Galt's Oath

[BaalChatzaf]

On 8/14/2016 at 3:52 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Sorry, but -10 degrees F below zero is not a negative except epistemologically speaking. The same for your acceleration/deceleration. "Negative electrical charges" connote something that exists. Everything that exists is actually positive metaphysically speaking.

A negative temperature is when you hit absolute zero and keep on going. That is literally impossible except in one's mind; there is nothing there. You cannot have less movement than no movement.

--Brant

Motion ceases  at absolute zero.  One cannot "keep on going".  Absolute zero is a temperature that cannot be  physically reached although people have come very close.  I think the current  value actually reached is half of one billionth of a degree Kelvin above absolute zero.  http://news.mit.edu/2003/cooling

[merjet]

16 hours ago, Don E. said:

merjet, thanks for elaborating. I do now see that your position is sincere, and I can sort of see where you're coming from, so I apologize for taking an accusatory tone earlier. But I still disagree with you. We may just have to agree to disagree. But I'll try to argue my side again.

Ditto to you.

16 hours ago, Don E. said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with the breach claim, in context. Could it have been worded better? You could make that argument, and I think that is your argument. I personally had no trouble understanding what she meant, because I was considering the entire context, so I would not ask her to reword it if I was given the chance. But, having said that, if you're asking me to rephrase it in my own words, expressing what I think she intended, I might put it like this:

"The altruist ethics holds that it is immoral for the actor to benefit from his own action, and that this is the only criterion of the morality of an action. In contrast, the Objectivist ethics holds that it is moral and proper for the actor to benefit from his own action; however, this is not the only, nor the primary, criterion in determining the morality of an action."

Do you agree with the above statement? And do you agree that's what she intended? 

Of course, I agree with the above. She says the same nearby in only slightly different words, to wit:

1. "Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil" (VoS, viii).

2. "The choice of the beneficiary of moral values is merely a preliminary or introductory issue in the field of morality.  .... Neither is it a moral primary" (VOS, x)

The breach claim is also on page x, immediately before #2.  On the other hand, your rewording doesn't use "breach" and she did.  The only thing I see worth keeping in her breach paragraph is "all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions." Deleting the rest would be a big improvement. I don't know what she intended with the rest beyond attacking (her idea of) "altruism". 

16 hours ago, Don E. said:

When we see a statement that might sound crazy or unreasonable in the Introduction, it's our job to continue to read, and see what she really meant. And if it still doesn't make sense, re-read and consider the context again, until we find the reasonable interpretation, if it exists. 

I read the entire book. There is nothing about breaches between actor and beneficiary after the Introduction.

16 hours ago, Don E. said:

Here's my theory about our different perspectives - correct me if I'm wrong. I think you're demanding a much higher precision from her writing than I am.

I agree.

16 hours ago, Don E. said:

So it seems like I place much more importance on context than you do - would you agree? I still believe you are omitting the context, and I still don't understand why you think it's ok to do so.

I don't agree. The context in my view is all of morality, which includes all kinds of human interactions, some of which she didn't address. What do you think the context is?

P.S. I found a way to improve my using multi-quote.   

[Brant Gaede]

12 hours ago, Don E. said:

Haha, sounds good. I've always been interested to hear rational people with reasonable arguments against Rand's ideas. Every criticism I've ever seen of her before has either misinterpreted her ideas, or been based on uninformed hearsay (i.e. people who have never even read her work, just heard that "it's all about selfishness"), or criticized her style rather than the substance, or attacked her as a person for insignificant things. And I've also heard the criticism that "you fall in love with Ayn Rand in high school, but then when you get into the real world, you grow out of her". And I've never understood how you can "grow out of" reason or reality. All of her ideas make sense to me, and seem to conform to reality. I fell in love 20 years ago, and I've continued to re-read her work since then, and I find it just as true and powerful as it was the first time. So I'm very interested to hear what parts of her philosophy people disagree with - reasonable people who have actually read and understood her ideas - and why. 

I've even attempted to read Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", because she referred to his philosophy so many times as basically the root of all evil. But I couldn't even read one chapter - I found it unreadable and nonsensical. This just made me appreciate Rand's writing even more - how she writes plainly and clearly, with reasonable arguments, and elaborates on her ideas, and gives examples, in a way anyone can understand it.

Now that I know I'm not among dishonest attackers here, I think I will enjoy getting a different perspective, and examining her ideas deeper, and seeing if my arguments hold up. 

Heh, heh. Have you considered I might be dishonest in order to suck you in?

I understand Kant's books to be compilations of his lectures. True? I don't know. I don't think Rand ever read much if any Kant. It's suspected she got her Kant from Preikoff while he was studying philosophy in graduate school under Sydney Hook. He got his PhD through him but no letter of recommendation for employment.

I was at the Bronx Community College in 1970 for one of her talks. An audience member directly asked her if she had ever read a book by Kant. She did not answer him but talked around the question for several minutes.

There are two ways to "grow out of Objectivism"--assuming you were in it in the first place--by discarding any one of the basic principles, usually in the ethics or politics, or working off those by way of elaboration and discarding the over-emphasis on absolutism and Utopianism. She was actually, through her art, fixiated on the perfect man in his perfect world. This does not work.

