Logical Structure of Objectivism

[Brendan Hutching]

Brendan,

I didn't say it didn't reflect reality. I said it was oversimplified (and even dangerous) to categorize ALL people that way.

I find it obvious that the "producer/parasite" poles perfectly reflect facets of the human condition. The value of using the standard lies in the truth of the correspondence, which can be borne out by simple observation. You just limit it to where it is accurate.

What you said was: “dividing all people up into producers and parasites is wrong”. By “wrong” you may mean morally wrong, but remember that in Objectivism there is a tight fact-value integration.

You also claimed that the producer/parasite dichotomy is a universal principle. You have now talked yourself around to accepting that the principle is limited. I won’t belabour this point, because I think you have made the right move.

You may now like to rethink your claim about being forced to produce.

[Brendan Hutching]

Puppies, indeed. I can't imagine any Objectivist I've personally read and/or heard talk, even the most confused re the "true" meaning of "selfishness" or a few other Randian special definitions, being so misled as to argue over the true meaning of "puppy."

That’s because the answer is so obvious. Not so with the definition of the concept of, say, “selfishness”. From memory, Rand agues for her definition by attempting to ground it in man’s need to survive by his own efforts, and therefore his proper and only ethical focus is his own interests.

She goes on to claim that this is the correct definition of selfishness, and popular usage has degraded the meaning, ie so that the term selfishness means someone who focuses on his own interests to the detriment of others.

We could test these claims by taking a common example: reckless driving. Most people would label this behaviour, among other things, “selfishness”. However, Rand for obvious reasons would have to label it something like “irresponsibility”.

The important point here is that both parties would correctly identify the referent: the behaviour of reckless driving. Where they would differ would be in applying a label. How to resolve this issue? The only way would be to agree on the use of the terms. “Irresponsibility” presents no problem to the orthodox: they can agree with Objectivists on the use of this term in relation to reckless driving.

However, there would be disagreement over the application of the term “selfish”. The only solution is to agree on the referents of this term. The definition then becomes “true” by convention.

[merjet]

What is genuinely LOL is your hopeless efforts to accuse me of some supposedly shocking misrepresentation of Objectivist doctrine when it is a position that even the editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies believes to be authentically Randian.

Was that a red herring or do you just not get it?

That was minor, and I didn't say your citing Robert Campbell was a misrepresentation. Your gross distortion was to describe "death is fine if you subjectively choose it" -- written by Selene, but not about Objectivism -- as "the standard Objectivist position" here.

Then here you write, "In Objectivism, the choice to live or die is pre-moral. You can't judge it right or wrong. It's like...whatever. ... If this seemingly makes no sense when compared to things Rand wrote elsewhere, that's hardly my problem! In fact it's entirely typical of her."

Do you really expect somebody to read that and judge that you are not attributing the first part of it to Ayn Rand? The source is Peikoff, whom you even misrepresent by omission. Peikoff also wrote:

A primary choice does not mean an "arbitrary," "whimsical," or "groundless" choice. There are grounds for a (certain) primary choice, and those grounds are reality—all of it. The choice to live, as we have seen, is the choice to accept the realm of reality. This choice is not only not arbitrary. It is the precondition of criticizing the arbitrary; it is the base of reason.

A man who would throw away his life without cause, who would reject the universe on principle and embrace a zero for its own sake—such a man, according to Objectivism, would belong on the lowest rung of hell. (OPAR, 248; my bold)

I am also currently unable to read Tara Smith's mind...;-)

You can read the book when you get a chance. The index entry "choice to live" refers to several pages.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[merjet]

From memory, Rand agues for her definition by attempting to ground it in man’s need to survive by his own efforts, and therefore his proper and only ethical focus is his own interests.

She goes on to claim that this is the correct definition of selfishness, and popular usage has degraded the meaning, ie so that the term selfishness means someone who focuses on his own interests to the detriment of others.

We could test these claims by taking a common example: reckless driving. Most people would label this behaviour, among other things, “selfishness”. However, Rand for obvious reasons would have to label it something like “irresponsibility”.

There are other usages of "selfishness" which I have not seen included on Objectivist forums about selfishness.

Suppose mommy gives some treats to one child and says, "Give half to your sister." The first child gives much less than half to the sister and hogs the rest.

Extrapolate that to the business world. The CEO and chairman of the board of a sizable business awards himself with a bonus which other deserving employees regard as more than his "fair share" based on the CEO's and others' performances. Of course, there may be other factors, like bonus practices in the industry, the CEO could use to justify his decision. However, that doesn't completely override the fairness judgment.

