Psychology and Objectivity

[Christopher]

One of the most interesting thoughts I've recently considered is the idea that our experience and labeling of psychological processes is a far cry from the actual objectivity of those processes. This came up recently in the discussion about self-sacrifice as understood by Catholics and communal-oriented individuals versus Objectivists.

What a man perceives is taking place in his mind and what is actually taking place can be two completely different things. This fact, upon further consideration, is a cornerstone in the discipline of Psychology. A man may think he is sacrificing himself, yet in actuality he is not. Likewise, it seems reasonable to argue that a man may feel he is being selfish, yet in fact he is sacrificing himself. A man may think anything about what is happening in his mind and behavior, but those are interpretations, not necessarily truths.

It is this precise point that I think creates much friction between the teachings of Objectivism and the teachings of so many other philosophies/religions. This does not imply that religions are on equal footing with Objectivism. Rather, the language used that arises from certain unique perspectives (faith, e.g.) is often only clear to others who have occupied the same psychological-space. Perhaps then the unique value of Objectivist language is the focus on clear conceptual communication that is independent (it is independent) of psychological experience.

[tjohnson]

Perhaps then the unique value of Objectivist language is the focus on clear conceptual communication ....

c

Clear conceptual communication?? I'm sorry, but I think this is wishful thinking.

[psychoanaleesis]

One of the most interesting thoughts I've recently considered is the idea that our experience and labeling of psychological processes is a far cry from the actual objectivity of those processes. This came up recently in the discussion about self-sacrifice as understood by Catholics and communal-oriented individuals versus Objectivists.

What a man perceives is taking place in his mind and what is actually taking place can be two completely different things. This fact, upon further consideration, is a cornerstone in the discipline of Psychology. A man may think he is sacrificing himself, yet in actuality he is not. Likewise, it seems reasonable to argue that a man may feel he is being selfish, yet in fact he is sacrificing himself. A man may think anything about what is happening in his mind and behavior, but those are interpretations, not necessarily truths.

It is this precise point that I think creates much friction between the teachings of Objectivism and the teachings of so many other philosophies/religions. This does not imply that religions are on equal footing with Objectivism. Rather, the language used that arises from certain unique perspectives (faith, e.g.) is often only clear to others who have occupied the same psychological-space. Perhaps then the unique value of Objectivist language is the focus on clear conceptual communication that is independent (it is independent) of psychological experience.

This is quite wrong here Christopher, reality is independent of one's perception and what is happening to you (as far as actions and motives go) can only be and should only be up to you. Who's to say what to say of an event/situation? The answer is YOU but you cannot and should not shun factual evidence that compels you to think precisely because these are real and therefore it is independent of you or anyone else for that matter. Ass for the language (words) what are words? These are visio-auditory representations of concepts to make it concrete in one's mind. And what are concepts? As far I understand, these are abstractions (mental representations) of concrete things. If then, one says he is 'sacrificing' that would define a person who has lost something of value in exchange for another. However, this is abnormal since that you 'lose' which would not equate to your overall well-being. In order to achieve this, there should only be a 'trade' and not sacrifice since you exchange GOODS for GOODS and the value is retained because you are in fact, selling excesses.

If what you are implying here is the 'passion of the Christ', then look back at the facts and see whether he sacrificed or traded in a selfish manner.

[tjohnson]

Ass for the language (words) what are words? These are visio-auditory representations of concepts to make it concrete in one's mind. And what are concepts? As far I understand, these are abstractions (mental representations) of concrete things.

If you contemplate this I think you may see that all we have are abstractions from "reality". We use language to try and "map" reality and when the map is similar then it allows us to infer about the structure of "reality". But we can never know "reality" directly. "Concrete things" are not concrete at all sub-atomically.

[Christopher]

David,

You are correct to say that reality is independent of one's perceptions. Extending that assertion, the reality of your abstraction processes and emotions is independent of your apprehension of those processes.

The processes we label in our heads does not necessarily represent the processes that actually occur in our heads. Just because I apprehend that my actions are self-sacrificial to my self-concept, in fact those actions may very well be asserting my self-concept. If I trade something that I consider of lesser value for something that I consider of greater value, I may be wrongly evaluating the worth of either object in reference to my values. To know our values requires that we know ourselves thoroughly. If I repress that I value the company of others, then I might gladly give up a marriage to have a high-paying job... and I would consider such a trade as healthy when in fact it is a sacrifice. My evasion merely prevents me from recognizing the sacrifice. I have apprehended my psychological values and experiences wrongly in totality to myself.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Christopher

[Brant Gaede]

Ass for the language (words) what are words? These are visio-auditory representations of concepts to make it concrete in one's mind. And what are concepts? As far I understand, these are abstractions (mental representations) of concrete things.

