Selene

Do you really think so? I read a poll recently that shows fifty three percent of the American public believes in Angels and ghosts. What do you propose to do about that? We have a school system that is designed to destroy the ability to think critically about anything. What do you propose to do about that? Short of a total breakdown of the nation, nothing major is going to change. Even in -Atlas Shrugged-, the country had to grind to a halt and break down before there was even a chance of change. How much harder will it be in the Real World, where there is no sign whatsoever of grinding to a halt? Atlas is NOT shrugging. Ba'al Chatzaf Polls are not facts from which you can argue from. Try again.

Mike, I just wrote about this yesterday and my previous post seems pertinent here. Martin, This is one of the excesses of rhetoric that characterizes this kind of debate and, unfortunately, it clouds the message to those who would be sympathetic. I agree in full with you about the monkeyshines and pure incompetence of the USA government in its Middle Ease policies (remember in the Afghanistan war that hardly anybody on our side even spoke Farsi, although that was the language of Iran?), but it did not overthrow anybody in Iran. It backed Iranians who did the overthrowing (and they had to speak in English to get that backing). There was the element of local politics that would have existed with or without the USA. I know this scenario well from having seen it up close in Brazil. (The USA government supported the military dictatorship of the 60's and 70's there.) The USA keeps a distance in a dictator's local politics despite some covert operations and funding, but USA businesses come in full force in providing infrastructure works to his government. The aura of the American presence—the public image fostered—in such a country is geared toward competitive business, but in reality this is merely the old boy club. The only direct military part is in providing training to the secret police of the dictators, selling ordnance to the government, and maybe getting permission to set up a military base for strictly USA interests. The amount of hard feelings this creates in a foreign society is hard to communicate to people here. A mother whose son has been killed by the secret police is told by the American representatives in her country, "We had nothing to do with that." Yet she looks and sees that the soldiers of the dictator's secret police were trained by the agents of the Americans talking. She sees the dictator filling his coffers with money coming from those Americans while she sees none of it. Her taxes constantly go up to help pay for the new infrastructure projects and many are abandoned within a year or two after the PR splash. I can't think of a better recipe for instilling hatred for Americans. USA business has no business doing business with foreign dictators. And the USA government has no business doing business in the first place. Michael "I can't think of a better recipe for instilling hatred for Americans." I would suggest the Ugly American, a blockbuster book, if my memory serves me correctly it was released in 1958. It, allegedly [and in my opinion from talking to people involved in those years, you can eliminate the alledgedly], explained the failure of our "policy" in southeast Asia. I remember one testimonial story of one of our foggy bottom "diplomats" standing on the dock watching US relief supplies being unloaded right in front of his eyes and being stamped by the dock workers - "A gift from the people of Russia" in the language of the country where the ambassador did not speak the language. If, and that is a big "if", we decided to professionalize the diplomatic service, the political appointments of incompetents would end. However, that is not happening, there is too much money being made in the beltway with it's incestuous lobbying model.

Global warming. (Too-ready-to-mind to resist.) E- Ocean temperatures are currently rising (on average). Why they are rising is an interesting question. There is not definite proof (in fact there is counter evidence) that the rise in temperature is closely linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the past CO2 levels have -trailed- temperature rises, not preceded them. Ba'al Chatzaf Ok. We know you're smart and the rest of us have access to the same data. You did not answer the question raised.

A floating abstraction is a concept with no connection to empirical reality. i.e. concepts are made up of concretes that are mentally integrated, then we develop concepts from concepts etc. A floating abstraction is a concept that cannot be traced back to concretes (the longer the path back to the concretes is, the more abstract a concept is, but when there is no path back to reality, your abstraction is floating). Is that the same thing as what you meant? So would you say if it can't be 'traced' (interesting choice of words there ) back to "reality" then it is perhaps meaningless? Now that, is a thoughtful question. Why did you ask it?