Here is another childhood example. Billy believes Tommy should share his toys with him. However, Billy refuses to share his toys with Tommy.

selfish - devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

A modified version:

selfish - insufficient regard for the selfishness of others

[Ellen Stuttle]

Puppies, indeed. I can't imagine any Objectivist I've personally read and/or heard talk, even the most confused re the "true" meaning of "selfishness" or a few other Randian special definitions, being so misled as to argue over the true meaning of "puppy."

Please re-read this part. Bold added.

I wrote:

"Who says any different? The example was intended to be exactly the common problem you describe below, but with the referents deliberately markedly different (not to mention trivial) to try and throw the underlying issue into sharp relief. (Imagine your two Objectivists arguing over the "true" definition of a "puppy")."

I thought I was making it simple. Perhaps I went too simple....;-)

Daniel, instead of "throw[ing] the underlying issue into sharp relief," your example misses the issue, which is that of correct identification of referents not that of correct choices of labels. According to your interpretation of Rand's views of the purpose of a definition, Objectivists would have to argue over whether "young canine" or "callow youth" is the true meaning of the word "puppy." Instead, what they would argue is against someone who claimed, for instance, that "young feline" is the correct definition of the type of creature referred to with the first meaning.

Another example which you used: "Mercury" as the name for the first planet circling the sun. Objectivists wouldn't argue (I'm assuming proper interpretation of Rand in ITOE here) whether "Mercury" or some other agreed-upon, thus conventional, label is the true label. However, were someone to define that physical object being referred to as "a human space station" -- or, say, as something less obviously wrong, as the type of object which in English we call an "asteroid" -- they would argue that this is not a true definition.

Unless you get clear that what Rand is talking about is correct identification of the nature of the referents subsumed, you won't get what she means by a true definition.

With "selfishness" -- I repeat that she wrote the passage of which you make much before she wrote ITOE and I agree that the passage isn't clear in terms of her later explication on the function of definitions -- she apparently, from what she said, thought that the standard meaning of the word "selfishness" isn't a label for a properly formed concept.

Ellen

[Xray]

That’s because the answer is so obvious. Not so with the definition of the concept of, say, “selfishness”. From memory, Rand agues for her definition by attempting to ground it in man’s need to survive by his own efforts, and therefore his proper and only ethical focus is his own interests.

Self-interest is an absolute natural characteristics of every volitional individual. That's it.

There is no issue of self-interest vs "non self-interest", nor is self-interest subject to modification in any way. It's a 100% condition by nature.

B. H: We could test these claims by taking a common example: reckless driving.

Both the "reckless" driver and the "careful" driver are motivated by 100 per cent self-interest. What differs is the content of their self-interests.

Merlin Jetton: Suppose mommy gives some treats to one child and says, "Give half to your sister." The first child gives much less than half to the sister and hogs the rest.

In that case, the child's self-interest values possessing more treats higher than following the mother's directive.

No matter whether child or adult, people's self-interest will ALWAYS, without exception, lead them to decide in favor of that value which they subjectively deem higher.

Here is another childhood example. Billy believes Tommy should share his toys with him. However, Billy refuses to share his toys with Tommy.

Classic case of two conflicting self-interests. What Billy thinks Tommy "should" do obviously serves Billy's self-interest (= wanting to play with the toys too).

If Tommy declines, his self-interest values having the toys for himself higher than disappointing Billy.

If Tommy decides to share, he too has his self-interest-directed reasons for doing so. For example, wanting to preserve a good relatinship with Billy (which is similar to the 'grooming' our animal relatives do).

In case Billy is a bully and Tommy yields, his self-interest goes to not wanting to risk a violent conflict.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

Daniel, instead of "throw[ing] the underlying issue into sharp relief," your example misses the issue, which is that of correct identification of referents not that of correct choices of labels. According to your interpretation of Rand's views of the purpose of a definition, Objectivists would have to argue over whether "young canine" or "callow youth" is the true meaning of the word "puppy." Instead, what they would argue is against someone who claimed, for instance, that "young feline" is the correct definition of the type of creature referred to with the first meaning.

Another example which you used: "Mercury" as the name for the first planet circling the sun. Objectivists wouldn't argue (I'm assuming proper interpretation of Rand in ITOE here) whether "Mercury" or some other agreed-upon, thus conventional, label is the true label. However, were someone to define that physical object being referred to as "a human space station" -- or, say, as something less obviously wrong, as the type of object which in English we call an "asteroid" -- they would argue that this is not a true definition.

Unless you get clear that what Rand is talking about is correct identification of the nature of the referents subsumed, you won't get what she means by a true definition.

