Settling the debate on Altruism

[Brant Gaede]

Xray: if you want to quote Rand don't ask us to read a lot of garbage to see it in context. Why should be have to read porn to see a beautiful woman's face?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Dragonfly: You keep writing the same thing, but have not taken on either George's or my arguments which address the problems you've created in Rand's example.

Xray: George is correct. The right definition is context dependent. This is the same problem you're making for sacrifice - you're not using the right definition in the context of Rand's writing. You are inserting the wrong definition and that is what is leading to the confusion - hence the importance of contextually correct definitions.

You are also, imo, misunderstanding what she means by family, friends, etc. are not primary. She is not saying they're not important, on the contrary in order for them to be of objective value/importance we must first hold primary objective values which allow for those kinds of relationships to begin with.

Brant: Come back when you're not as confused.

Ian

All right class. Name the logical fallacy!

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Frankly, who was Ayn Rand to arbitarily decide that e. g. "Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life."

http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-followers-are-scarier-than-the-manson-family-and-the-gruesome-story-of-the-serial-killer-who-stole-ayn-rands-heart/

If you expect me to respond to you in a serious way, you will need to do a lot better than to cite that vicious hatchet-job by Mark Ames.

Seasoned debater that you are, you are trying to dilute the message of the Rand quote by discreditng the source who put the quote there. But however you slice it, the Rand quote is evidence of her thinking, regardless of who quoted it.

You quoted a single, out-of-context line from Rand, who had many things to say about friendship and human relationships, though perhaps less about family life.

To say that these things are not "primary" does not deny their importance. It means that their value is conditional on other factors. For example, if family life is a moral primary -- i.e., "First or highest in rank, quality, or importance" (American Heritage) -- then divorce could never be justified.

Nor is it true that Rand's position was arbitrary, as you claim. She gave her reasons in various places. The fact that you may disagree with, or not know of, those reasons does not condemn her position as arbitrary. You often complain about Rand's hubris and dogmatism, yet you make her look like an amateur by comparison. If you don't agree with Rand about something, then she was ignorant, or unable to reason, or dogmatic, or arbitrary, etc.

The comments that Rand made in a letter to John Hospers (April 29, 1961) are typical of her views:

"Now consider the issue of love, benevolence, good will and friendship among men. Surely it is clear to you that love and friendship are personal, selfish values to a man, that he derives a personal, selfish pleasure and benefit from them; a "selfless," disinterested, charity-motivated love or friendship would be an insult to its object."

I objected to your citation of the article by Mark Ames because virtually everything he quotes from Rand is taken out of context in an effort to smear her. You made no effort to understand what Rand was getting at and so merely continued that practice.

I'm frankly getting sick of this. If you want to understand Rand's position on something, then read more than a single line.

Ghs

[Dragonfly]

No. The point is the mother changes her mind out of "duty" not because she rationally decided the child is more valuable and therefore her value is still immoral despite her actions.

But how can she "rationally" decide that the child is more valuable? Isn't she rational when she concludes that she'll be punished for neglecting her child, so that she'd better take care of it? Or why shouldn't it be rational for her to conclude that because she doesn't like the child, which only constitutes an obstacle in pursuing a career, she'd better let it starve when she can get away with it? Would she bother about the well-being of the child of a stranger? So why should she bother about the well-being of her own child if she doesn't like it, or even hates it? Because she "should" do so according to some Objectivist, because it would be "rational"? Isn't that following a duty as well? Objectivists like to use the magic buzzword "rational" profusely as if that would be an explanation, but it could be just as rational for her to prefer a hat or a career over an inconvenient child.

What is of course omitted in that argument is the fact that most mothers would probably care for the well-being of the child even if they don't like it, because it's in their genes to do so, not because some so-called "rational" argument that she should value it, that is in fact only a rationalization. But that goes against one of Rand's dogmas, namely the tabula rasa hypothesis and the idea that "emotions are the automatic results of man’s value judgments integrated by his subconscious" and "man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses". So she claims that every emotion can be explained by the values that a person consciously chooses. Now I don't blame Rand for holding those outdated ideas, because the tabula rasa theory was rather popular in her time, so it may be understandable that she adopted it as it seemed to suit her purpose. But I do blame Objectivists for still defending such theories when they should know better, only because they're part of Rand's system, and who knows how dangerous it could be to change parts of her philosophy, you never know where you'll end up!