I dont care what Rand wrote in For The New Intellectual. FTNI as an essay oversimplified and strawmanned a hell of a lot of philosophers. Regardless of the fact that I agree with the essentials of Rand's positive philosophy (i.e. what she said was true), I do not agree with a substantial amount of her rebukes to other philosophers. For one, she interprets Kant as a hyper-skeptic. Kant scholars have debated over this for years, and although Kant's intellectual heirs (the German Idealists, then Nietzsche, then the Postmodernists) certainly have influenced academia towards Kant-derived skepticism, it is arguable whether Kant himself was a skeptic. Rand may have been correct about the consequences of Kant, she was incorrect about Kant himself. I also think Rand treated the British Empiricists far too harshly. Regardless, Kant's morality did not say that benefitting from doing an action makes it worthless. Kant was a Deontologist, he cared nothing for the consequences. Kant said "To be beneficient where one can is duty; and besides this, there are many persons so sympathetically constituted that without any motive of vanity or self-interest they find a pleasure in spreading joy around them, and can take delight in the satisfaction of others so far as it is their own work. But I maintain that in such a case an action of this kind, however amiable and proper it may be, has nevertheless no true moral worth, but is on a level with other inclinations" In other words, the only relevant factor to Kant is the motivation. Rand was correct that according to Kant, if one wants to do good then one cannot (this is indicated by the Kant quote), since that would be acting out of inclination rather than duty. But this is not about actual consequences but about motivations. According to Kant, the only proper motivation is duty towards logically-universalizable principles. This is selflessness, but it is not altruism. Indeed, Kant's ethical theory includes "self-improvement" as a prima-facie duty, which seems compatible with self-interest consequentially-speaking, but is not compatible when we are talking about motives. In order to sneak self-interest in, one cannot do it out of self-interest (i.e. one must do it out of duty). I disagree with Kant's morality, but Rand's characterization of it is incorrect and strawmannish. It would be better for her to have trained her guns on Comte, whose ethic truly is the opposite to Rand's. "Kant was a Deontologist, he cared nothing for the consequences." My understanding is that Deontology's fundamental assumption is that no single idea captures all of the features in virtue of which an ethical theory may deserve to be called a deontology. If the answer is in the affirmative, your quote makes my blood run cold.

Apparently, this was today. Did anyone see it? Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, is scheduled to be interviewed about CEO pay today, Nov. 2, 2007, by Neil Cavuto on Fox Business Network's new show "Cavuto" at 6 pm Eastern (3 pm Pacific). This show is on the new Fox Business Network (FBN or Fox Business), not the long-running Fox News Channel (FNC). Fox is still negotiating to have FBN carried by some cable companies. So it is possible that your local cable company may not yet carry this new channel. Please check your local listings. Dr. Brook will now be interviewed every week on Wednesdays on the new Fox Business Network's as-yet-untitled afternoon news show. This is a three-hour show from 2 to 5 pm Eastern time, and Dr. Brook willl usually be on during the second hour, 3 to 4 pm Eastern (12 noon to 1 pm Pacific) but, at the producer's discretion, he could appear at any other time in this 3-hour period. When we have his exact appearance time we will let you know it. This coming Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2007, Dr. Brook will be travelling and Dr. Onkar Ghate, senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, will fill in for Dr. Brook on the Fox Business Network news show. The exact time and topic have not yet been determined.

GS, You certainly sound indoctrinated. I don't mean that to sound insulting. Just reporting what I see judging by your closed mind to great thinkers. I am curious (honestly curious, and please do not take the following question to mean anything but curious interest). Since you find philosophy a waste of time and apparently lunacy (if I understood the insinuation correctly), and lack familiarity to the point of not even knowing that ethics is a formal branch of it, what value do you find in discussing matters with people who gather to discuss philosophy? Michael Philosophy has been around for as long as the conceptual, volitional, human mind. Every physiologically brain-normal human being has a philosophy. Philosophy is the operating software of the human mind. The legitimate purpose of formal, created, studied philosophy is to get rid of the inefficiencies of contradictions and to control what's going on in one's head. Whose control and whose head, individualism, collectivism, self-interest, altruism, etc. are some open questions for the inquisitive and acquisitive. "I don't have a philosophy" is either ignorance or a lie. --Brant "Philosophy is the operating software of the human mind." Now that is well phrased! Cudos, taking hat off respectfully.

