Donovan A.

Yikes! I suppose I will have to bear with the fact that I occasionally type too fast and my subconscious confuses homophones like bare with bear.

I found that it is interesting to compare these two quotes: “A man with an evil idea is not thereby evil (you have to write that down). Now there is such a thing as an evil idea, not just a mistaken idea which is one [an idea] that doesn't correspond to reality. But an actual evil idea, which means by our definition of evil, an idea who's essence is destruction of something good. And I'll give you three [examples] right here: socialism, God and non-objective art. Socialism as an idea, is the enslavement and destruction of the producer (which means of the mind). God is the assault on every human concept and therefore [is] a direct assault on the mind. Non-objective art is an assault on all art and therefore on all human values. Those ideas are not merely wrong they are evil, as against and I could give you a whole list of ideas which are wrong but not inherently evil: hedonism, naturalism in art, Aristotle's theory of the golden mean. Materialism the way the ancient Atomists held it, now if materialism the way that B.F. Skinner holds it, where he is out annihilate consciousness and will and he calls his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity that is evil, because of all that he is trying to destroy. So if somebody is coming up with ideas that you disagree with, the first thing you have to do is decide, besides these ideas being false are they evil? And then, does the person holding the idea know the meaning and consequences of the idea. And if you don't know whether he knows, whats the simplest way of finding out? Ask him! Not only does he know? But ought he to know? Given his position in life and the actions he has taken.” Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic, Leonard Peikoff, Lecture 1, Disc 2, Track 1 at 00:22 --------------- Q: You have written that the concept of God is morally evil, why? "Ayn Rand: I didn’t say it was morally evil, not in those words. I said that it’s false. I said it’s a fantasy, it doesn’t exist. I would say religion can be very dangerous psycho-epistemologically. In regard to the working of a man’s mind. Faith is dangerous, because a man who permits himself to exempt some aspect of reality from reason, and to believe in a God, even though he knows he has no reason to believe in a God, there is no evidence of a God’s existence, that is the danger psychologically, that man is not going to be rational." Ayn Rand Speaks for Herself Video Interview with James Day 1974 at 9:45 (Bold emphasis added by me)

So for my next question: Haven't most people done something that was the result of evasion, at least to some extent? What I mean to say is, haven't most people done something throughout their lives that they knew was at least somewhat morally questionable? By morally I mean anti-life or anti-happiness (for a rational man). Looking back on the mistakes I have made in life, I see that I didn't fully understand how I needed to operate at a higher level of awareness than I did in that context or that I had not fully understood a particular principle. The act of focusing (in my view) is a learned skill and learning implies knowledge. So there are two aspects to be considered: learning what actions are good (philosophical principles), and learning to maintain the appropriate level of awareness when necessary (psycho-epistemology). Please bare with me, I am thinking this through. Randall

"No man can know the good fully and go against it. Because said Socrates, if you know the good fully, you've in effect, using Objectivist terms: you have integrated thoroughly that a certain course of action if for your own welfare and you want to achieve your own welfare, to do the evil would be like deliberately stabbing yourself and no one he thought would do that. Well this of course is a mistaken view, in the sense that Socrates had a naively benevolent view of the potentialities in this respect. It is possible for people knowingly to commit evil, not to value their own lives, to know that something is harmful and self-destructive and do it anyway. Socrates did not see the Christian era and what came after it and if he had he wouldn't have held the view that knowledge is virtue and that if you know the good you can't go wrong. There is however this much truth in the Socratic view, if and to the extent that a man fully knows that a given course of action is evil and he keeps all the facts in his mind in focus and he keeps his mind on that fact with its implications and doesn't evade he cannot act against it. You cannot literally act against your knowledge in that sense. Not as long as that knowledge is kept fully clear to you. What therefore do you have to do: you can know the good and act against it, so Socrates is wrong, but why? Because the sheer fact that you know it doesn't mean that it will apply itself in any particular case, you can evade, you can disintegrate your consciousness, you can refuse to focus on what you know and thereby you can know and nevertheless contradict it and act against it. So he [socrates] is right only in the sense that you have to evade your knowledge in order to act against it. But he's wrong in the sense that evasion unfortunately is possible and therefore it is certainly possible for a person to know the good and willfully, deliberately blind himself to it, and that is willful deliberate evil, not simply ignorance, it is self-made ignorance." Leonard Peikoff - The Philosophy of Objectivism: Volume 2, Lecture 7 Disc 2, Track 4 at 6:35