[Dragonfly]

The interest of Arnes' article lies in the details about Hickman's crime (including the link to the newspaper of that time). I knew some of them already from Michael Prescott's article, but here was for me new information. Rand must have known all these details, and reading what she writes in her journal about Hickman certainly doesn't put her in a favorable light.

[George H. Smith]

The interest of Arnes' article lies in the details about Hickman's crime (including the link to the newspaper of that time). I knew some of them already from Michael Prescott's article, but here was for me new information. Rand must have known all these details, and reading what she writes in her journal about Hickman certainly doesn't put her in a favorable light.

I discussed the Hickman controversy in a number of posts. They appear in the thread "We knew this would return to bite us," beginning with:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8330&view=findpost&p=94754

Ghs

[imurray]

Dragonfly: You keep writing the same thing, but have not taken on either George's or my arguments which address the problems you've created in Rand's example.

Xray: George is correct. The right definition is context dependent. This is the same problem you're making for sacrifice - you're not using the right definition in the context of Rand's writing. You are inserting the wrong definition and that is what is leading to the confusion - hence the importance of contextually correct definitions.

You are also, imo, misunderstanding what she means by family, friends, etc. are not primary. She is not saying they're not important, on the contrary in order for them to be of objective value/importance we must first hold primary objective values which allow for those kinds of relationships to begin with.

Brant: Come back when you're not as confused.

Ian

All right class. Name the logical fallacy!

--Brant

Brant: reply to me when you're not confused and have something to say.

--Ian

Insert irrelevant Brantism here for humorous effect.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Panoptic

[Brant Gaede]

Dragonfly: You keep writing the same thing, but have not taken on either George's or my arguments which address the problems you've created in Rand's example.

Xray: George is correct. The right definition is context dependent. This is the same problem you're making for sacrifice - you're not using the right definition in the context of Rand's writing. You are inserting the wrong definition and that is what is leading to the confusion - hence the importance of contextually correct definitions.

You are also, imo, misunderstanding what she means by family, friends, etc. are not primary. She is not saying they're not important, on the contrary in order for them to be of objective value/importance we must first hold primary objective values which allow for those kinds of relationships to begin with.

Brant: Come back when you're not as confused.

Ian

All right class. Name the logical fallacy!

--Brant

Brant: reply to me when you're not confused and have something to say.

--Ian

Insert irrelevant Brantism here for humorous effect.

All right class. Is this the same or a different fallacy? Or both?

--Brant

[imurray]

Dragonfly: You keep writing the same thing, but have not taken on either George's or my arguments which address the problems you've created in Rand's example.

Xray: George is correct. The right definition is context dependent. This is the same problem you're making for sacrifice - you're not using the right definition in the context of Rand's writing. You are inserting the wrong definition and that is what is leading to the confusion - hence the importance of contextually correct definitions.

You are also, imo, misunderstanding what she means by family, friends, etc. are not primary. She is not saying they're not important, on the contrary in order for them to be of objective value/importance we must first hold primary objective values which allow for those kinds of relationships to begin with.

Brant: Come back when you're not as confused.

Ian

All right class. Name the logical fallacy!

--Brant

Brant: reply to me when you're not confused and have something to say.

--Ian

Insert irrelevant Brantism here for humorous effect.

All right class. Is this the same or a different fallacy? Or both?

--Brant

Brant: put up or shut up. Either point out where you think I'm wrong and give me a chance to respond or don't bother. If you don't want to engage in a discussion, why point your browser to a discussion board?

Leonid: While I respect that you took the time to find those quotes in Kant's work - I stand by my original comment. This is not the forum for an in depth discussion of Kant's moral and political theories. I will say that those particular quotes are part of a rather complex oeuvre and within the larger context they come to mean something other than what they appear to mean here. You'll find that he's not as far off from Rand (or she's not as far off from him) as she thought he was.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Panoptic

[Brant Gaede]

Dragonfly: You keep writing the same thing, but have not taken on either George's or my arguments which address the problems you've created in Rand's example.

Xray: George is correct. The right definition is context dependent. This is the same problem you're making for sacrifice - you're not using the right definition in the context of Rand's writing. You are inserting the wrong definition and that is what is leading to the confusion - hence the importance of contextually correct definitions.

You are also, imo, misunderstanding what she means by family, friends, etc. are not primary. She is not saying they're not important, on the contrary in order for them to be of objective value/importance we must first hold primary objective values which allow for those kinds of relationships to begin with.

