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

I've recently posted on Objectivist Fundamentalism at the ARCHNblog, linking to this excellent article by evolutionary scientist David Sloan Wilson. He analyses and compares the text of books like The Virtue of Selfishness with a Hutterite epistle of faith, and finds they are both as fundy as each other, in that they exclude complex trade-offs and only discuss simple win-win or lose-lose in their arguments.

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

For several days, since receiving the latest Time magazine – a gift subscription from a misled friend, I have been worrying over a possible conspiracy in the Marxist takeover of the world. This topic is about the take over of Poland by Russia.

I put three things together.

· The video, "Deception was my Job".

· The crash of the Polish government, described on Fox News as their very "Conservative" government.

· The April 26, 2010 article analyzing that plane crash.

In the video, "Deception was My Job", Part 3, Cultural Subversion and Escape, by Juri Bezmenov, former propagandist for the Russian KBG, Mr. Bezmenov describes the methods of "the World Communist System". His description includes the description of how the Communist operatives would cause "catastrophies" in a country that would drive that country toward submission to International Communism. He tells us that 85% of the KGB is spent on "active measures" or propaganda aimed at "changing the perception of reality" in the targeted country.

Keep in mind that both Germany and Russia tore Poland apart during WWII. They murdered her citizens and destroyed her culture and industry.

Now, go back for a moment to 1940 in the Katyn forest just west of the small Russian town of Smolensk where Soviet Troops massacred defenseless Polish POWS who were mostly members of the Polish Intelligentsia and Military (The thinkers and the defenders of the country).

Come forward to April 10, 2010 when a plane carrying dignitaries to a ceremony commemorating the 1940 massacre crashed in the same Katyn Forest. Nearly 100 of the top political personalities of a newly independent Poland, including Poland's president, Leck Kaczynski died in the crash.

From the April 26 2010 issue of Time Magazine by Zbigniew Brzezinski: (all emphasis in the article is mine.) (http://www.time.com/...world/article/0,8599,1981930,00.html)

"Those who died on this modern pilgrimage of peace included Poland's President, Lech Kaczynski.

And yet it is possible that future historians will see in these combined events — and especially in the consequence of the second one — the beginning of a truly significant turning point in Polish-Russian relations. Should that come to pass, it would represent a geopolitical change in Europe of genuinely historic proportions.

A few days before the second tragedy, the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, and the Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, met to formalize a protracted process of painful accommodation regarding the Katyn crime. What happened in the forest 70 years ago was for many years a forbidden fact of life in Polish society. From the end of World War II to 1989, Poland was politically subservient to the Soviet Union. Even the closest relatives of those who perished at Katyn were not allowed to talk about it. People who claimed that their fathers or grandfathers had died on a certain date in 1940 were often viewed with suspicion; it was thought that they might be aware of who the killers really were. It was not until the era of Boris Yeltsin, President of Russia from 1991 to 1999, that a serious process to acknowledge what had happened in the past was initiated.

When Tusk and Putin met on April 7, the goal of the two men was a formal and comprehensive reconciliation of their nations. Putin spoke at that event and spoke well. But he still spoke more as a statesman doing what was needed; somehow, he did not really connect, in a human sense, with the Poles. By contrast, within hours of the fatal plane crash outside Smolensk three days later, Putin himself was on the spot in Katyn, reaching out to the Poles in a spontaneously warm and compassionate fashion. That all of a sudden infused human feelings into an issue that had divided the two peoples. (I suppose there had been no human feelings involved in the 1940 and the 2010 events prior to Putin's arrival? Good God!)

It is difficult to tell what the long-term reactions in Poland will be to what has so recently transpired. Poland is still mourning its dead; it is possible that conspiracy theories (Ya think?) could yet surface. But I feel confident that the gestures of the past few days will unleash a degree of reciprocal human warmth from the Poles and the Russians. There is a chance that together they will initiate a new era in the historically troubled relationship between their two nations. (troubled? Troubled? Can you say understatement boys and girls?)

Should that happen, the map of central Europe would be transformed. A Russian-Polish reconciliation is impossible to imagine without it leading also to greater security for others who live in proximity to Russia, whether they be Estonians or Ukrainians or perhaps even Georgians, who fought a brief war with Russia in 2008. One should not overestimate the consequences of a change in mood, but ultimately human affairs are shaped by human beings. The sensitivity with which Russian leaders have handled the tragedy, coupled with the determination of Poland's leaders to face the future without recrimination, augur well for what is to come. (I keep choking on this man's words – security? Mood? Sensitivity of Russian leaders? Are you kidding me?)

