ThomasHägg

Thomas writes:

And all laws must be congruent within physics of course. There can not be 2 different sets of "physics" for different areas.

The objective reality of the logical well ordered consistent uniformity of just one set of physical laws governing the whole universe is the literal expression of just One Mind.

Greg

I meant that 2 sets of "physics" can not both be "physics" in the same way. They can not both be true if they contradict eachother. There can not be multiple "truths" etc. Physics either applies or it doesn't. It is true or false, not both depedning on the circumstances. But the experience can still be different inside a black hole. A black hole can have a specific natural identity, as long as it is congruent with nature in general.

Shi... I hope someone understands me by now... Brant?

Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

Right as rain, beautifully put.

I'm not a huge fan of her novels, but what about in Atlas Shrugged for example? (This was, by the way, the book I disliked the most; But then of course, I only read it once and that was before I fully understood the basic premises of her philosophy)

Rands fictional heroes certainly experience both fear and work that is hard on them. Not that they are virtues. Courage and productive work are. They experience both pleasure and pain. But Rands way of writing is mostly meant not to focus on or describe these "feelings" to the reader. She doesn't want the reader to feel them at a whim, but rather she tries to provide him with the values needed to recreate the feeling accurately when it is rational, either as a general part of life or as it is needed in order to understand her fiction. These subtleties are very well portrayed here. http://www.shmoop.com/atlas-shrugged/dagny-taggart.html

(Not related to the link above) Dagny fears getting stuck in one place without any controll. She fears the irrational. She fears loosing Galt.

Is Hank Rearden a hero in this book? I would think so. Yet he fears the similar situation of being cornered and loosing his lifes work.

Is Galt fearless? Perhaps. I don't remember. Could he be in real life? I'm not sure. Would it really be bad if he was? Not on its own. Not unless it also made him irrational or was due to irrationality on some level.

I would say that fear is a feeling we experience in the face of a dilemma that we are unable to overcome. We lose confidence. Because fear makes a person hesitant and fidgety in his thinking, it can render a person more moldable by others. It can render him highly irrational. This is where we need courage. We need to focus on and do what we actually know is right. Starting again from the most basic axioms if it is needed; We may not percieve or understand every detail, but this way we can raise ourselves up once again.

Try google-searching the book for mentionings of "fear"

And when it comes to work and sweat; To do your best and to work hard when it is needed (even if you don't enjoy it), is clearly highly valued in all her works.

Howard Roark was a "hero", was he not?. And he sweat when he was working hard manual labour, drilling into the granite with a drill that he had to hold and push into the stone. It may not have been a kind of labour he enjoyed the most, but it was necessary at the time.

Describing "productive work", in "The Objectivist Ethics", Rand wrote;

It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.

(Underlining added by me)

At the very least, it should be said that Rand mostly did not try to describe "übermensch". Her "heroes", which all carry some "flaws" of their own, may seem a bit "square" at times, but they are certainly not "perfect" in any other sense than the (emphasis on quotes) "moral perfection" used by Rand herself. A "perfection" that included admitting and dealing with ones mistakes, if one made them.

I think there is some problem here as English is not your first language although you write it very, very well for that. There are subtlies that might grate on someone like myself. As such they wouldn't be worth investigation so please don't ask for specifics for it wouldn't change anything.

If you were a young adult American reading AS shortly after publication and through the 1960s you'd have had a different experience than the one you had for the whole culture has since shifted and now the novel creaks in many ways it didn't then. I myself--I read it in 1963 in paperback of all things--will never read it cover to cover again, but read it in pieces. Sometimes I just throw it open anywhere, but usually I'm after something specific.

In pure literary terms, The Fountainhead is her best work. Not her greatest--that's AS.

I'm going to try to adjust to the way you are coming at Rand and her philosophy because of the obvious work you've done respecting it. There is going to be inevitable cultural friction and grating. The biggest caution for you is your tendency to lecture us on this material. Don't change--that is, don't worry too much about it. I'll merely recast your statements from you telling us to more like you asking us. The subtle thing is questions are frequently really statements, but questions go down easier. (You have asked questions too.) A lot of people have come to this site without a fraction of what you know to tell us what is what. They all fail for their actual agenda is dishonest and self-serving hubris and they are both ignorant and usually not all that intelligent.

--Brant

I really respect this.

Thank you for your compliment. I know language can be a potential barrier, but I will read and evaluate any arguments you may want to present me with, to the best of my ability.

So far, I have also re-read my own arguments - as well as yours - and I see nothing essential to the discussion that I would want to change about them.

If you see any flaws at all of mine that you would like to point out - originating from language difficulties or else - I would be thankful if you did so, because being corrected is probably one of the most effective ways for me to find out where I need to improve, both in the realm of philosophy and on my english.

I think I might agree with you on the differences between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. AS being one of those books that I will have to come back to in the future, when I know a little more about certain subtles, in both previously mentioned realms.

The first time I read it - as a socialist gone libertarian - it felt like a fist to the gut. Literary. I still had a very superficial understanding of objectivist morality. I could agree with its ethics when it corelated with libertarianism, but other than that it truly felt horrible. As I still have not re-read it, I'm not sure if this was only due to my own misunderstandings at the time or perhaps also due to poor language used by Rand... or maybee it was just horrible? It'll be interesting when I get there.

And on the subject of certain persons or things being "square"; I guess I might come off as such. Just know that it might be due to limits in my language, rather than philosophy. And on a forum such as this, I will be trying my best to be accurate.

Completely off topic;

- Fun fact; "Brant" actually means "steep" (as in "a steep hill") or "a depth" in Swedish. So now you know at least 1 word!

Brant goose.

Joseph Brant.

Brant Lake.

County of Brant Ontario

Brantford, Ontario

Karl Hjalmar Branting

Irving Brant, my grandfather. He wrote many books.

More seriously, I'm assuming you read AS in English, not Swedish.

--Brant

Yes. Reading translations usually lead to a lot of missed context, in my experience. However I don't read German well enough for example, so I might choose to read an English translation instead. Had to do that with "Das Kapital".

Who doesn't love it. It's justice being served.

(Ironically this information is provided by the state own radio, which is divided into several different stations/channels where "P" stands for program; P1, P2, P3 and P4 + an online station called P5. Each station/channel covers their own specific topics as well as news, usually provided in a form suited for the station. P1 being a station mostly for the elderly or the the intellectual left, P2 being a station that mainly just plays classical music, P3 plays modern and newly produced music from the international as well as local scene, most of which is of course american and provides comedy. P4 Provides local topics adapted to the interests and news regarding each separate province and caters to middle age people with generally somewhat less interest in the national and the least in international news and music.

Out of all of these channels, it should not come as a surprise though that P3 is the most "trustworthy" and overal most "balanced" in its coverage of topics.)

Though I respect of course the parts of modern Laveyan Satanism that is congruent with Objectivism, the rest is just awful stuff. I fear that Swedes will embrace ideology similar to that of Satanism rather than Objectivism. Not necessarily in a heartbeat of course.