Brant: Come back when you're not as confused.

Ian

All right class. Name the logical fallacy!

--Brant

Brant: reply to me when you're not confused and have something to say.

--Ian

Insert irrelevant Brantism here for humorous effect.

All right class. Is this the same or a different fallacy? Or both?

--Brant

Brant: put up or shut up. Either point out where you think I'm wrong and give me a chance to respond or don't bother. If you don't want to engage in a discussion, why point your browser to a discussion board?

Leonid: While I respect that you took the time to find those quotes in Kant's work - I stand by my original comment. This is not the forum for an in depth discussion of Kant's moral and political theories. I will say that those particular quotes are part of a rather complex oeuvre and within the larger context they come to mean something other than what they appear to mean here. You'll find that he's not as far off from Rand (or she's not as far off from him) as she thought he was.

I'll be blunt. The shoe is on the wrong foot. You've done an argumentum ad hominem twice on me and maybe something else too boot. I made a post and you've countered with nothing--but that. I thought you were trying to be funny. I didn't understand the benevolent explanation was the wrong explanation! Now go back to what I originally posted that started this (1012) and make at point criticisms or just fuck off!

--Brant

Edited May 9, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[imurray]

Dragonfly: You keep writing the same thing, but have not taken on either George's or my arguments which address the problems you've created in Rand's example.

Xray: George is correct. The right definition is context dependent. This is the same problem you're making for sacrifice - you're not using the right definition in the context of Rand's writing. You are inserting the wrong definition and that is what is leading to the confusion - hence the importance of contextually correct definitions.

You are also, imo, misunderstanding what she means by family, friends, etc. are not primary. She is not saying they're not important, on the contrary in order for them to be of objective value/importance we must first hold primary objective values which allow for those kinds of relationships to begin with.

Brant: Come back when you're not as confused.

Ian

All right class. Name the logical fallacy!

--Brant

Brant: reply to me when you're not confused and have something to say.

--Ian

Insert irrelevant Brantism here for humorous effect.

All right class. Is this the same or a different fallacy? Or both?

--Brant

Brant: put up or shut up. Either point out where you think I'm wrong and give me a chance to respond or don't bother. If you don't want to engage in a discussion, why point your browser to a discussion board?

Leonid: While I respect that you took the time to find those quotes in Kant's work - I stand by my original comment. This is not the forum for an in depth discussion of Kant's moral and political theories. I will say that those particular quotes are part of a rather complex oeuvre and within the larger context they come to mean something other than what they appear to mean here. You'll find that he's not as far off from Rand (or she's not as far off from him) as she thought he was.

I'll be blunt. The shoe is on the wrong foot. You've done an argumentum ad hominem twice on me and maybe something else too boot. I made a post and you've countered with nothing--but that. I thought you were trying to be funny. I didn't understand the benevolent explanation was the wrong explanation! Now go back to what I originally posted that started this (1012) and make at point criticisms or just fuck off!

--Brant

It seems that there have been a couple of misunderstanding on my part. I did intend what I said about you as a joke, but misunderstood your comeback as an attack on my substantive comments. The major misunderstanding came when I read your post. Because of the way it's formatted (or appears on my iPod) and because I hadn't paid much attention to Xray's post above yours - I thought your response included what I now see was actually written by Xray. Which expains why it read like it was written by a person with split personalities.

I take responsibility for my errors and offer you my sincere apologies.

Ian

Duh?

Edited May 9, 2010 by Panoptic

[Xray]

George H. Smith: Nor is it true that Rand's position was arbitrary, as you claim. She gave her reasons in various places.

Giving one's reasons does not necessarily make a position less arbitrary. It depends on what the reasons are.

GHS: I objected to your citation of the article by Mark Ames because virtually everything he quotes from Rand is taken out of context in an effort to smear her. You made no effort to understand what Rand was getting at and so merely continued that practice.

If I allegedly made "no effort to understand", then what was she getting at?

Here is more context:

"If [people] place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite."

http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-followers-are-scarier-than-the-manson-family-and-the-gruesome-story-of-the-serial-killer-who-stole-ayn-rands-heart/

If you can direct me to the source from which Ames took the quote, we will even have more context and can examine it as a whole.

