First, let me commend you on choosing yourself over some peer group. That speaks very well of you, IMO.
I'm not familiar with David Kelly's views. But I have long believed that being of benevolence toward others is frequently in my own self-interest. If I want a society that is compatible with my preferences, I have to do all kinds of "bank shots" on the pool table of life to make it happen. I have to accept that what I want for myself others will want for themselves. Not in the incidentals of preference and taste. I hate asparagus, George H. W. Bush hates broccoli. But I think there is common ground in the notion that it is good for a farm to produce both broccoli and asparagus.
There is a book by Robert Cialdini called Influence, and he discusses reciprocity as a major way to generate influence (which is the self-interest component). The idea is to "pay it forward" (that's the benevolence component) so that others feel a willingness to pay it back. I believe society works tends to work better when we have benevolence in the service of self-interest.
I look for win-win-win-win-win...win situations as best I can. While I often fall short, it remains my pole star.
Back to standing on your own ... When the movie Atlas Shrugged came out, the producers had a little YouTube promotion where people were asked to create a 2 second video where each (male or female) would say, "I am John Galt." I couldn't do it. I am Bal Simon. I have no aspiration to be John Galt. I have no aspiration to be "the intellectual heir" of Ayn Rand, Alfred Korzybski, Buddha, Krishnamurti, Gregory Bateson, or anyone else. I am my own intellect (for better or worse), and that's good enough for me.
I have the same trouble with the idea of "being" an Objectivist as I do with "being" a General Semanticist. Both arenas seem to have a "party line." Both seem to have "adherents," replete with organizational structures and power plays. In other words "turf" to be protected. That seems idiotic to me. That's politics, and where an allocation of resources is involved, fine... labels serve as a nice shorthand. But in the realm of intellectual inquiry? I am a BalSimonist - and sometimes not a very good one, either. I have trouble imagining a physicist saying, "I'm a relativist and not a believer in that crummy quantum mechanics crap." (Or vice versa.)
I think a good way to get a "flavor" of my point of view on this is to grok this: if I had an opportunity to rewrite part of Atlas, there is one and only one scene I would change: where Eddie Willers, defeated, stays on the train during society's crash into oblivion. In my version, Eddie would not be defeated, and would continue to look for win-win-win.... , even if ultimately he could not succeed. Why? Because his own self-interest would dictate that he do so. In my view, he (Ayn Rand) lost view of Eddie's self-interest, let it grow too constricted, and it ended for him in premature tragedy. He was a heroic character, though. I would have given him a more noble last scene, ending on an open question about what would happen to him next.
What's an Independent Objectivist Intellectual to Do?
in Objectivism 401
A blog by Roger Bissell in General
Posted
First, let me commend you on choosing yourself over some peer group. That speaks very well of you, IMO.
I'm not familiar with David Kelly's views. But I have long believed that being of benevolence toward others is frequently in my own self-interest. If I want a society that is compatible with my preferences, I have to do all kinds of "bank shots" on the pool table of life to make it happen. I have to accept that what I want for myself others will want for themselves. Not in the incidentals of preference and taste. I hate asparagus, George H. W. Bush hates broccoli. But I think there is common ground in the notion that it is good for a farm to produce both broccoli and asparagus.
There is a book by Robert Cialdini called Influence, and he discusses reciprocity as a major way to generate influence (which is the self-interest component). The idea is to "pay it forward" (that's the benevolence component) so that others feel a willingness to pay it back. I believe society works tends to work better when we have benevolence in the service of self-interest.
I look for win-win-win-win-win...win situations as best I can. While I often fall short, it remains my pole star.
Back to standing on your own ... When the movie Atlas Shrugged came out, the producers had a little YouTube promotion where people were asked to create a 2 second video where each (male or female) would say, "I am John Galt." I couldn't do it. I am Bal Simon. I have no aspiration to be John Galt. I have no aspiration to be "the intellectual heir" of Ayn Rand, Alfred Korzybski, Buddha, Krishnamurti, Gregory Bateson, or anyone else. I am my own intellect (for better or worse), and that's good enough for me.
I have the same trouble with the idea of "being" an Objectivist as I do with "being" a General Semanticist. Both arenas seem to have a "party line." Both seem to have "adherents," replete with organizational structures and power plays. In other words "turf" to be protected. That seems idiotic to me. That's politics, and where an allocation of resources is involved, fine... labels serve as a nice shorthand. But in the realm of intellectual inquiry? I am a BalSimonist - and sometimes not a very good one, either. I have trouble imagining a physicist saying, "I'm a relativist and not a believer in that crummy quantum mechanics crap." (Or vice versa.)
I think a good way to get a "flavor" of my point of view on this is to grok this: if I had an opportunity to rewrite part of Atlas, there is one and only one scene I would change: where Eddie Willers, defeated, stays on the train during society's crash into oblivion. In my version, Eddie would not be defeated, and would continue to look for win-win-win.... , even if ultimately he could not succeed. Why? Because his own self-interest would dictate that he do so. In my view, he (Ayn Rand) lost view of Eddie's self-interest, let it grow too constricted, and it ended for him in premature tragedy. He was a heroic character, though. I would have given him a more noble last scene, ending on an open question about what would happen to him next.
- Bal