Thank you TH!

One of the reasons that I posted that is because it looked like the tabloids that are available here at super-markets, 7-11's and other "quick stop" types of stores.

So I am understanding that you live in what we would consider a "rural," sparsely populated area, "outside of town."

To hear that there are six(6) basic available radio stations is interesting.

In the US we live is a flood of date and media.

There was another story yesterday about Swedes buying guns in increasing numbers and the story is linked to the implied "invasion" of, basically, unwanted "savages" to Sweden.

There seems to be a fascinating disconnect between the "state media" and what is happening in reality here in the US.

Whereas, in Sweden, the "public" media is limited is what it sounds like to me.

Interesting insights into Satanism.

A...

That paper is actually avaible as a typical tabloid in print.

"Sparsely populated outside of town" sounds about right. About 5 kilometres outside and at the most 3 separate houses or so visible at a time. Something like 30-50 metres between each house in this little "village". Crops on a large (3 full properties or so) field nearby. You get the picture hopefully.

Yes, there are about six (should I be writing numbers in plain text btw? what is the common way in the english language) I guess.

No wait...no thats obviously wrong considering there are so many state owned. Let me think long and hard... There would be about 8-9 avaible. And that is of course only in this area, not counting the multiple stations avaible throughout the whole country or online.

How many would there be avaible in the US, say sitting in the comfort of your own home?

I can imagine certain Swedes buy guns, but most don't because they don't have a licence. I don't and would consider it too much of a hastle to get one. As much as I don't like the "savages" and "invasion" terminology, because it is mostly much to vague about who is a savage and who is not and what kind of invasion we are actually talking about. Like I said,(politicized) immigration sure is a problem.

There are a great amount of limits to what the state run media can do, at least in theory, in reality it is guided by what the public think is good behaviour. The "public" (as in "public" stocks etc) media in general is limited in many ways as well. I'm not the guy to ask for the judicial aspects of it all, but lets just say that I would not be able to start up a radio station myself. That is a no go. Unless I go podcast online of course.

Satanism... yes this been interesting me these last few weeks. I wonder if some people here would even classify it as "objectivism". I wouldn't, but to some the difference may not be all that obvious.

Objectivism clashes with religion, belief in mystical "magic" and political "might makes right" of course. Rituals themselves however are pretty interesting and an aspect that I have not really looked into from a perspective of objectivism so far.

- Could they be part of the life of an objectivist? Well, not a ritual in the literal sense, no. But what is a "ritual" even, in the terminology used by Rand?

Is thanksgiving a ritual? I would think so.

Is dinner held each year at a particular time for no other reason than to remind of the objective values a ritual? Probably not.

Is it a ritual if we make feeling, our primary concern during the dinner, but not in the long term? Probably not.

Can we then create situations which would look similar to rituals for an outsider and that might harvest the benefits that a ritual holds because it provides an element of stability to someones life? Perhaps. Interesting, I say. And this is something that I'm going to have to investigate in the future. Perhaps someone else already has the answer and all I need to do is start a new thread right here on this forum. We'll see

long rantadant off topic, over and out

Bob writes:

The "laws" of physics might be different inside of Black Holes.

That is an expression of faith which would make you a mystic.

Greg

I don't think so Bob. The laws of existence, noncontradiciton, are not the same laws as the ones expressed in physics. The laws in physics depend on the ideas that are coming from philosophy. Our understanding of the nature of things, while we do know quiet a bit already, keeps growing on top of that. But I notice you put the at the end of your comment.

You've mixed up Bob and Greg.

The laws of physics are natural laws discovered by scientific investigation. You are confusing the epistemology and metaphysics involved. Nobody knows anything about anything going on inside a black hole, so Bob's statement is bogus for what happens there--in Vegas--can be said to mostly stay there. There is no "might be different" for that implies laws that are self-contradictory within their operative frame of reference. That impossibility is the only possible way for Bob's statement to be true.

--Brant

Oops. Thanks Brant. I meant Greg obviously.

And all laws must be congruent within physics of course. There can not be 2 different sets of "physics" for different areas. An even greater mistake of mine.

Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

Right as rain, beautifully put.

I'm not a huge fan of her novels, but what about in Atlas Shrugged for example? (This was, by the way, the book I disliked the most; But then of course, I only read it once and that was before I fully understood the basic premises of her philosophy)

Rands fictional heroes certainly experience both fear and work that is hard on them. Not that they are virtues. Courage and productive work are. They experience both pleasure and pain. But Rands way of writing is mostly meant not to focus on or describe these "feelings" to the reader. She doesn't want the reader to feel them at a whim, but rather she tries to provide him with the values needed to recreate the feeling accurately when it is rational, either as a general part of life or as it is needed in order to understand her fiction. These subtleties are very well portrayed here. http://www.shmoop.com/atlas-shrugged/dagny-taggart.html

(Not related to the link above) Dagny fears getting stuck in one place without any controll. She fears the irrational. She fears loosing Galt.

Is Hank Rearden a hero in this book? I would think so. Yet he fears the similar situation of being cornered and loosing his lifes work.

Is Galt fearless? Perhaps. I don't remember. Could he be in real life? I'm not sure. Would it really be bad if he was? Not on its own. Not unless it also made him irrational or was due to irrationality on some level.

I would say that fear is a feeling we experience in the face of a dilemma that we are unable to overcome. We lose confidence. Because fear makes a person hesitant and fidgety in his thinking, it can render a person more moldable by others. It can render him highly irrational. This is where we need courage. We need to focus on and do what we actually know is right. Starting again from the most basic axioms if it is needed; We may not percieve or understand every detail, but this way we can raise ourselves up once again.

Try google-searching the book for mentionings of "fear"

And when it comes to work and sweat; To do your best and to work hard when it is needed (even if you don't enjoy it), is clearly highly valued in all her works.

Howard Roark was a "hero", was he not?. And he sweat when he was working hard manual labour, drilling into the granite with a drill that he had to hold and push into the stone. It may not have been a kind of labour he enjoyed the most, but it was necessary at the time.

Describing "productive work", in "The Objectivist Ethics", Rand wrote;

It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.

(Underlining added by me)

At the very least, it should be said that Rand mostly did not try to describe "übermensch". Her "heroes", which all carry some "flaws" of their own, may seem a bit "square" at times, but they are certainly not "perfect" in any other sense than the (emphasis on quotes) "moral perfection" used by Rand herself. A "perfection" that included admitting and dealing with ones mistakes, if one made them.

I think there is some problem here as English is not your first language although you write it very, very well for that. There are subtlies that might grate on someone like myself. As such they wouldn't be worth investigation so please don't ask for specifics for it wouldn't change anything.

If you were a young adult American reading AS shortly after publication and through the 1960s you'd have had a different experience than the one you had for the whole culture has since shifted and now the novel creaks in many ways it didn't then. I myself--I read it in 1963 in paperback of all things--will never read it cover to cover again, but read it in pieces. Sometimes I just throw it open anywhere, but usually I'm after something specific.

