Question: What is the best thing a philosopher can do to further mankind

[sjw]

This question is for philosophers and those interested in philosophy: Supposing we had a collection of philosophic geniuses at our disposal, what task would they have to set themselves on in order to best further the advancement of Man on Earth?

This question is in "politics" just because I didn't see a better place for it, but the answer need not be political. Further, an Objectivist might be inclined to answer "Bad question, philosophers should know that they should only be concerned with their own self-interest." So suppose also that this group of geniuses believe that it is in their own interest to advance mankind in the best way they can devise.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

This question is for philosophers and those interested in philosophy: Supposing we had a collection of philosophic geniuses at our disposal, what task would they have to set themselves on in order to best further the advancement of Man on Earth?

The defense of individual freedom.

Ghs

[sjw]

This question is for philosophers and those interested in philosophy: Supposing we had a collection of philosophic geniuses at our disposal, what task would they have to set themselves on in order to best further the advancement of Man on Earth?

The defense of individual freedom.

Ghs

That would be my answer as well. So the next question is: how?

The first step I would propose would be the enunciation of an ideal. Is this the right first step? What are the next steps?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

This question is for philosophers and those interested in philosophy: Supposing we had a collection of philosophic geniuses at our disposal, what task would they have to set themselves on in order to best further the advancement of Man on Earth?

The defense of individual freedom.

Ghs

That would be my answer as well. So the next question is: how?

The first step I would propose would be the enunciation of an ideal. Is this the right first step? What are the next steps?

Shayne

How? My reply would be: Anyway they like.

I am of the opinion that freedom can be defended from any number of moral perspectives. I do think that all moral arguments will eventually need to converge on a theory of individual rights, but that is a somewhat different issue. Meanwhile, I think it is a mistake to tell philosophers (or any independent thinkers) how they should proceed. Let each find his or her own way, and let the process of spontaneous creativity take its course.

Suggestions are fine, of course, but not rules.

Ghs

[sjw]

How? My reply would be: Anyway they like.

I am of the opinion that freedom can be defended from any number of moral perspectives. I do think that all moral arguments will eventually need to converge on a theory of individual rights, but that is a somewhat different issue. Meanwhile, I think it is a mistake to tell philosophers (or any independent thinkers) how they should proceed. Let each find his or her own way, and let the process of spontaneous creativity take its course.

Suggestions are fine, of course, but not rules.

Ghs

What else should I expect from an anarchist? ;)

I'm not after rules, I'm after rational principles. A is A -- there has to be a best constellation of approaches for pursuing freedom. Yes, there can be options and variations and room for personal preferences, but that would be part of what is best, not a contradiction to it. Now you may answer that you have no idea what this best constellation is, and that is why you need to leave the field open. Of course, the field is always open where there is no coercion involved; I see no harm in people giving their best estimate of the right constellation of ideas.

For example, ARI thinks the best approach is to throw copies of Atlas Shrugged along the parade route and let Rand do all the work. (I exaggerate somewhat). But I would point out that Rand's ideas have not provided a solid foundation for individual rights, in fact promote ideas that are contradictory to them, and thus are not accepted even by average people who can tell there's something wrong. (E.g.: the Objectivist's uncontrollable Pavlovian urge to defend any and all big businesses in spite of a massive favoritism of big government for big business).

Shayne

[sbeaulieu]

I was thinking about something similar to this today. Not sure how many have read Nicholas Dykes's book Old Nick's Guide to Happiness, but individual freedom is a major theme. Although the form of govt' he espouses in the novel is somewhat anarachistic, my take-away question was "how" do you start?

Given the number of philosophical viewpoints that exist in American society, where, indeed, would be a good starting point? Individual freedom certainly is a logical starting point. But with socialists in our midst, what would be considered common ground to build from?

As George points out, it should be by one's choice. An ingenious pebble needs to be tossed in the pond that gets all to notice.

Good question, Shayne.

~ Shane

[Roger Bissell]

IMO, you should figure out what you really, really, really want to accomplish in your life, then figure out how to to it, then do it. Repeat, as needed. Then you will be truly happy, and your genuine happiness is the very best thing you can do to further mankind.

This is my advice not only philosophers, but also to normal people. :-)

Similarly, my favorite psychologist and the first systematic presenter of the Objectivism told a group several years ago that the best way one can further the Objectivist philosophy is to identify what you most passionately want to put your effort into, then think about it as clearly as you can, then do it as vigorously as you can.