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

13 hours ago, Don E. said:

I've even attempted to read Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", because she referred to his philosophy so many times as basically the root of all evil. But I couldn't even read one chapter - I found it unreadable and nonsensical.

Peikoff talks about this topic in this podcast:  http://www.peikoff.com/2014/12/15/is-it-necessary-to-read-kant-in-order-to-denounce-him/

Here's a post on OL:  http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?/topic/14876-where-ayn-rand-learned-a-lot-of-philosophy/

I own A History of Philosophy by Windelband that I purchased from The Paper Tiger, there is some treatment of Kant I can see from looking in the index.  At some point in the future I plan to go through Peikoff's History of Philosphy lectures using Windelband's text as the backbone to the course.

[Wolf DeVoon]

19 hours ago, Don E. said:

I've never heard "bottom" as a synonym for "guts".

fortitude [seadict.com]  
a quality of character combining courage and staying
Related Words: courage, mettle, pith, resoluteness, resolution, spirit, stick-to-itiveness, tenacity; boldness, bravery, courageousness, dauntlessness, fearlessness, intrepidity, valiancy, valor, valorousness; endurance, stamina, strength; constancy, determination, perseverance; bottom

true grit [quora.com]
firmness of mind and unyielding courage.
synonyms: fortitude, determination, spunk, backbone, bottom, courage

891. COURAGE [tera-3.ul.cs.cmu.edu]
5. nerve, spunk, pluck, grit, sand, stamina, backbone, pith, mettle, bottom, game, guts, intestinal fortitude; heart, spirit; stout heart, heart of oak.

[Brant Gaede]

Wolfo hits [on] bottom.

[Don E.]

12 hours ago, merjet said:

I don't agree. The context in my view is all of morality, which includes all kinds of human interactions, some of which she didn't address. What do you think the context is?

The context I'm referring to is a.) the surrounding text, which, as you have acknowledged, contains more explanation of the beneficiary statement, b.) The rest of VOS, and c.) The rest of Ayn Rand's writing. Using all this context, I think it's easy to understand what she meant by the beneficiary/breach stuff. And clearly you do understand what she meant. And that's really my only goal when reading VOS, or any of her books - to understand her ideas. But it seems like you're interested in something more than that. You agreed that you are demanding more precision from her writing than I am. Can you elaborate on that, and explain what it is you're looking for, or trying to achieve, with your analysis? Because once we understand what she meant, as I think we both do, I'm not sure what else there is to do, or why we should continue to analyze and criticize. It might be a fun intellectual exercise, but I'm not sure what it gets us.

But anyway, I'm glad we've come to some level of agreement, at least.

[merjet]

8 hours ago, Don E. said:

You agreed that you are demanding more precision from her writing than I am. Can you elaborate on that, and explain what it is you're looking for, or trying to achieve, with your analysis? Because once we understand what she meant, as I think we both do, I'm not sure what else there is to do, or why we should continue to analyze and criticize. It might be a fun intellectual exercise, but I'm not sure what it gets us.

I was a math major in college and took several grad-level courses. My work, which included a lot of computer programming, called for clarity and precision. So my cognitive style is ingrained. I've already told you what I look for -- truth. I do not accept that "any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral"  is true. By true I mean corresponds with reality.

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

fortitude [seadict.com]  
a quality of character combining courage and staying
Related Words: courage, mettle, pith, resoluteness, resolution, spirit, stick-to-itiveness, tenacity; boldness, bravery, courageousness, dauntlessness, fearlessness, intrepidity, valiancy, valor, valorousness; endurance, stamina, strength; constancy, determination, perseverance; bottom

true grit [quora.com]
firmness of mind and unyielding courage.
synonyms: fortitude, determination, spunk, backbone, bottom, courage

891. COURAGE [tera-3.ul.cs.cmu.edu]
5. nerve, spunk, pluck, grit, sand, stamina, backbone, pith, mettle, bottom, game, guts, intestinal fortitude; heart, spirit; stout heart, heart of oak.

Bottom = a base or foundation in this context.  Grounding..... 

[turkeyfoot]

55 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Bottom = a base or foundation in this context.  Grounding..... 

I'll have some liquid courage. Bottoms up! Now that takes real cajones.

Literal translation for cajones is drawers.

Now, into the breach. )

I like that Merjet parses the VOS statements and finds problems with what had been written where I found none. Its like an advanced course in semantics. Ive often found Rands words extremely challenging. Theres a lot of emotional fuel for the fire of condemnation in them. When its broken down in this way, its somewhat easier to understand her pov and in this case I hadnt considered it before. So when he points out the polemical nature towards altruism and of, beneficiary/breach, and contrasts it with his example of the daughters braces I get it. Id have gotten  a lot less without DonE's input.

[anthony]

Plenty of place for polemics elsewhere, this is really basic.

To put it this way - if a man isn't receiving the full, uninterrupted, due reward of his productivity, he exists under (at least) a partial servitude.

To Rand I suppose, there can be no compromise - he is a slave, period, existing by the permission of looters. Doesn't matter if he planted potatoes, advances his knowledge, authors a book or starts a business - "man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions".