In pure literary terms, The Fountainhead is her best work. Not her greatest--that's AS.

I'm going to try to adjust to the way you are coming at Rand and her philosophy because of the obvious work you've done respecting it. There is going to be inevitable cultural friction and grating. The biggest caution for you is your tendency to lecture us on this material. Don't change--that is, don't worry too much about it. I'll merely recast your statements from you telling us to more like you asking us. The subtle thing is questions are frequently really statements, but questions go down easier. (You have asked questions too.) A lot of people have come to this site without a fraction of what you know to tell us what is what. They all fail for their actual agenda is dishonest and self-serving hubris and they are both ignorant and usually not all that intelligent.

--Brant

I really respect this.

Thank you for your compliment. I know language can be a potential barrier, but I will read and evaluate any arguments you may want to present me with, to the best of my ability.

So far, I have also re-read my own arguments - as well as yours - and I see nothing essential to the discussion that I would want to change about them.

If you see any flaws at all of mine that you would like to point out - originating from language difficulties or else - I would be thankful if you did so, because being corrected is probably one of the most effective ways for me to find out where I need to improve, both in the realm of philosophy and on my english.

I think I might agree with you on the differences between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. AS being one of those books that I will have to come back to in the future, when I know a little more about certain subtles, in both previously mentioned realms.

The first time I read it - as a socialist gone libertarian - it felt like a fist to the gut. Literary. I still had a very superficial understanding of objectivist morality. I could agree with its ethics when it corelated with libertarianism, but other than that it truly felt horrible. As I still have not re-read it, I'm not sure if this was only due to my own misunderstandings at the time or perhaps also due to poor language used by Rand... or maybee it was just horrible? It'll be interesting when I get there.

And on the subject of certain persons or things being "square"; I guess I might come off as such. Just know that it might be due to limits in my language, rather than philosophy. And on a forum such as this, I will be trying my best to be accurate.

Completely off topic;

- Fun fact; "Brant" actually means "steep" (as in "a steep hill") or "a depth" in Swedish. So now you know at least 1 word!

On the Bidinotto Facebook discussion I have been having about Trump, a person showed up and called me a "true believer." (I believe he meant in an Eric Hoffer manner since Bidibob had written previously that he thinks Trump followers reflect Hoffer's profile. btw - That is an excellent book, albeit the elevated vocabulary and writing style are tough going at times.)

I had mentioned that Trump speaks in headlines to get attention, then backs up and shows what he means over time. The guy basically said Trump speaks what he really means in headlines and "true believers" (like me) come along and rationalize it.

I don't care what they think of me, but I like this kind of interaction because it prompts me to go deeper and put more words on something I see clearly. Why is there a need to put more words on it? Because the words that I have been using up to now don't work to communicate correct identification to people like that.

Is this a losing battle? Are they forever going to set up my very existence in their minds in a strawman frame so they can knock it down?

Probably.

So far, as best I can tell, these are people who need reality to reflect their pre-ordained judgments regarding Trump (and regarding many things, for that matter--apparently they think this is what thinking in principles means in practice). Anything in reality that conflicts with their prejudices, they refuse to identify.

Even me they refuse to identify. And I'm there right in front of them--with a long history with Bidibob to boot.

But for OL readers, the following might be interesting. To me, it is a pretty good statement of just how important it is to keep words connected to observable reality and not just floating logical constructs or core storylines that are more myth than reality.

Actually, Trump's "true believers" help him build magnificent projects--in reality--not in some Kantian realm where every gotcha becomes a universal if framed with the right word game.

Try putting up a skyscraper with a gotcha. Try running a top-rated TV show for 14 years with a gotcha. Try writing a string of bestsellers with a gotcha. Try raising magnificent productive children instead of spoiled brats with a gotcha.

(Try making America great again with a gotcha.)

Trump starts his deal-making with a headline to get leverage. He even says so. But the gotcha people who believe more like Kant than like reality think the headline is reality. That the headline is the whole project.

Trump works with achieving goals. His goal right now is to win an election. He studied how to do it and is doing it. He's doing it like nobody else has done it in American history (to my knowledge) and he's doing it decisively. This is called competence.

People who want deeds to be mere reflections of gotchas that they can project to universals will never understand this. They think the mess the world is in is because some people said the wrong things and that led others to do the wrong things.

Bullcrap.

Human intercourse is governed by many things, not just manipulation through words.

There's a growth mindset and a fixed mindset. The fixed mindset person doesn't understand why a seed becomes something else over time. He wants it to stay a seed. He wants to slap a word on it that won't allow it to change. He wants to control it.

Oh, he understands growth in a plant, but not in a productive human enterprise. He needs words, not correct planning and execution, to reign there to understand it. And he needs this reign to be frozen in time--once a word is spoken, it becomes an unchanging fact governing reality (as opposed to representing a fact within reality).

He can combat words. He has no way to combat correct planning and execution because, in the social realm, he doesn't understand it. The sad part is he doesn't want to understand it. He needs Kantian-like words in Kantian-like constructions so that reality can become a series of strawmen he can knock down with other words.

Fortunately, productive Americans who normally don't vote are growth mindset people. That's how they do their jobs, develop their families, conduct their affairs, do everything they love. Words to them are tools for growth, not a replacement for growth.

These people were busy as the American government went down the tubes, but they woke up to the problem. They were busy with their own lives, not with word games. Note to the word-game masters. People like this normally don't vote because they actually are busy--productively busy growing things--not because they are stupid, low-information, true believers, or any of that.

These people recognize growth--in reality--when they see it, as opposed to word games.

(Apropos, they get amused by word games about growth because they always look for the deed that grows. And in word games, the growing deed is never there. Screw-ups generally are. )

When they see Trump, they see a person who knows how to grow a project and make magnificent things. Not just talk about it or make excuses.

Then these people, who just woke up, act. That's my man, they think when they look at a grower like Trump. And they get tickled because he makes the word game masters crazy--with word games at that.

When these people act, they serve no word game masters. Not one. Once that happens, the fixed mindset people are left sputtering and calling them "true believers." Their word games don't work with these people and for the life of them, these poor word game masters can't figure out why.

It must be because these people don't think, they think.

(Hint, when reason gets used as a replacement for reality instead of being used as a tool, it is no longer reason even if you still call it that. It becomes a word game called reason.)

I've started collecting articles out there that try to explain Trump. There are a bunch of them with a bunch of different word game reasons. They are left, right, religious, atheist, libertarian, Objectivist, all of it. Lots and lots and lots of word game reasons--all wrong. They're hilarious because there are tons of different conflicting ones, all presented in the tone of the Gospel truth. Word games.

Michael

I wouldn't vote for Trump (not due to word games and not that I even can, because I'm not an american citizen) but boy do I like your style of writing and I really agree with you about these word games. Thumbs up ^^

...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.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

I quote this again, because I think this is a highly irrational statement. (Sorry Wolf, but don't missunderstand me. I'm not saying you are an irrational being.)