Ellen

I believe you hit the nail on the head.

Daniel loves to cite the following and insinuate there is something drastically wrong with it, often using his "puppy poser."

The truth or falsehood of all of man's conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions. (ITOE2, 49)

I have asked Daniel at least twice now what definitions rest on per Rand, with no response. The following is an answer to that question that Rand herself gave only only one page away from the above.

Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics. (ITOE2, 48)

...

A definition is the condensation of a vast body of observations—and stands or falls with the truth or falsehood of these observations. Let me repeat: a definition is a condensation. (ITOE2, 48)

[merjet]

Xray, please post again when you have something worthwhile to say and the content is not something we have heard hundreds of times already.

[Daniel Barnes]

Unless you get clear that what Rand is talking about is correct identification of the nature of the referents subsumed, you won't get what she means by a true definition.

I believe you hit the nail on the head.

In which Ellen's hammer not only misses the nail by a mile, but hits Merlin on the head too...;-)

Travelling, but will respond when I'm home.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[tjohnson]

Unless you get clear that what Rand is talking about is correct identification of the nature of the referents subsumed, you won't get what she means by a true definition.

This appears to be nothing more than agreeing on what a word represents in a given context.

[Xray]

Xray, please post again when you have something worthwhile to say and the content is not something we have heard hundreds of times already.

I presume you refer to the post stating that self-interest is 100 %. Can you quote any example of refuting this natural law?

Edited December 9, 2009 by Xray

[Brendan Hutching]

There are other usages of "selfishness" which I have not seen included on Objectivist forums about selfishness.

True, but we don’t disagree that people use the term “selfish” to refer to various behaviours. That’s a given. We’re disagree about the justification for that usage.

Take the case of Billy refusing to share his toys with Tommy. In this hypothetical, there is no dispute about the referent: Billy’s behaviour. The dispute is over the labeling: should this behaviour be regarded as “selfish” in the orthodox sense, or should it be seen as a legitimate exercise in Billy’s self-interest (the Randian ”selfish”)?

How can we identify the “true” label? Claiming that observation of the referent will reveal the true label ignores the fact that the referent is not in dispute. We agree that Billy is refusing to share his toys with Tommy.

Therefore, the label can only be decided, if at all, by agreement.

[merjet]

Xray, do you agree or disagree with the following?

Xray is a teacher. She has no motivation or intention to benefit her students, i.e. serve their interest. All her time as a teacher she serves her own self-interest 100% and that of her students 0%.

[merjet]

Therefore, the label can only be decided, if at all, by agreement.

What is the nature of that agreement? What is the basis of it?

[merjet]

Take the case of Billy refusing to share his toys with Tommy. In this hypothetical, there is no dispute about the referent: Billy’s behaviour. The dispute is over the labeling: should this behaviour be regarded as “selfish” in the orthodox sense, or should it be seen as a legitimate exercise in Billy’s self-interest (the Randian ”selfish”)?

How can we identify the “true” label? Claiming that observation of the referent will reveal the true label ignores the fact that the referent is not in dispute. We agree that Billy is refusing to share his toys with Tommy.

What is behind Billy's behavior? It may be that Billy is exploitative. It may be that Tommy has a history of ruining Billy's toys (but Billy has no history of ruining Tommy's toys). It may be something else. Until more is known, Billy's behavior, i.e. the referent, is not sufficiently understood.

[tjohnson]

Therefore, the label can only be decided, if at all, by agreement.

What is the nature of that agreement? What is the basis of it?

The agreement doesn't have "a nature" it's just an agreement.

" How about we call that 'X'?"

"Sounds good to me"

I think you are complicating a very simple issue.

[Xray]

Xray, do you agree or disagree with the following?

Xray is a teacher. She has no motivation or intention to benefit her students, i.e. serve their interest. All her time as a teacher she serves her own self-interest 100% and that of her students 0%.

You are wrong in believing that the fact of 100% self interest necessarily excludes others' personal interests.

It can match the interests of others, which is the case in my job, where my self-interest complements that of my children.

I have yet to see you refute the claim of 100 per cent self-interest being biologically hardwired in all humans.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

You are wrong in believing that the fact of 100% self interest necessarily excludes others' personal interests.

You are wrong. I don't believe that and even strongly disagree with it.

It can match the interests of others, which is the case in my job, where my self-interest complements that of my children.

Thank you for refuting what you said earlier:

There is no issue of self-interest vs "non self-interest", nor is self-interest subject to modification in any way.

Your children's interests are your "non self-interest". Moreover, first you say there is no issue and now you say they are complementary. You contradicted yourself not just once, but twice!