Values versus sacrifice. Merjet approached this from the wrong end, as I did for a while, getting confused between "actors" and "beneficiaries". How was Rand stating or indictating that a child, say, should not get, say, braces from her parents?! What sort of a "rational selfishness" is that?! That's crass egotism, and sacrifice of value.

But it is exactly with regard to and in honour of a moral individual's values that she made her statement - undoubtedly. "Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions..."(she prefaces the rest).

(Your values - persons and entities - will also suffer and be sacrificed, if you aren't receiving the benefits of your effort).

Her statement is only (what could be called) the ~practical~ derivation or end result of her morality, and so she said it is "not a moral *primary*.

[Peter]

I think we talked about this sort of thing back in 2011. Here is an edited reprint of mine.

 

I do not want any modern guardian of the Politically Correct to change her fictional or essay writings, editing out smoking, or something else deemed not quite right by today’s standards. Someone, if not Mr. Binswanger, editor of “The Ayn Rand Lexicon, will someday create an Objectivist Lexicon based on the Philosophy of Ayn Rand which will modify its stance on abortion and other issues. It will occur. Life marches on. Science marches on. Philosophy marches on. More knowledge is acquired at an ever accelerating rate. Rand is our heritage, but she demanded that we think for ourselves, so we little “o” objectivists need a better, contextual lexicon.

 

George H. Smith wrote on page 77 of "WHY ATHEISM?": A contextual theory of knowledge, in my judgment, must strike a delicate balance between relativism and absolutism. And this is precisely why we should retain the traditional view that knowledge is justified *and* true belief. Justification is relative, whereas truth is absolute. That is to say, what counts as adequate justification for a belief may be relative to the available evidence and one’s context of knowledge, whereas the truth of a belief is absolute. A proposition either corresponds to a fact or it does not, and this matter has nothing to do with the relative justification for a belief . . . ." end quote

 

What Ayn Rand considered to be a part of her philosophy may differ from what the Ayn Rand Institute and The Objectivist Center, consider parts of her philosophy. Here are some of her debatable positions.

 

One. Abortion at any time during a pregnancy is the right of a woman and she has that right until the baby is born naturally, which means she has a right to a dead baby through abortion. I won’t argue with that medieval view unless asked.

 

Two. Women as Presidents (or political leaders in general). In the January 1968 issue of *McCall's* magazine, Rand wrote, "A woman cannot reasonably want to be a commander-in-chief."  A year later in January 1969, Rand wrote an article entitled "About a Woman President" for *The Objectivist* (which appeared in the December 1968 issue and was later reprinted in her anthology, *The Voice of Reason* (1988).  In that article, she again stated, "I do not think that a rational woman can want to be president." [*The Voice of Reason*, p. 267] She also stated that being president "for a rational woman would be an unbearable situation," adding, "And if she is not rational, she is unfit for the presidency or for any important position, anyway." [Ibid., p. 269]

 

I think that Rand's views on this issue also qualify as a part of her philosophy, since what she regards as "rational" and "not rational" are a part of it.  Again, however, it is the position of ARI that Rand's views on a woman president are NOT part of her philosophy.

 

Because Rand's view on a female president are so out of step with contemporary enlightened thinking, Objectivist organizations are in denial about them.  Rather than admit that she was wrong, they prefer to deny that her views on these subjects are part of her philosophy, thereby conveying the impression that Objectivism is a cult of personality in which the founder's philosophy must be seen as infallible.

 

Three.  Air Pollution. In her article, "The Left: Old and New" in *The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution*, Rand wrote: As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem.  In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is *proved*, the law can and does hold him responsible.  If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and *objective* laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved -- as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc." [p. 89]

 

Based on this statement, I would say that air pollution is addressed by her philosophy only insofar as pollution can be seen as infringing on individual rights. But we all live in the environment, breath the planet's air,  and many of us with wells drink from the aquafer.

 

Four. cigarette smoking . Some of Ayn Rand’s characters smoked. She glamorized it in her book, “Atlas Shrugged.” I would say that whether or not Objectivism considers it rational to smoke depends on the context of a person's life and on the degree to which he or she engages in the practice, and that smoking is a bad decision, health wise. All action involves risk from driving a car to taking an elevator.  Recently at a high school writing contest involving Atlas Shrugged was stopped because of parent’s concern about the books glamorization of smoking.

 

Five. Beethoven's sense of life and how music does or does not convey a rational sense of life. Rand is on record as stating that, unlike the visual arts, an objective esthetics of music has yet to be rationally demonstrated. Some East Indian citizens proved to her satisfaction that though she disliked classical Indian music in was as complex as Western Classical Music and founded on similar mathematical principles. 

 

Six. Homosexuality. During a Q&A session following a lecture in 1971, a questioner said to Rand that she "read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral."  The questioner then asked, "If this is so, why?"

 

Rand answered: Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality.  Therefore I regard it as immoral.  But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it.  It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it.  That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone.  And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally.  Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting." end quote

 

Fan of Rand, Bill Dwyer wrote: Since Rand labeled homosexuality "immoral" - and since ethics is a branch of Objectivism - I think it is reasonable to infer that her views on that subject *are* a part of her philosophy, although the current position of both ARI and TOC is that Objectivism does NOT regard homosexuality as immoral. end quote

[merjet]

anthony: "Plenty of place for polemics elsewhere, this is really basic."

