What Objectivism means (or meant) to a non-objectivist.

[Mike11]

Well then. Ahem. Um.

[tjohnson]

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

I think morality comes into play when we do something that we have a desire to do but we have been taught is "wrong" or "bad". So I think there needs to be this element of disobeying or going against some creed or dogma in immorality. So at the root of 'morality' I think we find basic human desires which have historically caused social problems for man and in an effort to address these we created creeds, dogma, commandments, etc. but without any scientific basis in them (even Scientology ).

[John Dailey]

Mike11:

~ Some people, on varied subjects, just have to allow the "Whoosh!" factor to be accepted re somone's ideas on subject-X. I have to re the math behind (aka 'proving') Einstein's ideas; I accept those ideas because...apart from their supporting math...they-make-sense (to me.) If they didn't, I would neither accept them, nor even argue about them; they'd be rejected because...no(n)sense. Some still see Al's ideas this way (not many physicists, btw, whatever their internal squabbles about it.)

~ I have the same "Whoosh!" factor re all the arguings over the details about Evolution...and even the 'Big Bang.' But, what makes sense to me, at whatever 'level' of understanding, does so; what doesn't (like, Scientology), doesn't.

~ If O'ism makes no sense to you...drop it. I don't find the worth of spending time to argue-for-the-sake-of-arguing (there's a name for such) in Scientology or Xian circles.

LLAP

J:D

[Barbara Branden]

I came very late to this thread, so I am responding to a early post.

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote: "I consider morality a condition that arises from the fact the humans live in families and communities. True hermit humans are so rare as to be negligible. Morality and ethics is about how to relate to others."

Relations with other human beings are logically derivative; how one relates is a function of one's character and one's values, which is a moral issue -- and has nothing to do with being a hermit. Surely you would not say that a man who consistentlly deludes himself, who lies to himself about his motives, who refuses to look at or accept facts, who tells himself he is a hero when in fact he is not, who choses his convictions by whim and his actions by reading tea leaves, is a moral man. I think you would not, totally apart from how he dealt with others. (Although, of course, such a psychology would destroy the possibility of his having fulfilling relationships with others -- or of having any relationships, for that matter.)

Rand defined a moral code as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions -- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." Certainly morality pertains to how we deal with other men, but the nature of those relationships is the result of one's moral code, not its essence. We need a moral code, not primarily to determine how we deal with others, but to determine how we deal with reality.

You also wrote: "I also consider aesthetics purely subjective. A matter of taste. One man's Rembrant is another man's Picasso."

Although I do not agree with much of the so-called"Objectivist esthetics," and although I think much work has yet to be done before objective criteria in the arts can fully be established, still, do you really believe it to be a purely subjective matter, not open to debate or judgment, whether one responds positively to Michaelangelo or Jackson Pollock, to Wagner or heavy metal, to Shakespeare or the scripts of soap operas, to the poetry of Swinburne or to doggerel? I doubt it.

Barbara

[BaalChatzaf]

Rand defined a moral code as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions -- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." Certainly morality pertains to how we deal with other men, but the nature of those relationships is the result of one's moral code, not its essence. We need a moral code, not primarily to determine how we deal with others, but to determine how we deal with reality.

On a desert island, morality is a non-issue. Focusing one's wits to survival is the issue. Since (by definition) there is no one to wrong, a moral issue simply cannot arise. Mistakes can happen. Moral breaches cannot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Although I do not agree with much of the so-called"Objectivist esthetics," and although I think much work has yet to be done before objective criteria in the arts can fully be established, still, do you really believe it to be a purely subjective matter, not open to debate or judgment, whether one responds positively to Michaelangelo or Jackson Pollock, to Wagner or heavy metal, to Shakespeare or the scripts of soap operas, to the poetry of Swinburne or to doggerel? I doubt it.

Barbara

In Latin it is said -- de gustibus non disputandem est. Even so there will always be arguments over matters of taste. But there will be no rational or objective basis for settling them. They are purely matters of opinion. What laws of Nature determine what is beautiful and what is ugly? Without sentient beings about such arguments cannot arise. If there is an objective basis for preferring one thing to another, it can only arise from the process of sentience itself. Insensate nature literally cannot care about what is beautiful and what is ugly.