Peter, I wish I had the time to discuss some of your posts, unfortunately I do not (this will have to make-do for now). I have noticed some equivocation problems regarding some Objectivist terminology. "Evil" as I use the term, implies the willful intent to do harm. However, in a broader sense, "evil" is often used to mean anything (idea or action - cause or effect) which is anti-life (of a rational being) and anti-reason. Sometimes people get confused about what ideas are. Ideas are typically defined as thoughts, theories or abstractions (note: there are no abstractions in the universe, only concretes). To be credited as a virtuous person, you have to integrate your positive ideas into practice. The same is true for negative/anti-life/false ideas, to be a vicious person, one must translate those ideas into practice. It should not be necessary to point out that a person who is absolutely committed to consistent irrationality cannot live, unless sustained by an outside source (luck or a rational consciousness). My problem with Peikoff's basic formula is that he holds: if so and so person thinks such and such, it could only be the result of evasion and willful hatred of the good. While I think this formula may have its place, unless the parameters are very clearly defined, this approach can easily be abused. For instance, I do not agree that most Libertarians are inherently dishonest. In contradistinction to Peikoff's approach, Kelley maintains (as I understand) that we should approach people who advocate ideas that we disagree with, using hierarchical analysis. The more evil the idea, the more challenging it will be for the adherent to demonstrate that he is honest. In this sense, one opens the door to at least giving a person a chance to present the reasons for which they hold a particular view. One recognizes that discussion is generally necessary to form a proper judgement of another person's character. Also note that the focus of moral judgment is primarily a person's character, not his ideas in a direct sense. When we disagree with someone we have already judged the ideas. Good day, Randall

Yes, denouncing someone for speaking to a libertarian group is silly, but the larger debate over moral sanction and what ideas are tolerable is important. In "A Question of Santion," Kelley writes: Excellent points John. I guess I am going to have to read David Kelly as I know absolutely nothing about that whole schism. I like the way you think. It used to infuriate me to watch the stupidity of the infighting when we had so much to accomplish, but that is the nature of our objectivist beast. Hopefully, we have learned how to tame it and can move positively forward together as we have much to accomplish personally and societaly [new word ?]. Adam Hi Adam, I am confused by the following: "A Question of Santion," Kelley writes: This cannot be a quote from A Question of Sanction. Did Kelley write this? I would like to see the actual reference if he did. Thanks so much, Randall

Sorry about that Jerry. Thank you for making me aware, I have corrected my post.