I think NB and I are on the same page about this. I'm certainly comfortable with that page, anyway. It has stood me in good stead, as I watch not only our country, but also the Objectivist movement, staggering around in a lack of clear direction and guidance. Whatever I personally do with my remaining days on earth will be to enjoy my life by doing the things I enjoy most--not just hedonistically, but by the standard of what seems ~to me~ to be the most rational and productive use of my time. (The good is agent-relative!)

None of us is morally obligated to "further Mankind," let alone to "save" it from its folly. We are only morally obligated (by a rational standard of value and morality, which of course must be chosen) to be happy, and to do so by means of being rational and productive.

If that takes one, given one's interests and talents, into the areas of politics, philosophy, etc., then one's exercise of rational productivity will involve promoting reason and freedom. But it really has to be: to each his/her own.

REB

[sjw]

Well Roger, I suppose you must believe that the Founders of America were fools. I'm sure there were plenty of them who could have better secured their own luxuries by not rebelling against the tyranny of the King. I further wonder what you must think of John Locke, or especially Thomas Paine, who died a pauper because he took a stand for Truth.

[George H. Smith]

None of us is morally obligated to "further Mankind," let alone to "save" it from its folly. We are only morally obligated (by a rational standard of value and morality, which of course must be chosen) to be happy, and to do so by means of being rational and productive.

Do you mean to say that you didn't take up the trombone in order to "further the advancement of Man on Earth?" I am shocked and deeply disappointed.

I had a great idea for the title of your next CD, namely, Altruistic Trombone. You just shot that idea all to hell.

Incidentally, I agree with what you wrote in your post.

Ghs

[sjw]

Do you mean to say that you didn't take up the trombone in order to "further the advancement of Man on Earth?" I am shocked and deeply disappointed.

Your children, if you have any, will have to live with the consequences any apathy you might induce. Mankind either advances and improves, or it withers and dies. One can luxuriate with the gifts given to him by his forefathers, extracting the maximum possible pleasure and leaving nothing for posterity; or one can enjoy much while increasing the opportunities for his children.

I don't think Rand's view of self-interest precluded the kind of idealism in men such as Thomas Paine. It is no one's duty to be concerned with the future of humanity, but it is certainly not admirable not find it in one's rational self-interest to give some kind of care and effort toward it.

Shayne

[Jerry Biggers]

"But I would point out that Rand's ideas have not provided a solid foundation for individual rights, in fact promote ideas that are contradictory to them, and thus are not accepted even by average people who can tell there's something wrong. (E.g.: the Objectivist's uncontrollable Pavlovian urge to defend any and all big businesses in spite of a massive favoritism of big government for big business)."

Excuse me, but exactly where did you come up with that? Especially the last sentence.

If by "Objectivist's" you mean Rand's writings, she has specifically criticized those big businesses who solicit, use, and/or accept government favoritism to advance their interests. Actually, that's a big point of hers that she and other Objectivists have made repeatedly.

As for her "Pavlovian" urges, persnally I think that Freudian urges were more of a problem for her. But that's another topic.

As to how should a philosopher (by which I presume you mean an academic or "professional" philosopher) advance Objectivism in order to "save the world" (which may not want to be saved)? Well, if he really believes in Objectivism, he might want to follow the lead of a philosopher such as Tibor Machan, who has written many books (I think over thirty) and innumerable articles criticizing collectivist schemes and advocating for the cause of freedom. Or others, such as Chris Sciabarra, who has probably written the best scholarly book on Rand. These examples would be in accord with the answers Rand gave when she was asked that question.

[sjw]

Jerry,

There's a massive difference between Ayn Rand and an Objectivist. Rand doesn't deserve all the blame for what her acolytes do so please note who I directed criticism to about what.

There is a fascist streak in Objectivism a mile long but it is a subtext and an issue of emphasis and priority, it is not an issue of overt principle, and it is not as far as I recall a problem at all in Rand's fiction but it is definitely a problem in her non-fiction, amplified by ARI. Nock might have accused Rand qua non-fiction writer of "economism" and I think he would have been right, but again, I see no problems in her fiction.

The problem with Machan is demonstrated in this article by Walter Block (Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapproachement Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan): http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_5.pdf

Block seems to enjoy shooting fish in a barrel, but it's not Block's fault that the best minarchist arguments fall into the category of almost-dead fish in a barrel.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

This question is for philosophers and those interested in philosophy: Supposing we had a collection of philosophic geniuses at our disposal, what task would they have to set themselves on in order to best further the advancement of Man on Earth?

This question is in "politics" just because I didn't see a better place for it, but the answer need not be political. Further, an Objectivist might be inclined to answer "Bad question, philosophers should know that they should only be concerned with their own self-interest." So suppose also that this group of geniuses believe that it is in their own interest to advance mankind in the best way they can devise.

