giving one's life in battle

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, Arkadi said:

"It's a lot easier to bequeath values if you are living than if you die."--Sure. But it's impossible to bequeath the value of courage if you're surrendering.

 

3 minutes ago, Arkadi said:

Anthony: "I've no idea."--No problem. That just means you can't help me to understand Rand's words: "In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue." http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html

Surrender and courage are not necessarily incompatible.

Rand just means a war of self defense is morally and practically justified out of human values and valuing--valuing freedom is valuing one's life above all for freedom makes your life worth living.

--Brant

[Arkadi]

"Surrender and courage are not necessarily incompatible"--Sure. I did not mean they are. "freedom makes your life worth living"--does this imply that slavery makes your life not worth living? Or life in slavery is still preferable to death, according to Rand?

[anthony]

7 minutes ago, Arkadi said:

Anthony: "I've no idea."--No problem. That just means you can't help me to understand Rand's words: "In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue." http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html

You understand it, I think, there's not much to misunderstand. A rational and moral individual perceives value in his predominantly moral country and is prepared to take on hardships coupled with a small possibility of loss of his life to a greater value he perceives, the defence of its value. He is acting selfishly. We've been there. I thought you'd moved on.

[RobinReborn]

1 hour ago, Arkadi said:

To be free you have to living. Does it follow that "Give me liberty or give me death" is sheer foolishness? Or how to avoid this conclusion?

 

It's an oversimplification.  In practice, it's pretty unlikely that you'll ever be fully liberated, liberty is an ideal that we can strive for, but never actually reach.  From some perspective, we only reach liberty when we die.

 

Personally I'd rather compromise some of my liberties and die than risk death for (alleged, and probably temporary and imperfect) liberty.

[anthony]

2 hours ago, RobinReborn said:

 

It's an oversimplification.  In practice, it's pretty unlikely that you'll ever be fully liberated, liberty is an ideal that we can strive for, but never actually reach.  From some perspective, we only reach liberty when we die.

 

Personally I'd rather compromise some of my liberties and die than risk death for (alleged, and probably temporary and imperfect) liberty.

I think you got hold of the essence of it. Liberty has always been varying, depending on your locale and when you're alive. Very much too, on your state of mind and rationality. In one way or another coercion is always around, to a degree. (I'm sure you mean "some of my liberties and LIVE" btw.)

[Arkadi]

It's not about what you would personally prefer. Perhaps I haven't made it clear enough: it is about the message you would give to those enlisted in the military (if you were invited to speak before them, like Rand was). I doubt that you would advise them to compromise rather than risk death. Rand's message to them, at any rate, was very different: "In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue."

[Brant Gaede]

15 hours ago, RobinReborn said:

It's an oversimplification.  In practice, it's pretty unlikely that you'll ever be fully liberated, liberty is an ideal that we can strive for, but never actually reach.  From some perspective, we only reach liberty when we die.

Personally I'd rather compromise some of my liberties and die than risk death for (alleged, and probably temporary and imperfect) liberty.

 

9 hours ago, Arkadi said:

It's not about what you would personally prefer. Perhaps I haven't made it clear enough: it is about the message you would give to those enlisted in the military (if you were invited to speak before them, like Rand was). I doubt that you would advise them to compromise rather than risk death. Rand's message to them, at any rate, was very different: "In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue."

She spoke to future army officers, not enlistees.

If you are enlisted I would have no message. You have set yourself on a certain course. Nor would I go to West Point and tell all those soon-to-be officers anything more or less than Rand did, so I wouldn't go and lie by omission. Rand didn't lie, but I'm a combat veteran. There are more recent veterans with better practical fighting advice--mine's too old--who are teaching them the ropes. Another reason to zip my lips.

Men are made for providing and fighting as women are made for protecting and nurturing, with a lot of sexual overlapping. We're talking about basic biology. Rand and biology were strange to each other. Rand was mostly in the head but most of us are a whole and integrated unit of brains and biology.

--Brant

Nathaniel Branden in the 1960's practiced and explicated on what he could have called--maybe he did--"Objectivist Psychology," then, in the 1970's, "Biocentric Psychology" and, finally, just "psychology"

[anthony]

12 hours ago, Arkadi said:

It's not about what you would personally prefer. Perhaps I haven't made it clear enough: it is about the message you would give to those enlisted in the military (if you were invited to speak before them, like Rand was). I doubt that you would advise them to compromise rather than risk death. Rand's message to them, at any rate, was very different: "In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue."

I believe RR was on about the compromises of freedom every citizen, like it or not, is exposed to under a State, regulations, taxation - you get the picture. Not possible compromises in war by soldiers. 

