Adrian

I'm not quite sure whether the following works (it makes an analogy between philosophy and natural science which could be debated), but see what you think. In the case of a scientific experiment, one essential principle is that somebody (indeed anybody) else who repeats the experiment properly will get the same results. We may remember that Galileo dropped weights of different sizes off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, or Archimedes's experiences with his bathwater, but the reason that these experiences are said to establish truths is that the principles hold good whoever does them. Or if under some circumstances they don't, then the question why not needs to be investigated (which is how scientific theory develops, and an argument for the open system). Philosophies in general perhaps don't purport to be fully "scientific" in this way, but Objectivism comes closer to claiming that than most. It claims to be, not a statement of subjective opinion, but an inexorable set of truths which are "out there". Either it leads us to correct and useful conclusions or it doesn't. If it does then it works whoever does it. Its principles survive the now deceased Rand, and indeed they were presumably equally true (if not so clearly recognised or formulated) before she was born. Newton did not invent gravity, nor did he own it. He produced an account of it which was innovative at the time and is still useful today (though it has been built on since).

Today I am happy to announce the site Objectivity Archive. Its address is www.objectivity-archive.com. This site is an archive and library of Objectivity, now freely open to all readers and researchers. Objectivity is a journal of metaphysics, epistemology, and theory of value informed by modern science. It consists of two volumes, each with six issues. It was a hardcopy journal, for subscribers, published from 1990 to 1998. Its authors were both professional academics and independent scholars. In addition to the complete, exactly replicated text of Objectivity, the Archive site offers additional helpful features such as ABSTRACTS for all the main essays and a SUBJECT INDEX and NAME INDEX for the entire 1770 pages of the journal. I looked it over and it is just magnificent. I am pinning this topic in the Library so that it will be readily available to all who wish to read the important articles he published. For a while, I am putting it on our front page to make sure more people know about it. If anyone is interested in some preliminary comments from Stephen, see here, and for a touching personal angle, see here. Thank you, Stephen. Your act of generosity is more appreciated than you could ever know. Michael I echo Michael's thanks for the re-release of this material. Personally, I have long been keen to read Ray Shelton's comparison of Rand and Epicurus in Vol 2 No 3, and am very pleased now to have been able to do so. It's a profound article, and I'm still getting to grips with it. Best regards Adrian

No, you're quite right. But perhaps you'd better read the following threads first: "Critique of Objectivist ethics theory" and "Why does man need a code of values?", both in the "Ethics" section, as there has already been a lot of discussion about these points. Thanks - I'll check these out.

Forgive a possibly naive intervention here. At its most literal level, Rand could be taken as saying that living beings prefer to be alive rather than dead. There might be the odd exception, but in general I can't argue with that. Nor can I argue with the proposition that, if you seek to achieve goals, being alive is pretty important. (Hence the phrase, which is common at the moment and crops up occasionally on this board, about things to do/see "before you die" is rather redundant!) In other places, though, the argument is that man should seek to live a life as "man qua man". I take this to mean not merely staying alive, but living a life which involves pursuing and achieving goals which Rand would regard as worthy of man as a rational being. You could make a case for this too, but it's a distinctly different proposition from the first one. I suspect (and am happy to debate) that some Objectivist theory flips just a little too easily between the alternatives of the pretty unarguable value of "continuing to breathe" and the value of "living" (in someone's view) "a worthy life", which may also be right, but is distinctly more debatable. Also, perhaps alas, I'm not really sure there's any evidence that those who live worthy lives do in fact live any longer than those who don't. There may be examples which suggest that in AS, but then AS is a moral parable rather than an objective scientific study. Am I missing something? Best regards Adrian PS - I see, having re-read Victor's original post (which perhaps I should have done before) that he addresses this issue at the end. I still can't help feeling that a view about what sort of life is "appropriate" to a particular organism is a pretty subjective judgement. At least, I'm not at all clear how you could objectively support it.

Sorry - deleted, having read MSK's earlier reply to Bob.