The closest thing to an objective preference I have seen is a statistical bias in favor of rectangles whose sides are in the so-called Golden Ratio. And that preference is not universal or unanimous. It seems to have some statistic preponderance. Cultural biases have not been eliminated.

At this juncture no one has put forth an empirically testable theory relating sentience to beauty that holds up. All it takes is one dissenting opinion to blow up any such theory. I think -La Gioconda- (the Mona Lisa) is butt ugly. But that is just my opinion. What do I know?

Write us when such a theory has been formulated and verified. Until then, it is all a matter of taste.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Write us when such a theory has been formulated and verified. Until then, it is all a matter of taste.

Bob,

Fortunately for all of us, you are not the authority who can dictate that.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Rand defined a moral code as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions -- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." Certainly morality pertains to how we deal with other men, but the nature of those relationships is the result of one's moral code, not its essence. We need a moral code, not primarily to determine how we deal with others, but to determine how we deal with reality.

I certainly agree that man needs a code of values of some sort to orient himself but I think it is a mistake to use the term 'morality' in this regard. This term has definite religious, dogmatic connotations and so is unfit for objective, general use. If the goal is to be as objective as possible then we should avoid terms that induce emotional, subjective reactions, like 'morality'. What you are talking about could be called a general theory of proper evaluation, which is what General Semantics happens to be.

[BaalChatzaf]

Write us when such a theory has been formulated and verified. Until then, it is all a matter of taste.

Bob,

Fortunately for all of us, you are not the authority who can dictate that.

Michael

I dictate nothing. I note an absence of a well founded empirically testable theory of beauty.

Is there is an empirically testable theory of beauty? Please cite journal articles indicating what it is.

Without a genuine scientific theory of beauty, beauty is a matter of opinion.

There is Science. And there is everything else. Anything that is not science is either opinion or stamp collecting.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

Physics begets Engineering which begets Technology which is the only thing that is going to keep our nation competitive in the world economy.

This is simply not true. The history of science and technology offers counterevidence in great abundance. Start with The Ancient Engineers by L. Sprague DeCamp. Momumental works from ancient times survive specifically because they lacked the engineering mechanics (and "Arabic" numbers) to calculate forces: they over-built. Engineering succeeded in the absence of physics. During the Dark Ages, new metals were isolated as alchemists laboriously built up their store of knowledge and tools. In the days of Charlemagne, the strongest acid was horse urine. By the Renaissance, they had aqua regia, a mixture of two metallic acids. Stained glass, dyed wool, pickled herring and the invention of bagels, technology succeeded in the absence of science. In the 19th century, the telegraph preceded Maxwell's Equations. Watt's steam engine was a generation ahead of theoretical thermodynamics.

That preamble out of the way, for me, an Objectivist, the value in Objectivism has always been an ever-deepening understanding of the unity of existence. Contradictions do not exist. I have had the distinct benefit of meeting Greg Browne, author of Necessary Factual Truth. His book follows at the detail level the broad theme of Peikoff's Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy.

Over on RoR, there is a discussion going on nutritional claims and commercial fraud and the role of the government. I offered a rhetorical "Proof? By what standard?" And John Armaos accused me of relativism for not accepting the "scientific" standard. I have not replied to that, but I will note here that there is a difference between the rational-empiricism of Objectivism and the mere empiricism of positivism which dominates modern science.

Robert Kolker's postings are interesting scans that suggest things I would never think about on my own. So, I appreciate that contrarianism. I also understand that his education, training and lifetime experience give him a valuable perspective on topics of mutual interest. That said, it is too easy to parody him -- as I have -- because he does not take himself seriously enough: he denies the existence of mind, yet we are supposed to mind him.

[Dragonfly]

Physics begets Engineering which begets Technology which is the only thing that is going to keep our nation competitive in the world economy.

In the 19th century, the telegraph preceded Maxwell's Equations.

That is a disingenuous example. Maxwell's equations, which form the general basis of all classical electrodynamics, were not needed for the telegraph, but they are an extension of earlier laws, and the telegraph was based on that earlier science with the work of Ampère, Faraday, Ohm, Volta, Ørsted and others, so it was based on physics and not on some random playing with materials. On the other hand Maxwell's equations predicted the existence of radio waves, which were only demonstrated years later by Hertz. Technology is always based on physics - primitive technology on primitive physics and advanced technology on advanced physics. All modern electronics, including your PC, is based on quantum mechanics.