If you contemplate this I think you may see that all we have are abstractions from "reality". We use language to try and "map" reality and when the map is similar then it allows us to infer about the structure of "reality". But we can never know "reality" directly. "Concrete things" are not concrete at all sub-atomically.

We are structured so we don't have to bump into things even though we frequently do. Something in reality has multiple expressions not all directly accessible to us. To argue about what "directly" means borders on the semantical, GS. You might ask yourself what is the value or utility of your POV? If this language's commonly understood usage leads to practical errors in human being, what are those? And errors in higher abstraction? I don't see how common usage leads to errors even there. If we see a frog that's direct. Indirect is what we infer might be inside a frog. Upon dissection we can directly see what before we inferred. looking at the exposed anatomy we can infer what still might be that we don't yet see so we use other instruments to delve even more deeply. Etc. The inference (indirect) gradually gives way to the reality (direct) and each stage of reality confirms the previous as far as we can go sub-atomically. Is there really chaos there or in our brains about the supposed chaos because we haven't yet revealed enough? In this whole process our senses are tools which we use with acquired tools to more directly "know" reality. An electron microscope is just another type of eyeball joined to the human eyeball augmenting it.

--Brant

Ignorance is my specialty

[tjohnson]

If we see a frog that's direct. Indirect is what we infer might be inside a frog. Upon dissection we can directly see what before we inferred. looking at the exposed anatomy we can infer what still might be that we don't yet see so we use other instruments to delve even more deeply. Etc. The inference (indirect) gradually gives way to the reality (direct) and each stage of reality confirms the previous as far as we can go sub-atomically. Is there really chaos there or in our brains about the supposed chaos because we haven't yet revealed enough? In this whole process our senses are tools which we use with acquired tools to more directly "know" reality. An electron microscope is just another type of eyeball joined to the human eyeball augmenting it.

--Brant

Ignorance is my specialty

Very true, Brant, and my point is that what is available "directly" is very little and of the least importance to us. Our senses might easily be fooled into thinking something we are eating has good food value, like most of the stuff in a grocery store , but upon investigation we find that highly processed food is not good for us. (my favorite is a label that says Cheese Food Product, if it has to say it's food then it probably isn't). In short, our collective knowledge gleaned through science is far more important than what we as individuals can know with our unaided senses.

[psychoanaleesis]

If you contemplate this I think you may see that all we have are abstractions from "reality". We use language to try and "map" reality and when the map is similar then it allows us to infer about the structure of "reality". But we can never know "reality" directly. "Concrete things" are not concrete at all sub-atomically.

I just noticed I misspelled a word there and it turned out very wrong.

GS, I disagree. Please keep in mind that we can only deal with things that are within the reach of our senses (or extensions thereof). If you mean to say that "concrete" is just concrete on the outside but sub-atomically loose, by all means demonstrate it by hitting a solid brick wall and see if it gives way to your knuckles and I'd bet my bottom dollar that your fist will be the one that gives way. The point there being is that these are what we call facts and no amount of wishing or "knowing so" will make it any different. What one can do, instead, is discover the way how to... let's say, command these sub-atomic particles by knowing their process. Reality is what you can sense - perceive and consequently reason with.

Language-wise, the antonym of reality are the words "fantasy" and "unreality". Which means to veer away from reality ergo (bit by bit), you annihilate yourself. I'd like to point out that I do not dare equate these with "imagination" since imagination is a product of an attempt to re-integrate (permutation or combination) of metaphysically given facts. Reason, through logic is our only tool of perceiving reality

[psychoanaleesis]

David,

You are correct to say that reality is independent of one's perceptions. Extending that assertion, the reality of your abstraction processes and emotions is independent of your apprehension of those processes.

The processes we label in our heads does not necessarily represent the processes that actually occur in our heads. Just because I apprehend that my actions are self-sacrificial to my self-concept, in fact those actions may very well be asserting my self-concept. If I trade something that I consider of lesser value for something that I consider of greater value, I may be wrongly evaluating the worth of either object in reference to my values. To know our values requires that we know ourselves thoroughly. If I repress that I value the company of others, then I might gladly give up a marriage to have a high-paying job... and I would consider such a trade as healthy when in fact it is a sacrifice. My evasion merely prevents me from recognizing the sacrifice. I have apprehended my psychological values and experiences wrongly in totality to myself.