VoS contains plenty of polemics, especially the Introduction.

anthony: "Merjet approached this from the wrong end, as I did for a while, getting confused between "actors" and "beneficiaries"." 

I disagree except about you being confused.

[anthony]

32 minutes ago, merjet said:

anthony: "Plenty of place for polemics elsewhere, this is really basic."

VoS contains plenty of polemics, especially the Introduction.

anthony: "Merjet approached this from the wrong end, as I did for a while, getting confused between "actors" and "beneficiaries"." 

I disagree that I am confused; you being confused I won't contest.

You'll have to do better than that. Please criticize my last post in detail in your complete response.

"How was Rand stating or indicating that a child should not get braces from her parents?" ??

"Man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions". To make yourself clear, what do you interpret this to mean?

[merjet]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

You'll have to do better than that. Please criticize my last post in detail in your complete response.

"How was Rand stating or indicating that a child should not get braces from her parents?" ??

"Man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions". To make yourself clear, what do you interpret this to mean?

I've already answered those questions.

[anthony]

"If it is true that what I mean by "selfishness" is not what is meant conventionally, then ~this~ is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altrusim ~permits no concept~ of a self-respecting, self-supporting man--a man who supports his life by his own effort [..] It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals...as victims and parasites[...] that it permits no existence of a benevolent coexistence among men--that it permits no concept of *justice*. [AR's preamble]

[...]

The reason why man needs a moral code will tell you that...*concern with his own interests* is the essence of a moral existence, and that *man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions*.

"Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice; the sacifice of some men to others, of the actors to the non-actors, of the moral to the immoral.

 

----

There's enough of the context, merjet - Rand's argument arrives at a principle based on other principles (justice, values, benevolence, self-respect, sacrifice), therefore the principle must be treated ~conceptually~ and taken in whole, as one concept. The reader has to trace it back along conceptual chains, to 1. compare it to Rand's complete writings to see how well it integrates, and 2. compare it for congruence with the reality he knows. Being inductive and conceptual, I think it is not something that can be empirically validated or invalidated. I can only imagine that one either recognizes its truth and agrees unreservedly, or does not. Would you please make your reservations clear?

[Peter]

A tear is the quickest wetness to dry. Roman saying.

 

Tony wrote: The reason why man needs a moral code will tell you that...*concern with his own interests* is the essence of a moral existence, and that *man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions*. end quote

 

Rand’s philosophy is a nuanced lesson that can never be divorced from reality. I previously wrote, “. . . I would say that air pollution is addressed by her philosophy only insofar as pollution can be seen as infringing on individual rights. But we all live in the environment and many of us with wells drink from the aquafer. “

 

Individual rights is still my basis for defining an opposition to pollution though I would make the case that there should be an overriding dictum that no one should pollute, even if *no one* appears to be immediately harmed or if no one brings suit against an enterprise. This is NOT my way of supporting a “green agenda” of no growth, no industry and no free property. However, I am thinking of long term affects such as slag from mining, long term accidental radioactivity as from Chernobyl and even the century’s long storage of radioactive materials in far-away places like Antarctica.

 

A similar dilemma that has been discussed in years past, is the morality of asteroid mining, if a rock is pushed into an intercept course with earth or a human outpost, even if the collision will not occur for a thousand . . . or a million years.

Peter

[Peter]

I am having trouble signing out, and printing letters. What's up? Suddenly it worked.

 

I typed in oath and found a few interesting letters and I happened to run across something from Merlin about “imperialism” which was fascinating.

Peter

 

From: BBfromM. To: atlantis@wetheliving.com, Subject: ATL: In case anyone thought I was exaggerating . . . Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 21:37:23 EDT .This is from Harry Binswanger's announcement of his discussion group, The Harry Binswanger List.

 

Philosophic issues:

The HBL is primarily for Objectivists. Full agreement with Objectivism is not required, but certain people are excluded--see the Loyalty Oath below. You need not sign or return it. If you join the list, that indicates your agreement with its provisions.

 

The HBL Loyalty Oath: I have created this list for those who are deeply and sincerely interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and its application to cultural-political issues. It is understood that Objectivism is limited to the philosophic principles expounded by Ayn Rand in the writings published during her lifetime plus those articles by other authors that she published in her own periodicals (e.g., The Objectivist) or included in her anthologies. Applications, implications, developments, and extensions of Objectivism--though they are to be encouraged and will be discussed on my list--are not, even if entirely valid, part of Objectivism. (Objectivism does not exhaust the field of rational philosophic identifications.) I do not make full agreement with Objectivism a condition of joining my list. However, I do exclude anyone who is sanctioning or supporting the enemies of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. "Enemies" include: "libertarians," moral agnostics or "tolerationists," anarchists, and those whom Ayn Rand condemned or who have written books or articles attacking Ayn Rand. I do not wish to publicize the myriad of anti-Objectivist individuals and organizations by giving names, so if you have questions about any such, email me privately and I will be glad to discuss it with you. If you bristle at the very idea of a "loyalty oath" and declaring certain ideological movements and individuals as "enemies," then my list is probably not for you. To join my list while concealing your sanction or support of these enemies, would be to commit a fraud. Again, if you have any questions on this policy, please let me know.

