Objectivism and Rage

[Reidy]

Historical question for Barbara Branden: who came up with the term "psycho-epistemology"? I recently saw the claim that Rand coined it, but the evidence I'm aware of is inconclusive. I believe the first public use was in your Efficient Thinking lectures (1960?) and the first use in print was in the lead essay in For the New Intellectual (1961).

Peter

[Rich Engle]

Victor-

I'm wondering if, when you talk about benefits and hazards, you might one way or another be referring to Nathaniel's lecture, "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (?) Have you ever heard or read it? I prefer the audio version. There is also another, called "Love and Sex in the Novels of Ayn Rand."

I worked on digitally mastering both of these lectures, there weren't even quarter-inch or half-inch analog masters; it took a good bit of doing to clean them up, working right from mass-produced cassettes , if you can imagine! I think they came out great, I had some crack engineers working on that.

But anyway, you hear a lot of very negative stuff about these (particularly the former, the second seems to rarely get mentioned) from the usual places. I find these lectures to be excellent. If I recall, when we did these, Nathaniel told me that he kind of saw the two talks as companion pieces. That's why we rolled them out at the same time. I think at least the first one is available on MP3 now over at NB's site; haven't checked lately.

I thoroughly recommend these lectures.

[Rich Engle]

Oh my, this is precious. Casey Fahy just wrote an article telling Barbara why she gave her speech!

Un-freaking believable. And, of course- the truth can be found by purchasing a copy of PARC, which I understand also works good for curing warts, whooping cough, and a number of other annoying maladies.

So, it looks like he's accusing her of having a hidden agenda. Barbara? Geez, I remember you sent even little 'ol nobody me an email months and months ago talking about the idea, and why you wanted to do it- certainly had nothing to do with Perigo, Valliant, whatever. I guess you were fibbin', huh?

Un-Freaking-Believable. This guy would've been kick ass as a Spanish Inquisitor.

[Victor Pross]

Rich,

You ask:

I'm wondering if, when you talk about benefits and hazards, you might one way or another be referring to Nathaniel's lecture, "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (?) Have you ever heard or read it?

Of course. I have read most of N. Branden. You name it, I most likely would have read it.

Victor

[Barbara Branden]

Rich: " Geez, I remember you sent even little 'ol nobody me an email months and months ago talking about the idea, and why you wanted to do it- certainly had nothing to do with Perigo, Valliant, whatever. I guess you were fibbin', huh?"

It's much worse than that, Rich. You see, I didn't send you such a letter, but since I have magical powers, I planted in your mind the false memory that I did so.

Barbara

[Rich Engle]

Rich: " Geez, I remember you sent even little 'ol nobody me an email months and months ago talking about the idea, and why you wanted to do it- certainly had nothing to do with Perigo, Valliant, whatever. I guess you were fibbin', huh?"

It's much worse than that, Rich. You see, I didn't send you such a letter, but since I have magical powers, I planted in your mind the false memory that I did so.

Barbara

You witch .

Does that also explain this bedwetting thing?

[Barbara Branden]

Rich: "Does that also explain this bedwetting thing?"

Sorry about that, Rich. Being a witch is rather new for me, and sometimes I don't know my own strength.

Barbara

[Rich Engle]

Rich: "Does that also explain this bedwetting thing?"

Sorry about that, Rich. Being a witch is rather new for me, and sometimes I don't know my own strength.

Barbara

Well, please do something!? Go on to a pagan website and research, whatever!

But if you ever get control of it, I can think of at least three people you should...oh, never mind.

[reason.on]

About a week ago I posted a brief announcement on NB's list (which I co-adminster) about BB's recent speech, and since it was recently butchered "elsewhere", I thought I'd post it again here [with a few grammatical modifications].

"For those who aren't aware, Barbara Branden recently delivered a speech at the TAS 2006 Summer Seminar entitled, "Objectivism and Rage" . I'm of the opinion that BB's speech is extremely well thought, insightful, and important.

She has proven to history, and those who care to see that she is far superior to her passionately misguided detractors. Most importantly, she has let the world know that Barbara Branden, in reality, in practice, has not

given "them the sanction of the victim by allowing their ugliness and hatred to cause [her] to doubt [her]sel[f]".

More than that, BB has laid out a detailed framework and rationale for the "benevolent universe" that Ayn Rand dreamt of and lived in her best moments, and which some of the most "authoritative" Objectivists have completely abandoned in their quest for power and prestige."