GHS: The fact that you may disagree with, or not know of, those reasons does not condemn her position as arbitrary. You often complain about Rand's hubris and dogmatism, yet you make her look like an amateur by comparison. If you don't agree with Rand about something, then she was ignorant, or unable to reason, or dogmatic, or arbitrary, etc.

The comments that Rand made in a letter to John Hospers (April 29, 1961) are typical of her views:

"Now consider the issue of love, benevolence, good will and friendship among men. Surely it is clear to you that love and friendship are personal, selfish values to a man, that he derives a personal, selfish pleasure and benefit from them; a "selfless," disinterested, charity-motivated love or friendship would be an insult to its object."

But isn't that a typical example of dogmatism - calling charity-motivated love an "insult" to the one receiving it?

Xray: if you want to quote Rand don't ask us to read a lot of garbage to see it in context.

In other words: "Don't show me what I don't want to see?" Is that it?

Brant and George,

If one is a truth seeker, then closing one's eyes to the criticism of a philosophy/religion/ideology is counterproductive. For it is usually the critics who point out the gaps and contradictions in a system.

I'm well aware that the critics' position is the easier one since they can point out mistakes and erros without having the task to defend a system as a whole.

The one who sits in the trap is the believerin the system. Not the one who e. g. says "I agree with this part of Rand's philosophy but not with others" since this person is not ruled by the doctrine.

But the problem with Objectivism's founder is that she did not allow this. Here's the rub.

NB wrote:

"Encouraging dogmatism

Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing." Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don't try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand's philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path." (NB, complete article posted in # 984).

Rand condemned "package deals", but isn't her own position here an example of a package deal? "You have to take the whole package, not just parts".

So every person considering Objectivism as a viable philosophy will arrive at some point where there is the forking of the ways for them: if they follow Rand's "all or nothing doctrine", it will turn them into believers, and their believer's position will be that of the defensor fidei. The task of the defensor fidei in a discussion is arduous since he/she can't allow themselves to openly admit weaknesses of the system. One could call it "the believer's trap".

I myself have been in such a trap when once challenged by an atheist to provide evidence supporting my belief. The burden of proof rests on the person who makes the claim, and I was unable to meet this burden of proof. The radical approach this atheist took led me to rethink my premises, with the result of my belief being shed. I'm not saying that this won't ever change again (for speculating that a superior intelligence "might" exist is something else than claiming "God exists"), but this is where I stand now.

"Why Atheism" cointains an excellent chapter about the importance of the burden of proof, and reading it was like reliving my own experience with this.

GHS: I'm frankly getting sick of this. If you want to understand Rand's position on something, then read more than a single line.

"You don't understand" is an argument believers frequently use against critics.

I don't see you as a fervent believer in Objectivism though. Certainly not as a believer of the type I described above (the defensor fidei). Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that you have adopted parts of Objectivsm but not the whole package, and I also believe that Rand's dissaproval of proceeding that way would not have bothered you.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

George H. Smith: Nor is it true that Rand's position was arbitrary, as you claim. She gave her reasons in various places.

Giving one's reasons does not necessarily make a position less arbitrary. It depends on what the reasons are.

The fact that you disagree with the reasons for a position does not make that position arbitrary. If the reasons are defective, unsound, or inadequate, then the position is unjustified, not arbitrary.

GHS: I objected to your citation of the article by Mark Ames because virtually everything he quotes from Rand is taken out of context in an effort to smear her. You made no effort to understand what Rand was getting at and so merely continued that practice.

If I allegedly made "no effort to understand", then what was she getting at?

Here is more context:

"If [people] place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite."

http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-followers-are-scarier-than-the-manson-family-and-the-gruesome-story-of-the-serial-killer-who-stole-ayn-rands-heart/

If you can direct me to the source from which Ames took the quote, we will even have more context and can examine it as a whole.

I did searches of several phrases within this passage, such as "emotional parasite," on the Objectivism Research CD-ROM and got no hits. The passage does not appear in any of Rand's published writings, nor in her Journals or Letters. I thought maybe it came from Ayn Rand Answers (which was published too late to be included on the CD-ROM), but a quick scan of that book yielded nothing either (though it's possible I missed it). I therefore have no idea where the passage is from. For all I know, it may have been manufactured out of thin air.

Brant and George,

If one is a truth seeker, then closing one's eyes to the criticism of a philosophy/religion/ideology is counterproductive. For it is usually the critics who point out the gaps and contradictions in a system.