That preamble out of the way, for me, an Objectivist, the value in Objectivism has always been an ever-deepening understanding of the unity of existence. Contradictions do not exist. I have had the distinct benefit of meeting Greg Browne, author of Necessary Factual Truth. His book follows at the detail level the broad theme of Peikoff's Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy.

We have seen on this forum that he doesn't really understand the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements.

[Jonathan]

I came very late to this thread, so I am responding to a early post.

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote: "I consider morality a condition that arises from the fact the humans live in families and communities. True hermit humans are so rare as to be negligible. Morality and ethics is about how to relate to others."

Relations with other human beings are logically derivative; how one relates is a function of one's character and one's values, which is a moral issue -- and has nothing to do with being a hermit. Surely you would not say that a man who consistentlly deludes himself, who lies to himself about his motives, who refuses to look at or accept facts, who tells himself he is a hero when in fact he is not, who choses his convictions by whim and his actions by reading tea leaves, is a moral man. I think you would not, totally apart from how he dealt with others. (Although, of course, such a psychology would destroy the possibility of his having fulfilling relationships with others -- or of having any relationships, for that matter.)

Rand defined a moral code as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions -- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." Certainly morality pertains to how we deal with other men, but the nature of those relationships is the result of one's moral code, not its essence. We need a moral code, not primarily to determine how we deal with others, but to determine how we deal with reality.

I've known a few people -- mostly creative types -- who pretty consistently deluded and lied to themselves, refused to accept the facts of reality, told themselves that they were great and heroic when they were not, and pretty much chose their values and convictions at whim, and I think they were moral. I don't think they would have achieved as much as they did without having had a very unrealistic image of themselves. I also think that they might have gone even farther if at some point they had recognized that they were never quite as good as they thought they were. But, still, I think that their having a fantasy view of themselves was probably something they needed to give themselves the strength to rise.

You also wrote: "I also consider aesthetics purely subjective. A matter of taste. One man's Rembrant is another man's Picasso."

Although I do not agree with much of the so-called"Objectivist esthetics," and although I think much work has yet to be done before objective criteria in the arts can fully be established, still, do you really believe it to be a purely subjective matter, not open to debate or judgment, whether one responds positively to Michaelangelo or Jackson Pollock...

I'm not a big Pollock fan, but I have responded more positively to others' abstract art than to some of Michelangelo's work. But then again, perhaps you'd argue that the serene arrangements of tones and forms in some of, say, Milton Avery's more abstract work, or Helen Frankenthaler's, are objectively more aesthetically evocative than Michelangelo's sculptures of women which are basically manly men with bocce balls glued on for breasts?

...to Wagner or heavy metal...

Even Rand thought that until a conceptual language of music is identified, musical tastes must be treated as a subjective matter.

There's a lot of heavy metal music that I prefer to Wagner, and vice versa. I've loved all sorts of music since I was a young child. I was very active in high school music programs, and I can play a variety of instruments and musical styles. I've played everything from classical to jazz to rock, including semi-professionally. I often dabble in writing music. If you don't have a similar background, but are basically a consumer who limits herself to listening to one genre, does that make my tastes more informed and objective than yours? How do we determine who is the most qualified and objective of all producers, consumers and critics of the various art forms?

...to Shakespeare or the scripts of soap operas, to the poetry of Swinburne or to doggerel? I doubt it.

Who gets to decide which poems qualify as doggerel? Which person gets to claim objectivity in saying that one work of art is kitsch but another is not? Is Charlie's Angels objectively better than Thomas Wolfe? Are Frank O'Connor and José Capuletti objectively better than Parrish, Degas, Manet, etc.?

J

Edited March 8, 2008 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

It starts with learning the vocabulary. I sincerely doubt you will find the scientific evidence you require to validate language and I also doubt you would agree that language is totally subjective once the vocabulary is learned (i.e., to one person "man" means a "male human being" and to another person it means "bar of soap" or, "to pluck," or "exceedingly" or "the" or whatever he wants it to be whenever he wants it to be after he has learned English).

If we can agree on the need to learn a vocabulary in order to even understand art, I can get you plenty of evidence that a Cole Porter song sung by Frank Sinatra is vastly superior and vastly more beautiful than the same one sung at a Karaoke bar by an out-of-tune drunk using a Japanese synthesizer arrangement. I don't know why I would bother, though. This master of the obvious crap is for the birds. God only knows what you get out of your preaching.