I think part of the problem here is that the definition and range of "inherently dishonest ideas" has not been clearly established. I'm not familiar with "inherently evil ideas," I don't think Peikoff ever coined such a phrase (perhaps I am mistaken). The point here is that according to Peikoff, if you hold X idea as true, e.g., the belief that communism is a moral ideal, that belief reflects on the moral character of the adherent to the same extent as if the exponent had acted out that idea. Person X believes Y, therefore person X must be evil to the same degree as if he had acted on idea Y. As formulated, it seems that this approach tends to ignore a person's context. Peikoff does recognize context to some degree and makes exceptions for the very young and the retarded (see Fact and Value). I do think that the abstractions that a person accepts, reflects on the rational capacity of that individual. In extreme cases, such as nihilism (direct and open attacks on reason) I believe that the concept of "inherent dishonesty" makes some sense. I could go on and on regarding this subject, but I want to make a rather simple point. Consider the following options: 1. Ideas are more evil than actions. 2. Ideas are just as evil as actions. 3. Actions are more evil than ideas. These are the only three options. Let's use the most evil clearcut example: the murder, the slaughter and torture of millions of innocent people, including children (I cannot think of anything more anti-life, i.e., more evil than such an act). If ideas are more evil than actions, then to advocate or believe that such an action were good or moral, would be grounds to kill the believer on the bases that he believes it alone. If ideas are just as evil as actions, the result is the same, i.e., that such a believer should be killed, because he is morally equivalent to someone who enacts murder and torture. Only option 3 allows for the freedom of ideas and expression in society. Even though we can identify those ideas as evil, extremely disgusting, etc, we must recognize that a person who holds such ideas as true or good is not at the same moral level as a person that carries out those ideas into practice. There are no evil thoughts per se, only the act of evasion (see Atlas Shrugged). The acceptance of any idea, regardless of how evil, is never equal or greater than the infringement of individual rights. As Miss Rand identified, individual rights can only be infringed upon by the initiation of physical force. Contra to this, realize that in order to value something a person must act to gain or keep. It is not enough to just believe or want something. In order to be considered a virtuous person, one must practice what he preaches, i.e., he must have integrity. Those who believe in false or vicious ideas, are mitigated only if they are hypocritical. Consider the following quotes: "An old saying states that actions speak louder than words, and nowhere is this as true as in the realm of values. Every man can identify his actual values and those of others - by identifying what each individual pursues in action." - Objectivism in One Lesson, Andrew Bernstein, p.13 "Unwavering loyalty to murderous principles only certifies one as among the evilest men of history. Ironically, the only way to mitigate such evil is precisely by refusing to practice the vicious principles one endorses, i.e., by a policy that would be conventionally labeled "hypocrisy"." - Objectivism in One Lesson, Andrew Bernstein, p.78 Note: These are my own thoughts. I speak only for myself, not for Dr. Kelley or anyone else.

Hi Jeffery, Thank you for your response. I am hosting The Virtue of Selfishness as an Audio Book series in Dallas and tonight we covered chapters 2-5. Rand is arguing that there are no conflicts of interest between two men in a free society that are applying for a single job opportunity. It seems that the point is that rational men must acknowledge that businesses have specific needs in order to succeed and grow. Employees are generally needed and one must acknowledge that businesses must select the best candidate, just as an employee must select the best employer, viz., based on the needs, goals and desires of the employee. The explanation that a company must pursue its rational self-interest, I do not contest. But that a company would have to close if there were only one candidate for a specific job, does not seem to follow, at least not necessarily. I don't see any reason why it could not be possible that that one candidate could not in fact be a good employee, meet the standards required for the job, etc. to promote the well-being of that company. In addition, there are companies that deal with shortages of employees in a given field quite often. Based on market demands, these employees usually are paid more due to the shortage. Assuming, of course, that the company services are meeting an actual existential social demand or need.

"Context. Both men should know that if they desire a job, their goal is made possible only by the existence of a business concern able to provide employment—that that business concern requires the availability of more than one applicant for any job—that if only one applicant existed, he would not obtain the job, because the business concern would have to close its doors—and that their competition for the job is to their interest, even though one of them will lose in that particular encounter." - Ayn Rand, The virtue of Selfishness (The "Conflicts" of Men's Interests) I'm wondering about the point that a business would have to close its doors if only one applicant existed. Would anyone be willing or able to help clarify this for me?