(Here comes Bezmenov's "Changing the Perception of Reality in America of course, so that we will not demand that our government do something to stop Russia's takeover of Poland.) If my hopeful perspective comes to pass, the evolving reconciliation between the Poles and the Russians will be another milestone in the process of a larger European accommodation. It is only in recent years that a genuine and socially far-reaching reconciliation between Poland and Germany — bitter enemies in World War II — took place. And it is only a matter of decades since something similar happened between the Germans and the French. A Europe in which old enmities like that between Russia and Poland have been put aside will in turn make the relationship of the U.S. with Russia easier.

In brief, maybe someday there will be a memorial in Katyn to all its victims: the earlier ones, whose death and suffering in 1940 was ignored for so long and even lied about, and the more recent ones, who perished on a mission of peace in 2010. If so, Katyn will have at last earned a more hopeful place in Europe's collective memory." (What!? Why?!)

You've got to read about the author of this article. A real piece of work. As Amerians are doing it to Americans, so Polish are doing it to Polish.

See the whole write up at http://www.sourcewat...niew_Brzezinski

Zbigniew Brzezinski, born in Warsaw, Poland, in 1928, the son of a diplomat posted to Canada in 1938, serves as Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and is Professor of American Foreign Policy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C. Brzezinski is said to be a protege of both Nelson A. Rockefeller and Paul H. Nitze (see Nitze School), his CSIS profile states. [1]

In the private sector, Brzezinski serves as an "international advisor of several major US/global corporations." He is a "frequent participant in annual business/trade conventions" and is President of Z.B. Inc. "(an advisory firm on international issues to corporations and financial institutions). Also a frequent public speaker and commentator on major domestic and foreign TV programs, and contributor to domestic and foreign newspapers and journals."[2]

Brzezinski's career with the U.S. Government spans several presidents: advisor to John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson; policy advisor to James Earl Carter, Jr.; and George Herbert Walker Bush's co-chair on the National Security Advisory Task Force (1988).[3]

He earned his B.A. (1949) and M.A. (1950) at McGill University and his Ph.D. at Harvard University (1953). He holds honorary degrees from several universities.[4]

Honorary Trustee, Institute of International Education

International Board, U.S./Middle East Project [1]

International Advisory Board, Journal of Democracy [2]

Honorary Member, Academy of Political Science [3]

Former Director (1992), National Endowment for Democracy [4]

Read more: http://www.time.com/...world/article/0,8599,1981930,00.html#ixzz0llhxSrHP

Any thoughts?

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

Understood.

In a world of resources, some that are more scarce than others, what model do you suggest we use to resolve that competition?

Adam

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

First off, I believe the doughnut and the doughnut hole are two separate entities...

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

My head hurts now.

Thanks!

~ Shane

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

First off, I believe the doughnut and the doughnut hole are two separate entities...

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

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

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

1. On what basis do you make that choice?

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

Thank you for your response, Roger.

Apparently I had missed the fact that the transcriptions were completed already. I am going to guess that Barbara wants to add a chapter similar to Nathaniel's essay about the Benefits and Hazards of the philosophy of Ayn Rand in order to bring her audience up to date on additional discoveries about thinking since the lectures were prepared. That would be a good idea - good enough to wait for unless the new material would be enough to make another book, even if only a small one. If she needs a lot of hours and editing time for the additional material and if it is not necessary to include it with the lectures in order to prevent misunderstandings or misapprehensions, I would like to urge her to go ahead and publish as is.

Her lectures contain material that is perfectly applicable to the times.

Think about the growing trend of home schooling that could make timely use of the lectures. What about the simple need of anyone struggling to write to his congressman or to his local newspaper and floundering around in a fog of poor thinking characterics that are preventing him from being able to make the best possible use of Nathaniel's lectures on Government and the Individual or Fallacies about Capitalism. Think about the synergies between these two sets of lectures and the implications for the magnified value of each when presented along side the other.

Please let Barbara know the immportance of her work. If ever she wanted to leave a legacy, now is the time to create the substance of it.

Again, thank you for your effort to help get this information into the hands of an eager public.

Mary Lee Harsha