But because I am a glutton for punishment and like to piss the precious hours of my life away on useless dialog, here are some other thoughts.

The observation above is just on performance. Work-wise, once a standard is established and validated by being learnable, objective criteria can be established for judging works of art. Here is an excellent example of a failed standard: the twelve-tone (dodecaphonic) technique in music. It is impossible to create a vocabulary with this technique, so the vocabulary used to judge a twelve-tone work is borrowed from other aspects of music. The work is judged on most anything but the twelve-tone standard. It is impossible to even say if a twelve-tone work is correct (qua twelve-tone), much less if one adheres to the standard better than another. So these works are judged on texture, orchestration, rhythm, form, etc.—anything but all twelve tones being repeated over and over.

This same thinking applies to all the other arts. A standard is established. The standard is validated by being learnable, meaning that it can be taught and measured. A vocabulary develops as works are created with it.

This vocabulary is mostly non-verbal, although with fiction, poetry, drama and song it is. But language is only one kind of vocabulary standard used in those art forms. There are several other standards at work in them.

None of that is subjective.

Just like making up a word to symbolize your hand is not subjective. In English, we say "hand." In Portuguese we say "mão." Once this is learned, i.e, the standard is set and the vocabulary is learned, there are no subjective values except when and how a person wants to use the word.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Bob,

It starts with learning the vocabulary. I sincerely doubt you will find the scientific evidence you require to validate language and I also doubt you would agree that language is totally subjective once the vocabulary is learned (i.e., to one person "man" means a "male human being" and to another person it means "bar of soap" or, "to pluck," or "exceedingly" or "the" or whatever he wants it to be whenever he wants it to be after he has learned English).

If we can agree on the need to learn a vocabulary in order to even understand art, I can get you plenty of evidence that a Cole Porter song sung by Frank Sinatra is vastly superior and vastly more beautiful than the same one sung at a Karaoke bar by an out-of-tune drunk using a Japanese synthesizer arrangement.

But here you're talking about judging technical aspects -- parts -- of a work of art, and you're proposing a scenario in which one version of the song in question is not performed as written. Using such a method, you could say that one canvas painted completely in a sickly yellow color is vastly aesthetically superior to another which was painted with recognizable forms in strong, energetic orangish colors, because both were supposed to be painted the sickly yellow color, but the guy who painted the orange one was drunk and didn't have an adequate supply of colors from which to chose.

Comparing the technical aspects of different performances of the same song tells us nothing about the value of the song itself as art. How might one "objectively" rate one song compared to other songs, when all are performed as written?

Can you give us evidence that a Cole Porter song sung by Frank Sinatra is better than a Willie Nelson song sung by Patsy Cline, or that a Bonnie Raitt song is objectively worse than a Rosemary Clooney song?

This same thinking applies to all the other arts. A standard is established. The standard is validated by being learnable, meaning that it can be taught and measured. A vocabulary develops as works are created with it.

And, after standards and vocabularies are established, measured, taught, learned and complied with, a new generation of creators always comes along and rejects them, discovers new means of expressing outside of the rigid system, and their art knocks people on their asses and takes their breath away. The fact that their art is powerfully expressive by means other than those that any established system recognizes invalidates those systems. In fact, often times the new renegade art makes the established notions of beauty and expression look quite ugly and stale.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

You know, more than anyone, that I don't cultivate artistic snobbery. However standards are standards. Here is an example of what I mean by vocabulary and standard.

I will not compare the way you said (Cole Porter song sung by Frank Sinatra compared to a Willie Nelson song sung by Patsy Cline) because within their respective standards and vocabularies, they are top quality. But imagine a Cole Porter song usually sung by Frank Sinatra being sung by Willie Nelson or Patsy Cline. I had this experience once with a famous (in Brazil) song by Geraldo Vandré sung by Luiz Gonzaga. Geraldo is a modern folk singer whose style sometimes reminds you of Cat Stevens with a Brazilian accent and Luiz was top of the line backwater Brazilian country. They were worlds apart and both were beautiful. Geraldo loved Luiz's version (but he rarely played it).