Christopher:

The labels that one conceives of (relative to one's vocabulary/knowledge; but not limited to) is one's closest approximation of that process. Since we can always analyze and identify the characteristics of that process, if no particular existing term will suffice then you can coin it. As for that disordered argument, why should one repress or strike out things which one considers as valuable? If one gives up say, marriage when in fact that is where his happiness lies, then that is sacrifice. I have posted this somewhere else in OL is that one can only think that something is something else because he has accepted a value which is not alike, is not and will never be his own.

It is not a requisite to just be aware or know yourself but you have to live it. The operant word there being Live. A theory is only as good as its application.

Take for example, Peter Keating. He has gained Prestige, Fame and whatnot but where did it lead him? Misery. Exactly because he forsook his Values and has indeed Sacrificed. Not traded. Sacrificed. Whereas Howard Roark, lived by his own and no matter what hardships - natural and artificial- came along, he endured and overcame them.

Again, who's to say what to say. You and only you could and should answer. However, also do at least recognize facts that you may not be 'all-seeing' and other men may have developed competencies better able to assess the situation than you e.g. the boss, doctor, lawyers, etc. Yet even then, you are free to choose to accept their advice but more importantly,let the facts be the final arbiter of who should stand corrected. Stand on your own and you stand a chance.

Edited February 23, 2010 by David Lee

[psychoanaleesis]

If we see a frog that's direct. Indirect is what we infer might be inside a frog. Upon dissection we can directly see what before we inferred. looking at the exposed anatomy we can infer what still might be that we don't yet see so we use other instruments to delve even more deeply. Etc. The inference (indirect) gradually gives way to the reality (direct) and each stage of reality confirms the previous as far as we can go sub-atomically. Is there really chaos there or in our brains about the supposed chaos because we haven't yet revealed enough? In this whole process our senses are tools which we use with acquired tools to more directly "know" reality. An electron microscope is just another type of eyeball joined to the human eyeball augmenting it.

--Brant

Ignorance is my specialty

Very true, Brant, and my point is that what is available "directly" is very little and of the least importance to us. Our senses might easily be fooled into thinking something we are eating has good food value, like most of the stuff in a grocery store , but upon investigation we find that highly processed food is not good for us. (my favorite is a label that says Cheese Food Product, if it has to say it's food then it probably isn't). In short, our collective knowledge gleaned through science is far more important than what we as individuals can know with our unaided senses.

GS, I shudder about the way you think. Good for us? There is no such thing as "us". Oh crap, just read your last sentence. I refuse to argue with a Toohey.

Edited February 23, 2010 by David Lee

[tjohnson]

Reality is what you can sense - perceive and consequently reason with.

But we can sense a relatively small amount of "what is going on" in reality. For example,

The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to (can be detected by) the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 750 nm.^[1]

We get a great deal of information about "reality" from the visible spectrum but what about the rest of the spectrum? To abstract information from this energy we need scientific instruments and theories. In many cases we even postulate existence to satisfy measurements we take with these instruments.

[tjohnson]

GS, I shudder for the way you think. Good for us? There is no such thing as "us". Oh crap, just read your last sentence. I refuse to argue with a Toohey.

There is no such thing as "us"? What, you are not a human? What's a "Toohey"?

[Peter]

General wrote:

In short, our collective knowledge gleaned through science is far more important than what we as individuals can know with our unaided senses.

End quote

I think “collective knowledge” is appropriately used, but I don’t like it paired with the phrase “more important” that General wrote. But generally I agree with him that we stand on the shoulders of giants. Yet, in its entirety the phrase does imitate Marxist rhetoric, and I do not like the sound of that.

To its logical extreme, an rational person born without history and accumulated knowledge, might be a decent hunter, and gatherer. Without the last several hundred years of western culture, Rand, and political theory a rational person would not be an Objectivist nor would they be a framer of a Constitution, but they might be a pretty good farmer. Plantation owner and inventor, Thomas Jefferson was such a man.

David’s refreshing point of view seems be: the smallest minority and the only entity rationally capable of having rights is the individual. I have noticed David thinks like a Psychologist and an Objectivist. I wonder if he noticed an echo of Lenin in what the General said.

I can’t quite figure out if David responded to Brant (Ignorance is my specialty) or to what the General wrote above, when he said, “. . . I refuse to argue with a Toohey.”