Edited December 9, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

You are wrong in believing that the fact of 100% self interest necessarily excludes others' personal interests.

You are wrong. I don't believe that and even strongly disagree with it.

It can match the interests of others, which is the case in my job, where my self-interest complements that of my children.

Thank you for refuting what you said earlier:

There is no issue of self-interest vs "non self-interest", nor is self-interest subject to modification in any way.

Your children's interests are your "non self-interest". Moreover, first you say there is no issue and now you say they are complementary. You contradicted yourself not just once, but twice!

There is no contradiction.

"Complementing self-interests" means that person X wants something which person Y is happy to offer.

Children want to be cared for and taught, which I am happy to do. Therefore the children's and my self-interest complement each other.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Xray

[Brendan Hutching]

It may be that Tommy has a history of ruining Billy's toys (but Billy has no history of ruining Tommy's toys

Tommy ruins Billy’s toys, so Billy refuses to share. Let us agree that Billy’s behaviour is justified.

Now, triangulating these behaviours against the conventional and the Objectivist definitions of “selfishness”, how do these behaviours demonstrate the “true” definition?

[Selene]

You are wrong in believing that the fact of 100% self interest necessarily excludes others' personal interests.

You are wrong. I don't believe that and even strongly disagree with it.

It can match the interests of others, which is the case in my job, where my self-interest complements that of my children.

Thank you for refuting what you said earlier:

There is no issue of self-interest vs "non self-interest", nor is self-interest subject to modification in any way.

Your children's interests are your "non self-interest". Moreover, first you say there is no issue and now you say they are complementary. You contradicted yourself not just once, but twice!

There is no contradiction.

"Complementing self-interests" means that person X wants something which person Y is happy to offer.

Children want to be cared for and taught, which I am happy to do. Therefore the children's and my self-interest complement each other.

Ms. Xray:

1) your absurd and irrational gender based smothering statement that "children [with no exceptions stated] want to be cared[female mothering assumption] for and taught[completely undefined as to what they ALL will be taught].

2) as per your generalizations, what are the age parameters for "children", i.e., 0-___?

3) therefore, following your assumptions, all children want to be cared for and taught, you are the same as a teacher in a madrassa in Saudi Arabia that teaches that Jews are pigs and should be killed while they are being cared for by the Saudi State?

Correct?

Adam

try answering those specific points rather than your tedious expositional repetition of your propaganda Ms. Goebels

Edited December 10, 2009 by Selene

[merjet]

Now, triangulating these behaviours against the conventional and the Objectivist definitions of “selfishness”, how do these behaviours demonstrate the “true” definition?

Do you mean "how do these behaviours demonstrate the one true definition for everybody"? If yes, you made a straw man. If not, your rephrasing it might help me to better understand what you are asking.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[merjet]

Self-interest is an absolute natural characteristics of every volitional individual. That's it.

There is no issue of self-interest vs "non self-interest", nor is self-interest subject to modification in any way. It's a 100% condition by nature.

"Complementing self-interests" means that person X wants something which person Y is happy to offer.

Children want to be cared for and taught, which I am happy to do. Therefore the children's and my self-interest complement each other.

Xray-speak is very unclear to me. How does the first for one person reconcile with the second without conflict?

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

...

try answering those specific points rather than your tedious expositional repetition of your propaganda Ms. Goebels

As for "try answering those specific points", the specific point is that self-interest is 100% biologically hardwired in us.

Where is your argument and example proving the contrary? No personal attack will make this issue go away.

Merlin Jetton: Xray-speak is very unclear to me. How does the first for one person reconcile with the second without conflict?

What is unclear about this? Where do you see the conflict between self-interests in my example where the children want precisely what I am happy to offer to them? Their self-interest complements mine.

Imo it is you who is unclear. What precisely do you mean by "the first for one person" and "reconcile with the second". "The second" ... what?

Edited December 10, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Self-interest is an absolute natural characteristics of every volitional individual. That's it.

There is no issue of self-interest vs "non self-interest", nor is self-interest subject to modification in any way. It's a 100% condition by nature.

"Complementing self-interests" means that person X wants something which person Y is happy to offer.

Children want to be cared for and taught, which I am happy to do. Therefore the children's and my self-interest complement each other.

Xray-speak is very unclear to me. How does the first for one person reconcile with the second without conflict?

Ms. Xray:

I am wondering are you a volunteer teacher...

because I have misunderstood your devotion to your student's well being that you would be teaching and caring for them out of your own selfish needs and receiving no compensation or benefits.

How comendable!

Adam