Why do you love? Why do I love? Is there no reason? Of course there is. Showing love is not an exception to reason. Showing love is not an exception to selfishness. (Rational selfishness.)

When feeling "love", it is of course a feeling. But it results from the same kind of processes as other emotions and is therefore still linked to reason.

Otherwise it would seem to me that one has to reject Rands writing on emotions in general as well.

Just now the government stopped "all" immigration (not really all to be honest), but because of the this year already arrived 150 000 seeking asylum, we now have at least 30 000 and counting that are currently hiding from the authorities. - I wonder what line of work they will be in? What kind of living conditions they will have apart from being wanted, and due to the strict regulation of bussinesses we have here, almost fully unable to participate in the legal economy? And if they would report a violent crime if they saw it?

Meanwhile it seems (Marxist) Anarchists are making the news more and more often. Though their waving flags never gets mentioned because the news achors of course have got no clue what they actually mean, they are clearly visible at rallies against Nazis as well as Sweden Democrat's rallies. Things seem to be heating up for the moment.

Well anyhow, I guess rant complete. I'm going to stop whining for now. I know we all have got our problems to deal with. But this I think is a very fair assessment of Sweden in it's current state, in regards to the ongoing politics. Everything is influenced by immigration right now.

I hope my text is readable and this answers your question well, despite any bad grammar that might have creept in there. Spell check marks almost every word for me because it is not Swedish...

http://www.expressen.se/gt/la-dod-orm-vid-likets-hals-jag-ar-ormradd/ <<<< this is in Swedish...Is this getting much attention?

Not really no. I would never have read it had you not brought it to my attention. Normally the only ones who take the oppurtunity to talk about these kind of incidents and their connection to immigration policy etc are the "christian values" kind of people, the nationalists and the racists. And as you can probably imagine, anyone who "agrees" with these people is branded as an idiot.

There have poped up several papers and sites dedicated mainly to revealing the faces, countries of origins and religions of those recently convicted or suspected of crimes. Unfortunately, they are mostly run by exactly these kinds of people and the more visitors they have the more revenue they get or the more they can at least propagate for nationalist parties.

It's not so much that these things don't get reported, but most things that are of greater importance either is not taken very seriously or is forgotten really fast. Ask a Swede what serious big political scandal/serious social issue was discussed last week, that did not include some populist politician promising great things for everyonge or some kind of celebrity, such as for example royalty, and most people don't have a clue.

Same goes for this http://www.expressen.se/gt/ulf-hittade-sin-dotters-grav-skandad/

Not much mentioning in general. The greater dilemma being, that what I think about instantly when seing this is not getting any mentioning either.

I can of course not prove yet that this has any connection to devil worshiping satanists at all, but it sure wouldn't be surprising. And that is not a joke.

Satanism both of the Laveyan and the more sadistic kind is on the rise. Especially, it can be heard on the radio. A lot of it is music coming from the US of course, but the most popular right now is homebrew. Heard of Ghost B.C? I live outside of town, so I listen to the radio now and then. Yesterday for example, when I was on my way home from the grocery store, the radio was playing "Year Zero". The song is basically a form of satanic mass. The show host applauding the song. Sure, there are maybee about 6 stations avaible and this is only one of them. But this is the one station people commonly tune in to when they want to hear any kind of rock and it has a ton of listeners. +It has played on other stations as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RH8RO0eR0

Here is some more information on the topic.

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/169592?programid=2519

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/287410?programid=4067

(Ironically this information is provided by the state own radio, which is divided into several different stations/channels where "P" stands for program; P1, P2, P3 and P4 + an online station called P5. Each station/channel covers their own specific topics as well as news, usually provided in a form suited for the station. P1 being a station mostly for the elderly or the the intellectual left, P2 being a station that mainly just plays classical music, P3 plays modern and newly produced music from the international as well as local scene, most of which is of course american and provides comedy. P4 Provides local topics adapted to the interests and news regarding each separate province and caters to middle age people with generally somewhat less interest in the national and the least in international news and music.

Out of all of these channels, it should not come as a surprise though that P3 is the most "trustworthy" and overal most "balanced" in its coverage of topics.)

Though I respect of course the parts of modern Laveyan Satanism that is congruent with Objectivism, the rest is just awful stuff. I fear that Swedes will embrace ideology similar to that of Satanism rather than Objectivism. Not necessarily in a heartbeat of course.

Bob writes:

The "laws" of physics might be different inside of Black Holes.

That is an expression of faith which would make you a mystic.

Greg

I don't think so Bob. The laws of existencen, noncontradiciton, are not the same laws as the ones expressed in physics. The laws in physics depend on the ideas that are coming from philosophy. Our understanding of the nature of things, while we do know quiet a bit already, keeps growing on top of that. But I notice you put the at the end of your comment.

[spoiler: I made a big mistake here]

from Shmoop: "Dagny panics when her train stops moving."

Alarm, responding to an emergency, not panic. She doesn't run around screaming, incapable of action. You have read Atlas Shrugged, yes? (Maybe not?) It's a little square because it was written in 1957. For that era, her heroes were sexy and fearless, especially Dagny. Ten years before, Roark laughed at opposition, dealt with Dominique masterfully.

How homosexuals view Rand's fiction is opaque to me.

About Shmoop: founder and CEO David Siminoff's favorite lit: Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce

"Supreme linguistic virtuosity conjures up the dark underground worlds of sexuality and dream. Joyce undermines traditional storytelling and all official forms of English... Dazzlingly inventive, with passages of great lyrical beauty and humour." (Penguin blurb on Amazon)

Reminds me of Lois Cook.

Sorry, that's me editing my post again. I posted the wrong link. That one was from when I was searching for a direct quote online, instead of having to look through a book manually. The new link is now in my message. And it doesn't relate to fear or a specific quote, but rather to how subtle Rands writing can be. Take it with a grain of salt, I didn't double check the article to see if there was anything that might clash with objectivism. (I mean what the heck is "shmoop" even?) But that was not the point of the link.

I don't think I, was I homosexual, would have any problem with it. I can't remember Rand herself, in context, actually saying that all homosexuals were bad people or that homosexuality (unless chosen against ones actual nature) as such was immoral. If you were indeed born homosexual, which I think I there is evidence to suggest you can be, then that is the nature you were born with and would have to base your morality on. It is not inherently "harmfull" according to objectivist principles as far as I can see. Leonard Peikoff said something similar in an interview if I remember correctly... I just can't find it right now.

All this love talk...

Well if all else fails Thomas you could always get a room and "love thyself" if you made too many enemies. (Haha?)

haha you ;) Nah it won't be needed I think. I'm not that lonely thankfully. Hopefully noone answering this thread is or will be for very long.

Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

Right as rain, beautifully put.