What got to my email did not contain the entire phrase just:

“I refuse to argue.” Without both quotes. Now I am confused.

I went to OL to confirm it, but I am still not sure.

I am certainly no peacemaker, but whether David was upset with Brant or the General (or both) I would not write each other off.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

David responded to GS. If GS is a "Toohey" the sentence he wrote really isn't evidence of it. David's young and his knowledge is going to take a few more years to catch up with his brainpower.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

I can't quite figure out if David responded to Brant (Ignorance is my specialty) or to what the General wrote above, when he said, ". . . I refuse to argue with a Toohey."

I'm pretty sure he was referring to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Toohey a disreputable character from AS?

[Brant Gaede]

I can't quite figure out if David responded to Brant (Ignorance is my specialty) or to what the General wrote above, when he said, ". . . I refuse to argue with a Toohey."

I'm pretty sure he was referring to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Toohey a disreputable character from AS?

Not going to help you, nayah, nayah!

--Brant

[tjohnson]

I'm pretty sure he was referring to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Toohey a disreputable character from AS?

Not going to help you, nayah, nayah!

--Brant

Suit yourself, I have ways of finding out. B)

[tjohnson]

Toohey is an unabashed collectivist and Rand's personification of evil (when speaking freely, he explicitly compares himself to Goethe's Mephisto, who tempted Faust to destruction). Toohey represents the stifling, decadent forces of Communalism and Socialism. His biggest threat is the strength of the individual spirit enshrined in Howard Roark. He falsely styles himself as representative of the will of the masses.

Yep, that's me - I'm a Toohey! Actually I think I'm more like Roark, I had very high ideals as a young man and I couldn't bring myself to teach the way the public school system wanted me too and so I ended up having to work in surveying and construction most of my life. C'est la vie!

[Peter]

The initiator of this thread, Chris wrote:

One of the most interesting thoughts I've recently considered is the idea that our experience and labeling of psychological processes is a far cry from the actual objectivity of those processes.

End quote

I hope Chris does not think I am hijacking his topic, but I think the following pertains.

Some of this has been printed before, but I will repeat it for David Lee.

I am interested in a psychological evaluation of a person who espouses Anarchism in a philosophical sense. There are philosophical anarchists and then there are accidental anarchists, or as I call them, “free range anarchists.”

Philosophical Anarchists are usually better educated and espouse their views from within the protection of a relatively free society, with leisure and surpluses. They reject any restrictions on their actions. The think a non-system of social interaction is better than any government, where each individual can do as they please until another Anarchist or group of Anarchists persuades or forces them to stop.

They say they are sure they can sustain individual rights and ensure justice because they and the people they will associate with, are capable of it. They point to themselves as proof and say, “I am rational enough to freely and respectfully interact with other individuals.” Many of them consider themselves “rugged individualists.” Many of them, at the drop of the hat, will tell you about their preferred mode of hand to hand combat and which weapons they prefer.

Free Range Anarchy, in contrast, is my way of describing an interim lack of government after migration, or for uncivilized people living under a family and clan system. They don’t deliberately choose Anarchy as a way of life, except in the sense that they may have been escaping something worse, such as savages or despotism. They are unable to articulate or establish a system that truly protects individual rights. These people are unsophisticated but not worthy of contempt. They deserve better and through cultural osmosis or interaction with civilizations they can become more civilized.

I would not consider Anarchy, under a free range system, the jungle. Generally all people have a sense of self worth and sovereignty, and this manifests itself in mutually acceptable social behaviors. If this sociable sense did not exist, anthropologists insist, we would be extinct and not here today. Toddlers learn this from each other and mentors. Civility becomes the norm. I think those commercials showing Vikings bashing others are meant to be comical, and not as a true representation of free range anarchists.

Philosophical Anarchists also have a sense of self worth and sovereignty, and this can also manifest itself in mutually acceptable social behaviors. Their difficulty, in my opinion, is that they have rejected a system of *government* that better guarantees multi-generational contracts and stability. There are legitimate disagreements among reasonable people. What type of person wants to be “on their own?” Remember, these are people who won’t move to the Alaskan wilderness to be alone. They want to be around other people, and be on their own.

Anarchists think “unjust laws” are the initiation of force, and they will determine what is unjust. A Rational Anarchist may use force against others, but only in retaliation for force already used against them. In reality, after a catastrophe, the person with an anarchist personality may form gangs with people of like thinking to keep their collective strong against any other collective, or as they call themselves, a competing defense force. The philosophical anarchist cannot recognize anarchistic ideals in action, as with warlords in Africa, or mafia dons, in Italy and America.