Getting back to the Sinatra versus Nelson or Cline versions, Sinatra's normal public learned one kind of vocabulary in terms of phrasing, arrangement, articulation and so forth. Ditto for the country audience. Both styles are similar enough for one to be recognized and appreciated by the other, but your Sinatra fan will never consider the Nelson or Cline version as beautiful as when Blue Eyes does it, but they can certainly find beauty in the country versions. Ditto for vice-versa. This goes beyond being a fan. There is cognitive learning involved. We could easily compare such a sound in the ears of one or the other as the difference between a Southern accent as opposed to a New York accent (although foreign accent comes closer to the degree of difference in this case).

Zsa Zsa Gabore was fantastic in certain roles in the movies, but she would have been a disaster in a Shakespearean drama. However, if a stylized version were put on, Shakespeare fans could appreciate it as a curiosity, but it just wouldn't do it for them like English accents do. Buuuuuuuut... if no one had ever heard of Shakespeare and the only contact they had was a version with Zsa Zsa Gabore, they might like it a lot.

Why?

I say it is vocabulary.

You can have stylistic vocabulary, rhythmic vocabulary, orchestration vocabulary, etc. If someone does not speak the language and wants to hear something else (like wanting good Wagner and getting good Heavy Metal instead), they will think the unwanted work is crap.

I am one who had to learn how to speak several languages. I am far, far richer for this.

Michael

[tjohnson]

If we can agree on the need to learn a vocabulary in order to even understand art ...

Can't get me to agree on that, who says there is anything to understand in art? Art is for enjoying , science is for understanding.

[Barbara Branden]

On a desert island, morality is a non-issue. Focusing one's wits to survival is the issue. Since (by definition) there is no one to wrong, a moral issue simply cannot arise. Mistakes can happen. Moral breaches cannot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Focusing one's wits to surival" is precisely the Objectivist concept of morality, and names why morality is neccessary, perhaps especially on a desert island. A moral breach is the failure to focus one's wits.

Barbara

[Alfonso Jones]

Rand defined a moral code as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions -- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." Certainly morality pertains to how we deal with other men, but the nature of those relationships is the result of one's moral code, not its essence. We need a moral code, not primarily to determine how we deal with others, but to determine how we deal with reality.

I certainly agree that man needs a code of values of some sort to orient himself but I think it is a mistake to use the term 'morality' in this regard. This term has definite religious, dogmatic connotations and so is unfit for objective, general use. If the goal is to be as objective as possible then we should avoid terms that induce emotional, subjective reactions, like 'morality'. What you are talking about could be called a general theory of proper evaluation, which is what General Semantics happens to be.

Rand's response, as is well known, is found in Galt's speech (and cited for completeness, not because you are not aware of it - in fact you are arguing against it):

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it."

Why do you need to somehow view "religious" connotations as being implied by this? Does any use of "ought" imply, for you, religion? If I wish to live, I SHOULD eat. Does this "should" contain some religious connotation for you? If there is dogmatism, it is the dogmatism of reality - if I do not eat, I will die. No wishing will change that fact.

Bill

[Brant Gaede]

Rand defined a moral code as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions -- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." Certainly morality pertains to how we deal with other men, but the nature of those relationships is the result of one's moral code, not its essence. We need a moral code, not primarily to determine how we deal with others, but to determine how we deal with reality.

I certainly agree that man needs a code of values of some sort to orient himself but I think it is a mistake to use the term 'morality' in this regard. This term has definite religious, dogmatic connotations and so is unfit for objective, general use. If the goal is to be as objective as possible then we should avoid terms that induce emotional, subjective reactions, like 'morality'. What you are talking about could be called a general theory of proper evaluation, which is what General Semantics happens to be.

Rand's response, as is well known, is found in Galt's speech (and cited for completeness, not because you are not aware of it - in fact you are arguing against it):

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it."

Why do you need to somehow view "religious" connotations as being implied by this? Does any use of "ought" imply, for you, religion? If I wish to live, I SHOULD eat. Does this "should" contain some religious connotation for you? If there is dogmatism, it is the dogmatism of reality - if I do not eat, I will die. No wishing will change that fact.