I bet Rand was like a breath of fresh air to those cadets, after being always assured how great and virtuous was their sacrificial devotion to duty, patriotism, service - etc. - by every passing speaker. She told them the truth perhaps none had heard, that their virtue was in the values they esteem, highly selfish, personal ones. But not everybody has to defend his nation to still hold other objective values else it would be just a warrior nation. I don't know if you find glory in the martial, Arkady.

I think hardly a soldier believes - except in the abstract - he's maybe going to 'lay down his life' for his country, which is only how it should be.

There's plenty over and above that deep value in freedom from oppression that draws a young man to the modern military, much of it also rationally self-interested, finding purpose and direction in a career, qualifying in advanced technical skills, gaining self-confidence and the challenges and adventure and skill with weaponry, breaking away on one's own from home - while being well paid and cared for in a large organisation, which could be tempting to many a man or woman at a loose end. Suchlike attracted me to nearly join the Royal Navy in my teens.

[Arkadi]

"not everybody has to defend his nation... I don't know if you find glory in the martial, Arkady"--Anthony, again: It is not about me or you. It's about us (US) having an army and about our message for those serving in it. One possible message would be: "Guys, you'll get in technical skills, gaining self-confidence and the challenges and adventure and skill with weaponry - while being well paid and cared for in a large organization. Good for you!" But that's not the message Rand chose to give them. She said nothing of the kind, but: "In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue."

[anthony]

You'll have to pose a question or criticism - simply quoting that repeatedly is getting nowhere.

What puzzles you about "unwilling to live..."? I can't see it.

You understand the value hierarchy, from highest down? Rand emphasised the topmost one to the cadets, of them not being prepared to be sacrificed to "slavery" or oppression - as an enormous (selfish) virtue.

I pointed out there is more also to being in an Army. 

[Arkadi]

Anthony: I understand that "there is more also to being in an Army"; but I am not talking about what there is--in general--to being in the army. I'm talking of Rand's message to those serving in the army. The reason for my repeating the quote again and again is that, in paraphrasing it, you're, again and again, muting its point that I'm bringing to the fore. E.g., in your last response, you rendered "unwilling to live as the conquered slave" by "not being prepared to be sacrificed to slavery." In my view, your wording lacks precisely the part of Rand's message that is relevant to the topic of this posting. If you disagree with this part, that's fine with me. What I am objecting to is your non-acknowledging that the part under question is there.

[anthony]

Arkady: Could you possibly be thinking that Rand advocated that every soldier who (a) did not give his life in battle should (b) throw himself on his sword?

[Arkadi]

Anthony: What particular words of mine made you believe that I could possibly think such nonsense? I would be grateful if you could cite them verbatim.

[anthony]

Since you offer no clue and venture nothing of what concerns you, I have to cast around.

We have already gone over "giving" one's life in battle. One ~risks~, and if it's to be, so be it.

There's no point until you ask a specific question about "unwilling to live as a conquered slave". Or, give your version.

[Arkadi]

Anthony: This new phase of the conversation was initiated not by me but by RobinReborn. I was just drawing attention to the fact that Rand's message to those in the military is to prefer death over life in slavery. I believe this is a great message. I have no "concerns" about it.

[Peter]

Commander Arkadi? This is Data. If you cut your hair to one sixteenth of an inch, and shaved your beard, your Jean Luc Picard imitation would be complete. We could then infiltrate The Star Fleet Academy for the April Fool's day spoof. 

[anthony]

19 hours ago, Arkadi said:

Anthony: This new phase of the conversation was initiated not by me but by RobinReborn. I was just drawing attention to the fact that Rand's message to those in the military is to prefer death over life in slavery. I believe this is a great message. I have no "concerns" about it.

Then it is I who have a concern. You misunderstand her message, and your take of self-sacrifice is never a "great message". (Most surely not Rand's).How do you read the speech to miltary cadets applauding them for their virtuous choice, as a message of Rand's preferring "death over life in slavery". Join the Army and die? C'mon. It's why others and I have stressed "risk" all the time. If you'd said "to prefer the risk of death over life in slavery" - no argument.

[Arkadi]

Anthony: You've just confirmed my suspicion that you cannot accept Rand's words at their face value and are going out of your way to edit them so as to make them "palatable" to you. If she wanted to say what you're trying to put into her mouth she would have said: "preferring to risk death over life in slavery" instead of  "unwilling to live as the conquered slave." In my view, Rand's actual wording is perfect, whereas even your last version is too weak as a message to be given to potentials combatants, as it lacks determination. The same is even more true of yours (or someone else's here?) previous version to the effect: "if worst comes to worst you may always surrender, guys." Soldiers programmed this way would be plausibly slated to lose; and Rand, no doubt, understood this. 