Alfonso, I certainly do not think you are endorsing anything like that. I was writing strictly to Daniel in my post. I merely included yours because when I deleted it to shorten the quote, Daniel's post was left hanging meaning-wise. So I put yours back in as a reference. Michael Nor did I. You were quite clear in your post.

Thank you. You put into precise words what has always troubled me about the "great" philosophers, including Rand.

This is a rather amazing passage. Do you argue we should apply the same kind of critical standards to assessing Rand's own work, Alfonso? Daniel, Rand was extremely perceptive, but I will agree with you fully here. There is no excuse for anyone to emulate Rand's oversimplifications about several philosophers and thinkers. They are blemishes on her work and they should be treated as such. Michael Exactly, I used to get into major problems with the new crop of neophyites at NBI when I openly criticized her when she would do that. The atmosphere at the lectures was becoming toxic, so I left. I have never been able to tolerate that kind of intellectual repression in any movement that I have worked with politically or socially.

Right. So I assume you're equally critical of Peikoff's equally "incredible connections" across cultures, religions, individuals, mass movements etc to try to claim that the Nazi gas chambers were the "theory and dream" of alleged "anti-Aristotelians" like Kant? Oops! Another fatal logical comparative error. A [me - the logical guy] is against B [you] . B [you] apparently are against C [the evil Pope Leonard I's conclusions actoss time, etc.]; ergo ????

John Dewey's Pedagogic Creed, [link below] is one of the top ten most chilling statements that I have ever read. I could have pulled out atwenty (20) paragraphs that make my blood run cold. If you have never read it in its entirety, you should. I remember reading his "common child" statement at a school board meeting concerning a new "gifted and talented" program being proposed by the hard core political elements, e.g. the teacher's and para-professional's unions, the President's Councel of the district PTA's and the "Church group", which included Orthodox Jewish, Protestant and Catholic schools in the district I am searching for the exact quote which basically argued that: We must create the common child; once we separate/remove the child from his/her God, family and country, we can create the common child. Ahh, the Elsworth line to Peter - one neck, one collar.... http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/e-dew-pc.htm

Excusable? For what? Being wrong? What evil did Kant do? I do not see making a mistake as an ethical breach or an overt wrong act. If you go by consequences, the consequences to Plato's philosophy of Ideas has wrought much more harm than anything that Kant's philosophy entailed. Christian theology up to Thomas is the child of Platonic thought. And Plato's -Republic- begat Robespierre. Why condemn Kant and not Plato? I do not defend Kant's philosophy, by the way. His notion of the synthetic a priori is bogus. The existence of non-Newtonian physics and non-Euclidean geometry has given Kant's ideas concerning the synthetic a prior the deep six. Ba'al Chatzaf "Christian theology up to Thomas is the child of Platonic thought. And Plato's -Republic- begat Robespierre. Why condemn Kant and not Plato?" Soooo, now you are a forensic philosopher who makes incredible connections across cultures, religions, regions, individuals, mass movements and etc. Please tell me that you never, ever speak for Objectivism as to a neophyte as a representative of what it even may believe to be true.

Luscious female! I mean, thinking about one! Photo that and get your color! --Brant Pink! <evil grin>

But, most importantly, Steve Colbert took it out of his Halloween basket last night on his show! Lol. Ahh, we have arrived!