Bill

He "would need it most" for what purpose? To live. What if he didn't want to live that way? If he wants to live he won't need morality--only his wits, and some luck. That is unless one equates morality with rationality. Then he would have to know that mystical relevation won't help him. Only his mind. And that that might not be enough. Even "right choices" might lead to unforeseen disaster. Rationality means doing all one can in the context of one's knowledge to further and protect one's life in the context of the desire to live. I was lucky I wasn't able to do what I really wanted to do at a certain stage of my life; if I had I'd most likely be 20 years dead by now. My life is rch in irony. Nevertheless I still strive to do what I (rationally) want to do. I have to play the odds that way. Rationality is the best bet, but life is still a casino and since no one is immortal, the house always wins. The only question is when? If you want to live, live! Rationality furthers the odds for you, both in terms of quality and length of life. Keep the horn of opportunity in front of you.

--Brant

I've been drinking, but I think this is pretty good regardless.

[Alfonso Jones]

Rand defined a moral code as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions -- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." Certainly morality pertains to how we deal with other men, but the nature of those relationships is the result of one's moral code, not its essence. We need a moral code, not primarily to determine how we deal with others, but to determine how we deal with reality.

I certainly agree that man needs a code of values of some sort to orient himself but I think it is a mistake to use the term 'morality' in this regard. This term has definite religious, dogmatic connotations and so is unfit for objective, general use. If the goal is to be as objective as possible then we should avoid terms that induce emotional, subjective reactions, like 'morality'. What you are talking about could be called a general theory of proper evaluation, which is what General Semantics happens to be.

Rand's response, as is well known, is found in Galt's speech (and cited for completeness, not because you are not aware of it - in fact you are arguing against it):

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it."

Why do you need to somehow view "religious" connotations as being implied by this? Does any use of "ought" imply, for you, religion? If I wish to live, I SHOULD eat. Does this "should" contain some religious connotation for you? If there is dogmatism, it is the dogmatism of reality - if I do not eat, I will die. No wishing will change that fact.

Bill

He "would need it most" for what purpose? To live. What if he didn't want to live that way? If he wants to live he won't need morality--only his wits, and some luck. That is unless one equates morality with rationality. Then he would have to know that mystical relevation won't help him. Only his mind. And that that might not be enough. Even "right choices" might lead to unforeseen disaster. Rationality means doing all one can in the context of one's knowledge to further and protect one's life in the context of the desire to live. I was lucky I wasn't able to do what I really wanted to do at a certain stage of my life; if I had I'd most likely be 20 years dead by now. My life is rch in irony. Nevertheless I still strive to do what I (rationally) want to do. I have to play the odds that way. Rationality is the best bet, but life is still a casino and since no one is immortal, the house always wins. The only question is when? If you want to live, live! Rationality furthers the odds for you, both in terms of quality and length of life. Keep the horn of opportunity in front of you.

--Brant

I've been drinking, but I think this is pretty good regardless.

I was responding to GS on his attempt to suggest that Rand's use of the term of morality to refer to the means by which one makes choices of action somehow had "religious" connotations. In the end, I think that GS thinks use of "ought" and similar words must be somehow religious. With which Rand, and I, vehemently disagree.

With regard to what you raise, Brant --- what you refer to is what Rand terms morality. Please read "The Objectivist Ethics" in its entirety. Or the Galt speech from AS. Then, whether you agree with Rand or not, you will at least understand her definitions - which are explicitly given. There is no need to announce that she is somehow in error, when you have taken a term she used (and defined) and then used another definition (distinct from hers) and noticed a discrepancy.

Bill

[Brant Gaede]

Rand defined a moral code as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions -- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." Certainly morality pertains to how we deal with other men, but the nature of those relationships is the result of one's moral code, not its essence. We need a moral code, not primarily to determine how we deal with others, but to determine how we deal with reality.

I certainly agree that man needs a code of values of some sort to orient himself but I think it is a mistake to use the term 'morality' in this regard. This term has definite religious, dogmatic connotations and so is unfit for objective, general use. If the goal is to be as objective as possible then we should avoid terms that induce emotional, subjective reactions, like 'morality'. What you are talking about could be called a general theory of proper evaluation, which is what General Semantics happens to be.

Rand's response, as is well known, is found in Galt's speech (and cited for completeness, not because you are not aware of it - in fact you are arguing against it):

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it."