I say The Mafia is anarchism idealized. The Rational Anarchist doesn’t see it that way. Look, the anarchist says, “They initiate force.” But I say to the Mafia’s Nietzschean thinking, it’s their territory. If you don’t play by their rules, you have initiated force, disobedience, or coercion against them and therefore you are in violation of their laws and you will be punished.

Anarchists say any individual *can* objectively determine the justice of a situation. Is it possible two individuals or defense agencies could both conclude that one is objective but the other is not? What if neither agrees to binding arbitration? Would the winner of the dispute automatically, be the one with right on its side? The side that would win *could* be determined by factors other than *objective right*.

Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil:

Not one of these clumsy, conscience-stricken herd animals (who set out to treat egoism as a matter of general welfare) wants to know . . . that what is right for someone absolutely cannot be right for someone else; that the requirement that there be a single morality for everyone is harmful precisely to the higher men; in short, that there is an order of rank between people, and between moralities as well. (§228)

end quote

Now I ask again, in the case of two competing defense agencies, both who claim they are objectively right, who would win the dispute? It would be as Nietzsche says, “The Higher Men” - The better fighters - The Supermen. Might makes right, because the mighty are proven right, by prevailing over the lesser “herd animals.”

To any Psychologist, or any person willing to look at others from a psychological perspective, I hope you will pursue the psychological link between Nietzsche, Rand and Anarchism. The Anarchist will insist his philosophical sources for Anarchism are Ayn Rand and the Founding Fathers especially the Anti Federalists. And they may have ammunition to bolster that claim. Would a psychologist agree that a kind of naturally selective Nietzscheism is the essence of Rational Anarchism? Not the Anti-Federalist Founding Fathers. Not Ayn Rand. Friedrich Nietzsche.

His strength in the Rational Anarchistic vision is inspired, if not consciously, by Nietzsche’s Superman. The method of proof might be to compare the inevitable outcome of an anarchist situation with Nietzsche’s primacy of The Will. They are compatible.

The Rational Anarchist says EVERYONE within any geographical area, is fully capable of being rational, and to administer their own justice. Aren’t the “Higher Men” as Nietzsche calls them, Rational Anarchists, born to rule their geographical area? To a degree are they also Nihilists?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Live long and prosper,

Peter

Some notes:

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics consists of a somewhat “Byronic” and mystically “malevolent” universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to “will,” or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms.

Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his “blood,” by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” that he is a “beast of prey” whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim. Thus Nietzsche’s rejection of the Witch Doctor consisted of elevating Attila into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the Witch Doctor.

End of quote from the Ayn Rand Lexicon

Some disjointed excerpts from: IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM

Copyright George H. Smith (november 1997)

Anarchism is a theory of the good society, in which justice and social order are maintained without the State (or government). Many anarchists in the libertarian movement (including myself) were heavily influenced by the epistemological and moral theories of Ayn Rand. According to these anarchists, Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on moral grounds.

Suppose I am asked what could conceivably change my mind and cause me to endorse government, and suppose I give the following reply: "If I believed in the God of Christianity, and if I believed that God had dispatched a squad of angels to communicate with me personally, and if these angels told me that the State is a divine institution, ordained by God for the protection of human rights, and if these angels further informed me that anarchism would lead to widespread death and destruction - then, under these circumstances, I would abandon my anarchism in favor of minarchism."

OBJECTIVE JUSTICE VS. LEGAL MONOPOLISM

I defend anarchism, or society without the State, because I believe that innocent people cannot be forced to surrender any of their natural rights. Those who wish to delegate some of their rights to a government are free to do so, provided they do not violate the rights of dissenters who choose not to endorse their government.

As Ayn Rand has said, the lives of other people are not yours to dispose of. Yet this is precisely what every government attempts to do. A government initiates physical force (or the threat of force) to prohibit other people from exercising their right to enforce the rules of justice. (Either every person has this executive power, or no one does, according to the principle of political reductionism.) A government, while engaging in certain activities which it claims are just, coercively prevents other people from engaging in those selfsame activities.

Likewise, an activity, if moral when pursued by a government, is equally moral when pursued by someone else. All this should be obvious to those who agree with the principles put forth by Ayn Rand. If, therefore, the principles of justice are objective (i.e., knowable to human reason), then a government can no more claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force than it can claim a monopoly on reason.