MSK is far nicer than I am to what I would simply define as a troll. I would have kicked out Xray long ago. I recall David Kelley writing that tolerance does not mean banging your head against the wall when you encounter willful irrationality. If Xray isn't willfully irrational, I don't know who is. Engagement with Xray is like trying to take an Xray of something through a sheet of lead. Bottom line, if concepts are subjective, there is nothing to post on a message board, because communication becomes impossible. Xray maintains that what is true for her is not true for me and that we all exist in our own realities that can contradict each other. So why bother asking for any definitions, it won't make any difference!! Now, if someone on OL wants to offer her free psychotherapy or even charge her, great! But I don't see the need for her therapy sessions to take place here. Sorry Xray, if that is snarky, it is only my subjective opinion that I have no control over. Ideas infect people like a virus and force us to act as we do and what is polite to me is offensive to you, or vice versa, nobody can know, let's start with the definition of "is" and then post a million times about how nobody can know what "is" means. Have a good day! RANDall

I ran a search online for the Secret of the League and I found this post to be very interesting: http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Bramah/Secret-of-the-League.html

Dragonfly, I have never read The Ayn Rand Cult. Does it address my question? If so, what is the answer to my question? Is there conclusive evidence that Rand read The Driver prior to writing Atlas Shrugged or does the author only offer speculation? I am curious if maybe Barbara Branden knows if Rand ever read The Driver. Thanks so much, Randall

Does anyone knows if Ayn Rand ever read The Driver by Garet Garrett? Consider the following: 1. The Driver was written in 1922. 2. A reoccurring literary motif through the book has people asking: "Who is Henry Galt?" 3. Henry Galt delivers some fantastic defenses of hard money and free markets, in both conversation and in front of the US Congress. 4. Galt uses his extraordinary entrepreneurial talent to acquire control of a failing railroad. 5. Henry Galt, is a shadowy figure who stays out of the limelight as much as possible until he unleashes a plan that had been years in the marking. http://mises.org/store/Driver-The-P418.aspx

Thank you for the help! That is the exact quote I was looking for. I had thought that it was in Galt's speech. I also ran a search through the Ayn Rand CD but there were just too many results for "error."

Hello everyone, I am looking for a quote by Ayn Rand if my memory serves me correctly. The quote was something like the following: "It is better to arrive at an error on your own judgement than to accept the judgment of another person on faith." If anyone has a lead, I would appreciate it! Thanks so much, Randall

New Culture of Reason Center Products! Product Information: Great for a gift, this Ayn Rand stamp is matted in a beautiful 2 1/2 X 3 1/2 picture frame. Price: $5.54 Product Information: Great for a gift, this Ayn Rand stamp is matted in a beautiful 5 X 7 picture frame and includes the following quotation: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged Price: $9.24

Dear Friends of Objectivism, The Culture of Reason Center is proud to announce our new selection of downloadable MP3 products! For the first time ever, lectures 1-20 of The Basic Principles of Objectivism Course can be downloaded individually in an MP3 format directly from our website. These are the original lectures that were given by Nathaniel Branden during the operation of the Nathaniel Branden Institute in the 60’s. If you have never heard any of these lectures before, please enjoy listening to our five-minute samples that are available on our product pages. Each lecture can be purchased for $7.50 + 8.25% Texas Retail Tax (if applicable). We hope you enjoy this series as much as we did! Lecture 01: The Role of Philosophy MP3 Lecture 02: What is Reason? MP3 Lecture 03: Logic and Mysticism MP3 Lecture 04: The Concept of God MP3 Lecture 05: Free Will MP3 Lecture 06: Efficient Thinking MP3 Lecture 07: Self-Esteem MP3 Lecture 08: The Psychology of Dependence MP3 Lecture 09: The Psychology of Sex MP3 Lecture 10: The Objectivist Ethics MP3 Lecture 11: Reason and Virtue MP3 Lecture 12: Justice vs. Mercy MP3 Lecture 13: The Evil of Self-Sacrifice MP3 Lecture 14: Government and The Individual MP3 Lecture 15: The Economics of A Free Society MP3 Lecture 16: Common Fallacies About Capitalism MP3 Lecture 17: Romanticism, Naturalism and The Novels of Ayn Rand, Part 1 MP3 Lecture 18: Romanticism, Naturalism and The Novels of Ayn Rand, Part 2 MP3 Lecture 19: The Nature of Evil MP3 Lecture 20: The Benevolet Sense of Life MP3 Thank you. The Culture of Reason Center Resources for Rational Minds! Permission to offer this product has been given from The Atlas Society (TAS) which holds the copyright. For further information regarding TAS please visit their website: TheAtlasSociety.com