I'm not a huge fan of her novels, but what about in Atlas Shrugged for example? (This was, by the way, the book I disliked the most out of Rands so far; But then of course, I only read it once and that was before I fully understood the basic premises of her philosophy)

Rands fictional heroes certainly experience both fear and work that is hard on them. Not that they are virtues. Courage and productive work are. They experience both pleasure and pain. But Rands way of writing is mostly meant not to focus on or describe these "feelings" to the reader. She doesn't want the reader to feel them at a whim, but rather she tries to provide him with the values needed to recreate the feeling accurately when it is rational, either as a general part of life or as it is needed in order to understand her fiction. These subtleties are very well portrayed here. http://www.shmoop.com/atlas-shrugged/dagny-taggart.html

(Not related to the link above) Dagny fears getting stuck in one place without any controll. She fears the irrational. She fears loosing Galt.

Is Hank Rearden a hero in this book? I would think so. Yet he fears the similar situation of being cornered and loosing his lifes work.

Is Galt fearless? Perhaps. I don't remember. Could he be in real life? I'm not sure. Would it really be bad if he was? Not on its own. Not unless it also made him irrational or was due to irrationality on some level.

I would say that fear is a feeling we experience in the face of a dilemma that we are unable to overcome. We lose confidence. Because fear makes a person hesitant and fidgety in his thinking, it can render a person more moldable by others. It can render him highly irrational. This is where we need courage. We need to focus on and do what we actually know is right. Starting again from the most basic axioms if it is needed; We may not percieve or understand every detail, but this way we can raise ourselves up once again.

Try google-searching the book for mentionings of "fear"

And when it comes to work and sweat; To do your best and to work hard when it is needed (even if you don't enjoy it), is clearly highly valued in all her works.

Howard Roark was a "hero", was he not?. And he sweat when he was working hard manual labour, drilling into the granite with a drill that he had to hold and push into the stone. It may not have been a kind of labour he enjoyed the most, but it was necessary at the time.

Describing "productive work", in "The Objectivist Ethics", Rand wrote;

It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.

(Underlining added by me)

At the very least, it should be said that Rand mostly did not try to describe "übermensch". Her "heroes", which all carry some "flaws" of their own, may seem a bit "square" at times, but they are certainly not "perfect" in any other sense than the (emphasis on quotes) "moral perfection" used by Rand herself. A "perfection" that included admitting and dealing with ones mistakes, if one made them.

There seems to be a distinction between what is called hard and soft atheism. Hard atheism, as I understand it, is the claim that there is no God, soft atheism is the assumption that there isn't one.

A common objection to hard atheism would be: in order to know that there is no God, you'd have to know everything that is in the universe. How can you know that there isn't such a thing as God anywhere in this huge universe? How do you know it isn't possible?

I believe Objectivism answers such an attack on hard atheism in several ways:

1. by definition God is contradictory so you can know just as certainly that there isn't a God as that there aren't any round squares. This begs the question, how do you know that there are no round squares? how can you make a claim on knowledge past your context? I believe the Objectivist answer to this would be: a) the law of identiy b) knowledge is contextual. b) is to mean that in order to be certain of something, you must not have any reason to assume otherwise within your observable context.

2. onus of proof is on the one making the affirming statement. there is no God until you have reason to suspect the possibility of their being one. since not an iota of evidence of God has been given, we remain with the negative: there is no God. "innocent until proven guilty". this ties into 1b) within your given context, you cannot assume a god. but would any judge say: i know you are innocent? it would be strange to say that since there is a possibility that he is in fact guilty.

now to the question: can you know that there is no god? you might answer yes if the definition of god is contradictory on the grounds that no contradictions can exists. what, however, if the definiton of god is not in itself contradictory? such as: can you know there are no unicorns (those without superpowers)? according to point 2. you'd have to say yes because there is no evidence of them. but is it really proper to use the word "know" here? i mean it could be very possible that on some distant planet a thing that we'd call unicorn could exist?

it would seem proper to state: there are no unicorns, since you have no reason to say that there are. but does such a statement entail certainty and knowledge; same for a statement about the existence of a deity?

thanks for taking part in the discussion.

If one's notion of "God" logically implies a contradiction then that "God" cannot exist. If one's notion of "God" logically implies a proposition that is contrary to a known fact, then that "God" cannot exist with the same assurance as the fact it is contrary to.

If the notion of "God" is so general or unspecific that it cannot be tested empirically, then that notion of "God" is indeterminate. Since no contradiction or contarryness to fact has been displayed it cannot be denied outright, but neither can it be asserted with assurance. Verdict --- "up in the air"

Ba'al Chatzaf

This, I think is my position. There are no "gods" as long as they are defined, because those definitions will necessarily hold a contradicition either of itself or of a known fact.

If they don't, then they would not be supernatural and not deserve the recognition as such by being labeled a "god".

All "gods" are destined to be selfcontradictory in one form or another.

(Sorry if the grammar sucks. Might have to come back and edit this later but I need my sleep.)

I'm sure Brant will reply. He's an interesting guy worth talking to. However, I'd like to interject.

...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.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being. Those are conclusions; viewpoints. Not a philosophy but Rand made heroism part of her philosophy. Her philosophy is mostly cultural, not intellectual. Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

--Brant

I always thought of this as meaning the ideal man. Not just any man. And her philosophy makes this clear as well.

"Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being." That would depend on what you compare man to and what the values of a hero are wouldn't it? And what you consider "a real man". Context means a lot. Dirty and sweaty can show you worked hard or it can show you worked inefficiently. Clean and neat the opposite. And yes of course, culture influence her work. She wasn't immune to it and from her writing it would seem she didn't expect anyone to be.

"Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life." So you say, but apparently not according to her own thinking, I gather from one of your earlier comments?

"Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it." Yet she herself moralized and said she had lived her life according to her philosophy? This doesn't add up.

You keep sorta saying what I say so you can say what you want to. I don't pull teeth and I don't let people pull mine. I know when I'm being played.

--Brant

I'm not "playing" you. You were the one pulling jokes and said all of those contradictory things. You claimed to know more both about Rand and her philosophy. I didn't reject this. You might. You clearly know a lot. I just havn't seen the evidence for this yet. I engaged you because you challenged ideas that I think are very important. I meant no harm in that.

But since you don't seem to want to continue this, I guess I'll just say "thanks for playing".

I think I will take a step back for now. I have to recharge my batteries. Hopefully I have not made more enemies than necessary already. Everyone whom I've quoted or adressed so far have been helpful in my own learning process about people and philosophy. I value you all.

No kidding Selene, that woman had balls... figuratively speaking.

Thanks for the quotes. I personally love(!) the Ayn Rand Lexicon. It is a true wealth of knowledge and utility.

I will try not to make it my new Bible or marry it.

I'm sure Brant will reply. He's an interesting guy worth talking to. However, I'd like to interject.

...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.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being. Those are conclusions; viewpoints. Not a philosophy but Rand made heroism part of her philosophy. Her philosophy is mostly cultural, not intellectual. Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

--Brant

I always thought of this as meaning the ideal man. Not just any man. And her philosophy makes this clear as well.

"Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being." That would depend on what you compare man to and what the values of a hero are wouldn't it? And what you consider "a real man". Context means a lot. Dirty and sweaty can show you worked hard or it can show you worked inefficiently. Clean and neat the opposite. And yes of course, culture influence her work. She wasn't immune to it and from her writing it would seem she didn't expect anyone to be.

"Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life." So you say, but apparently not according to her own thinking, I gather from one of your earlier comments?

"Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it." Yet she herself moralized and said she had lived her life according to her philosophy? This doesn't add up.

I use all four basic principles of Objectivism.

Each is logically derived from the previous.

Each is linked by the inherent individualism of the thinking mind free to act on its conclusions.

The ethics is where the individual goes social as human beings are also social animals. Needs work.

The politics encompass the proper use of force in social existence. Needs work.

I have no direct use of Rand folderol about "moral perfection." Instead I concentrate on integrity.

Notice I am not trying to teach you about classical Objectivism. I stopped studying that decades ago. I do not engage people the way you are trying to engage me on that subject. I do note Rand did not achieve moral perfection and could have done better in the integrity department. As do we all. But she could have dumped the former and done better with the latter if she hadn't been such a control freak. Morality is all about control: self control and control of others. She didn't want to do anything more it would seem, if we take her at her word, than to pass moral judgments. That's the explanation of Galt's speech, which was flushing the world down the toilet after he had removed its productive, moral brains.

Take another look at your Rand quote. What's the most important word? "Never," "never," "never," "never" and "never." This is like being a Muslim and praying five times a day. You can hardly use your brain and function if you put all that John Galt moralizing, hectoring crap into it--which you can't but you can heroically try. Try integrity instead. It's easier to understand and if you mightily practice it it will become second nature.

--Brant

If you know better than me, I would have hoped that you would teach me. If you don't want to, that seems fine with me as we then probably don't agree on the basic premises. You say Rand did not achieve "moral perfection", but according to her own thinking she and many others did and still do. That is, the only form of moral perfection she valued and knew was achievable.

Comparing moral to being religious is... well...

If you don't care about moral, then how do you form your ethics? Why do you care about ethics? In my mind, these two are connected, not because I'm in anyway afraid, for example of a god that will strike me if my behaviour is immoral. Morality is something that is required of me by nature. By my nature. That is, if I want to live well. And since I do, I form my morality, before I form my ethics.

You say you "focus on integrity". What kind of integrity? And how would this in any way disprove, contradict or make unnecessary morality?

I don't think agreeing or disagreeing that all Rand wanted was to judge would bring much value to the discussion, but I take it that you do not see anything wrong with judging per se?

And do you actually claim that you are not interested at all in, perhaps even that you are not moral in any way? Or do you claim that you are moral despite your disinterest?

There are many who will give you the discussion you want. I'm the guy who might give you the one you don't.

I do not eschew morality. I eschew moralizing.

What Rand thought she achieved through her own thinking doesn't necessarily match up with what she actually achieved. I have first-hand experience of Rand in action so I'm better able to objectively evaluate her and her philosophy than those who don't, all else being equal. This is not an objective evaluation of the philosophy per se (sans Rand).

In the case of comparing the moral to the religious, I did not. First I compared perfection to one aspect of one religion. Christianity doesn't fuck up your brain the way Islam does. It used to somewhat comparatively, but even Newton 300 years ago could compartmentalize the religious and scientific. Continual calls to prayer, even if self generated, make that impossible.

What kind of integrity? Let me channel Rand: Only somebody who doesn't think would ask such a question! There is only one kind! That of a first-hand, inviolate mind!

Not my way of speaking. Not my way of thinking. I'm no genius rushing to stupid judgments with the battering ram of truth. Morality in truth is passive. Rand inverts this and makes it active as in an attack. That's because of her experience with communism and the Red Decade of the 1930s when that was desirable and necessary. Also deep into the 1960s. It justified Atlas Shrugged. Today other types of weapons are needed. You see, the left gave up the intellectual in protest against the Vietnam War. They objected to that war because we were fighting communists, not Nazis. It was always moral/intelectual pretense on their part. It still is. Their problem is their brains can no longer function even for that faux superior intelligentsia they once so reveled in. You should read some of the crap they liked to turn out in the Atlantic and other magazines in the 1950s. They can't even crap their crap anymore and they are full of it.

--Rant

pant, pant, pant!

I invited the conversation because I wanted it. Because of how much I value morality (some see it as a part of ethics of course, I separate the two for practical reasons) don't avoid moralizing at all times, but in some situations where it does not add the conversation. This is the kind of forum where I think it might even be important. I'm here both to teach and learn as much as I can about what is right and what is wrong.

So you met Rand is what you are saying? Maybee you are right and she did all of those things she said people ought not to do and never corrected her errors. In this case I was wrong about her of course, and she did not achieve the kind of morality in her life that she said she would work for and that her intellectual works would suggest. I just havn't seen any evidence that this was how she actually ended her life so far and I can only go by what I know.

To be exact, you complained about the use of the word "never" which in and of itself is not the perfect word to use in the sentence when speaking to an objectivist audience perhaps, but it makes an important point to those that are trying to learn about her philosophy. It makes clear that you can not act on whim and choose when and when not to apply the principles, or they fall.

You compared this moralizing to the moralizing in religion. It would seem the reason was that you tried to make a connection between moralizing and something obviously bad.

I don't think moralizing is always bad. It depends how you do it and for what reasons. Of course I would not be verbally moralizing in most sittuations in life, but this seem to the place to do so as long as it actually adds to the conversation and I'm not attacking or riddiculing anyone out of a malevolent intent.

"Christianity doesn't fuck up your brain the way Islam does" as you said, in most cases no, but it still is really bad for your brain. I can conclude this not simply from studying objectivism, but having been "mildly" christian and having met, befriended and debated both fundamental christians and muslims. Some outright fascists, most not unless the dictator was God himself.

Your "What kind of integrity? Let me channel Rand:" was actually pretty funny. We all know Rand could be overly aggresive for the same reasons you mention and perhaps medical. But you know I didn't ask because I really thought there could be several kinds, but to know how you defined it. I never shouted (or used that kind of language) did I? I'm not like that either.

"Morality in truth is passive" What do you mean by this exactly? You could say this, but If noone tells the truth we all suffer. And the last part about the left giving up teh intellectual and intelectual pretense on their part when it comes to war I don't find very similar to what I'm doing. But maybee you can expand on that and how it relates to what you/I said. I'm not declaring war here. I'm a noob on this forum... I come in peace. :/

I'm sure Brant will reply. He's an interesting guy worth talking to. However, I'd like to interject.

...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.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

I agree about Brant and in fact everyone I've talked to so far on this site. Whenever I quote, you know you've got my interest.

You have still not proven this and it makes no sense in the context of the basic principles of objectivism. Love is "selfish". See my earlier posts.

Quoting a few statements from yourself and others you fancy out of context or at least not relating to objectivism is not enough. Show us how and how this logically makes sense.

First answer this, exception-making from what?

