RightJungle

I have read The Vision of Ayn Rand and it is all that I knew it would be. These excellent lectures were presented way back when I was still in highschool. My only regret is that I didn't know about Ayn Rand and Objectivism then. Having read every book that Nathaniel Branden ever wrote (except the Romantic Love Question and Answer Book - just couldn't get into it), I know that with this publication his work has been wrapped up beautifully. Not completed, mind you, but what a climax to a great life! Here comes the touchy feely part - I felt very anxious as I waited for this book. I knew that it would give me the clearly stated principles that I needed to defend Individualism, Egoism and Capitalism. The anxiety is gone and I am using the book in much the same way that some will use a Bible. No book review here, at least not yet. Others have done a good job of that. Mary Lee

Roger, Any idea when this presentation might become available to us BB fans? Mary Lee Harsha

Dan, I'm judging from a fairly brief article by David Sloan Wilson, whose broader corpus I'm not familiar with, but I don't think he is actually analyzing fundamentalism in the examples he gives. His analysis is done in terms of what's good for the self vs. what's good for others, and the degree to which they conflict. In carrying out this exercise, he's making his own presuppositions (I'm not entirely sure what these are) about the degree to which each of the boxes is filled. How, for instance, does he deal with dichotomous categories of sheep and goats, Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness, Muslims and kuffaar, Peikovians and persons in the grip of "inherently dishonest ideas," etc.? Also, if fundamentalism means giving yourself over to pre-established rules, so as not to have to make decisions of your own, then a strict Kantian, doing his or her duty by the Categorical Imperative, is a fundamentalist. Hmm... For that matter, does The Virtue of Selfishness provide so many rules as to make any further thinking unnecessary, on the part of anyone who tries to live by its precepts? Complaints that VOS is too sketchy have actually been heard from time to time... Analyses of religious fundamentalism that I've found useful come from a couple of places. Karen Armstrong, in The Battle for God, considers fundamentalism to be a rather recent development in several religions, in reaction to the fear of losing believers from the religious community to what has become the surrounding secular society. Pascal Boyer, in his book Religion Explained, sees fundamentalism as based on a strategy of increasing the costs (in ostracism, public condemnation, and so forth) attendant on leaving the religious community. Robert Campbell I read David Sloan Wilson's book, "Evolution for Everyone" when it first came out because I realized that I didn't know much about how it was being used since Darwin first wrote "Origin of the Species." His book reminded me of Julian Jaynes' book "The Orign of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" (I can actually say that from memory!). Wilson's book is helpful in understanding where the science of biology is right now and that should be of great interest to Objectivists because of Our Metaphysics and Epistemology being somewhat under attack. I would be interested in what those of you who do a good job of writing clearly about science think about Wilson's book. Mary Lee Harsha

I found this article a few weeks ago, pulled it down, printed it, passed it around to friends while waiting for permission from the New Individualist to send it out electronically. Today, watching Fox and the announcement just came that the Dems have the votes needed to pass this Health Reform bill. If Rush was right and "we are talking philosophy here folks", then it will be the ideas formulated by the defenders of liberty that will eventually make the re-founding possible. The Republicans have absolutely got to understand the basic principles of Objectivism, and therefore the basic principles of individualism and capitalism if they are to be able to help even just one little iota. I am mailing out copies of this article along with other articles to my Senator and others at both the federal level and the local level. http://objectivistcenter.org/ct-1876-Up_from.aspx

Saw these numbers on Amazon.com today: Leonard Peikoff's book “Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand”: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #218,719 in Books Nathaniel Branden's The Vision of Ayn Rand: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #102,503 in Books Does this mean that Branden's book has sold more copies in its lifetime than Leonard's in its lifetime? Or What?

While googling “Objectivist Living” to get to it quickly, I noticed an entry in Google that read “Objectivist Learning Theory”. I clicked on it and here is the first sentence from the site: “Objectivism refers to a class of cognitivist or behaviorist learning theory that view knowledge as some entity existing independent of the mind of individuals.” Amazing ain’t it? http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Objectivism

Ah.. I wish I knew. I believe it will have to be a grass roots movement that evolves slowly over time as people become more educated worldwide. GS: I have the same wishes. Can we agree on freedom as the default position? Adam Is anybody else having trouble staying with this conversation? It keeps changing, but this resource question is an interesting one. When worrying over resources, we can always look up and notice the enormous universe around us. Given a government that protects our "Moral Rights and Political Freedom", the resources are available to the innovative entrepreneurs. Mary Lee

Brad, This is incorrect. In philosophy an entity is an existent with a distinct existence as a whole. For instance a color is an existent, but not an entity since it is always part of something else (an entity). The doughnut's hole fits this category (shape of the entity). Michael Michael, would Rand would say that the donut hole is the abstraction of an abstraction that is derived from our perception of the shape of the donut? Mary Lee Ouch! Mary Lee now my head hurts too! Didn't mean to cause a headache - I was just talking about Rand's Epistemology as it discusses the hierarchical nature of concepts (abstractions). At the bottom of the hierarchy there must be some perception of something that exists - in this case the donut. But the donut has a shape that produces the appearance of a hole in the middle. The hole is the derived abstraction. Without the donut, we would not see it or think it. Does that feel better? Mary Lee