Are you serious? We are talking about an article titled "ATLAS SHRIEKED: Ayn Rand’s First Love and Mentor Was A Sadistic Serial Killer Who Dismembered Little Girls." First love? Mentor?

If you are so terribly concerned about truth-seeking, then why don't you post a comment below Ames's article in which you point out some of his godawful lies? Or does your truth-seeking apply only to those who dare defend Rand? If you seek the truth, you do so with blinders on. Your truth-seeking reeks of hypocrisy.

I'm well aware that the critics' position is the easier one since they can point out mistakes and erros without having the task to defend a system as a whole.

The one who sits in the trap is the believerin the system. Not the one who e. g. says "I agree with this part of Rand's philosophy but not with others" since this person is not ruled by the doctrine.

But the problem with Objectivism's founder is that she did not allow this. Here's the rub.

NB wrote:

"Encouraging dogmatism

Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing." Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don't try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand's philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path." (NB, complete article posted in # 984).

Your penchant to quote selectively extends beyond Rand to NB. You seem to forget that the title of NB's paper is "The Benefits and Hazards of Ayn Rand's Philosophy." And you conveniently ignore passages like the following:

"Ayn Rand has an incredible vision to offer—in many respects a radiantly rational one. I am convinced that there are errors in that vision and elements that need to be changed, eliminated, modified, or added and amplified, but I am also convinced that there is a great deal in her vision that will stand the test of time."

Rand condemned "package deals", but isn't her own position here an example of a package deal? "You have to take the whole package, not just parts".

Perhaps, but so what?

So every person considering Objectivism as a viable philosophy will arrive at some point where there is the forking of the ways for them: if they follow Rand's "all or nothing doctrine", it will turn them into believers, and their believer's position will be that of the defensor fidei. The task of the defensor fidei in a discussion is arduous since he/she can't allow themselves to openly admit weaknesses of the system. One could call it "the believer's trap".

You are preaching to the choir. I have written far more about this problem that you ever will.

GHS: I'm frankly getting sick of this. If you want to understand Rand's position on something, then read more than a single line.

"You don't understand" is an argument believers frequently use against critics.

And sometimes the charge is just plain true, as in your case.

I don't see you as a fervent believer in Objectivism though. Certainly not as a believer of the type I described above (the defensor fidei).

Well, gosh and golly, thanks. I'm so glad that I at least got a passing grade on your "fervent believer" test. I can now die a happy man.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that you have adopted parts of Objectivsm but not the whole package, and I also believe that Rand's disapproval of proceeding that way would not have bothered you.

I have never called myself an "Objectivist," not even in my early days. I have too many disagreements with Rand. I might qualify as a neo-Objectivist, depending on how that label is defined, since I have general areas of agreement with many of her ideas, despite my disagreements with many particulars.

Overall, I hold a number of other philosophers, such as John Locke, in higher esteem than Rand. But I also think that Rand zeroed-in on a number of critical problems, such as the altruistic mentality, that other philosophers have overlooked, and I think her contributions in those areas are invaluable.

As for Rand's possible reaction to my views, I don't give a shit. The ideas are my primary interest, not the person.

Ghs

[Dragonfly]

I did searches of several phrases within this passage, such as "emotional parasite," on the Objectivism Research CD-ROM and got no hits. The passage does not appear in any of Rand's published writings, nor in her Journals or Letters. I thought maybe it came from Ayn Rand Answers (which was published too late to be included on the CD-ROM), but a quick scan of that book yielded nothing either (though it's possible I missed it). I therefore have no idea where the passage is from. For all I know, it may have been manufactured out of thin air.

Check the Playboy interview with Ayn Rand.

[George H. Smith]

I did searches of several phrases within this passage, such as "emotional parasite," on the Objectivism Research CD-ROM and got no hits. The passage does not appear in any of Rand's published writings, nor in her Journals or Letters. I thought maybe it came from Ayn Rand Answers (which was published too late to be included on the CD-ROM), but a quick scan of that book yielded nothing either (though it's possible I missed it). I therefore have no idea where the passage is from. For all I know, it may have been manufactured out of thin air.

Check the Playboy interview with Ayn Rand.

Thanks for the tip. Here is the question and Rand's answer:

PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties?

RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.

Note that the last part of Rand's response (beginning with "whereas") was omitted from the quotation by Ames, who cut it off in mid-sentence. Why am I not surprised?