A friend of mine helped me find this quote which is relevant to this thread: "As a child perhaps your vision of the heroic was first found in comic strips. In Superman or Buck Rogers or Tarzan. You saw them as strong and wise, and in the terms of childhood you saw clearly. But then you decided that such qualities are impossible to man. And so you stopped thinking about them. You did not perform the mental task of refining, clarifying, maturing your definitions of your values as you grew. You didn't perform the processes as the years past, of abstracting from your childhood heros their real essence and recasting that essence into adult form. You did not learn to understand that such men as Howard Roark and John Galt, although vastly different in details are the adult form of those childhood heros. And you might then, reading about Roark or Galt, never know that they are the essence of what you had wanted in childhood, wanted for yourself and wanted to find in others. And you might feel instead that they are impossible, unreal, unattainable." Barbara Branden, Efficient Thinking: CD Disc 18 - Causes of Inefficient Thinking at 32:54

I refute this so: anesthetic. Another bad idea down in flames. And it is the operation of the nervous system that makes us experience pain and pleasure, not life in general. True, one must be alive and conscious to experience pain or pleasure. But that is a condition, not an end. Ba'al Chatzaf Hi Ba'al Zhatzaf, I think the idea here is that humans must discover which entities will produce various effects upon our bodies and nervous systems. If you give a person anesthetic in the proper dosage, he will feel nothing as you remove his leg, this is beyond his control. I don't think Rand considered life as a condition or goal in a vacuum. Life without happiness (a state of non-contradictory joy) is meaningless. In this sense, I consider happiness to be the psychological and cognitive value belonging to the realm of man's mind. Life, i.e., physical well-being belongs to the realm of the body. And of course, man is an integrated being of mind and body. To value happiness without life is a contradiction, because happiness requires that a person be living to experience happiness. To value life without happiness, removes any motive for living. If life consisted only of pain, there would be no reason to exist. R

I would like to post some quotes that discuss the Objectivist view of values. The relationship between facts and values is the bridge between epistemology and ethics. If there is no truth, then there can be no proof of what is good or bad, right or wrong, pro or anti the life of a rational being. "Ayn Rand does not begin by taking the phenomenon of "values" as a given; that is, she does not begin merely by observing that men pursue various vales and by assuming that the first question of ethics is: What values ought man to pursue? She begins on a far deeper level, with the question: What are values and why does man need them? Her approach is not statistical, sociological or historical, but metaphysical; her concern is: What are the facts of reality - the facts of existence and of man's nature - that necessitate and give rise to values? A Value, she states, is that which one acts to gain and/or to keep. A value is the object of an action. " 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible." An entity who- by its nature - had no purpose to achieve, no goals to reach, could have no values and no need of values. There would no "for what." An entity incapable of initiating action, or for whom the consequences would always be the same, regardless of its actions- an entity not confronted with alternatives- could have no purpose, no goals, and hence no values. Only the existence of alternatives can make purpose - and therefore values- possible and necessary." - Nathaniel Branden, Who is Ayn Rand, p.21-22. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.” In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.” Now in what manner does a human being discover the concept of “value”? By what means does he first become aware of the issue of “good or evil” in its simplest form? By means of the physical sensations of pleasure or pain. Just as sensations are the first step of the development of a human consciousness in the realm of cognition, so they are its first step in the realm of evaluation. The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man’s body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life. “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 17 (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/values.html)