Keep in mind that Rand said that there is no conflict of interest among rational men. Also remember that Rand never said anything that she didn't work over very thoroughly. Notice that additional applicants must exist. Even if they did not happen to both apply for the job, they must exist. Without the additional applicants the business concern is operating in an environment that is very unlikely to exist – an environment of total isolation from the job market as well as its own market of buyers. She used this example as a broadly interesting one that could be interpreted as presenting a conflict of interest if you either didn't think about it objectively or didn't have Rand to tell you about it. Mary Lee

Brad, This is incorrect. In philosophy an entity is an existent with a distinct existence as a whole. For instance a color is an existent, but not an entity since it is always part of something else (an entity). The doughnut's hole fits this category (shape of the entity). Michael Michael, would Rand say that the donut hole is the abstraction of an abstraction that is derived from our perception of the shape of the donut? Mary Lee

Value Chaser, Why Glenn Beck? Well, other than John Stossel’s new show on FOXB, Glenn is the only one I know of on cable or satellite T.V. who talks about, and somewhat like, Ayn Rand. He actually talks to Yaron Brook with a fairly decent level of respect. Did you catch Bill O’Reilly’s interview of Leonard Peikoff right after 911? Bill was really more rudely “Bill O’Reillyish” than usual with Peikoff. Rush Limbaugh occasionally throws us a crumb of recognition, but then quickly moves on to his “us against them” defense of conservatism. Glenn helps gives us Ayn Rand fans a big dose of conviction that Objectivism will be able to get out there and get on with saving the day. Now, Stossel is doing an even better job with his interviews of Allison and Brook and others about the application of Objectivist ideas to the government’s rush to totalitarianism. For those 912ers and Tea Partiers who had never heard of Ayn Rand before, it is a new approach to politics that they can use to understand the world as they are beginning to see it and as Glenn details it with his photography and black board. I do not have any problem with the black board because it does carry an ambience of the class room. And watching Glenn is very like entering a class room. Seriously, I don’t think any of us feels talked down to at all. We’re just glad to be able to watch someone who is glib, cool and on our side most of the time. In a world rendered stupid by John Dewey’s “My Pedagogic Creed” approach to education, we’ve needed all the history we can get to help us understand where we are today. Glenn has practiced his entertainment style for a long time and most Beck fans seem taken with his “question with boldness” and “re-founding of America” approach to the discussion of political philosophy, not to mention his totally delightful dumb guy character. I know for a fact that the only way we are going to get back the Republic that Ben Franklin suggested that we learn to keep, is through the application of Objectivism – especially to Ethics and Politics. I know that Objectivism is not a quick study and that Beck does not teach the philosophy with the consistency with which he reveals the evils of Progressivism. But Stossel might make up for that. I do have one complaint about the way Fox is covering the political news and it is this: they seem to be pulling back from any kind of a real stand on the war on terror. Glenn doesn’t do shows where he reveals the evils of the Islamic stealth Jihad. There are no calls for action against Iran and no calls that we have Israel’s back as we once did. The silence on this subject is worrisome. Mary Lee

Thank you for the help. I will go ahead and get the book(s). I read the Jim Valiant Book several months ago and just dismissed it as nonsense. I could not for the life of me come up with a Rand related title with those initials. Thanks. Did I say Adolph? Actually I kinda like the way that looks, but I'll make the shift to Adolf. Mary Lee

This is addressed to Michael Stuart Kelly or other "Experienced" Rand Fans: I am sorry to change the subject, but I have a question and nowhere else to ask it. Are you familiar with Thomas Sowell's body of work? If so, is he a real world economist like von Mises and George Reisman or not? I was thinking about getting his book, "Intellectuals and Society", but I'm very gun shy about anyone that Sean Hannity likes. Thanks for any info. Also, what is PARC?

Christopher, I guess that I wasn’t as clear as I thought. I probably didn’t define my terms well enough. When discussing Objectivity and Subjectivity we need to remember the context of our usage of these concepts. I was talking about the Objectivity or Subjectivity of the thing of which I am conscious. I think you are focused on the objectivity or subjectivity of my knowledge about the object. I was attempting to demonstrate that the thing that I observe or taste or hear is the OBJECT of my awareness, not the SUBJECT of my awareness. I define the SUBJECTIVE as “what exists only in the mind, belonging to the mind thinking, not to the object being thought about.” So I need to yield the field for now, because we just got way over my head. If I smarten up, I’ll catch up with you later. Mary Lee.