[Peter]

The life of slaves and indentured servants has varied from A to Z throughout history, as shown in "Spartacus." The play, "Whatever Happened on the Way to the Forum" and the book "Pompeii" and others by Robert Harris showcase some decent "masters" and "slaves" who live decent lives. Victory in war has produced horrible, totalitarian states however, but not always. Colonialism runs the same spectrum. Jefferson's slaves were treated like family, much like a very rich Vanderbilt might treat his dimmer witted nieces and nephews.

Peter   

[anthony]

41 minutes ago, Arkadi said:

Anthony: You've just confirmed my suspicion that you cannot accept Rand's words at their face value and are going out of your way to edit them so as to make them "palatable" to you. If she wanted to say what you're trying to put into her mouth she would have said: "preferring to risk death over life in slavery" instead of  "unwilling to live as the conquered slave." In my view, Rand's actual wording is perfect, whereas even your last version is too weak as a message to be given to potentials combatants, as it lacks determination. The same is even more true of yours (or someone else's here?) previous version to the effect: "if worst comes to worst you may always surrender, guys." Soldiers programmed this way would be plausibly slated to lose; and Rand, no doubt, understood this. 

To start it simple. Is it ever implied or known that entering the armed forces will certainly lead to one's death? In the world's worst conflict WW2, how many casualties were there in proportion to the total of all the Allied soldiers who participated, can you guess? I'll guess well below 20%.

"Unwilling to LIVE as the conquered slave" - you assume as "life or death" - where she obviously meant "Exist", in the normal sense.

Have you learned anything about Rand and self-sacrifice? Nobody who has, could accept as her premise that these men are going to throw their lives away with her blessing. Keep context in mind; this was the US military under moral and Constitutional law, not, well, South Africa or Zimbabwe. And coming in with "programmed" (to surrender) is far off base.

The "edit" is all yours Arkady. You're very wrong.

[Arkadi]

Peter: There is a personage in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, named Smedyakov, who gives a famous speech to the effect that it would have been better if Napoleon defeated Russia, for thus a "civilized" nation might have civilized an "uncivilized" one. But by what extant "civilized" nation would one wish the United States to be "civilized"?

[Arkadi]

Anthony: I did not get your point in this sentence: "Unwilling to LIVE as the conquered slave" - you assume as "life or death" - where she obviously meant "Exist", in the normal sense." Ok, I am all for paraphrasing it as: "EXISTENCE in freedom or death." Would this satisfy you? "Is it ever implied or known that entering the armed forces will certainly lead to one's death?"--Of course, not! But how is it implied in--or relevant to--anything I said! Thanks for citing my particular statement which, in you view, is falsified by this trivial fact which you're stressing.

[anthony]

"Hail Caesar! We who are about to die salute you!"

That's the "glory" of self-sacrifice in war you plainly respect, Arkady. You made it clear by the most un-"trivial fact" that you believe Rand to have passed a "great message" which you think was for men to choose death over life under slavery. On both counts, factual and moral, wrong. (By Rand's principles).

You are being most literal: 'unwilling to exist (live) under slavery' is (implicitly) why those soldiers entered the Army - i.e. to make maximum efforts to ensure it does not come about. At risk to their lives. In some as yet unforseen war. Even then, for a moral nation whose generals seldom have thrown lives away in battle for little purpose. A lot of implications which one can't put across in a speech.

At the end, however "unwilling" they are, their lives are still precious to themselves. At worst, an individual could -live- under slavery. Unwilling does not infer impossible.

I guess Rand might say to those Roman soldiers. Why are you about to die? Is it a moral war? Are your generals so ineffectual? Is the war irretrievably lost that you will die for certain? Are your deaths going to save Rome? Is Rome worth dying for if it claims lives as its due? Does patriotism over-ride individual life?

[Arkadi]

Anthony: ""Hail Caesar! We who are about to die salute you!" --That's the "glory" of self-sacrifice in war you plainly respect, Arkady."-- You are ascribing to me a view that I never held nor expressed, without even trying to show how it is implied by anything I said. I.e., just as you do with Rand, you're putting your words into my mouth. "You are being most literal: "unwilling to exist (live) under slavery" is (implicitly) why those soldiers entered the Army."--This "implication" is only in your mind, Anthony. The soldiers can enter the army for all kinds of reasons: from being in a desperate financial situation to aspiring to make it into college to willing to defend their civilization from external enemies. Rand's message was not about this but about the mindset with which to go into battle.  

[anthony]

21 hours ago, Arkadi said:

I was just drawing attention to the fact that Rand's message to those in the military is to prefer death over life in slavery. I believe this is a great message. I have no "concerns" about it.

I'm "ascribing" - or quoting?