Shayne

They must start by cleaning out their own augean stables.

--Brant

[sjw]

This question is for philosophers and those interested in philosophy: Supposing we had a collection of philosophic geniuses at our disposal, what task would they have to set themselves on in order to best further the advancement of Man on Earth?

This question is in "politics" just because I didn't see a better place for it, but the answer need not be political. Further, an Objectivist might be inclined to answer "Bad question, philosophers should know that they should only be concerned with their own self-interest." So suppose also that this group of geniuses believe that it is in their own interest to advance mankind in the best way they can devise.

Shayne

They must start by cleaning out their own augean stables.

--Brant

Playing trombone is more fun.

Shayne

[sjw]

Playing trombone is more fun.

Shayne

OK that's a cheap shot. So was George's "you mean you didn't take up trombone to become an altruist?"

My position is that REB and George offer false choices. You can have your trombone and your rational approach to helping save mankind (you're part of it!) from tyranny. And no it doesn't consist of "just do what you want to do and the culture will magically change through some kind of Objectivist karma dripping off you onto everyone else!" -- childish silliness.

Shayne

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

There's a massive difference between Ayn Rand and an Objectivist. Rand doesn't deserve all the blame for what her acolytes do so please note who I directed criticism to about what.

There is a fascist streak in Objectivism a mile long but it is a subtext and an issue of emphasis and priority, it is not an issue of overt principle, and it is not as far as I recall a problem at all in Rand's fiction but it is definitely a problem in her non-fiction, amplified by ARI. Nock might have accused Rand qua non-fiction writer of "economism" and I think he would have been right, but again, I see no problems in her fiction.

The problem with Machan is demonstrated in this article by Walter Block (Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapproachement Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan): http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_5.pdf

Block seems to enjoy shooting fish in a barrel, but it's not Block's fault that the best minarchist arguments fall into the category of almost-dead fish in a barrel.

Shayne

Shayne,

Nor are Rand's admirers responsible for any, er, "personality quirks" that she exhibited that do not seem consistent with her published beliefs.

Your references to "fascism" in Objectivism and in Rand's nonfiction works are puzzling. In the context of charging someone with "committing an ideology," it should first be defined as to what is meant by the term, "fascism." Ideologically and philosophically, there is no similarity between fascism and Objectivism. (For a pretty good definition of fascism as an ideology and how it compares on its essentials with other ideologies, see the article on fascism in Wikipedia).

I assume that you did not mean it in that sense. But, if you did mean that Rand's nonfiction essays are in agreement with any aspect of fascism as an ideology, please illustrate with quotes and references.

If you are using fascism as a pejorative term, referring to the (mis)behavior of some who style themselves as "Objectivists," then it still does not describe what is going on. Nastiness, rudeness, purges, and other factionalist tendencies are not "fascism." Compared to the misbehavior of real fascists in Europe and South America (where there are numerous instances of physical violence), the antics of some who call themselves "Objectivists" pales into insignificance. Not only do real fascists spout a set of beliefs that have no similarity or agreement with the concepts of Objectivism, they employ more than harsh language when dealing with dissenters (that's just for starters).

Regarding Block's essay on Machan, I do not find his disagreements with "minarchism" as he calls it, convincing. At best, Block is merely restating that he is an anrchist and that Machan is not. But I see no "knock-out blow" being delivered by Block.

- Jerry

[anthony]

,

Nor are Rand's admirers responsible for any, er, "personality quirks" that she exhibited that do not seem consistent with her published beliefs.

.

- Jerry

Ha! Very good, Jerry. Speaking as a Rand admirer, this statement is as true as it is amusing.

(It should be pinned up here somewhere.)

[sjw]

Regarding Block's essay on Machan, I do not find his disagreements with "minarchism" as he calls it, convincing. At best, Block is merely restating that he is an anrchist and that Machan is not. But I see no "knock-out blow" being delivered by Block.

- Jerry

Yes, well, the fact that minarchists think their arguments are quite sound is why there are still a good number of them floating around. Mormons think their arguments are good too. What can I say?

Regarding fascism, I mean it in the technical, Wikipedia sense. I understand that it is antithetical to explicit Objectivism, but no one says that a given philosophy must be consistent. Let me pick an example: net neutrality. Now clearly, any and all government interference is wrong. None of us like any of it. But the typical Objectivist only sees one side of the interference very clearly, he only protests loudly about this kind. For example:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12767

This is fascism, not for any of the principles it espouses, but for its ignorance of the reality of the situation. And the reality is that all of these companies massively benefit from regulations that prohibit individuals from competing with them. Can you and I wire up our houses using our property rights? For a multitude of reasons -- No. We are forced to use these big companies. Who then use their monopoly powers to limit what we can say to one another.