If, however, justice is neither subjective nor intrinsic, but instead is objective - i.e., if it can be derived by rational methods from the facts of man's nature and the requirements of social existence - then the principles of justice are knowable to every rational person. This means that no person, group of persons, association, or institution whether known as "government," "State," or by any other name - can rightfully claim a legal monopoly in matters pertaining to justice.

end of quotes from George

by John Ridpath

Zarathustra, the hero of Nietzsche's epic poem, is the shepherd who climbs to the top of the highest mountain, sees the greatest distance (into the future) and then returns to report that he has seen beyond the looming nihilistic future.

Nietzsche called Zarathustra his "victor over God and nothingness," which has supported the view that Nietzsche is not a nihilist and therefore not a source of the nihilism now engulfing contemporary culture. Is this true? Or is the opposite true: that Nietzsche is, in fact, a major source of nihilism?

In these two lectures Dr. Ridpath addresses this question. He considers the nature of nihilism and its underlying assumptions, as well as the necessary repercussions of holding such a doctrine. He shows, using Nietzsche's biography and writings, that Nietzsche is one founder of today's nihilism, and that it is Ayn Rand, not Nietzsche, who is the true victor over nihilism.

By John Ridpath

Since the appearance of The Fountainhead in 1943, Ayn Rand has repeatedly been characterized by intellectuals as a follower of Nietzsche. In fact, she is the 20th century's greatest opponent of Nietzsche. This lecture addresses the reasons offered for this false association, which, despite Ayn Rand's repeated denials in the 1960s, continues to this day. Given that the most commonly asserted basis for characterizing Ayn Rand as a Nietzschean is that they both admire the strong "sovereign individual," the man of "noble soul," this lecture culminates in the grotesque contrast between Nietzsche's vision of the man of "noble soul" and Ayn Rand's vision.

[Christopher]

The labels that one conceives of (relative to one's vocabulary/knowledge; but not limited to) is one's closest approximation of that process. Since we can always analyze and identify the characteristics of that process, if no particular existing term will suffice then you can coin it. As for that disordered argument, why should one repress or strike out things which one considers as valuable? If one gives up say, marriage when in fact that is where his happiness lies, then that is sacrifice. I have posted this somewhere else in OL is that one can only think that something is something else because he has accepted a value which is not alike, is not and will never be his own.

You're oversimplying throughout your post, and I think you're missing the foundational point. Let's continue the discussion on sacrifice. The point is that Rand has a definition of "sacrifice," and individuals have a definition of "sacrifice" according to their inner experience, but these two words may be completely disassociated. Just because I feel something is a sacrifice, just because I think something is a personal sacrifice, doesn't actually mean that it is a sacrifice according to how Rand defined it.

As a studying psychology student, you should be extremely aware of repression. I also expect that you have read Nathaniel Branden's books on The Psychology of Self-Esteem and The Disowned Self. If you have this depth of familiarity with NB's works, you will understand that people can believe one thing is true, but that belief itself is not the truth. It doesn't matter whether that belief is about external reality or internal reality. You assume infallibility of awareness to one's internal processes and experiences, but the entire field of psychology demonstrates that no such infallible awareness exists.

Therefore in conclusion to the main thread of this post, there can be a disconnect between what one experiences to be true about one's internal processes and what those processes actually represent metaphysically to the organism.

[psychoanaleesis]

You're oversimplying throughout your post, and I think you're missing the foundational point. Let's continue the discussion on sacrifice. The point is that Rand has a definition of "sacrifice," and individuals have a definition of "sacrifice" according to their inner experience, but these two words may be completely disassociated. Just because I feel something is a sacrifice, just because I think something is a personal sacrifice, doesn't actually mean that it is a sacrifice according to how Rand defined it.

As a studying psychology student, you should be extremely aware of repression. I also expect that you have read Nathaniel Branden's books on The Psychology of Self-Esteem and The Disowned Self. If you have this depth of familiarity with NB's works, you will understand that people can believe one thing is true, but that belief itself is not the truth. It doesn't matter whether that belief is about external reality or internal reality. You assume infallibility of awareness to one's internal processes and experiences, but the entire field of psychology demonstrates that no such infallible awareness exists.

Therefore in conclusion to the main thread of this post, there can be a disconnect between what one experiences to be true about one's internal processes and what those processes actually represent metaphysically to the organism.

I'll be attempting to number my arguments here. if this was a question of foundations, then what better way of looking at it than through simplicity?