Why do you need to somehow view "religious" connotations as being implied by this? Does any use of "ought" imply, for you, religion? If I wish to live, I SHOULD eat. Does this "should" contain some religious connotation for you? If there is dogmatism, it is the dogmatism of reality - if I do not eat, I will die. No wishing will change that fact.

Bill

He "would need it most" for what purpose? To live. What if he didn't want to live that way? If he wants to live he won't need morality--only his wits, and some luck. That is unless one equates morality with rationality. Then he would have to know that mystical relevation won't help him. Only his mind. And that that might not be enough. Even "right choices" might lead to unforeseen disaster. Rationality means doing all one can in the context of one's knowledge to further and protect one's life in the context of the desire to live. I was lucky I wasn't able to do what I really wanted to do at a certain stage of my life; if I had I'd most likely be 20 years dead by now. My life is rch in irony. Nevertheless I still strive to do what I (rationally) want to do. I have to play the odds that way. Rationality is the best bet, but life is still a casino and since no one is immortal, the house always wins. The only question is when? If you want to live, live! Rationality furthers the odds for you, both in terms of quality and length of life. Keep the horn of opportunity in front of you.

--Brant

I've been drinking, but I think this is pretty good regardless.

I was responding to GS on his attempt to suggest that Rand's use of the term of morality to refer to the means by which one makes choices of action somehow had "religious" connotations. In the end, I think that GS thinks use of "ought" and similar words must be somehow religious. With which Rand, and I, vehemently disagree.

With regard to what you raise, Brant --- what you refer to is what Rand terms morality. Please read "The Objectivist Ethics" in its entirety. Or the Galt speech from AS. Then, whether you agree with Rand or not, you will at least understand her definitions - which are explicitly given. There is no need to announce that she is somehow in error, when you have taken a term she used (and defined) and then used another definition (distinct from hers) and noticed a discrepancy.

Bill

Let me respond in part that if it's rational to be religious that's a contradiction. Also, I don't think you've read what I wrote very carefully. And I don't appreciate an argument that suggests I should read sacred texts to understand why I am wrong--about what? I especially don't respect your suggestion I read Galt's speech to understand why I am wrong--about what?--and Rand is right--about what?

--Brant

Edited March 9, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Alfonso Jones]

Rand defined a moral code as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions -- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." Certainly morality pertains to how we deal with other men, but the nature of those relationships is the result of one's moral code, not its essence. We need a moral code, not primarily to determine how we deal with others, but to determine how we deal with reality.

I certainly agree that man needs a code of values of some sort to orient himself but I think it is a mistake to use the term 'morality' in this regard. This term has definite religious, dogmatic connotations and so is unfit for objective, general use. If the goal is to be as objective as possible then we should avoid terms that induce emotional, subjective reactions, like 'morality'. What you are talking about could be called a general theory of proper evaluation, which is what General Semantics happens to be.

Rand's response, as is well known, is found in Galt's speech (and cited for completeness, not because you are not aware of it - in fact you are arguing against it):

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it."

Why do you need to somehow view "religious" connotations as being implied by this? Does any use of "ought" imply, for you, religion? If I wish to live, I SHOULD eat. Does this "should" contain some religious connotation for you? If there is dogmatism, it is the dogmatism of reality - if I do not eat, I will die. No wishing will change that fact.

Bill

He "would need it most" for what purpose? To live. What if he didn't want to live that way? If he wants to live he won't need morality--only his wits, and some luck. That is unless one equates morality with rationality. Then he would have to know that mystical relevation won't help him. Only his mind. And that that might not be enough. Even "right choices" might lead to unforeseen disaster. Rationality means doing all one can in the context of one's knowledge to further and protect one's life in the context of the desire to live. I was lucky I wasn't able to do what I really wanted to do at a certain stage of my life; if I had I'd most likely be 20 years dead by now. My life is rch in irony. Nevertheless I still strive to do what I (rationally) want to do. I have to play the odds that way. Rationality is the best bet, but life is still a casino and since no one is immortal, the house always wins. The only question is when? If you want to live, live! Rationality furthers the odds for you, both in terms of quality and length of life. Keep the horn of opportunity in front of you.

--Brant

I've been drinking, but I think this is pretty good regardless.

I was responding to GS on his attempt to suggest that Rand's use of the term of morality to refer to the means by which one makes choices of action somehow had "religious" connotations. In the end, I think that GS thinks use of "ought" and similar words must be somehow religious. With which Rand, and I, vehemently disagree.