Hi Kyrel Many thanks for the welcome, and the interest! There are two views about how ethics should be introduced into business school courses - one that you insert a bit of ethics into each subject module, the other that there should be a single overall module on the subject. (Some schools do both.) Personally I mostly teach strategy and entrepreneurship, and sections on ethics are now appearing in texts and material for both subjects. In principle I guess that's a good thing, but I'd say that the material presented isn't always brilliantly philosophically coherent, and faculty aren't always well-prepared for the task. Which is why I'm interested in people like Stephen Hicks who are doing good work in the field. Best regards Adrian

Hi Kyrel Thank you for an interesting post. Respectfully, I'm not really surprised that Skousen's Christian/altruist position leads to different conclusions from Rand's atheist/egoist position. I guess that's what most people on either side of that divide would expect. What I did find striking was Skousen's suggestion that "Rand's plot violates a key tenet of business existence, which is to constantly work within the system to find ways to make money. Real-world entrepreneurs are compromisers and dealmakers, not true believers". I'm an MBA teacher, and happened to be working with a class on business ethics when the article came out. We were discussing then how Yahoo had revealed the identity of a Chinese dissident to the Chinese government, and also how Google had restricted its content to be acceptable to the Chinese government. We also looked at an article by Milton Friedman, in which he observes that "I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely farsighted and clearheaded in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly shortsighted and muddle­headed in matters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of busi­ness in general. This shortsightedness is strikingly exemplified in the calls from many businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or income policies". Also, as I remember (haven't got the book in front of me), in the early chapters of "Atlas", Rearden doesn't keep a very close eye on what his agent Wesley Mouch is doing in Washington, because of his distaste for the whole business of government lobbying. Arguably that disregard bites back on him later in the book. There could be a practical case for keeping a very close eye on what your adversaries are doing, and trying to influence/manage them, even/especially if you find them distasteful. At the moment, I'm rather inclined to think that Skousen has a point in suggesting that real, successful business people do in fact strike a compromise with the political temper of the times rather than taking a principled stance against it. I'm not sure I like that, but I think it might be true. Most happy to discuss. Adrian

Hi Seeker Well you may or may not be missing something - people can take different views! - but personally I don't agree with you. I saw the film more or less by chance when it was shown in London a while ago - and I'd read both TF and AS first - and I thought it was great! I posted my reactions on objectivistcenter.com and hope you'll forgive my quoting myself here... I wondered how well TF would translate to film. My preconception was that movies are better at action than ideas. I'm conscious that Rand's novels are pretty intellectual and philosophical, and her characters have a way of breaking into long set-piece speeches which is arguably a bit un-novelistic and even more un-filmic. I've read with interest about the plans to film “Atlas Shrugged”, but wondered a little how on earth one could do it. I checked out what Internet commentators, including both movie fans and objectivists, had to say about the film,and got essentially a lot of gripes. Was Gary Cooper too old? Did the architecture look right? Was the sexual symbolism (drills, skyscrapers) too unsubtle? Was the romantic orchestral score a bit much? Would the images disrupt one's internal visions of the characters? So I went in with (I hope) an open mind, but also a degree of scepticism. I should also say that I'm more a reader than a viewer, and that when I do see films they tend to be modern rather than vintage. The last old film I remember seeing was Chaplin's “Great Dictator” (also highly recommended, by the way). In the event, I thought the film of “The Fountainhead” was absolutely great. Yes, it's a late-40s Hollywood movie and conforms to the conventions of its place and time. But then these guys were seriously good at making movies, and it's not hard to suspend your disbelief and live with those conventions. Yes, quite a lot of the content of the novel ends up on the cutting room floor. But then a good screenwriter knows that a film is something different from a book, and works with that, even if it's not the case (as here) that the screenwriter is also the novelist. Some of the incidents may have gone, but the message is intact. The movie – perhaps even more than the novel? - is absolutely clear and purposeful. Every scene makes its point and has its place in the argument. Not a word or a shot is wasted. I guess there are two ways of looking at the film. If you're coming at it as a Rand enthusiast, looking for a work of art you can appreciate, then see it – it's good. Another way of looking at it, though, is as a vehicle for advocacy and education in objectivism. Several times I've tried to introduce friends to Rand's ideas. While a paperback copy of “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged” can be an inexpensive present, not everyone is immediately turned on by the prospect of eleven hundred pages of tiny print. I know some people advocate “Anthem” as a starter, and I can see why they do, although personally I find the fantasy setting of that book less compelling that the more-or-less modern contexts of the late great novels. I'd suggest that the film of “The Fountainhead” could well be a fine alternative easy way in to Rand's thought. I understand from amazon.com that it will be out on DVD very soon. (I only hope the US DVD works in Europe.) Best regards Adrian