Barbara

 

From: BBfromM @ atlantis Subject: ATL: In case anyone thought I was exaggerating. . .

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 07:59:51 EDT

By the way, you'll notice that Binswanger does not include liberals, socialists, communists, fascists, nudists, theists, antiabortionists, single-taxers, environmentalists, flat-earth people, Ku Klux Klanners, or Jehovah's witness in his list of "enemies of Objectivism."  Oh, well, I guess he only chose the most important and dangerous groups to include, those that are a real threat to Objectivism.

 

The reason Binswanger does ask that every member of what obviously will be a very spirited and spontaneous group to sign the loyalty oath is this: years ago, when Peikoff required a similar and signed loyalty oath as the price of admission to his lectures-- an oath which included the proviso that the students agreed not to buy or read anything written or taped by Nathaniel or me -- is that Peikoff's lawyer told him it was against the law.

Barbara

 

From: "William Dwyer" To: <Atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: In case anyone thought I was exaggerating. . . Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 08:44:32 -0700

Can you imagine what a new student of Objectivism would be likely to think of this requirement for attendance at Peikoff's lectures (even assuming that it were legal, and of course it should be)?

 

Just imagine that you've become interested in a new school of thought, and are invited to a series of lectures by the promoter.  You arrive at the lecture site, and are greeted by a humorless drone, who hands you a piece of paper, which states that in signing up for the lectures, you agree never to read the works of a popular psychologist.

 

Even assuming that you'd never heard of Nathaniel Branden or read his works, what would your reaction be?  It would most certainly be, "This is the nuttiest thing I've ever heard! These people are kooks!"  Had Peikoff actually succeeded in implementing this requirement, Objectivism would quickly be lumped in the same camp as Scientology, which is notorious for its scary intimidation and legal harassment.

 

The only people that Peikoff would succeed in attracting under these bizarre circumstances would be his loyal camp followers.  No reasonably sane newcomer would ever enroll.

 

And Matt Kramer wonders if Objectivism will take over the world!  Not if we continue to clone the Peikoff's, Binswangers and Stubblefields!

Bill

 

From: "William Dwyer" to Atlantis

Subject: Re: ATL: In case anyone thought I was exaggerating. . .

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 10:25:20 -0700

Barbara Branden wrote,

"The reason Binswanger does ask that every member of what obviously will be a very spirited and spontaneous group to sign the loyalty oath is this: years ago, when Peikoff required a similar and signed loyalty oath as the price of admission to his lectures-- an oath which included the proviso that the students agreed not to buy or read anything written or taped by Nathaniel or me -- is that Peikoff's lawyer told him it was against the law."

 

a.d. smith replied,

>I'm ROTFL over the irony of an Objectivist and alleged defender of capitalism violating the common law prohibition on restraint of trade. HA. >

 

However ill-advised or at variance with common law Peikoff's requirement was, it was not antithetical to Objectivism, which holds that one has a right to set conditions on the sale of one's product.  Peikoff could argue that his loyalty oath was no more an example of restraint of trade than are copyright laws, which Objectivism supports.

Bill

 

From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca>

To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: The Peikoff Lectures, plus AR - Barbara

Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 13:22:46 -0500

Barbara,

I was the Winnipeg Lessee of Peikoff's lectures for many years, from the first to the last audio series he offered.  There was never any such loyalty oath required by me or by any student who enrolled.  What he did at live lectures in NY, I do not know.

 

Plus:  I want to thank you for offering your memories of experiences about Ayn Rand's personal associations and friendships with homosexuals.  Because people do not understand the content and context of her public statement about homosexuality, they appear to assume that she always treated anyone with that sexual orientation as an immoral and disgusting person.  Obviously from what you say, that was never the case with people she knew personally.  In other words, she treated people respectfully as a whole person with values to admire - until she knew they were not.

 

Thank you for making this clear to everyone on this list, i.e., that she was indeed rational and objective about individuals as she judged them to be pro-life and value oriented, or not.

Ellen

 

From: Ellen Moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Addendum re:loyalty oaths -- re:Robert Hessen

Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 15:29:03 -0500

Members, I recall an experience with Robert Hessen's loyalty oath proposal that never came to fruition.  At the time I was presenting the Peikoff Lectures, Robert offered a lecture series he was planning on History.  I wrote to apply to host his audio series and I received the proposed contract.

 

It stated his contractual conditions were that - no one who attacked Ayn Rand or Objectivism, and no one who supported the Branden's either directly or indirectly [after Rand repudiated them] would be allowed to attend his audio lecture series.  In other words, I was to judge each applicant on that basis, and I would be right to refuse their enrollment or oust them, money paid back, if I discovered they were attackers or supporters as per the above conditions.

 

This was after Rand had declared that the two Branden's were NOT "spoke persons" for her or for Objectivism.  Nathaniel had, after the break, published lectures, "The Philosophy of Objectivism", in association with a business group called "Academics Associates".  In other words, he defied Rand's declaration, and he is often taken by some since then to be a "spokesman" for Objectivism whether he is or not.

