting selfishly and a person acting selflessly. I think FF is familiar with Resting Bitch Face and MSK is not.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Deanna,

I'm not in agreement with FF playing gotcha all the time, saying Rand's selfishness is the same as his constant shape-shifting meanings and that the only motivation for all human action is selfishness.

And I don't agree that arguing about a self that potentially acts after death equals saying there is no self after death. A post-death self and no self after death are not the same thing.

He does do Resting Bitch Face well, though.

Michael