On the "looks like a duck, walks like a duck" idea, Objectivists of the ARI kind *are*, quite literally, fascists. Whether they know or recognize it, the fact remains: in reality, they are propping up fascism. Call them useful idiots for fascism who know not what they do if you want.

Shayne

Edited September 16, 2010 by sjw

[George H. Smith]

Playing trombone is more fun.

Shayne

OK that's a cheap shot. So was George's "you mean you didn't take up trombone to become an altruist?"

I wasn't attempting to take a shot, cheap or otherwise, at anyone. This never entered my mind. My intention was to provide a setup for the "Altruistic Trombone" punch line. (As you probably know, Roger's latest CD is titled "Reflective Trombone.)

This is a common problem with written exchanges. Perfectly innocent remarks can easily be misconstrued when there are no verbal or facial nuances to convey the subtleties of intended meaning.

Ghs

[sjw]

One might ask why Objectivists like those at ARI are such useful idiots for fascism. Why don't they notice the effects of what they are doing?

It's quite simple. They aren't doers. If they were doers, they'd quickly run up against the fascism. They'd be surprised at first. They'd look in every direction for a way out. They'd trace root causes. Then they'd get a sickening feeling about what it is they'd been inadvertently nurturing all these decades. A huge massive beast towering over them, ready to eat them at any time, that they'd been feeding.

I'm a doer. I see trouble and want to fix it. If I think a cable company charges too much or is otherwise obnoxious, then I want to see what it would take to work around them. And what I see is that even if one could muster the will of enough individuals to do something practical, one could not do anything because of the rampant and pervasive fascism. So I don't even bother. Multiply that by thousands of industrious engineers, and you might begin to see how truly shackled our economy is.

But these Ayn Rand Fan Club types don't get it. They've got their computers, video games, cars, FaceBook, etc. They're fat dumb and happy with the best world they can imagine -- because they can't imagine anything but what is in front of them. Who cares that the true provider and creator of these things is a slave to fascist companies, the engineer working tirelessly to create and do what he is told for his fascist masters up in the head office because he has no other alternative.

Shayne

PS: It is of course still possible to forge a business as an individual, but until you have done this you have little chance of seeing the monumental fascist hurdles. And these hurdles aren't evenly spread, some independent businessmen will have it far easier than others.

Edited September 16, 2010 by sjw

[sjw]

I wasn't attempting to take a shot, cheap or otherwise, at anyone. This never entered my mind. My intention was to provide a setup for the "Altruistic Trombone" punch line. (As you probably know, Roger's latest CD is titled "Reflective Trombone.)

This is a common problem with written exchanges. Perfectly innocent remarks can easily be misconstrued when there are no verbal or facial nuances to convey the subtleties of intended meaning.

Ghs

Whoops, sorry George.

Shayne

[sjw]

One might ask why Objectivists like those at ARI are such useful idiots for fascism. Why don't they notice the effects of what they are doing?

It's quite simple. They aren't doers. If they were doers, they'd quickly run up against the fascism. They'd be surprised at first. They'd look in every direction for a way out. They'd trace root causes. Then they'd get a sickening feeling about what it is they'd been inadvertently nurturing all these decades. A huge massive beast towering over them, ready to eat them at any time, that they'd been feeding.

I'm a doer. I see trouble and want to fix it. If I think a cable company charges too much or is otherwise obnoxious, then I want to see what it would take to work around them. And what I see is that even if one could muster the will of enough individuals to do something practical, one could not do anything because of the rampant and pervasive fascism. So I don't even bother. Multiply that by thousands of industrious engineers, and you might begin to see how truly shackled our economy is.

But these Ayn Rand Fan Club types don't get it. They've got their computers, video games, cars, FaceBook, etc. They're fat dumb and happy with the best world they can imagine -- because they can't imagine anything but what is in front of them. Who cares that the true provider and creator of these things is a slave to fascist companies, the engineer working tirelessly to create and do what he is told for his fascist masters up in the head office because he has no other alternative.

Shayne

PS: It is of course still possible to forge a business as an individual, but until you have done this you have little chance of seeing the monumental fascist hurdles. And these hurdles aren't evenly spread, some independent businessmen will have it far easier than others.

So many qualifications need to be added to a rant like this. E.g.: No, I am not saying we shouldn't enjoy technology. And no, I'm not saying we shouldn't try our best in the context. And No, I am not saying that all CEO's are corrupt, or that it is even their fault that they have to act like facsists (just look at the HR requirements government puts on them). And on and on.