With regard to what you raise, Brant --- what you refer to is what Rand terms morality. Please read "The Objectivist Ethics" in its entirety. Or the Galt speech from AS. Then, whether you agree with Rand or not, you will at least understand her definitions - which are explicitly given. There is no need to announce that she is somehow in error, when you have taken a term she used (and defined) and then used another definition (distinct from hers) and noticed a discrepancy.

Bill

Let me respond in part that if it's rational to be religious that's a contradiction. Also, I don't think you've read what I wrote very carefully. And I don't appreciate an argument that suggests I should read sacred texts to understand why I am wrong--about what? I especially don't respect your suggestion I read Galt's speech to understand why I am wrong--about what?--and Rand is right--about what?

--Brant

Brant -

I have not suggested that it is rational to be religious. I didn't say that or suggest that. I have in fact implied the opposite - see above.

I suggested you read the two specific parts of Rand's writings so that you would be familiar with the definitions she is using. Your argument is "that's not morality" if it is "desert island" or involves no other person. Rand is using a DIFFERENT definition of the term morality than you are. If you want to express your disagreement with her, it would be best to find out what you are disagreeing with. If you choose to criticize her statements without caring to know the meanings of the terms in those statements, then there isn't much basis for discussion.

Bill Parr

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Can't get me to agree on that, who says there is anything to understand in art? Art is for enjoying , science is for understanding.

GS,

Try oriental music. Or the theater of No. Or even Haiku. If you don't learn the vocabulary, you will think it is all nonsense.

The same even goes for abstract painting. Actually, this is a good criteria for evaluating abstract art. If you cannot find a vocabulary to learn, it is junk.

From what I have read of your writing, you have a real difference of opinion on what abstraction means. In Objectivism, it means focusing on differences and similarities according to some kind of measurement and integrating them into a mental unit.

Thus, I do not expect you to understand the differences and similarities between cognitive abstraction and normative abstraction. That is precisely why you think enjoying and understanding are totally unrelated.

Apropos to vocabulary, there is a story told in the conducting world that illustrates different vocabularies perfectly. I don't recall who the conductor was, or what orchestra or American Indian tribe was involved, but here it is anyway.

Once an American Indian, one raised in tribal traditions and not well integrated in the USA culture, was invited to a symphony concert as a publicity stunt. The evening featured a Brahms symphony. After the concert, the Indian was taken backstage to meet the conductor, with reporters tagging along to witness this historic bridging of a cultural gap.

After introductions, the conductor asked, "Well, what did you think? Did you like the concert?"

The Indian replied, "I didn't understand the music at all, but I really enjoyed the dance."

Michael

[tjohnson]

Why do you need to somehow view "religious" connotations as being implied by this? Does any use of "ought" imply, for you, religion? If I wish to live, I SHOULD eat. Does this "should" contain some religious connotation for you? If there is dogmatism, it is the dogmatism of reality - if I do not eat, I will die. No wishing will change that fact.

Bill

Here are some common meanings of 'morality'. Notice the theme of an authority of some kind prescribing behaviour for no apparent reason. Of course if one wants to live one needs to take appropriate action but what makes it 'good' to survive and 'evil' not to? By using 'morality' it brings these ideas into play and it begins to sound religious.

# concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct

# ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Morality refers to the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of right and wrong -- also referred to as "good and evil" -- used within three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments -- sometimes called moral values --shared within a cultural, religious ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

# A system of determining right and wrong that is established by some authority, such as a church, an organization, a society, or a government.

[BaalChatzaf]

On a desert island, morality is a non-issue. Focusing one's wits to survival is the issue. Since (by definition) there is no one to wrong, a moral issue simply cannot arise. Mistakes can happen. Moral breaches cannot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Focusing one's wits to surival" is precisely the Objectivist concept of morality, and names why morality is neccessary, perhaps especially on a desert island. A moral breach is the failure to focus one's wits.

Barbara

A moral breach is screwing some other person over. As in fraud, theft, murder, rape, and willful breach of contract. Morality has to do with not wronging others. Why is it that O'ists spend so much time re-defining words that are in common parlance? Why is the Tyranny of (re)Definition so appealing?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited March 9, 2008 by BaalChatzaf