No. Love is valuing very highly. Or if referencing a feeling of love, it is that feeling which comes from doing the former.

getting tired, btw, of un-referenced Ayn Rand quotes expecting a discussion off them (and Rand's pursuit of "moral perfection" is the worst part of her "philosophy"--it's garbage)

Can you reference it, so that we may evaluate what it is she did so badly?

She pursued moral perfection. See post 106. (My apologies to ThatGuy, for he did reference the Rand quote, but too many do not.)

--Brant

I read that. So how is this evident and why would it be bad?

And what standard do you use to determine what is Objectivism and what is not? I for one never claimed that everything that Rand said must have been in line with objectivism. But did I reference her? Yes. And I think most of what she said was. Was it objectivism? I might be wrong, and I think about this still, but that is how I currently see things.

I use the scientific standard of reason applied to reality = the same thing as Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. That's two of the four most basic principles of Objecivism.

Then for the ethics and politics--for the remaining principles--I use the basic formulations plus what is to be built on them and there is where I start deviating from classical Objectivism.

In the ethics (morality) and politics Objectivism strives for the perfectionist ideal. I don't. I don't for it's unattainable and even as a "city on a hill" a fantasy.

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is just about all her published opinions on all subjects. Well, that was her philosophy alone. Every Objectivist has his or her own "Objectivism" even if they think its hers. In so far as it is also hers its second-hand. At least for her it was first-handerism.

--Brant

Do you use only 2 out of the 4 most basic principles and therefore "deviate from" objectivism when setting a standard from objectivism?

Because that is what it seems like to me. I'm not going to automatically dismiss you and please don't view this as an attack on you because it is certainly not meant to be, but I want to elaborate a bit here.

If you would have asked Rand, we can be pretty sure she would have told you (as she did answer simmilarily when questioned on the importance of selfishness and guiltlessness) that the "moral perfection" that a student of objectivism should strive to and indeed could achieve was his own and would be up to the level of his ability.

Here is a direct quote on the matter,

. . . one’s own moral perfection—which one achieves by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational—by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one has earned it, never leaving it uncorrected—by never resigning oneself passively to any flaws in one’s character—by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one’s own self-esteem. And, above all, it means one’s rejection of the role of a sacrificial animal, the rejection of any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue or duty.

- Ayn Rand in "The Virtue of Selfishness"

In this this context of Rands writing, her reason for using the word "never" would not be to make ones own moral perfection impossible - as should be obvious by the quote - but rather to make sure the reader accepted that there were no "exceptions" to when one should not do these things marked in bold by me.

If our objectivism correlates closely enough to the objectivism espoused by Rand and intended by Rand for others to study, understand and accept, then it still deserves to be thought of as one concept with one definition. It doesn't mean that we can't disagree of course, but we must follow the defining feutures at least as laid out in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness. To say otherwise would be deception of one kind or another. She herself told very clearly what she considered to be the irreplacable parts of her philosophy and not, and it was her own philosophy which she called objectivism.

If we can all agree on this statement of hers, it would be the creation of the concept and a start to objectivism; My philosophy (Ayn Rand commenting on "objectivism" as her creation), 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.

In this sense, there should be nothing unachievable or undefinable about her philosophy, that is objectivism. The question is only if we should, if we do and to what extent.

Also, I probably made some logical errors myself in this comment, so be sure to point them out to me. I will be the greatest benefactor of that.

I use all four basic principles of Objectivism.

Each is logically derived from the previous.

Each is linked by the inherent individualism of the thinking mind free to act on its conclusions.

The ethics is where the individual goes social as human beings are also social animals. Needs work.

The politics encompass the proper use of force in social existence. Needs work.

I have no direct use of Rand folderol about "moral perfection." Instead I concentrate on integrity.

Notice I am not trying to teach you about classical Objectivism. I stopped studying that decades ago. I do not engage people the way you are trying to engage me on that subject. I do note Rand did not achieve moral perfection and could have done better in the integrity department. As do we all. But she could have dumped the former and done better with the latter if she hadn't been such a control freak. Morality is all about control: self control and control of others. She didn't want to do anything more it would seem, if we take her at her word, than to pass moral judgments. That's the explanation of Galt's speech, which was flushing the world down the toilet after he had removed its productive, moral brains.

Take another look at your Rand quote. What's the most important word? "Never," "never," "never," "never" and "never." This is like being a Muslim and praying five times a day. You can hardly use your brain and function if you put all that John Galt moralizing, hectoring crap into it--which you can't but you can heroically try. Try integrity instead. It's easier to understand and if you mightily practice it it will become second nature.

--Brant

If you know better than me, I would have hoped that you would teach me. If you don't want to, that seems fine with me as we then probably don't agree on the basic premises. You say Rand did not achieve "moral perfection", but according to her own thinking she and many others did and still do. That is, the only form of moral perfection she valued and knew was achievable.

Comparing moral to being religious is... well...

If you don't care about moral, then how do you form your ethics? Why do you care about ethics? In my mind, these two are connected, not because I'm in anyway afraid, for example of a god that will strike me if my behaviour is immoral. Morality is something that is required of me by nature. By my nature. That is, if I want to live well. And since I do, I form my morality, before I form my ethics.

You say you "focus on integrity". What "kind" of integrity(seeking a definition)? And how would this in any way disprove, contradict or make unnecessary morality?

I don't think agreeing or disagreeing that all Rand wanted was to judge would bring much value to the discussion, but I take it that you do not see anything wrong with judging per se?

And do you actually claim that you are not interested at all in, perhaps even that you are not moral in any way? Or do you claim that you are moral despite your disinterest?

I pick up an antipathy to the concept of sacrifice, here. At least, equivocation. That is, sacrifice is not always such a bad thing - or that it can only be forced on one (e.g. by politicians) - or that sacrifice is 'subjective' and variable, according to the definition you want to choose.

Without life - a life - there is no value. (And without values, no real life). Value can only be earned or discovered (for a value to be recognised, one has to have standards of value), and then - only for oneself. Value isn't conferred on men from Above, or automatic, nor can it be imitated from others. That standard of earned value, supposes unearned value, unrecognised value - and the sacrifice of value, all of which I believe is self-sacrifice. An indentured slave or a camp inmate may still have the mind of a proud and independent man, a mind of his own while not his body. One who meekly gives up the values of his consciousness (his 'soul') hasn't an excuse. "It's your mind they want..."[Galt]

Right, hopefully I have not contradicted myself too many times in this thread, but there are in popular culture certainly at least two strains of thought when it comes to defining "sacrifice" and its use in language. Perhaps I was too quick to bite when seing the word and should have explained my reasoning better first.

Historically, it has absolutely mostly meant to give up something or even kill something, no matter what the consequense or reason. This is destructive and there are already plenty of other ways to explain sittuations where this isn't the case. Therefore Rands opposition is to be expected and fully rational.

If anyone is not convinced that this is so, let's think about it for a moment;

The earliest kind of sacrifices that we still define as such were made in blood, body and mind of of animals or men to gods, or to other men in the form of death, pain or slavery.