RCR

[Roger Bissell]

Very nice post, RCR. I agree completely, having heard BB's talk twice now, once last month and once last fall. It towers above nearly everything that has been written or said about the O'ist movement in recent years.

REB

[Victor Pross]

Hello Barbara,

Much time has elapsed from the time you responded to me, regarding my remarks, and I do apologize for that. Life, work and time constraints have prevented me from answering sooner, and I’m afraid that my intention to properly follow up will fall short even now.

I did want to drop this fast note to let you know that I’m thinking over many issues and will get back to you. I'm very interested in all of this, and I wish there were 24 more hours in a day.

Perish from your thoughts that you have been snubbed...as I suspect you might think. I would. ;)

Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I argued a great deal on the "Objectivism and Rage" thread on RoR about judging the 12 year old Arabian boy in Barbara's example, adopting her position that it is wrong to call him morally evil. A few who posted thought he was evil because his ideas were evil - the classic Peikoff judgment. To my delight, I found corroboration in Rand's own words, as quoted in an essay by Robert Bidinotto, "Rand Versus Peikoff." Robert quotes a portion of an interview with Rand.

From the Ray Newman interview with Ayn Rand

NEWMAN: When do you classify someone as immoral?

RAND: Only when he has done...done, in fact, some immoral action... When someone in action [Rand's emphasis] does something which you know, can prove, is an immoral, vicious action -- a sin, not a value; or a vice (whichever you want to call it) -- then you have to judge him as he has proved.

You never judge a person on mere potentials, and you seldom judge him on what he says, because most people do not really speak very exactly; and on the basis of some one inadvertent remark you would not judge a person as immoral. If, however, he goes about the country preaching immoral ideas, then you would classify him as immoral.

NEWMAN: Well, there are people whom I meet who are mixed. In other words, they hold certain virtues, but then in particular situations they may act against the virtue -- or the sin or the evil.

RAND: Yes.

NEWMAN: Is that like, you can't be a little bit pregnant? Which is that if you're a little bit immoral, you're immoral? Your...your character is rated as immoral?

RAND: In fact, yes. But the important thing here is the degree of knowledge a given person has.

If you do not know exactly the nature of what you are doing, then you can't be considered immoral -- particularly if it's a young person and it's correctable. A person can make a mistake and correct it.

But it would have to be a major crime -- for instance, a person lying. Let's use that as an example. I would never forgive that at all. I would regard that as a top immorality, and regard that person as immoral, regardless of what kind of virtues he or she might have. Needless to say, if you have a robber or a murderer, or a person who is systematically breaking the rights of other people, you would call him immoral, no matter what lesser virtues he might have.

So you, in judging people of mixed premises, as most people are, you have to balance, in effect hierarchically, the seriousness of their virtues and of their vices, and see what you get in the net result.

There's not much else to say. People can call the 12 year old evil if they want solely on the basis of his ideas. I think they are wrong to do that. Rand certainly stated here that she would not do that ("particularly if it's a young person and it's correctable"), so they obviously disagree with her. They may claim whatever they wish about good and evil, but they cannot claim that Rand intended for her ideas to be used in the sense they are using them.

Rand mentioned that action "as he has proved" is what you judge in a person, and "you never judge a person on mere potentials, and you seldom judge him on what he says, because most people do not really speak very exactly..."

Heh.

Sounds like some people I know...

I'm also thinking about what a blessing it is that she could not see some of the present-day petty Internet bickering and moral condemnations performed in her name...

Thank you Robert.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

My God, Michael, you are very smug!

I suppose this means “you win” the debate? But wait. Let me quote some other philosopher who contradicts Barbara. [i hope you will see this as the contradiction it is—you wouldn't grant to me Barbara’s own contradiction within her own article].

Here’s the quote:

MSK: Lying to yourself about anything, but especially about having a talent you don't have, is not only evil, it will make you a real pain in the ass to everyone around you (especially long-suffering tortured producers).

Hmm, let’s see. Lying to yourself is evil---that’s essentially what this statement says. It seems to me that lying to yourself [in the cognitive realm, the ACT of evasion and rationalization, et al] is evil. Of course, this type of thing will have existential consequences. Of course it will. It begins in the mind first. Heh! Human beings are moved by the content of their minds.