The problem is that quite often Rand's "definitions" don't coincide with reality. Can you give any examples of definitions that do coincide with reality? How can there be any objective definitions if the universe is all a matter of subjective perception? As a matter of fact, how is it possible that we are communicating at all? Selfishness might mean chair to me and coffee table to you. But wait, there is no such thing as anything anyway, because who can prove anything objectively! None of this has anything to do with Rand's concept of a hero. These issues are metaphysical and epistemological discussions. I'd really rather you post a thread on objective values under epistemology, because this thread is being filled up with irrelevant posts. Xray, I am somewhat confused by your knowledge of Rand's works, because it seems that you have a complete lack of understanding of Objectivism. Have you studied Nathaniel Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism course? Although, I think many people here may have various disagreements with how some people apply certain principles of Objectivism, I think it is odd for a person to spend so much time studying something that they seem to regard as almost total nonsense. My hunch is that you are a secular humanist agnostic and anarcho-capitalist (I may be wrong), which would explain your pseudo interest in attacking Objectivism. Because Objectivism offers the best formulation for an understandable and knowable universe and this is restrictive. Side note on other irrelevant posts: Discussions regarding the weather. MSK, can you add a section in OL for climatology, under specialized sciences? This way we can have Objectivist weather reports and find out the chances of snow in July in various parts of the world. Discussions regarding truth and or mathematics belongs under epistemology, not ethics, virtue, heroism (Ayn Rand's concept of a hero). Attacks on Objectivism as a cult or dogma. Reality is not a dogma, the fact that existence exists is not Rand's arbitrary assertion. The fact that a person may direct you to The Virtue of Selfishness or Capitalism The Unknown Ideal, does not necessarily imply intrinsicism, revelation or dogma. In those books, you will find many clear, rational and logical arguments for various positions. To equate Objectivism with the circular reasoning of Christianity is beyond ignorant. R

Xray, what you are saying is a stolen concept. If you are claiming that morality is non-objective but you know this as a fact, which means you can prove it and demonstrate that morality is subjective, then you are actually saying, morality is objectively non-objective. What you are saying is, any and all actions can be and are life supporting. What you are saying is that any random wish or whim can bring a person to happiness. Reality itself, becomes totally subjective, unknowable and unprovable by your position. Anything goes, or as Nathaniel Branden would say: you are playing life deuces wild. R

Xray, Are you saying there is no such thing as the objective good, objective evil and objective heroism by the standard of life? Are criminals and productive men morally equal objectively? In judging the character of men, it is all a matter of arbitrary whim or feelings? If morality, if the good is just a matter of opinion, then why bother having this discussion at all? Nobody would be able to prove what is right or wrong, true or false, rational or irrational.

Hi Stephen, No luck yet in finding what I've been looking for. I have not had the time to really search through all these tapes and CDs that I have. If and when I come across the information, I will post it. I was thinking about the importance of trade in regards to heroism. A hero is not a victim, nor does a hero require victims to be heroic. A hero is a man who acts by reason for his own rational self interest, with happiness as the moral purpose of his life. A rational man's relationships to others is conditional, he trades with others only because others have something of value, something rational and life promoting to offer in return. I think there can be degrees of heroism if we view the heroic in terms of the trader principle. A highly productive person, the genius that offers a new product that is life supporting is heroic. People pay a hero, materially and or spiritually because they recognize the great benefit of the hero's work, ability and mental processes. Therefore, Rearden was heroic by producing Rearden Metal. Saying thank you, is spiritual payment, i.e., the recognition that you have obtained a higher value in a trade, and that this is the reason and purpose of trade. An exchange of equal value is really purposeless. For example, suppose I were to trade a brand new copy of Atlas Shrugged with a friend, for his copy that was identical. There would be no purpose in this trade. Now if I were to trade a copy of Atlas Shrugged for $10.00, then we both walk away as winners, because the $10.00 is a higher value to me than the copy of Atlas Shrugged, and the copy of Atlas Shrugged is a higher value to my friend than his $10.00. So in my view (this is just me shooting from the hip), a hero is a rational man that pursues living and happiness, he is a moral person who finds enormous joy in achievement and he sees people as an opportunity to expand that joy. Each person acting for their own sake, and the man with the highest level of self-esteem, with the highest capability to produce and provide goods and services in the most efficient way is a great hero.