There are important qualifications to this fundamental truth -- but it is the fundamental truth, and most people are completely oblivious to it. They keep feeding the fascism rather than fighting it.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Well Roger, I suppose you must believe that the Founders of America were fools. I'm sure there were plenty of them who could have better secured their own luxuries by not rebelling against the tyranny of the King. I further wonder what you must think of John Locke, or especially Thomas Paine, who died a pauper because he took a stand for Truth.

Paine died a pauper partly because his applications for a government pension failed. He felt that his contributions to the American cause warranted this reward.

Paine's anti-Christian views, as expressed in Age of Reason and other tracts, were largely responsible for his fall from grace in America. Most of the American public and press reviled Paine for his "infidelity," an attitude that remained prevalent for many years. (Theodore Roosevelt once called Paine "that filthy little atheist.")

There was another factor as well. After Paine had been imprisoned and nearly executed by the Jacobins during the French Revolution, he appealed to the American minister, Gouverneur Morris (the penman of the U.S. Constitution), to secure his release. Paine had been imprisoned as a British subject, and Morris needed to certify that Paine was an American citizen. But Morris, a leading Federalist, refused to do this, and Paine blamed then-president George Washington, claiming that Washington wanted to keep him locked up in a foreign prison so he wouldn't stir up trouble at home. (Paine was released in 1794, after the new American minister to France, James Monroe, successfully argued for Paine's American citizenship.)

Paine retaliated by writing Letter to George Washington (1796), a scathing broadside that accused Washington of everything from military incompetence during the Revolution to political corruption during his presidency. Washington was still an iconic figure in America, so this no-holds-barred attack did not exactly add to Paine's popularity. The tenor of Paine's attack can be seen in the opening paragraph:

As censure is but awkwardly softened by apology, I shall offer you no apology for this letter. The eventful crisis to which your double politics have conducted the affairs of your country, requires an investigation uncramped by ceremony.

This later passage, which sounds like something Glenn Beck would say about Barack Obama, is typical:

Elevated to the chair of the presidency, you assumed the merit of every thing to yourself; and the natural ingratitude of your constitution began to appear. You commenced your presidential career by encouraging and swallowing the grossest adulation; and you travelled America from one end to the other to put yourself in the way of receiving it. You have as many addresses in your chest as James the Second. As to what were your views, for if you are not great enough to have ambition you are little enough to have vanity, they cannot be directly inferred from expressions of your own; but the partisans of your politics have divulged the secret...

Not until Murray Rothbard would we see another frontal assault on George Washington like this.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Well Roger, I suppose you must believe that the Founders of America were fools. I'm sure there were plenty of them who could have better secured their own luxuries by not rebelling against the tyranny of the King. I further wonder what you must think of John Locke, or especially Thomas Paine, who died a pauper because he took a stand for Truth.

If a crisis in America degenerated to the point of violent revolution, I suspect you would find Roger putting down his trombone and picking up a musket.

You actually raise a number of interesting issues, some of which are fairly complicated. Here are some brief thoughts on the matter.

1) Most of the American revolutionaries would have dearly loved to keep pursuing the occupations of their normal lives instead of participating in war against Britain. They felt, however, that they had been pushed to the wall and had no other option. (Exceptions might include figures like Sam Adams and Tom Paine -- natural-born, professional revolutionaries who had failed at every other occupation.)

2) After the war, the famous physician and revolutionary Benjamin Rush discussed the motives that actuated those who had fought in the war. He acknowledged that some merchants supported the Revolution because they believed it would eliminate their debts to British merchants. And some fought, according to Rush, because of longstanding local grievances, hoping to even the score against political rivals. But Rush concluded that most Americans fought because of a sincere love of freedom.

(3) Although the notion of "civic virtue" was popular in 18th-century America, I don't think you will find many revolutionaries who regarded fighting against Britain as a self-sacrificial action in the Randian sense. Rather, they viewed freedom as a necessary precondition of happiness, so fighting was seen as a matter of rational self-interest.

(4) Revolutionary politics differ substantially from the politics of reform. From 1763 to 1774, the vast majority of Americans advocated reconciliation with Britain, not independence. (Paine's Common Sense won many to the cause of independence.) Political activity during this time was a part-time avocation for most Americans, not a vocation.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

It seems the gentleman from ARI, Shayne, doesn't question government involvement with the net but only the government's choice of policy. This indeed nets out to fascism.

--Brant

if a government entity charters a corporation, that's an expression of fascism, as is government control of the money supply through central banking; this should be simple enough to understand; the former can be called fascism, the latter socialism or fascism as the latter is common to both