For the complete interview, see:

http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

Ghs

[merjet]

Thanks for the tip. Here is the question and Rand's answer:

PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties?

RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.

Note that the last part of Rand's response (beginning with "whereas") was omitted from the quotation by Ames, who cut it off in mid-sentence. Why am I not surprised?

For the complete interview, see:

http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

Ghs

Precisely. Mark Ames' article is an obvious smear job, and relying on it to smear Rand is nearly as bad. If human relationships are not primary, that doesn't imply human relationships don't matter at all to Rand, which is likely what Ames wants to reader to believe. Human relationships could be a very close second, and if one reads elsewhere what Rand said about human relationships, it is clear that they are very important. Lastly, when the Playboy interviewer asks "In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?", Ayn Rand responds "Not immoral."

[George H. Smith]

Note that the last part of Rand's response (beginning with "whereas") was omitted from the quotation by Ames, who cut it off in mid-sentence. Why am I not surprised?

For the complete interview, see:

http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

Ghs

Precisely. Mark Ames' article is an obvious smear job, and relying on it to smear Rand is nearly as bad. If human relationships are not primary, that doesn't imply human relationships don't matter at all to Rand, which is likely what Ames wants to reader to believe. Human relationships could be a very close second, and if one reads elsewhere what Rand said about human relationships, it is clear that they are very important. Lastly, when the Playboy interviewer asks "In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?", Ayn Rand responds "Not immoral."

Good points. You mention Rand's attitude towards a woman who devotes herself to her children. I think her response deserves to be quoted in full.

PLAYBOY: In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?

RAND: Not immoral -- I would say she is impractical, because a home cannot be a full-time occupation, except when her children are young. However, if she wants a family and wants to make that her career, at least for a while, it would be proper -- if she approaches it as a career, that is, if she studies the subject, if she defines the rules and principles by which she wants to bring up her children, if she approaches her task in an intellectual manner. It is a very responsible task and a very important one, but only when treated as a science, not as a mere emotional indulgence.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Dragonfly: You keep writing the same thing, but have not taken on either George's or my arguments which address the problems you've created in Rand's example.

Xray: George is correct. The right definition is context dependent. This is the same problem you're making for sacrifice - you're not using the right definition in the context of Rand's writing. You are inserting the wrong definition and that is what is leading to the confusion - hence the importance of contextually correct definitions.

You are also, imo, misunderstanding what she means by family, friends, etc. are not primary. She is not saying they're not important, on the contrary in order for them to be of objective value/importance we must first hold primary objective values which allow for those kinds of relationships to begin with.

Brant: Come back when you're not as confused.

Ian

All right class. Name the logical fallacy!

--Brant

Brant: reply to me when you're not confused and have something to say.

--Ian

Insert irrelevant Brantism here for humorous effect.

All right class. Is this the same or a different fallacy? Or both?

--Brant

Brant: put up or shut up. Either point out where you think I'm wrong and give me a chance to respond or don't bother. If you don't want to engage in a discussion, why point your browser to a discussion board?

Leonid: While I respect that you took the time to find those quotes in Kant's work - I stand by my original comment. This is not the forum for an in depth discussion of Kant's moral and political theories. I will say that those particular quotes are part of a rather complex oeuvre and within the larger context they come to mean something other than what they appear to mean here. You'll find that he's not as far off from Rand (or she's not as far off from him) as she thought he was.

I'll be blunt. The shoe is on the wrong foot. You've done an argumentum ad hominem twice on me and maybe something else too boot. I made a post and you've countered with nothing--but that. I thought you were trying to be funny. I didn't understand the benevolent explanation was the wrong explanation! Now go back to what I originally posted that started this (1012) and make at point criticisms or just fuck off!

--Brant

It seems that there have been a couple of misunderstanding on my part. I did intend what I said about you as a joke, but misunderstood your comeback as an attack on my substantive comments. The major misunderstanding came when I read your post. Because of the way it's formatted (or appears on my iPod) and because I hadn't paid much attention to Xray's post above yours - I thought your response included what I now see was actually written by Xray. Which expains why it read like it was written by a person with split personalities.

I take responsibility for my errors and offer you my sincere apologies.

Well thanks, because now it makes sense. Sorry about my language.

--Brant

iPod envy

[Brant Gaede]

Xray: if you want to quote Rand don't ask us to read a lot of garbage to see it in context.

In other words: "Don't show me what I don't want to see?" Is that it?