Have you heard of the principle of parsimony? You are complicating the issue. Whether one person defines something or the general population (consisting of individuals), it does not matter - abstract ideas are man's perception pertaining to concretes. Let at least two men demonstrate by what he means of sacrifice and descriptively (although does not necessarily require quantitatively) they will be alike provided that one of them does not abdicate sound reasoning and facts.

But, yes, it could be one's definition is different from another, if that is, they are no speaking of the same thing. When you define, you break down a concrete object through its characteristics. As Ayn Rand defines definition and which I assent to since nothing else could sum it better: "A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept...The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus to keep its units differentiated from all other existents... With certain significant exceptions, every concept can be defined and communicated in terms of other concepts. The exceptions are concepts referring to sensations, and metaphysical axioms." - Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 52. Since sacrifice involves pain and pain is a perception, not a sense, therefore it should follow that it denotes a concrete =loss.

If what you say exists, my challenge is this: Please present a case where there is a sacrifice but it does not even come close to the Objectivism/Rand's (although this should be the only) definition of sacrifice where "'Sacrifice' is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue." - “The Ethics of Emergencies,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 44. I see that you missed the point or twisted it in your earlier example because that guy gave up marriage/companionship for a career where being a husband/family man holds a higher value than that high-paying job. If he postpones marriage to build a foundation for his future happiness, then it had not been for naught. Do you now see where the error lies? You confused the word of sacrifice for trade. The repression is what caused this monstrosity in the first place, why does one have to evade/escape their desires when in fact, blanking these out would mean misery and death. Instead, one should own up and move towards it ethically.

You said, "The processes we label in our heads does not necessarily represent the processes that actually occur in our heads. Just because I apprehend that my actions are self-sacrificial to my self-concept, in fact those actions may very well be asserting my self-concept." My response: What goes on in who's head? Are you sure that head is still yours?...

If I should dare restate this: The processes we label are representatives of the actual processes. Through the best of my knowledge and competence if I surmised that the action is self-abasement then so it is. If I see that it is beneficial and good, so it is as well. I should not accept and no one could tell me otherwise. I hold that my definition, through my reasoning, is correct and will be similar to those who are of my kind but should I stand corrected by the facts/axioms that are presented (and I cannot argue with for these are self-evident), I should revise my definition for my own selfish benefit.

As for repression, I am aware of it, but not yet extremely. I still stand by some of Freud's definition of repression (since he came up with it) that it is a defense mechanism of excluding one's desires from one's consciousness into the unconscious. If we take these apart, first, it is a defense mechanism i.e. a psychological response to a threat - where in fact, desires are not threatening to us and its other characteristic - that it excludes our desires from being processed by the conscious mind which is to say, the process of repression is a method of sacrifice in itself since you strike out desires which are valuable, hence, you would not have that feeling or thought of desiring it in the first place.

For the choice of literature, I do not fall within your expectations. I am not familiar with that author's work We have been acquainted through Wikipedia just now! I can surmise some merit for those subjects he had who held a belief even if it was false one. While current science demonstrates that no infallible awareness exists it does not express that one is wrong all the time nor a person does not have the faculty, capacity and process to know his surroundings i.e. reason, mind/brain and logic. It also indicates that one will be able to improve his awareness through the said. Ideally, one should know himself through and through. I did not assume that one's knowledge/awareness is infallible that is why I stated that there are some persons who might be more capable of helping you in that kind of endeavor - of better grasping reality. NB is correct, that actual things may not be what we perceive them to be but how else could we know about it if not to use the faculties we already have?

I disagree in this point: there is no such thing as an internal reality - for a psychologically sound person. Whatever he is introspecting about is only in relation to the external reality. And as a student of psychology, I do not deal with people, only persons and certainly do not pander to the mysticism that some of its prominent figures dictate even if it was someone I look up to e.g. Freud. Also, please do not generalize an entire field because the lack of proof e.g. infallible awareness, does not indicate it is actually absent for if it was, it could never exist in the mind.

When evaluating something think: "I have the right to whatever makes me happy." but implying that it does not infringe on the rights of others. That's about it gentlemen, go float your boats

Edited February 24, 2010 by David Lee

[psychoanaleesis]

Peter, I should like to thank you for quoting/bringing to light words of greatness from admirable people. I do not have the time to read all of them but this is what I can surmise: Live consciously and consistently.