 

Finally, my negotiations with Robert Hessen came to naught because he never produced the proposed audio taped lecture series.  When I met him in person it was at The Jefferson School Conference [owned by Edith Packer and George Reisman] in 1983 in San Diego.  I found  Robert Hessen to be the most friendly, warm hearted, kindly, and likable of all the "Objectivists" I ever met.  Andy Bernstein and George Walsh would come next in personal likability, in my personal view.

 

I agree with the views of Bill Dwyer as expressed here -- that anyone has the right to set their conditions on any contract they offer, and the other parties can decide to accept the conditions, or go their own way.

Ellen

 

From: BBfromM@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: In case anyone thought I was exaggerating. . .

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:02:11 EDT

 

Peter Reidy wrote:

<Did the lawyer actually say it was against the law, [Peikoff's loyalty oath that forbade people to read or buy or listen to books or tapes created by Nathaniel or me] or simply that it was unenforceable?  In the former case, was this restraint of trade, as some on the list have suggested?>>

 

I had heard that the lawyer said it was against the law -- presumably on the grounds of restraint of trade; but I'm not certain since I didn't see the lawyer's letter to Peikoff. Whatever the reason, Peikoff immediately stopped requiring this loyalty oath.

 

Barbara

 

 

From: "William Dwyer to wetheliving.com>Subject: RE: OWL: British Imperialism was bad?

Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 01:32:18 -0700. On 4/17, Allen Costell wrote, "The essence of all forms of imperialism is unjust domination, and that's evil."

 

Not true. “Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary” (1963) defines "imperialism" as: "The policy, practice or advocacy of extending the power or dominion of a nation esp. by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas." There is nothing in this definition about the dominion's being unjust.

 

“The American Heritage Dictionary” (1991) defines "imperialism" as: “The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations." There is nothing in “this” definition about the hegemony's being unjust. "Hegemony" is defined by the same dictionary as "the predominant influence of one state over others." Accordingly, there is nothing unjust about U.S. imperialism when it is used to defeat tyranny and defend the rights of the oppressed. It is important to remember that the right of self-determination is an “individual”, not a collective right.  A nation, like Iraq, that violates the rights of its citizens has no right of self-determination - despite what hordes of clueless protestors around the world are claiming.

-- Bill

 

From: "merjet" To: wetheliving.com> Subject: Re: OWL: British Imperialism was bad?

Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:26:11 -0500

Allen Costell wrote: >First, British imperialism was not motivated by benevolence.  The British controlled India because of the possible economic and political benefits, not out of a desire to help Indians.  Any beneficial consequences of British rule are secondary to their main goal of profit and power at the expense of dignity and human rights.

 

In short, Costell complains because the British were not altruists.

 

>Second, and a point that ought not need be mentioned, the enslavement and control of another human being is evil.

 

The British did not "enslave" the Indians. British colonialism wasn't all good -- what broad movement is? But British colonialism introduced railroads to the rest of the world, largely by building and manning them themselves. The British role in shipping by sea was no less dramatic. As late as 1912 Britain carried more than half of the goods ships by sea. Plenty more was done by the British Empire for industry and commerce.

 

On the political front, freedom and common law, wherever it exists in the world today, owes much to developments in Britain. Another great British-led development was the destruction of international slave trading, and then slavery itself. This was when slavery was entrenched throughout the world and had been for centuries. (Thomas Sowell, Conquests and Cultures) Does Costell wish us to believe the Indians would be a free people w/o British "oppression"? Think again, and recognize the caste system, especially the untouchables, and the treatment of women and children.

 

>So to point out that there were ways in which imperialism had some good results is, at best, misguided.  The essence of all forms of imperialism is unjust domination, and that's evil.  Those who seek defend imperialism, even indirectly, ought to rethink their position.

 

So pointing out facts you don't like is "misguided". So we should ignore any facts you wish to ignore because they don't fit your agenda? Also, those who carelessly fling labels ought to rethink their position. Calling the British Empire "imperialism" to taint it with other instances of imperialism, such as by military conquest, is simply name calling. By 1912 the British Empire had about 400,000,000 British living abroad with a military of about 120,000! (Thomas Sowell, Conquests and Cultures).

Best regards, Merlin Jetton

[Peter]

It’s a slow day. Let’s see if OL will let me post and withdraw on the first try. edit. I puttered around for a few minutes, in and out, go to a different topic and finally was able to post. 

 

I found some fragments of letters in my files.

Peter

 

Barbara Branden wrote about Consequentialists and this could also apply to some Libertarians and people who have read but disagree with Ayn Rand in fundamental ways:

 

“The defenders of Consequentialism (which I see as a species of Utilitarianism applied to individuals) do appear to grant that human rights supersede considerations of short or long-range benefits to individuals. But why is that?  It's because the concept of rights derives from the nature of man. And so does the Objectivist moral code.  Morality, according to Objectivism, derives from the fact that we survive to the extent that we exercise reason. The monsters of this earth are not evil because they misperceive their self-interest, but because they are anti-life, anti-reason, anti-man.