Brant and George,

If one is a truth seeker, then closing one's eyes to the criticism of a philosophy/religion/ideology is counterproductive. For it is usually the critics who point out the gaps and contradictions in a system.

I'm well aware that the critics' position is the easier one since they can point out mistakes and erros without having the task to defend a system as a whole.

I'm all for seeking "truth," but I don't care to dig for diamonds in an outhouse. I'm supposed to take the time to read a bad article to find a quote and then take that quote back to the original material for proper evaluation? That was your job. You didn't do it--or did you: where? Any quotation invariably rips out context and generally the shorter the quote the more traumatic the ripping. This is not a true-a-matic system you have.

--Brant

Edited May 9, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

I can imagine--sort of--how it might be difficult to read multiple embedded posts on a small screen.

--Brant

iPad envy is next

[Leonid]

Panoptic "I will say that those particular quotes are part of a rather complex oeuvre and within the larger context they come to mean something other than what they appear to mean here."

You mean like phenomenal appearance of noumenal reality?

[Leonid]

Dragonfly: “But how can she "rationally" decide that the child is more valuable?”

If she’s acting out of duty or “because it's in their genes to do so,” her actions don’t belong to the realm of ethics and shouldn’t be even discussed on this thread. Duty is categorical imperative which prescribes an action not in order to achieve any ends or values but for sake imperative itself. Biological determinism effectively excludes such a mother from the species of Homo sapiens and put her firmly into the animal kingdom-together with dogs and cats. If this is your view on man or woman, why to discusses them on the ethical thread? Moreover, in such a case there is no such a thing as ethics or morals. BTW, do you have any scientific evidence that love to the child is in mother’s genes? Can you name the gene? Can you write its nucleotide sequence? Can you cite any experiment which proves that such a gene even exists? Do you include your own mother into this category, that is-do you think she took care on you as feline queen cares for her kittens? Or maybe she did it out of Kantian duty. Or out of some unexplained feeling of mystical origin? Most probably she did it out of love. Ayn Rand said: “To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values” (VOS, 32).

Love presupposes existence of values which presupposes existence of standard of value. Your deterministic approach effectively eliminates rationality, self-esteem and, therefore love and values. What you overlook here is that values have hierarchical structure.

“In regard to the concepts pertaining to evaluation (“value,” “emotion,” “feeling,” “desire,” etc.), the hierarchy involved is of a different kind and requires an entirely different type of measurement. It is a type applicable only to the psychological process of evaluation, and may be designated as “teleological measurement.” For instance, a moral code is a system of teleological measurement which grades the choices and actions open to man, according to the degree to which they achieve or frustrate the code’s standard of value. The standard is the end, to which man’s actions are the means. A moral code is a set of abstract principles; to practice it, an individual must translate it into the appropriate concretes—he must choose the particular goals and values which he is to pursue. This requires that he define his particular hierarchy of values, in the order of their importance, and that he act accordingly. Thus all his actions have to be guided by a process of teleological measurement." (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 32–33).

Remember that this kind of measurement is based on the existence of standard of value. The only objective standard of value, that is-which pertains to reality, is life itself. So our mother who values a hat more then her child uses wrong standard of value which always leads to sacrifice.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Leonid

[Xray]

If you are so terribly concerned about truth-seeking, then why don't you post a comment below Ames's article in which you point out some of his godawful lies?

What are those godawful lies?

[George H. Smith]

If you are so terribly concerned about truth-seeking, then why don't you post a comment below Ames's article in which you point out some of his godawful lies?

What are those godawful lies?

Stop selectively editing my comments and then playing the dumb, innocent bimbo. Here is what I wrote just before the passage you quoted:

Are you serious? We are talking about an article titled "ATLAS SHRIEKED: Ayn Rand’s First Love and Mentor Was A Sadistic Serial Killer Who Dismembered Little Girls." First love? Mentor?

So do you think that Ames was telling the truth when he called "a sadistic serial killer" Rand's "first love and mentor"? Are you insane? Or merely stupid?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Xray: "What are those godawful lies?"

So do you think that Ames was telling the truth when he called "a sadistic serial killer" Rand's "first love and mentor"? Are you insane? Or merely stupid?

She's a school teacher and she frequently uses her pedagogical technique as she did here. It's a way of maintaining intellectual and actual physical control of children. It is not Socratic. Unfortunately, it pushes my very wrong buttons.

--Brant