Victor

[Not really a serious philosophical argument, but I had to meet you in smugness]. B)

[Rich Engle]

Victor,

I don't understand why you hurl things like "smugness" at people. Is there some kind of problem?

What, a passive-aggressive deal, or something? I totally don't get it.

[Victor Pross]

Rich,

I don't know why you're taking offense at this. I think MSK and I know each other well enough that we do have this kind of report with each other. He ribs me, too [on-line or private emial]. And I love it!

I'm playing around, and I believe he knows that---if you don't. I hope this helps. Let me know.

Victor

[Rich Engle]

Hey, I'm sure you're right, Victor- it probably just struck me funny.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

The more I discuss this, the more I am developing Barbara's distaste for the prostitution of the word "evil."

The concept stands for something destructive of human life that is chosen by a human being. As there is a sliding scale for destruction, from hardly destructive at all on up to mass murder, this scale should be included in the words we use for the concept.

"Evil" is too heavy-handed a word for choosing ice-cream when you know better. It is a good word for a mass murderer.

All "evil" really meant originally in Rand's writings was a substitute for the Christian word "sin." Sin doesn't sound good for a philosophy of reason. But as "sin" is an all inclusive judgment (choosing ice-cream when you know better is a sin and so is murdering millions of innocent people - because both go against the will of God), some Objectivists try to use the concept "evil" in the same manner (but instead, going against the will of Reason, so to speak).

By not evaluating context, behavior, degree and a host of other observable things, reason is the very thing that is thrown out the intellectual window with a usage like that.

For the light stuff, I like the words "wrong" and "bad" when used with moral implications instead of "evil."

As for the people who lie to themselves about being talented - you know the type - those who put on superior airs and bother the dickens out of the sane world all the time with their piss-poor mediocre efforts, all I can say is after trying to produce a slew of these creatures I only have one attitude. They are all irredeemably evil and should be hung. Every last one of them.

(btw - Lying to yourself is a mental action, not an idea.)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

M,

Exactly, I do agree with everything that you say: I did write about this very subject [before the hacker]. Actually, I don't like this promiscuous use of the word 'evil'--and I do want to pick this up with you and Barbara.

Of course, my post above is to be taken with a pinch of salt…okay, so the pinch was mixed in a sock filled with manure. ;) Regarding the non-talents in the world, the ones lining up at your door and who try to get on American Idol? ["Hey, didn't the Gong Show reject you 30 years ago? What are you doing here?"]

Death to them all!!

V

Edited August 21, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

M,

I think I can somewhat clear up our disagreement—or rather, a failure to understand where the other stands on the question of good, evil, correct, incorrect action, ideas, et al that we have been covering. Look at this simple little passage from Nathanial Branden and his choice of words.

Quote:

"The Objectivist ethics is especially significant for the psychotherapist because it is the first psychological morality. It is the first morality to define the issue of good and evil in terms of the actions of one's consciousness---that is, in terms of the manner in which one uses one's consciousness. It ties virtue and vice to the action directly subject to man's volition: the choice to think or not to think. The evils that a man may commit existentially, in action, are made possible only by the primary evil committed inside his consciousness: evasion, the refusal to think, the rejection of reason---just as the good that a man may achieve is made possible by his choice to think, to identify, to integrate, to accept reason as an absolute."

Listen to that: “It is the first morality to define the issue of good and evil in terms of the ACTIONS of one's consciousness.” Note that Branden uses the words “acts” to describe an intellectual/mental process. In the end, this is all I was saying.

I don’t know now if we had a philosophical difference or merely a semantic misunderstanding.

To repeat this part: “The evils that a man may commit existentially, in action, are made possible only by the primary evil committed inside his consciousness: evasion, the refusal to think, the rejection of reason.”

Note here that Branden speaks of the “evil” in a man’s mind is not an idea per se, but rather an intellectual 'process'—that is, evasion and the refusal to think and such---or "action" as Branden says.

Maybe this is where I became confused and equivocated on “processes” [for want of a better word] and “ideas.” But I always maintained that it “begins in the mind” and for the life of me, I couldn’t understand how we didn’t jell on this. Also, let's not forget about Rand's view of "Kant as the most evil man in history" but, yes, that might be a whole different can of worms.

I don’t know if this would be contrary to Kelley’s position regarding what N. Branden wrote here.

What do you think?