Claiming (when you are alone on a desert island) that a rock is a house and that sand is clothing is not immoral, it's just very bad science. Bad ideas may be dumb, but they are not immoral as long as they don't harm anyone else. Her point isn't clear from the quote given, but she isn't talking about error, instead about willful denial of what a person knows to be true -- and such willful denial is the ultimate evil according to Objectivism. Welcome to the rational side. I am new to this forum. However, when you posted: "Her point isn't clear from the quote given, but she isn't talking about error, instead about willful denial of what a person knows to be true -- and such willful denial is the ultimate evil according to Objectivism." You helped clarify a better way to rebut them than I have been trying. Excellent point. Thank you. Exactly, and here you see an example of the latter: if you want to survive on that island you "ought" to have better science than the example given above, but this is a very different "ought" from "you ought not to murder your neighbor just while you don't like his face". Not according to Objectivism it isn't a very different "ought." According to Objectivism all "oughts" are of the if->then type; no "oughts" are deontological (impositions of duty). See her article "Causality Versus Duty" for her clearest statement on this issue. I was amused in catching up to this thread to see both Bob K. and DF stating categorically what ethics means (e.g., post #25), although their meaning is not what Rand meant; i.e., doing onto Rand what they elsewhere have objected to her doing onto others by decreeing the "true" meaning of a term. ;-) In subsequent posts, however, Bob showed awareness of Rand's defining ethics differently than he does (and than DF does). E.g., post #59 and post #34, in which he wrote (I'm radically excerpting in order to highlight the specific point I'm making): Ellen ___

GS, Morality is a synonym for ethics in the context of Objectivism (and most philosophy). Ethics is a formal branch of philosophy. Have you read much philosophy? This is the branch where the nature of right and wrong is identified and defined. Right and wrong are value judgments, so Rand's approach was to ask what the standard of such value is. Michael Precisely. Not the state and not a God(s). I think it is difficult for some folks to understand how revolutionary her concepts and philosophy actually was. Fifty years later, we have had years of the libertarian movement, the classical conservative movement and the resurgance of the republican conservative movement[a la Newt and his contract and futurism analysis]. Some neophytes might say that her "first blush" ideas are not that new, however the deeper internal aspects of her ethics, politics and psychological insights were and are breathtaking in their simplicity because you know, "feel" or understand that this is the nature of man. Her destruction of the "high" moral ground occupied by altruism is perfect, in my view.

In Objectivism, man's rational faculty is his means of survival. It has to be engaged by choice (or better, it can be rejected by choice, as in the acceptance of faith as superior to it). Choice and rational are the key words. Thus, for example, choosing any standard for dealing with the bare necessities of survival other than reason as the good is considered immoral. Well, I personally think of "morality" as belonging in religion, associated with "right" and "wrong". I don't think Objectivism will ever succeed in this area because preaching morality of any kind has proven to be a gigantic waste of time historically. Korzybski speaks about 'sanity', not 'morality', which I think stands a much better chance in the long run. If we can define 'sanity' in a generally accepted way then when people don't behave this way they must be considered unsane or possibly insane, not 'right' or 'wrong'. It appears both Korzybski and Rand were very interested in getting mankind to use his "faculty of reason" (which is mainly why I joined this list) but Korzybski relates it to sanity instead of morality. He also doesn't call it a "faculty of reason", but that is another story. OK. I can live with that fine distinction. I cannot recall whether I heard her use this metaphor or comparison or read it, but I have always used it to explain her concept to 10 year olds up to seasoned citizens. She said or wrote, "Suppose you saw a mother bird taking her fledgelings[sp ?] one by one out on a limb and before pushing them "out into the world" she broke their wings which is their main mechanism of survival?" What would you think of that mother bird? Then she argued that it is the same horror of parents who consciously or subconsciously destroy a child's mind with anti-rational premises or actions and then push them "out into the world" and crippling their one mechanism they need to survive. Since her novels are almost devoid of any families with children, I think there was one family in Galt's Gulch that had children which appeared on one page in the novel, which serverely restricts the applicability of the philosophy to most folks who have kids and the issues attendant to raising children. But that little illustration that she used can be instrumental in engaging family folks in examining her ideas.