I was moved by the paragraphs where the rift between Rand and Nietzsche became acutely clear. He saw man qua man, inconsistently. he equated Reason with Will which is much more closer to Force. While, I commend Nietzsche for some of his visions, man should not resort to anarchy or lawlessness. For the reason that they are not objective, maybe smart but not intelligent nor objective. For if the facts/evidence defeats them, they resort to force and nothing can be built through a brute.

Ayn Rand on the other hand which is the right hand, presents man qua man as what he might be and ought to be i.e. the highest and greatest in terms of competence and value. She also stated in her writings that man should not seek to rule other men (as what FN's Superman implies) but rather rule over Nature by obeying its laws which he could only grasp through reason.

On other stuff re-posted here are quite laughable. Anarchists cannot even begin to build a quasi department of defense because they are/will be trying to cut each others throat out since who knows what could set them off. As far as they go, they could only make tribes. The Mafia is an example of this or your common thugs. Sure, they cooperate but wait till their victims run out, they'll be killing each other off too.

A rational anarchist is a contradiction in terms. Reason is logical while anarchy is chaos.

The solution to anarchists and irrationalists and mystics and the Toohey bunch is simple: Take away the victims and they die. That is, do not give them your consent. In your choices, do not make too much of them. If they initiate the use of force (which they always will), you have the right to retaliate through the use of force but you have an advantage that they will never attain - reason.

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, George. Are you still with us? And poor Newton, Mr. Contradiction. Thank God David wasn't around then or he would have been vaporized.

--Brant

[psychoanaleesis]

Ah, George. Are you still with us? And poor Newton, Mr. Contradiction. Thank God David wasn't around then or he would have been vaporized.

--Brant

Brant, why in the world would someone here try to "vaporize" another? I'm a bit confused, who vaporizes who? If by the victim, you meant me. I should not want to argue with Mr. Contradiction for my rational mind cannot win over his Zero sum mentality. If he was to be "vaporized" by me, I would choose not to because he'll probably do it to himself.

[psychoanaleesis]

General wrote:

In short, our collective knowledge gleaned through science is far more important than what we as individuals can know with our unaided senses.

End quote

I think “collective knowledge” is appropriately used, but I don’t like it paired with the phrase “more important” that General wrote. But generally I agree with him that we stand on the shoulders of giants. Yet, in its entirety the phrase does imitate Marxist rhetoric, and I do not like the sound of that.

To its logical extreme, an rational person born without history and accumulated knowledge, might be a decent hunter, and gatherer. Without the last several hundred years of western culture, Rand, and political theory a rational person would not be an Objectivist nor would they be a framer of a Constitution, but they might be a pretty good farmer. Plantation owner and inventor, Thomas Jefferson was such a man.

David’s refreshing point of view seems be: the smallest minority and the only entity rationally capable of having rights is the individual. I have noticed David thinks like a Psychologist and an Objectivist. I wonder if he noticed an echo of Lenin in what the General said.

I can’t quite figure out if David responded to Brant (Ignorance is my specialty) or to what the General wrote above, when he said, “. . . I refuse to argue with a Toohey.”

Peter, I do not see a problem with having ideas similar to another person - except when you plagiarize someone else's work! especially if you deprive that of its true nature like some postmodernists do!

Yes, exactly my point. The only one capable of rights is an individual that is why I take offense in what GS said. I shall point out (emphasis mine) "Our senses might easily be fooled into thinking something we are eating has good food value, like most of the stuff in a grocery store , but upon investigation we find that highly processed food is not good for us. (my favorite is a label that says Cheese Food Product, if it has to say it's food then it probably isn't)..." He did not take note of individual differences and even though "collective knowledge" says it's bad, if I found it beneficial to me regardless of whether it destroys my health.

Much like smoking, it is a person's have the right to it since it's his body and the sticks hold more value than my lungs, then it's not a sacrifice. However, as it is his right to smoke, it is another person's right to breath clean air. That's why, given civility and propriety (basically just sound reasoning) he asks, "mind if I smoke?" but if he enters a smoker's lounge or if that other person enters his home, then the need to ask is nullified.

So I say, there is no such thing as "us" since we are not of the same kind. That is to say we do not have anything in common that we can benefit from each other by prolonging an argument that clearly cannot be won since it's a zero-sum. My consent to argue will just fill a void where I gain nothing in return. That is to say, I seek trade not sacrifice.

Even with my "unaided" senses (pun because I wear glasses), ultimately only I know what's good and bad for me. Even my physician knows that he can only offer his best opinion but it's up to me to decide. I responded this strongly because I love life and incidentally, cheese food products.

Edited February 25, 2010 by David Lee