The very word "sacrifice" or "sacrificium" comes from latin and was first used about practices in the abrahamic religions that "made something sacred". It created a link/established an "alliance" with "god". But this was usually a onesided alliance even in theory and of course not necesarily such a good deal, due to the nature of the gods involved.

In religion, if we sacrifice to a god, do we then expect something in return? No. Of course not. Such a thing can never be expected.

Not only because it of course never actually happens since "god" is a delusion, but because your god as a very powerfull entity and your master can never be commanded or be held responsible.

That is even in the event of if he did something that was considered wrong. And even then most gods, such as the abrahamic god, is never wrong, because he not only is the ultimate judge, but supposedly he is the standard used to meassure both good or evil by. (The pure good that just so happens to - with perfect knowledge - have created the evil.)

Must you still sacrifice if your god asks you to? "Yes, of course" religion would claim, because you are threatened into doing it "or you will be punished." "But if you sacrifice, you must still expect punnishment" they tell you. (This is especially clear in Christianity, where you are ordered to sacrifice yourself, so that you do not live for any selfish reason, and to live in complete altruism to Jesus/God or else you will burn. This position of course being irrational and leading to death)

Notice especially, even that historically and in popular culture all over the world today "sacrificing oneself" is thought of as an actual posibility. If one is to be capable of such a sacrifice, in a rational mind, the term sacrifice can never hold a meaning that is inherently good, because that would make suicide a good. For a christian, whos aim it is to go to heaven rather than live, it can. He then actually gains something by dying; by doing what a rational person would see as loosing everything.

(And if we took a quick look at books from say the 1800-1900s or so and perhaps earlier, we will most probably find that the usage of the word "sacrifice" alone, without explicitly making clear that it is concerning the self, implies something negative to rational values in most cases as well.)

Not sure if You, whyNOT, actually hinted at the same thing by quoting Galt from "Atlas Shrugged", but the meaning of sacrifice seems in the context of that quote to be, perhaps not clear, but at least implied.

getting tired, btw, of un-referenced Ayn Rand quotes expecting a discussion off them (and Rand's pursuit of "moral perfection" is the worst part of her "philosophy"--it's garbage)

Can you reference it, so that we may evaluate what it is she did so badly?

She pursued moral perfection. See post 106. (My apologies to ThatGuy, for he did reference the Rand quote, but too many do not.)

--Brant

I read that. So how is this evident and why would it be bad?

And what standard do you use to determine what is Objectivism and what is not? I for one never claimed that everything that Rand said must have been in line with objectivism. But did I reference her? Yes. And I think most of what she said was. Should all of her works combined be labeled "objectivism"? I might be wrong, and I think about this still, but that is how I currently see things. That is, as long as we can show that there is logical congruence.

I use the scientific standard of reason applied to reality = the same thing as Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. That's two of the four most basic principles of Objecivism.

Then for the ethics and politics--for the remaining principles--I use the basic formulations plus what is to be built on them and there is where I start deviating from classical Objectivism.

In the ethics (morality) and politics Objectivism strives for the perfectionist ideal. I don't. I don't for it's unattainable and even as a "city on a hill" a fantasy.

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is just about all her published opinions on all subjects. Well, that was her philosophy alone. Every Objectivist has his or her own "Objectivism" even if they think its hers. In so far as it is also hers its second-hand. At least for her it was first-handerism.

--Brant

Do you use only 2 out of the 4 most basic principles and therefore "deviate from" objectivism when setting a standard from objectivism?

Because judging from your own words on the matter, that is what it seems you are implying. I'm not going to automatically dismiss you and please don't view this as an attack on you because it is certainly not meant to be, but I want to elaborate a bit here.

If you would have asked Rand, we can be pretty sure she would have told you (as she did answer simmilarily when questioned on the importance of selfishness and guiltlessness) that the "moral perfection" that a student of objectivism should strive to and indeed could achieve was his own and would be up to the level of his ability.

Here is a direct quote on the matter,

. . . one’s own moral perfection—which one achieves by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational—by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one has earned it, never leaving it uncorrected—by never resigning oneself passively to any flaws in one’s character—by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one’s own self-esteem. And, above all, it means one’s rejection of the role of a sacrificial animal, the rejection of any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue or duty.

- Ayn Rand in "The Virtue of Selfishness"

In this this context of Rands writing, her reason for using the word "never" would not be to make ones own moral perfection impossible - as should be obvious by the quote - but rather to make sure the reader accepted that there were no "exceptions" to when one should not do these things marked in bold by me.

If our objectivism correlates closely enough to the objectivism espoused by Rand and intended by Rand for others to study, understand and accept, then it still deserves to be thought of as one concept with one definition. It doesn't mean that we can't disagree of course, but we must follow the defining feutures at least as laid out in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness. To say otherwise would be deception of one kind or another. She herself told very clearly what she considered to be the irreplacable parts of her philosophy and not, and it was her own philosophy which she called objectivism.

If we can all agree on this statement of hers, it would be the creation of the concept and a start to objectivism; My philosophy (Ayn Rand commenting on "objectivism" as her creation), 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.

In this sense, there should be nothing unachievable or undefinable about her philosophy, that is objectivism. The question is only if we should, if we do and to what extent.

Also, I probably made some logical errors myself in this comment, so be sure to point them out to me. I will be the greatest benefactor of that.

getting tired, btw, of un-referenced Ayn Rand quotes expecting a discussion off them (and Rand's pursuit of "moral perfection" is the worst part of her "philosophy"--it's garbage)

Can you reference it, so that we may evaluate what it is she did so badly?

She pursued moral perfection. See post 106. (My apologies to ThatGuy, for he did reference the Rand quote, but too many do not.)

--Brant

I read that. So how is this evident and why would it be bad?

And what standard do you use to determine what is Objectivism and what is not? I for one never claimed that everything that Rand said must have been in line with objectivism. But did I reference her? Yes. And I think most of what she said was. Should all of her works combined be labeled "objectivism"? I might be wrong, and I think about this still, but that is how I currently see things. That is, as long as we can show that there is logical congruence.

By the way, the "sacrifice" and "altruism" she rejected, were the ones visible in reiligion and other works of philosophy, such as that of Kant. (And, as you mention yourself, out in the real world at the time) She didn't intend primarily to attack the current definitions, but to rather to set things straight by showing what it meant to take them to their logical extremes.

getting tired, btw, of un-referenced Ayn Rand quotes expecting a discussion off them (and Rand's pursuit of "moral perfection" is the worst part of her "philosophy"--it's garbage)

Can you reference it, so that we may evaluate what it is she did so badly?

My question for proponents of "sacrifice" in the name of love stands.

However I do have one question for whyNOT about his signature; Do you mean to say that altruism and selfishess are not true opposites? If so, then I would like to ask if you could show me how, because so far this would seem incorrect to me. And independence would certainly stand against altruism, but would also require selfishness.