Victor

Edited August 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Not a bad quote from NB - do you have the source? Saying it would be a lot easier than me looking it up.

From the sound of it, this is early NB, but still, I have no problem with what he is talking about. What he calls "the choice to think or not to think" is what I have been calling "the choice to engage the rational faculty."

If you read his "Benefits and Hazards," you will see that even back then he no longer restricted mental operations to cognition and emotions. He also dealt with things like daydreaming and so forth, which are other mental activities - ones that exist - that can be chosen. (And should be if you are on a creative drift.)

But for the sake of defining morality, let us say that certain issues demand to be treated with reason and if one chooses not to use it for those issues, he makes an immoral choice. I am in full agreement here. If I drive a car, I need my rational capacity to think correctly to operate it. If I decide to operate it by daydreaming and shutting my eyes while driving in a crowded place - and I choose that - I have made a highly irresponsible decision - an evil one. I have suspended my rational thought on purpose. My choice was evil (and dumb).

Now look at concept formation. Obviously some concepts will be formed whether we want them to or not. We have a biological rational capacity and we can't simply turn it off. If we let it go without willing ourselves to use it well (to the best of our ability), we will integrate concepts according to non-essentials. Even if we will ourselves to use it well, but if we have learned incorrect premises, we will integrate some concepts according to non-essentials.

In this case, we will have an incorrect idea in our head, maybe even a highly destructive one, but we arrived at it by doing our honest best in terms of reason. I cannot make an evil call there.

What Peikoff claims in "Fact and Value" is that all concepts bear a good-evil component. Do they? I would say that the color "blue" is the same concept to a highly rational man as to a world-class evader. It is hard for me to call the idea of "blue" good or evil. It is even a stupid judgment.

But we agree on one thing. Willful evasion is an act (like the case of the person Barbara mentioned who grew up in a repressive culture, but had a better education, saw alternatives and other cultures, yet chose violent oppression and murder of innocents as his path), thus it can be judged morally.

Now there is the matter of degree. Calling the willful evasion of our person who wants an ice cream cone "evil" and calling a mass murderer "evil" sort of prostitutes the word. Don't you think? I certainly cannot take a person seriously who equates the two as the same. And I certainly would not choose a philosophy that did.

There is only one level where they did the same thing - the act itself of evading. Not good. But evil? I vastly prefer to say that the dieter did something wrong instead of saying that he did something wicked or evil. Then continuing in Peikoff's vein, we would have to call the dieter wicked or evil because he had an evil idea, arrived at through evasion, and (horror of horrors) ate a goddam ice cream cone. He is the same as Stalin.

Pure bull.

That's not a world I want to live in.

One last item. What Barbara, Kelley and I mean by "idea" is an integrated concept (or group of them). But let's stick with one concept for now for for simplicity. A concept is neither good or evil. It is only right or wrong (true/false, correct/incorrect). What we do with that concept can be judged morally. Even how we arrived at that concept can be judged morally (it was an action). But the concept itself is merely a mental unit for referents in reality. And that is neither pro-life or anti-life. It just is as a part of our mental equipment. It is a tool that we can use volitionally. We can make more volitionally. But once made, it is either well made or poorly made - depending on how it conforms to reality. It is correct or incorrect. Until we choose to use it, it just is.

Like a gun. Kat said somewhere that guns don't shoot people. People shoot people. The gun isn't evil. Not even the idea of the gun is evil. The shooter is.

This is what we have been talking about. And, believe it or not, this is what the Peikoff side muddles. Read the works carefully and you will see it. And once you see it, you will not want to believe it. I know I didn't. But there it was in right front of me.

Look at the anti-Kelley essays linked in my thread on the schism in the David Kelley Corner. The fudging of the cognitive/normative thing is a like big blind hole smack dab in the middle of all of them.

(That evasion means they all must be wicked bastards by their own standard. Heh.)

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Thank you for your comments about the overuse of the word "evil" in Objectivism. You are exactly right and expressed thoughts I could not express myself.

[Victor Pross]

M,

"Not a bad quote from NB - do you have the source? Saying it would be a lot easier than me looking it up."

"Who is Ayn Rand?" ; It's a copy I found in an old book store, and it rests next to Barbara's book. I was skimming threw them both the other night.

Edited August 23, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

M,

Good Lord, man!