 

(It's relevant to add, in response to I forget whom, that the word "evil" is one I almost never use, except for axe-murderers and their equivalents.  I always intensely disliked the fact that the word was thrown at people so recklessly and unfairly in the early days of Objectivism, and sometimes in the not-so-early days.)” end quote

 

Barbara Branden wrote: In answer to my question, Jeff R wrote: <Basically what Szasz says about depression is what he says about all "mental illness" -- that there is, strictly speaking, no such thing; that what we are really talking about here is problems in living and the different ways different people deal with them. Calling "depression" a "mental illness" or a "medical condition" is to “medicalize" unjustifiably an emotional reaction to the problems in one's life and one's estimate of one's ability to deal with them. In Heresies (1976), he defines "depression" as "self-accusation and self-pity." >>

 

If Szasz is correct, and since you agree with him, how would you explain the fact that antidepressant medication has saved the lives of many people who were so depressed that they were considering suicide? And that in less extreme cases, the medication alone -- without therapy and without intensive self-analysis -- has lifted the depression and restored people to their normal state. One could say that such people recovered because they believed they would recover, but there is no real evidence of this. Depressed people who thought that nothing could alleviate their misery, found that the medication, to their surprise, did just that.

 

You quote Szasz, as follows: <<Consider the millionaire who finds himself financially ruined because of business reverses.  How shall we explain his "depression" (if we so want to label his feeling of dejection)?  By regarding it as the result of the events mentioned, and perhaps of others in his childhood?  Or as the expression of his view of himself and of his powers in the world, present and future?  To choose the former is to redefine ethical conduct as psychiatric malady.>>

 

But very often prolonged depression occurs in the absence of any unusual negative events in one's life, and in the absence of any discernible cause. Life was pretty much going along as usual -- until depression hit. There may very well have been a number of difficulties in one's life before the depression hit, but not ones the equivalent of which had not occurred before without causing significant depression.

 

A great many people commonly experience self-pity, even wallow in it – but that does not necessarily result in severe depression. And people who do rarely experience significant self-pity have experienced serious depression.

 

I am not suggesting that prolonged and deep depression is a psychological malady. Quite the opposite. I wonder -- because the above issues I raised seem to point to it -- if it is not almost totally the result of an aberrant brain chemistry. Depression, not necessarily severe, almost always is a problem that begins in youth and continues on and off throughout ones life if one does not take antidepressant medication.

 

I have read, although I don't know if it's true -- and this might contradict the idea that ONLY brain chemistry is involved -- that depression is quite common among writers. For instance, William Styron, who was almost physically, emotionally, and intellectually paralyzed by it. And many other great writers, throughout the centuries, have also experienced severe and prolonged depression. For instance, Ayn Rand. Her  disappointment in the reception to ATLAS SHRUGGED and her break with and disappointment with

Nathaniel (and with me, to a lesser degree) could be taken as the causes; but she had experienced much worse in her life -- such as the constant fear of imminent arrest and death in Russia, years of semi-starvation, and the loss of Leo, the young man who was her first and passionate love – without sinking into depression. She was unhappy over these events, terribly unhappy, but that is not the same thing as depression.

 

Another possibility is that the chemistry of the brain -- or, at least, of some brains -- can handle a great deal of pain and unhappiness, but then it breaks down at some point when even a more minor unhappiness, that one would otherwise take in one's stride, has a cumulative effect that the physical brain cannot handle.

 

As is obvious, I am thinking on paper as I write. But Jeff -- and George – I am very interested in your reactions.

Barbara

 

From: BBfromM@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Question for BB, NB or others...

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:34:45 EST

 

Tom Devine asked:

<<In what ways did Ayn Rand's fiction reflect her own suffering?  Are Roark and Galt's painful isolation from their loved ones a reflection of Rand's own melancholy?  Is there particular significance to be found in the fact that her work glorified happiness to such an extreme while she experienced so little happiness in her own life? Is there special meaning to her romanticizing of smoking in her fiction in regards to her own bad habit?>>

 

These are very interesting questions, to which I'm happy to respond.

 

1. <<In what ways did Ayn Rand's fiction reflect her own suffering?>>

 

I think that, especially in ATLAS SHRUGGED, it did reflect her own growing bitterness and near despair with the state of the culture. Fiction is autobiography, whether the writer intends it or not. And as she grew more bitter, so did her work. Yet, in all of her fiction, including ATLAS, one sees her unconquerable worship of joy that I believe was more basic to her than any suffering or bitterness. The external world created the suffering; Ayn Rand created the love of joy.

 

2. <<Are Roark and Galt's painful isolation from their loved ones a reflection of Rand's own melancholy?>>

 

I don't think so. They are, instead, a reflection of her love of drama and conflict in fiction. If there is also an autobiographical element, I believe it was a reflection of her own isolation in different ways from the men she loved in her lifetime.

 

3.  <<Is there particular significance to be found in the fact that her work glorified happiness to such an extreme while she experienced so little happiness in her own life? >>

 

No, I don't believe the two are retial part of her view of life, both philosophically and personally. Let me add that I would not say she experienced <<so little happiness in her own life.>> But her happiness came mostly from her work, much less so from her personal relationships. Although her early years with Frank O'Connor and her early months with Nathaniel Branden brought her much joy. As did her friendship with Nathaniel and with me, and later with the collective.