Christopher, In Randland, when I recognize a thing as the object of my consciousness, I am saying that I am conscious of that thing as separate from my consciousness. I recognize that I have consciousness because I am conscious of that thing out there. If, instead, I make the mistake of thinking that that thing is the subject of my consciousness, I am saying that my consciousness controls the existence of that thing; that I can make it disappear by refusing to acknowledge it, or I can make it real by wanting it to be real without regard to perceptual or conceptual confirmation. That is the difference between objective and subjective in the realm of metaphysics and epistemology. Mental book mark. Barbara Branden did a class that included this subject back in the NBI days that has been captured in an audio book, Principles of Efficient Thinking. A thinker like yourself might enjoy that book. Back to your musings. There is no line between the objective and the subjective. The difference between these two concepts is not one that can be designated as a division of this realm from that realm. The difference between them is a difference in how we choose to use our minds in relation to the rest of existence. If we make the objective choice we recognize that existence exists regardless of whether or not we know it. If we make the subjective choice we believe that what we refuse to know doesn’t exist and that what exists comes into existence only when we acknowledge it. Christopher, you present interesting challenges. Actually, some of your challenges are way beyond me, so please let me know if this reply seems inapplicable to your subject. Mary Lee

Michael, What general semanticist is saying is that when we lift our eyes to the sky and gaze at light that has travelled for thousands of light years to land on our retinas, we are seeing the start of the light's journey those many thousands of light years ago. The landing on our retinas happens now. The light however is from great distances and expanses of time in the past. So, maybe we can see the light from the big bang. I personally wouldn't know it when I saw it, but it's a groovey Saganish idea, don't you think? Mary Lee

Yes!

Chris, I need to practicing my posting better. Sorry about that. I assume that you are familiar with The Objectivist Standard. First I'll just plagiarize Biddle's own description of the article: "Zeros in on the nature of objective, life-serving values; demonstrates that man's most fundamental value is his faculty of reason; and shows that both physical survival and spiritual health require keeping one's thinking tied to reality (via reason) so that one's ideas, values, actions, and emotions correspond to reality, too." I checked to see if this article would be free to the public, but it is not. You can purchase articles in PDF format for $5.00. This article is the fourth chapter from Craig Biddle's Book, Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts That Support it. In prior chapters he presented the argument that resulted in the principle that "human life is logically the standard of moral value – and that each individual's own life is logically his own ultimate value." This thinking is well known among Ayn Rand fans. Since your originating question was "Can Morality be Objective?" this looked like a pretty good piece to add to your discussion. This article refers to the philosophical category of Ethics and asks the questions, "What things do we need in order to live?" "What actions must we take in order to gain and keep those things?" and "What makes those actions possible?" The thesis presented in this article is that we cannot just act randomly to achieve our happiness and survival; that we must discover the "actual, objective requirements of survival." Biddle then explores what we need to do in order to survive either alone on an island or in the heart of New York City. At the end of the list of obvious survival needs, he demonstrates that we have discovered the first of the survival values required by man which is the requirement that we think. This is the most basic requirement of human life, the value of Reason. He then lists the ways and means by which we can meet those needs and discovers the second value which depends on the use of reason - Productivity. Biddle follows this introduction to the first two fundamental values according to Objectivism with a description of the nature and source of our emotions which will play into the third fundamental value of Self-Esteem. Biddle doesn't talk about the term self-esteem as such in this chapter, but does describe those aspects of human life necessary to achieve it. Briefly, Nathaniel Branden defines Self-esteem as the self evaluation that one is competent to live and that one is worthy of living. See his "Honoring the Self" and "The Art of Living Consciously" for a full definition of the requirements for healthy Self-esteem. Couldn't help thinking about Branden as he is in Arizona today celebrating the publishing of The Vision of Ayn Rand. My own personal note: I've been following this thread as an observer since the first couple of posts and while I don't believe that I'm equipped to become a debater on the topic, I could offer this observation. When I first saw the heading of the thread, "Can Morality be Objective?" my immediate reaction was "It had better be". That's why I became curious about how the discussion would proceed. So carry on. I'll butt back out. Mary Lee

<br /><br />Mary, I'm not familiar with this. Could you summarize?<br /><br /><br />

The Objective Standard contains an article titled "Objective Moral Values" by Craig Biddle. More fuel for the fire!

Thank you for your reply, Roger. I have already contacted the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies about buying those back issues. I think I found the ones that I need. I will continue to watch for your progress. The momentum is becoming very exciting, isn't it? Mary Lee

Roger, Any idea when you new book will be published? Also, are you publishing your class materials online or in electronic format for possible distribution to those of us who, for some unknown reason, left sunny California and moved to the frozen wasteland of Iowa? Do you recommend the Objectivist Network mentoring group led by Matt Gerber of The Objectivist Club Network as described in TOS? Mary Lee Harsha

Examples: Is another day going to be a pleasure, or is it going to be a pain or burden. A person suffering unremitting pain, could very well prefer the peace of death to going on in pain. Or a person just may have enough of life and another day would be extremely tedious for him. There are lots of sensible reasons for not wishing to go on. But a Shi'ite Objectivist will have none of these, for Rand has spoken. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al - I"m interested: What is it that you think Rand said about suicide? Please advise, specifically. Citations are appreciated. Bill P There's a pretty good discussion of Objectivists and suicide at the Atlas Society site. Here's a link if you are interested: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1287-Suicide.aspx

Would some of you who are posting on this topic tell me what, if anything, you think about Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics" or "Viable Values"? Mary Lee