You say: "I vastly prefer to say that the dieter did something wrong instead of saying that he did something wicked or evil. Then continuing in Peikoff's vein, we would have to call the dieter wicked or evil because he had an evil idea, arrived at through evasion, and (horror of horrors) ate a goddam ice cream cone. He is the same as Stalin."

EVIL ice cream eater, hm? Who would really ascribe to this!? I understand your point, [ and this drive to take a dig at him] but they may be a little overstated. Yes, I agree that Peikoff can be an excitable guy, but I don't think he is as bad as you characterized him above. Hey, I'm the caricature artist around here, leave the exaggerations to me. ;)

Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Thank you. The article was "Obectivism and Psychology" in Who is Ayn Rand?. In my book (Paperback Library, 2nd printing), it is on p. 63. I mention this for others who may use this quote for research.

I am repeating your quote, but including the termination of the thought.

The Objectivist ethics is especially significant for the psychotherapist because it is the first psychological morality. It is the first morality to define the issue of good and evil in terms of the actions of one's consciousness—that is, in terms of the manner in which one uses one's consciousness. It ties virtue and vice to the action directly subject to man's volition: the choice to think or not to think. The evils that a man may commit existentially, in action, are made possible only by the primary evil committed inside his consciousness: evasion, the refusal to think, the rejection of reason—just as the good that a man may achieve is made possible by his choice to think, to identify, to integrate, to accept reason as an absolute.

The Objectivist morality does not require infallibility or omniscience of man: it merely requires that he choose to be conscious—that is, to perceive reality. The issue is a moral one, because man is a being who has to be conscious by choice.

In the first paragraph, he deals with the cognitive and mentions the normative in the restricted sense I mentioned earlier. Obviously the choice to use reason is good/evil. The resulting idea is not cognitively good/evil on a concept formation level, though. Notice that Branden calls evasion a "primary evil" and refers to "evils that a man may commit existentially, in action." This "primary evil" is what today I call "wrong" or "bad" when it is a little bit, and "evil" when it is a whole bunch. (Objectivists like to use the word "massive," but that is another word I find to be prostituted from overuse in bickering.)

I like NB's definition of evasion: "the refusal to think, the rejection of reason." There is nothing passive about it. It is an active choice. He is also specific about choice to think: "to identify, to integrate, to accept reason as an absolute."

I take issue with a form of expression, "choose to be conscious," as if man had the choice to turn it on and off at will. But I think his meaning here was still a bit green. It was tied to the kinds of concepts he defined where a man can choose to use his rational faculty on purpose with "conforming to reality" as the standard (true/false), or he can choose to let it work automatically, where no "reality standard" applies, except maybe at a common sense level. I don't think he was implying that a man can blank out his total awareness. (He can, but it is not "blanking out" in the Objectivist sense. He can commit suicide or take some action or drug on purpose that leaves him unconscious.)

This was very early stuff where some of the concepts were developed more fully later in works like the essays in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand, The Psychology of Self Esteem by Nathaniel Branden, and The Virtue of Selfishness by Rand with additional essays by Branden. The bulk of the essays of all three books appeared in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist (all in Rand's case and most in Branden's).

We are talking 1962 for the NB quote and several years later for the development of the ideas in it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I want to make something clear about a "drive to take a dig" at Peikoff. I entertain no such initial animosity. I have read some of his works and I will probably listen to and read all of his published stuff very carefully over the next year or two.

He is the one who excommunicated people and misrepresented their ideas in print - on the fundamental level, not just on an exaggerated example level like I just did. (You have to admit, the dirty rotten depraved ice-cream eating evading motherfucker with the sinful slurp is quite an image next to Stalin's mass murders...)

My real drive is precision of concepts. It doesn't matter who is right. I argue against the wedding of the cognitive/normative in all cases of cognition because I find that this is wrong. I am using a true/false standard and applying reason (conformity to reality). As I mentioned, I look at a concept like "blue" and for the life of me I can't see (1) how the basic concept can be distorted by an evader, and (2) how it can be good or evil. Something reflecting light is merely blue or it isn't.

Some of Peikoff's attitudes are worthy of lampooning, though. (For instance, the end of "Fact and Value, where he essentially says: Go away and leave me and Objectivism alone. I don't want you and the dead Ayn Rand doesn't want you. So there! Nyeh!)

Pretty ripe stuff for lampooning in my book, given his intelligence.

Michael