 

4. <<Is there special meaning to her romanticizing of smoking in her fiction in regards to her own bad habit?>>

 

Not directly. She truly saw smoking as <<fire tamed at man's fingertips>> which is probably why she began smoking when she did. And she did not see her habit as a bad one; in the years in which she glorified smoking, much less was known about it than is known today, and it was not unreasonable for her to say that there was no scientific proof that smoking was dangerous to one's health.

Barbara

[anthony]

On 2016/08/18 at 0:16 AM, anthony said:

 Would you please make your reservations clear?

Okay. Not to bother, as usual I''ll answer to myself.

At first read many years ago, Tony, you 'knew' exactly what Rand meant in those passages. You saw the picture. Then later, with second-guessing and with others' commentary and interpretations came doubts, ambivalence and uncertainty.

"Man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions".

hmm. MUST be. Moral actions. Beneficiary?

So, how's this -- whatever (whatever) our egoist does - he must always gain something out of it directly? Is that what she says?

If he chose to donate to charity, he MUST still benefit ...  Ah, right. he'll receive a State tax deduction and he will get good publicity and others' acclaim.

And if he lays out money to put his children through college ... ah, with their education they will one day reciprocate and support him in his old age!

Then to outlay on something 'superficial' and 'inessential' for his child, of little beneficial use to him-personally? Well, no, sorry. No can do.

Etc.

From there you went through a confused, subjective and skewed - and narrow - interpretation of "rational selfishness". Reprising, it's easy to see now that I needed to stick firmly to my initial 'guns', to trust myself and to give Rand that "charitable read" - no charity at all, actually, only to read her exact words, exactly and clearly.

The mistakes: I dropped context, badly. (To start that passage Rand leads with an indictment of altruism, in which men can only end up either "sacrificial animals" or "profiteers on sacrifice"). Then I ignored and down played the centrality of the concept of "value". Then, I misperceived "moral actions". All in all, I gave AR a superficial interpretation for a period.

But if contained under one concept as I first did, it comes together in the only way Rand meant and possibly could mean.

Roughly. One's "moral' - i.e. rational, selfish, honest, creative, *productive* - actions, are the ONLY source of one's capability to sustain one's human, material and spiritual values, and that source is not ever to be self-sacrificed, if one has value in one's life and values. Nor, to be sacrificed, interrupted and robbed by the claims and coercion of others. It would constitute an immense injustice against life and values to do so. (Note how the insertion of "productive" shifts the meaning).

Precise, elegant and succinct, by Rand:- "...man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions. Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice".

It turns completely on the meaning of *value*, as well as of *moral actions*, I think. If the meanings, painstakingly set out in her further writing in VoS, are disregarded, Rand's statement can indicate anything, anytime to anyone and take one way off course. Thanks Tony, that helps a lot.

 

 

[Peter]

Tony, standing before the Roman Senate spoke in a voice not unlike Cicero’s: From there you went through a confused, subjective and skewed - and narrow - interpretation of "rational selfishness". Reprising, it's easy to see now that I needed to stick firmly to my initial 'guns', to trust myself and to give Rand that "charitable read" - no charity at all, actually, only to read her exact words, exactly and clearly. end quote

 

And this sort of analyses is why we are so attached to this thread.

Peter

 

OPAR pages 138-139. The principal of “Rand’s Razor.” A razor is a principle that slashes off a whole category of false and/or useless ideas. Rand’s Razor is addressed to anyone who enters the field of philosophy. It states: “name your primaries.” Identify your starting points, including the concepts you take to be irreducible, and then establish that these ‘are’ objective axioms. Put negatively: do not begin to philosophize in midstream. Do not begin with some derivative concept or issue, while ignoring its roots, however much such issue interests you. Philosophical knowledge, too, is hierarchical.  end quote

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

"Philosophical knowledge, too, is hierarchical."

I'm sick of all these old cliches, get me some new ones! (Sam Goldwyn)

[merjet]

Tony pats himself on the back. 478 words. The word breach appears once, quoting Ayn Rand. Oh, my.  

[Brant Gaede]

9 hours ago, Peter said:

Tony, standing before the Roman Senate spoke in a voice not unlike Cicero’s: From there you went through a confused, subjective and skewed - and narrow - interpretation of "rational selfishness". Reprising, it's easy to see now that I needed to stick firmly to my initial 'guns', to trust myself and to give Rand that "charitable read" - no charity at all, actually, only to read her exact words, exactly and clearly. end quote

 

And this sort of analyses is why we are so attached to this thread.

Peter

 

OPAR pages 138-139. The principal of “Rand’s Razor.” A razor is a principle that slashes off a whole category of false and/or useless ideas. Rand’s Razor is addressed to anyone who enters the field of philosophy. It states: “name your primaries.” Identify your starting points, including the concepts you take to be irreducible, and then establish that these ‘are’ objective axioms. Put negatively: do not begin to philosophize in midstream. Do not begin with some derivative concept or issue, while ignoring its roots, however much such issue interests you. Philosophical knowledge, too, is hierarchical.  end quote

The only "Razor" I know Rand mentioning was Occam's, and without attribution.

--Brant

[merjet]

Occam's razor.   Rand's razor.