Bob, Reading between the lines and getting an idea completely wrong are two different things. Often you get the ideas wrong. See the following for an excellent example: I won't even bother taking this literally, which you claim to be high virtue (i,e,, Nature cannot ordain anything since it is not a person). Your mistake here is one that I see you repeatedly make. You remove volition from Rand's ethics. Since politics (including capitalism) rests on ethics in Objectivism, it is chosen. You always leave out the chosen part, then impute to Rand's words meanings that are not there. That is just one type of mistake. Michael Precisely.

It means literally a good spirit (in Greek). Its practical meaning is a spirit of flourishing. Ba'al chatzaf Ba'al, I asked for a serious answer, not the philosophical Cliff's Note version. My understanding of Eudaimonia is as Aristotle viewed it the heirarchy of human purposes with the apex being eudaimonia, an end that everyone aims at. This goal is arrived at by the individual using rational activity pursuing virtue. Judgement is a key element in achieving that end. Finally, it is non-sacrificial. Therefore, Rand would tangentially agree with a) self actualization[Maslow] and selfishness. Seems that eudaimonia is quite good and quite Randian and that's forced mate in two? According to Aristotle's -Nichomachian Ethics- the ultimate end of all human effort is happiness (Eudaimonia). This end is sought for its own sake for there is not other thing that it leads to. Happiness is beauty and excellence (kalon and arette) in human functioning. This means the human is living a life of reason in harmony with all other aspects of his soul. Happiness, for a human, is excellence, beauty and harmony in functioning as a human. This is Aristotle's Man qua Man. In the course of the work he covers all the virtues (arete) which is to say excellence: Practical Wisdom (Prudence), Justice, Temperance, Fortitude (Courage). He factors in the role that friendship plays in achieving the virtues. Above all, Aristotle, teaches, virtues are acquired in the -doing- of virtue, not in the contemplation of what they are. One -does- virtue. Virtue is acquired by good habits started early in life. If you want the complete working out by Aristotle, read what he wrote, or else be satisfied with the Cliff Notes. There are ten books to his work and the English translation runs about 200 pages. Aristotle says that the virtue of justice leads to excellent (arete) and beautiful (kalon) doing with respect to others, but is not defined in terms of how one behaves with respect to others. In other words, good behavior is a consequence of being just, not the definition of being just. The work is interesting in many ways. You get to see how Aristotle reasons his way to the conclusion that Eudaimonia is the end (for its own sake) of the doing of virtue. He uses several of the syllogistic forms that he outlines in the Prior and Posterior Analytics. For Aristotle, logic is a tool with a sharp point and cutting edge, not merely an abstract study. That is why he calls his books on logic organon, which means tool-kit. Logic is a term (derived from logos) used much later on to describe what he does in the organon. It is interesting how Aristotle works out that the proper science of achieving virtuous doing and the end (Eudaimonia) is the science of politics. In the end, Aristotle describes how the happy human is one who (by some odd coincidence) is doing excellent and beautiful philosophy. Equally interesting is the way Aristotle works out virtues to be a mean between bounding vices. This is where the Aristotelean concept of the golden mean arises. This book -The Nichomachean Ehtics- (called by Aristotle Ta Ethica) is probably one intended for a wide audience. Most of Aristotle's surviving work are his study or class books, which are really outlines of his lectures. They tend to be a bit dry and stilted and very unlike Plato's writing which is quite witty (even in translation). If you really want to get a feeling for what Aristotle is saying, try to read translations done by Joe Sachs whose mission is to clear up translations which are overburdened with Latinisms and tend to obscure what Aristotle is saying and manner in which he says it. I am using Sachs translation of Ta Ethica. The difference between this tranlsation and that given by the New Oxford Translation is rather interesting. If you don't know Attic Greek then you should be using several translations concurrently to remove any translators bias and get to what Aristotle (most likely) was saying. I am trying to learn Attic but it will take me a few years before I can read the Byzantine Greek texts of Aristotle (which are considered by scholars the most authentic). Ba'al Chatzaf. Sir, I taught Aristotelian Rhetoric, which is his most popular book historically. In teaching his Rhetoric you read his other works. I am not an Aristotelian, but a follower of the teachings of Ayn Rand that I know to be true[which means Ba'al not all of them]. I wrote my thesis on Aristotelian analysis of the Objectivist Movement. My point to you was your misrepresentation of quotes from a novel which you chose to subject with an analysis that I think is faulty. I have to get back to work, that's all for now.

