Mike Hansen

As for the other part of your question, Rand did deduce her ethics from m. and e. i.e. from the identification of the nature of Man, and his means to knowledge, is derived his morality. (What he is, so should he do, in a nutshell.) Now, why do I feel that you already knew that? Hah... when I said that in the other forum it got me thinking about whether or not she actually did start with metaphysics and epistemology first. Good catch, though . Mike

On another topic, 'Christopher' talked about how Rand's contradictions were probably caused by her creation of her metaphysics & epistemology AFTER she had established her ethics. If she has contradictions, this would definitely be a cause. My question involves her contradictions themselves. I haven't read or listened to very much of Rand, mainly just Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, and some of her TV interviews (youtube). From what I've seen/heard, I don't see any contradictions. I'm not trying to defend Rand as perfect. Quite the opposite. I'd like to hear her contradictions, and how they affect Objectivism in general. Thanks. Mike

Okay guys. I looked the terms up in the dictionary, which I probably should have done in the first place. Induction: any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily. Deduction: a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. To figure something out via induction is akin to putting forth a hypothesis and then testing it empirically. To figure something out via deduction is akin to finding & testing an answer with logic and the general principles of the situation. Example: how much time will a 2 kg ball take to fall to the ground from a resting place 10 m high, and what is the ball's velocity just before striking the ground? Deduction: use physical laws relating forces and acceleration, and conservation of energy. Induction: dropping the ball and finding the time taken with a stopwatch and the end velocity with some sort of velocity finder. True to induction, the physical laws would support your conclusion, but your conclusion didn't require them. Mike

Ba'al Your happy words clarified it well. Thanks. Mike

Hi Everybody, What is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning? Here's my current idea: Induction: Start with specific idea. Look for general idea. Deduction: Start with general idea. Look for specific idea. Also, what are your thoughts on the derivation of Objectivism? Did Rand figure out her ethics because of her metaphysics & epistemology, or did she figure out her metaphysics & epistemology in order to support her ethics? Did she deduce her ethics, or induce her metaphysics and epistemology (using my definitions above)? Mike

Tony, If a person is honest or has good integrity, and they haven't based these virtues on reason, then it's most likely faith. There were plenty of devout mormons at my high school who were honest about everything. I would ask them why, and they would say, "because it's the right thing to do." I would ask them why it's the right thing to do, and they would say that "it just is." They couldn't explain or rationally support their honesty, but they acted that way anyways (but accidental 'virtue' is not virtue). I've never read Nathaniel Branden's ideas, so I'm not going to reply to that specifically. But, anybody can have a good character if they approach life in a rational way. If Branden approaches things rationally, then he's probably right. If Ayn Rand has an affair with somebody, then it's probably a good bet that he's a rational guy ;) . Mike

Brant, I've been using a barbecue all this time... Mike

Tony, I agree 100% that a 'character' may be formed by other means, but as I said before, I don't like the term 'character' in those cases. Ayn Rand stated the idea that man can only survive by using his rational mind. I apply this to character and say that a human character may only be created by a rational mind. People who don't form their characters by logic are not forming characters, only automatic filters, which makes them animals. A temporary system is definitely better than no system at all. Without any character, man cannot value himself. Without such value, man cannot survive. Okay, let's do some clarification. When you refer to Rand's ideas as top-down, it makes me think that top-down refers to the creation of a character as a product of the mind's premises, which is what Rand says. What, then, is bottom-up? If it is the opposite of top-down, then it is the creation of the mind's premises as a product of one's character... please clarify what top-down and bottom-up refer to. Mike

Tony, There are two possibilities here: you either think about your values, or not: If you think about your values, and you think rationally and only maintain rational values, then you are an Objectivist and a rational philosophy has been your guide. If you think about your values, but maintain irrational ones, the cognitive dissonance would kill you. If you don't consciously think about your values, then your character is defined purely by psychology (no conscious effect means it's all subconscious). In the person who doesn't think about values, abstract psychological labels form his/her character. But I don't like the word 'character' in this case. People who don't consciously think about their values are more like automatic filters... like animals. Character, though, is a very human thing. One thing I suggest for you to do, before anything else, is to define your terms. What is strength? What is benevolence? What is grace? Also, a more general question which must be answered beforehand is: CAN a person find grace, strength, forbearance, etc. without a rational philosophy? Or, can these traits of character be obtained without logic, but end up being invalid as a result? (Would you call somebody strong if they couldn't back up their conclusions?) I know I didn't answer all of your questions here, but I'm a little bit strained on time... I'll get back to it tomorrow . Mike

Tony, A knowledge of Objectivist principles does not create a good character. Action is required. Agree 100%. "...it may be essential to approach Objectivism with an already well-developed character..." Essential to what goal? I'm assuming the goal here is to understand Objectivism. Several people whom I've talked to do not understand or accept Objectivism because of its relation to faith, which is not a sign of their character but of their epistemology and psychology. Your third notion, "...that the sheer force of the philosophy can overwhelm (to a degree) one's personal, as yet immature, character." is a bit specific, making a general response difficult to figure out. But I do agree that Objectivism can overwhelm people. I was overwhelmed with confidence when I read John Galt's Speech . Objectivism is powerful stuff that a lot of people have in the backs of their heads, but submerge as an evil or refuse to acknowledge as a good. If by 'principles' you meant Rand's general philosophical ideas, then she didn't base her principles upon a pre-existent 'good character.' She based her 'good character' on her pre-existent principles. Saying that she defined what made a character 'good' before defining her principles is like saying that she based her systems of epistemology and metaphysics upon her system of ethics, which has it backwards. If by 'principles' you meant ethics, then you've said that Rand based her ethics upon her ethics, which just doesn't work. What exactly did you mean in your last sentence? Mike

John Galt's Speech relates well: "Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man's values, it has to be earned -- that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character -- that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind -- that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining..." Mike

No idea why, but I thought about the Objectivism Online title when I woke up this morning. Took a few seconds to realize that Objectivism Online doesn't have OL as an abbreviation! Meh, that's what I get for not thinking before typing. Mike

First of all, hello fellow Objectivists! I've lived in Utah my whole life, so I've had very little exposure to anything other than mormons or "mystics of muscle" reactionaries to mormonism. As such, OL is the equivalent of a gold-mine. My whole life I've loved logic above all else. According to my parents, as a young kid I was notorious for asking "Why?" to imperatives like sharing or being overly nice. In one instance, as a response to my first-grade teacher telling me to share something, I said "He should get his own." Anyways, my recent discovery of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, the Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged gave me a confidence in logic which a submerged 'faith' was sabotaging. I've been smarter and happier since, and I've never been more proud of my achievements, or more encouraged to keep achieving. I've always loved math and science, and once I figured out some specific areas of interest, I decided to major in Chemical Engineering at the University of Utah. Engineering classes are very rewarding, for they involve a difference between success and failure. There is no mercy in engineering, only justice! Those of us in cities such as South Jordan, Utah (the ONLY city in the whole world with TWO mormon temples) appreciate what rationality we can get. Thanks! Mike