It means literally a good spirit (in Greek). Its practical meaning is a spirit of flourishing. Ba'al chatzaf Ba'al, I asked for a serious answer, not the philosophical Cliff's Note version. My understanding of Eudaimonia is as Aristotle viewed it the heirarchy of human purposes with the apex being eudaimonia, an end that everyone aims at. This goal is arrived at by the individual using rational activity pursuing virtue. Judgement is a key element in achieving that end. Finally, it is non-sacrificial. Therefore, Rand would tangentially agree with a) self actualization[Maslow] and selfishness. Seems that eudaimonia is quite good and quite Randian and that's forced mate in two?

It's like Seinfeld said he felt sorry for those guys at the Tide laboratory. The detergent gets the clothes incredibly white but it's just not white enough! Ba'al how do you define Eudaimonia? This is a serious question, not sealed with satire. I would like to know.

Rand is in Aristotle's camp. She conveniently ignored Aristotle's statist position in order to embrace other of his doctrines. In particular Rand is an Eudaimonian from start to finish. She is pro-flourishing and she presents this in the guise (but not the words) of a duty. Read page 100 of the hard cover edition of AS. That is why her notion of ethics (and morality) is not predicated on how party A relates to party B. "No matter how good you are I will expect you to wring everything you've got trying still to be better". That is what Francisco said to Dagny. Of course that is Rand talking (or writing). Eudaimonian clean through and down to the molecular level. It is one thing to use this measure as a personal standard, it is quite another to lay this trip on another human being. WTF does Francisco think he is? That requires more chutzpah than even I have and that is going some. Ba'al Chatzaf "Rand is in Aristotle's camp." This statement is patently absurd. It is also false. The fact is that Rand in her own words at the back of the 35th Anniversary paperback, in a statement entitled "About the Author" states in paragraph five (5) "The only philisophical debt that I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. I most emphatically disagree with a great many parts of his philosophy - but his definition of the laws of logic and of the means of human knowledge is so great an achievement that his errors are irrelevant by comparison." Mmmmm, I think she is more in one teeny, tiny one of his campsites. STRAW MAN, Ba'al.

I haven't read Nichomachean Ethics in a long time, but this seems quite a stretch. Much of the book is about virtues and eudaimonia, which apply more to an individual person than a polity. Then there is part of Chap. 2, italics mine: "For even if the end is the same for a single man and for the state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or city-states." That is the very quote I was going to give. It is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or a city-state. Aristotle is a statist, straight up and plain as day. He considers the polis greater than the individual. Also read the end of Book 10 where he connects the Nichomachean Ethics to his book on Politics. This is not a stretch. Both Aristotle and Plato considered the State (Polis) greater than the individual person. Aristotle is neither democratic nor libertarian. He is just less blatant a statist than is Plato. There was no John Lock in ancient Greece. Ba'al Chatzaf And presuming that I stipulate that that is true, the connection to Rand is ?????????.

I haven't read Nichomachean Ethics in a long time, but this seems quite a stretch. Much of the book is about virtues and eudaimonia, which apply more to an individual person than a polity. Then there is part of Chap. 2, italics mine: "For even if the end is the same for a single man and for the state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or city-states." It's not a stretch for Ba'al the rubber band man.